Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#POV tag

I understand this is sort of a perennial proposal, but hear me out for this one:

Instead of censoring wikipedia, which goes against WP:NOTCENSORED, we should have a separate, kid-friendly version of wikipedia called "Wikipedia Kids"(bit like how mobile wikipedia is slightly different). This does not go against WP:NOTCENSORED, and protects children at the same time.

Many children use wikipedia for a variety of purposes(hell, I'm still a teenager) and i would rather not have people seeing some not so kid friendly stuff here.

Here is how i think it should work:

Normal version remains uncensored and has no changes

The Kids version is practically the normal version, but:

1. Sexually explicit articles cannot be accessed and are not available on the kids version(to what extent it should not be available can be debated, such as should we make them unavailable completely or just have a smaller, safe, educational version of the article that focuses on stuff the kids actually need to cover in say, biology).
2. Gory or violent pictures are unavailable. The pages are still available for reading, e.g. we still keep the nanjing massacre article up however the photos will be removed. This ensures we aren't doing stuff like Holocaust or Nanjing massacre denial while still protecting kids.

Overall this is similar in function to WP:CENSORMAIN

Would like to hear your opinion on this. Additionally, to what extent sexually explicit/violent articles is censored, and what counts as "sexually explicit" or "violent" can be debated. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:Just noting that there are already a number of these in various languages. Sam Walton (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:maybe it could theoretically work on paper as an option that can be toggled (in which case i'd be against having it on by default), but it absolutely wouldn't work out as its own site (even if it was mostly a mirror) due to the sheer size of the wp-en

:even then, i think it'd be way too hard to program, harder to enforce, and even harder to maintain, since how would those filters even work outside of trudging through the entirety of the wmf to filter things on what's effectively a case by case basis?

:lastly, it also depends on conflicting definitions of "for kids", because you know one of those ankle-biters will have to study up on world war 2 at some point, or sex, or that one time the british colonized a place, or that one time the americans killed people and took over their land manifested their destiny, or literally anything even tangentially related to any religion that isn't satirical (nyarlathotep help them if they're in a jw or mormon environment), and keeping them out of it would only really cause easily avoidable headaches consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 17:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::I agree on kids the "for kids" definition. That is why I would suggest for the kids version, sex-related articles with no connections to sex ed be unavailable, while sex-related articles related to sex ed only show diagrams and be reduced. As for violence, I would not suggest censoring anything other than some of the photos, or possibly even limiting it to a "Show photo-Disclaimer: may contain violence". Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Why pick on sexually explicit articles? I don't mind my children or grandchildren (the latter of which are aged five, three, and a month) accessing details about sex, but would prefer that they didn't access some other material, such as graphic violence or material about suicide. I'm sure that there are many different views from parents and grandparents. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::it's just the easiest example to name, really consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 18:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::let's say that happens. how, then, do you know what will be taught in sex ed? how would you attempt to reduce what is shown in order to make it less explicit without touching the text? how wo- actually, having to choose to see the pictures is nice, no complaints there consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 18:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:Did you do some thinking on how this can be implemented and how much workforce will be required and how much bitter squabbling will follow on whether a picture of a buttocks is permitted and whether sucking the dick properly is part of sex education. (You may think the latter was a joke, but I remember seeing on a Disney Channel an episode where two low-teen girls pressed a boy to explain them how to suck the dick properly.) --Altenmann >talk 18:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::i say this as a former child from a country best known for playstation 2 piracy (which is to say i knew about the hot coffee mod when i was 8): nearly anything we could do would at best do absolutely nothing to protect children lmao. if anything, it'd just fan the flames of their curiosity, because they wanna see the buttocks!! hell, even the idea of it working by censorship comes off more as pandering to overly sensitive parents than attempting to "protect" the leeches on their legs. even then, protect from what? from knowing what "fuck" means? from knowing what a peepee (that could potentially be the one in their own lower torso) looks like and does? from knowing about that angry mustache model who hated jews for existing?

::for better or worse, children will find their way into whatever they want, regardless of whether or not they can handle it (though they usually can), and drawing an arbitrary line would only make them want to cross it more than their tiny, evil brains already instinctively urge them to consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 18:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:This is a great idea for a third-party service, as they can select for inclusion whatever materials they feel meets their own sense of restriction. The Wikipedia license gives them the freedom to do so, and there could even be various versions with different perspectives as to what is appropriate.

:It makes a horrible project for Wikipedia itself to do, however, because then we have to establish an Official Standard for what is improper, and that will both lead to endless bickering and complaints from those who want to provide the censored version that we are not censoring the things that they wish to have censored. You can see how we would face massive complaints if we decided, say, that material on drag entertainment was suitable for kids, or if we said that it wasn't. The group control that Wikipedia projects have and our spot at the most visible source of data would just make this too fraught. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::Completely agree ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:"For kids" versions of reference materials are usually written for a specific audience based on age/intellectual ability. To meet the expectations set up by the name, the articles should be specifically organized and written at a less complex level, which can mean different ways of breaking down topic areas as well as a different language level. :simple:Simple English Wikipedia currently exists to fill that niche, and would be a better starting point for a kids version. As you noted, though, there are a lot of objections from the community to embedding content filtering as a core function that requires altering the underlying base articles. So at present, any filtering would need to be entirely add-on and optional, and using categorization being stored elsewhere, such as on Wikidata. isaacl (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::I was just about to note the existence of the Simple English Language Wikipedia. Isaacl beat me to it. Blueboar (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::: Simple English Language Wikipedia is decidedly not aimed at children in the way contemplated here. It includes sexual topics, for example, and even has entries for [https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuck Fuck] and [https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fucking Fucking] (the latter a disambiguation page), and graphically illustrated articles at [https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_penis Human penis] and [https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagina Vagina]. BD2412 T 00:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:I could see something like this becoming its own project, similar to simple English wikipedia. I'd even contribute to it, I enjoy the mental challenge of simplifying a difficult concept into something a child could understand mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::Since this discussion seems to be moving away from child-protective censorship and towards child-centred language simplification, I'll not the existence of b:Wikijunior, a worthy project. Cremastra _talk 19:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:I don't trust anybody saying "but think of the children" to make any sort of rational decision about what is appropriate for kids. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:This is just censorship, with all the typical problems that come with the idea (the non-neutrality of determining what is and is not appropriate). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:Points 1) and 2) skate over the perennial practical issues that confound such initiatives (putting aside philosophical ones), which are: who decides what is appropriate, and who tracks what is (in)appropriate. Saying these "can be debated" is putting the cart before the horse. CMD (talk) 07:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::New further idea:

::Instead of what wikipedia deems "child appropriate", what is shown on the child version can be controlled by the user's parents/guardians or school. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::We don't need to do anything to enable that, any school or institution controlling their own internet systems can selectively block urls of their choice. CMD (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ec}} How? This would require granular tagging of content by someone. For example say a parent doesn't want their child to see articles dealing with "sex". Sexual intercourse would obviously covered by that, but what about secondary sexual characteristics, animal reproduction, sexual reproduction in plants, virginity, sexual exploitation, rape, sexual selection, pregnancy, clitoris, sex reassignment, intersex, the birds and the bees, Mull of Kintyre test, OnlyFans, Story of O, Fifty Shades of Grey, etc, etc, etc? Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• I don't hate this idea. A separate version of Wikipedia along these lines could serve as an entry point for potential Wikipedians who would mature to engage in other aspects of the project, and could also serve as a place to which to point those who fret about illustrations of mature topics on the main Wikipedia. BD2412 T 00:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• I'm not really sure we should do this under Wikimedia (to start, what's considered generally appropriate for children in one culture may not be in another, and is our hypothetical "kid" 5 or 15?), but if anyone wants to do something like that, Wikipedia is CC-BY-SA for a reason. So if you think "The Children's Encyclopedia" or whatever you'd like to call it is a good idea, go do that, you don't need anyone's permission. (Just remember you can't call it Wikipedia or anything close to that due to it being trademarked.)Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• What if we started something from the opposite direction, beginning with building child-directed articles on things that virtually everyone would agree should be in such a resource (e.g., what is a Lion, what is an Alphabet, what is a Guitar, what is Multiplication, what is Pluto), with near-unanimity required to add or post a topic or image? BD2412 T 18:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Why should this be a Wikimedia project? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• :that'd still be a logistical nightmare from the start, because even the most banal topics could be a little much for some children, and as seraphimblade mentioned, the target audience could be 5 or 15, and we can't really target both, since their tastes and needs are guaranteed to clash. plus, wikipedia is right here, so anything beyond that borders on being a choosing beggar consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 18:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::There's a sex photo on the lion article, as well as an evocative description of their penis spines. CMD (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::: {{re|Chipmunkdavis}} I'm not suggesting that we should copy-and-paste our current content, just that these are subjects that would be reasonably uncontroversial for inclusion as topics of coverage for a kid's encyclopedia. BD2412 T 18:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• I have obtained a Herit*ge Found*tion document titled Our Real Strategy, which envisages surreptitiously encouraging the creation of Wi/kids, placing obnoxious material in it alongside contentious material that woke hostiles will defend, and the material's eventual discovery by the HF's grass-roots division. They seem confident of destroying all Wikipedia in the ensuing storm. NebY (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Is this actually true that that org is encouraging this? Deeply concerning if it is. Sounds up their alley. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::A few years ago I would have taken NebY's comment as a joke, but these days I'm not so sure. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::regardless of whether or not it's true, i really hope it's not an implication that the op could be trying something of the sort
• :::...or that this kind of plan can work for that matter. sega didn't kill nintendo, so i don't imagine another wiki has much of a chance of killing wikipedia consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 17:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::See reputational risk. NebY (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::decentraland didn't destroy the concept of reality, if that's anything to go off of consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 18:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• :If this is a joke, please clarify that! 3df (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::They are also selling a very nice bridge affiliate link. NebY (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::: Poe's law applies here. Anomie⚔ 13:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• Anyone is free to WP:FORK Wikipedia and censor it however they want. I for one won't be a part of that project, but if others want to be, have at it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• I like the idea of how Basque Wikipedia did this: having a second tab next to article. I'm not keen on making any type of censored version for kids, maybe except extreme violence, but see a use for explaining things in much easier terms. For medical content, the tone would be more akin to the NHS than to academic literature. We do lose a large audience on Wikipedia, which is a shame. In terms of culture, I hope that more people learn to write for an appropriately broad audience, and that our normal articles become easier to digest too. But perhaps it'll be used for the opposite ("if you don't understand the default article, go to the kids one"). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• :{{tpq|a use for explaining things in much easier terms}} this is why the Simple English Wikipedia exists. We should do a much better job of making its existence known - currently it's only linked in the other languages list, where most people wont think to look for it and because this is arranged alphabetically "Simple English" can be several screens down the list on articles that exist in many languages (for me it's right at the bottom of the second page down when starting from the top of the languages section at Aspirin for example). Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• The OP started this discussion to be about having a censored version of Wikipedia, but many people have taken it in the direction of having a version which has language that can be understood by kids, whether targeted at 5-year-olds or 15-year-olds or something between, and commenters have said that that role is fulfilled by the Simple English Wikipedia. These are two very different topics, but any new WMF project should be discussed at Meta, not here. I think the only thing that belongs on this project is Femke's proposal of a separate tab. Maybe such a tab could point to the Simple English version of the article, if it exists. That would also address Thryduulf's point about making the Simple English Wikipedia more visible. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Exactly lol. Though now I sort of realize that a "censored kids version" is easier said than done. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• I would oppose on the ground it takes away energy and time from the project we have long been engaged on.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:Personally, I would like an opt-in ability to hide/blur sexually explicit and/or gory images. Sometimes I browse Wikipedia in a public place and don't want people around me to think I'm looking at pornography.

:On a technical level, this is very easy with AI image classifiers. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Chess What are the objective definition of "sexually explicit" and "gory" that you are using? It's been a while since I looked at the state of AI image classifiers, but last time I did the reliability was very poor (e.g. Facebook believes [https://scontent.flhr4-3.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/106908189_174214387419694_8462461105739578679_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=833d8c&_nc_ohc=N4Fp1GXHDmkQ7kNvwEzsqIX&_nc_oc=AdmP1N8aT_LHCcZ6fUJDz_fcb9dgDXPzWvVakvY3dXwVsjQtMTeZbxho9b95mHSsxtpp7I_DhAtwWCrzWdOiSOGk&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent.flhr4-3.fna&_nc_gid=5qIMr9wKooznv7QxLcyZrw&oh=00_AfFBjBo7MnQNbKT57vRwGyXjxgEM_P1lmWr7aaR9bsNMZQ&oe=68378354 this image of a white daisy] contains "violent or graphic content" while not recognising an image containing penetrative sex as pornographic (possibly because both people in the image were essentially fully clothed). I don't know if it is still the case, but distinguishing images of roast chicken from images of naked people was also very tricky for classifiers. Thryduulf (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{re|Thryduulf}} I'm fine with the false positives. Blurring anything with a bunch of flesh tones isn't perfect but it means I don't have to worry about opening something NSFW in class or at work. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Given the wide range of human flesh tones, that is a lot of images getting unnecessarily blurred. Flesh is also far from the only thing that is not safe for some workplaces (but also perfectly safe for others) Thryduulf (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Are you looking at porn? No? Then their reaction only serves to identify them as 1) rude and 2) stupid. So why do you care what they think? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 23:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think the simple solution is that concerned parents should monitor their children while they are online. They can censor it themselves if they believe it needs to be done. 2600:1700:8AEC:6810:AC99:E5E9:337:31FA (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::1) That makes far too much sense and 2) you expect the general public to be responsible? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::consider that if we make it a policy, or better yet, clarify it in some legal document somewhere, we can then safely refer to any given parent's reaction as an ill skissue. a skiss illue. a slick issun. a silk insure. a- you get the idea, a skill issue on their part, failing to protect their totally not desensitized child from seeing a girl nipple (someone please cover that with a family-friendly male nipple!). why is this important? because it would be really funny consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 19:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::We sort of already do - see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer (indirectly linked from every page - Wikipedia:General disclaimer is linked (as "Disclaimers") in the footer, the content, legal, medical, risk and survey disclaimers are prominently linked from the general one). Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::how lucky! all we should need to do is point at the sign consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 20:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::I don't expect parents to be responsible for this if they believe all of Wikipedia's articles is for all ages with "no explicit content" Gonna eatpizza (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Well if for some reason they got that idea into their heads it's their fault. I wouldn't expect a modern paper encyclopedia to be censored, and there's no reason for anyone to believe that an online one would be either. Cremastra _talk 19:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I wouldn't consider a person who believed that to be mentally competent to be a parent, so their opinion really doesn't matter to me. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::unintentionally savage, jesus fuck consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 12:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Who says it was unintentional? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::as the absolute arbiter of debatably absolute truth, i do >:3 consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 13:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

: Many years separate me from kidhood, but I still remember one thing pretty clearly: it was totally worth hunting down the stepladder so I could reach those books that were way up there on the top shelf. Sometimes I wonder if they stimulated a germ of an interest in some of the presumptively taboo topics I began to contribute to decades later at Wikipedia. Should we label the tantalizing allure of the top shelf to kids the "Baby Streisand effect"? Mathglot (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Several problems with this; here are two of them: 1. Everyone has their own version/definition/opinion of what kids shouldn't see. And so it gets classified based on politics. 2. So if the uncensored Wikipedia is readily available, what's to stop kids from looking at it? And they will. North8000 (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Seconded. Kids come in various ages and parents have different opinions on what's appropriate. Waste of effort.  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::Discussions like this just make me want to tell everyone involved to read No Future by Lee Edelman. Simonm223 (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm coming to ask this question here because I've seen this interaction happen frequently enough that I now want to clarify with other more seasoned editors.

I would say that at least once or twice per week, across areas ranging from WP:CTOP talk pages to AfD to ITN, I will see an interaction which essentially goes like this:

Proposal to use X and not Y

Based on [insert here] reasons, I think that the article should say X and not Y, and am seeking consensus. Signed, {{pink|UserNominator}}

• Oppose Based on the detailed rationale that the article should say Y, for policy reason WP:WIKIPEDIA, as opposed to saying X. {{brown|DetailedWriter}}
• Oppose per Detailedwriter. Signed, {{red|PerUserGuy}}.
• Support For separate reasons than the nominator based on WP:ABOUT, I support this proposal. NotAVoter99
• Support per nom. {{orange|AgreeingGal}}

:: AgreeinGgal, this is a consensus discussion, not a !vote. You need to explain your rationale and address the opposing arguments, or this comment will not be weighed when assessing the consensus. {{brown|DetailedWriter}}

WP:VOTE states that "{{tq|It serves as a little reminder of the communal norm that it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important [...] A "vote" that doesn't seem to be based on a reasonable rationale may be completely ignored or receive little consideration, and a discussion close may be escalated to wider attention if it appears to have been treated as a simple vote count. It is important therefore to also explain why you are voting the way you are.}} I'm curious how administrators assessing for consensus reconcile this with our widespread community practice of "Per User" rationales.

On the one hand, merely adding two words "per X" doesn't really seem to meet the spirit of WP:VOTE, which calls for users to provide explanation. I can also see how it might be difficult for the closer if there are 7 supporters and 3 opposers, but the 3 opposes wrote out detailed rationales while 6 of the 7 supporters only wrote "per nom".

On the other hand, if a prior user in the discussion applies policy correctly and explains themselves well, it seems a little silly to require a subsequent user to re-word and re-phrase the already well-stated rationale in order to have their opinion considered in the consensus assessment. Also, "per nom" is indeed a rationale: it is a more efficient way of saying "This user stated a strong argument for Y over X that I agree with it because of reasons 1, 2, and 3" (which is simply writing back out the full rationale of the prior user in your own words).

So, to put it succinctly: when I am contributing to a consensus discussion and agree with the rationale someone has already said, should I be restating what they said in my own words to meet WP:VOTE? Or does the community accept the two-word rationale "per {{blue|User}}" an a valid rationale? Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 21:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:When closing I give "per x" responses the same weight as the response they're referencing. There's no need to repeat an argument or post. People cite essays in their !votes for the same reason. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::I think the proposer is basing this on editirs at RFC who vote for Keep based on an argument that a previous editor put down, but doesn't meet rules or guidelines of wikipedia that someone had already challenged. For example footballers or cricketer stubs at AFD - with keep votes stating notable when clearly are not. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The counter point there would be that editors may not agree with the challenge, and so still support the original argument. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::And then you have the issue with editors pointing out that their argument does not meet rules/guidelines and get accused of bludgeoning! Davidstewartharvey (talk) 05:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:This is probably the least bad option. The alternative is each new !vote rewriting the same comment with different wording. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:I agree with DetailedWriter's !vote 100% and have nothing to add. Why should I find different words to say the same thing? Even if I agree 100% and have something to add, I can !vote "Oppose per DetailedWriter. [something to add]." ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:IMO the rationale is mostly not for the closer, it's for other participants in the discussion. The closer's job is to reflect what the discussion agreed on and so should generally not discard !votes for their rationale alone unless it's super clearly false (e.g. "no source says X" when the other side has several quotes from good sources that say X) or against policy.

:If a lot of participants seem to think a given rationale is strong than for the purposes of the discussion it's strong, even if it's short and even if the closer personally thinks it's dubious. Loki (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::When a closer sees people !voting “per user:so-and-so” they know that these people found so-and-so’s comments persuasive. The closer should go back and read so-and-so’s comments again.

::However, that does not mean so-and-so’s comments “win”. Consensus isn’t a vote. The closer should also pay attention to any comments that attempt to refute or rebut what so-and-so said (especially if the refutation/rebuttal is based on policy). Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::Strongly disagree with this, at least as written. It's a closers job to weight comments with regards to policy and no matter how many people make them, non policy based rationales can and should be disregarded when assessing the consensus (at least assuming there's not a complete absence of policy in the area). Scribolt (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::There are definitely cases where a closer should strongly deweight or ignore certain votes, but in those cases it's usually blindingly obvious that it's correct to do so. E.g. if there's a ton of new WP:SPAs on one side that seem to have been canvassed from off-wiki a closer should ignore them.

:::But consensus really does just mean "general agreement", and so absent that sort of concerted attempt to manipulate the consensus from outside, the job of the closer is to figure out if the discussion agreed on something, and if so what. I fear that the presence of a few lines designed to protect Wikipedia from outside attacks like "consensus is not a vote" and "consider the strength of the arguments" are starting to outweigh the basic facts of what consensus is in the minds of editors. A closer is not a WP:SUPERVOTEer and their job is not to decide which arguments are stronger based on some sort of view-from-nowhere, it's to decide which arguments in this specific discussion convinced the most people.

:::Which is to say, if a bunch of people familiar with Wikipedia policy thought one argument was stronger, the closer's opinion on that issue doesn't matter. Many content disputes originate from conflicting opinions on policy and the job of the closer is not to judge which arguments were policy-based based on their own personal opinion, it's to decide which interpretation of policy the discussion ended up agreeing on. Loki (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• WP:VOTE is an essay, so it can't really be "violated". — xaosflux ^Talk 15:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• I find it amusing that DetailedWriter pushes back on AgreeingGal's "Support per nom" but doesn't challenge PerUserGuy's "Oppose per Detailedwriter". Schazjmd (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Haha, yes, that was intentional. It made the interaction a little more realistic, LOL. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 04:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• eh? what's so bad about them? it only really means someone agree with someone else, and if this is addressed but votes of that nature keep coming in, it only really means they still agree with the editor they're voting per. this is something i don't think there's any need to change, since it's not even on the more incomprehensible side of wp lingo

:of course, this doesn't necessarily mean any rationale automatically wins or loses because someone used the p word, nor does it automatically validate or invalidate any given vote. of course, there are the relatively common problematic votes, but that has nothing to do with them being per someone. in the end, i guess this means oppose, with the caveat that i'm not even entirely sure what the problem is supposed to be

:unless it's about usernominator, who is a menace we should all run from as fast as we possibly can or, preferably, surrender to, knowing that our days are already over, then this is fair game consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 11:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|consarn}}, I've seen it happen multiple times where folks make either pointed comments, or post general warnings, when there are a lot of "per [user]" type !votes on the basis that they lack a proper rationale. This confused me, and it's helpful to have clarification that the community takes no issue with the "p word". Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 16:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::i blame usernominator, they might as well be wikipedia's thelegend27 consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 17:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:A support/oppose vote per user is basically a statement that said user has expressed the voter's rationale well enough. As such, it is a properly-reasoned vote. Animal lover |666| 19:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• {{Strikethrough|Per votes aren't a problem for WP:VOTE, per Animal lover and Blueboar and others}} No but really, if someone else has already articulated your position well, there is no reason to waste words reiterating. Consensus isn't a vote, neither is it a word count measuring contest. "Per User:X" is a great way to express that you found someone's reasoning compelling, which is an important part of the consensus process, since one of the ways you can tell an argument is well-reasoned is that others understand it and are persuaded by it. Even when your position is more nuanced, saying "per so-and-so, except/and also/despite..." simplifies the comprehension task for closers and other participants. -- LWG ^talk 23:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{Reply|LWG}} but it does not tell you that others understand it. They don't even need to have read the comment or all of it, they can just write "Keep per User L." You would need a longer comment to know whether they understood it or not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::"need" is a strong word, because sometimes the simplest arguments are the best, and tacking more words into "i found no sources :(" is kind of unnecessary consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 20:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Need applies to the ability to establish understanding. A simple "I agree with argument Y" can not demonstrate that I understand argument Y. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::it also can't really demonstrate the lack of understanding, so i don't get the problem. are we not supposed to follow wp:agf and assume that anyone who isn't that wonk from rfd (corsan, i think it was) has at least some idea of what they're agreeing with? consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 10:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::: Nobody claimed that it demonstrated a lack of understanding. We can assume good faith but thats about it, we can't be assuming something that has nothing to do with good or bad faith. Someone can be completely wrong, completely misunderstand the arguments made, and cast the opposite vote to what they intended and still be operating in good faith. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::even then, that's not a problem caused by per votes, that's just editors being puny fleshbags with imperfect organic brains consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 16:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Who said it was a problem caused by per votes? The logic applies to all of wikipedia, we assume good faith but we do not assume computational perfection because we're dealing with puny fleshbags. Good faith editors can still be lazy, ignorant, mistaken, bigoted, under the influence, etc (heck some days I check all those boxes by myself). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::yes, hence this entire question being irrelevant to what per votes do. they can be used in problematic ways, sure, but are not themselves problems. if a student bullies another one during math class, you don't ban math from your school consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 16:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::You're tilting at a windmill, I never argued that per votes are "themselves problems." Perhaps you should not have commented so many times if you feel it irrelevant? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• per user is fine, you're expressing that you agree with their argument as stated and the weight the closer puts on your comment should be equivalent to the original (for better or worse). Scribolt (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• The purpose of Consensus is to find agreement, so various expressions of agreement (viz. 'I agree with Sara', or 'per Sara') should be expected. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• It all depends on context, in general I don't think its prohibited or anything like that but I also don't in general think its a very smart or helpful way to contribute. That being said closers really shouldn't be counting them for anything, the strength of an argument doesn't change no matter how many people offer simple agreement or disagreement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• :The strength of an argument is all about how many people agree or disagree with it. The goal is to figure out if there's a consensus, which is not a jargon word here: it really does just mean "general agreement" same as it always does. Obviously knowing how many people agree is crucial to knowing if there is general agreement. Loki (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::"The strength of an argument is all about how many people agree or disagree with it" what you are describing is a popular vote, not a consensus. In a consensus the argument that bears out may not be the one which most people agreed with, thats kind of the whole point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Consensus is indeed a jargon word on English Wikipedia, as in the real world, consensus decision-making means everyone is willing to go along with a decision. However I don't agree with the view that "In a consensus the argument that bears out may not be the one which most people agreed with." While on English Wikipedia, it can be true that arguments with majority support can be superseded, it's isn't due to English Wikipedia's consensus-based decision-making traditions, but because of arguments being counter to existing guidance that has stronger community support. isaacl (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• If you can't agree with someone who said exactly what you would have said, what's the point of a discussion at all? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• At RfD per X comments are very common for all four of the most common outcomes (keep, delete, retarget, disambiguate) and frequently nothing else needs to be said. Sometimes the editor who wrote the comment being endorsed has done a detailed analysis that needs no further explanation (e.g. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 13#Hungarian Horntail), other times its a simple expression of opinion that can be fully endorsed without need for further explanation (e.g. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 12#Fire in the hole!). There is no reason to treat these with lesser weight than if the editors had used more words. If you are not certain that someone has understood then you can ask them about it specifically. Thryduulf (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• It varies, from a load of new accounts saying "Keep per" at AfD to establishing that a proposed new policy has widespread endorsement. NebY (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• At Talk:Waipaoa River#Requested move 27 March 2025 a user wrote a well detailed response on why the move was not as simple as being a spelling variation. Rather than copy his post I simply wrote 'Oppose per Nurg'. Would it make a difference if I wrote 'Oppose as this is not a simple matter of spelling per the evidence of Nurg' or if I simply repeated the evidence the user had already provided? Traumnovelle (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Would it make a practical difference? Probably not. But occasionally, it might make an emotional difference to some editors. If you're going to !vote the Wrong™ way, they want to feel like you really put a lot of effort into it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• A "per X" statement shows me two things. First, that the person making it read and considered the discussion before they decided their own position on it. That's certainly good, and any participant in a consensus discussion should be doing that. Secondly, that they found X's argument convincing, and agree with it. Does typing "I read X's position, which is (insert copy-paste here), find that convincing, and agree with it" really a better argument than "per X", or is it just more verbose? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Agreed, these are equivalent. Most disputes coalesce around a few options. This person is indicating which position they agree with, in a less verbose but equally valid way. So per those who said "per" does not carry less weight. Andre🚐 01:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• The variant of this that I would discourage is the "per above" statement. If it's obvious which point they are supporting, fine, but it's common to see this below many comments/arguments, and the closer is left with no information about the reasoning. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• No, when I agree; yes, when I don't. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• :agree with phil per phil consarn _{(signed per phil)} 17:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• There really is no point in rephrasing what another editor wrote in slightly different words if you entirely agree with it. "per user" is merely a shorthand for "I entirely agree with what they said" and should be accepted with as much weight as any other vote. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• As per Necrothesp.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Heading self-explanatory. Some have claimed this practice is both proper and somewhat routine. In my view, it undermines the opportunity for closure challenge, and the discussion should be restored for closure. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:Generally it should be restored. That's what our closure instructions say. But it's a minor issue and there's no reason you can't challenge an archived close tho. It can just be restored and reopened if overturned. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|there's no reason you can't challenge an archived close tho}} - Understood, but you have to be aware of the closure first. Who watches archive pages? Not I. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:Is there any benefit in doing closures on archive pages? Certainly the closure comment should not be anything more than "This discussion was closed after being archived without closure". If you want to add anything else (i.e. summarise or comment on the content of the discussion), unarchive the discussion first. —Kusma (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:Any meaningful edit to an archived page (like a reply, or also a discussion closure) should be one-click reverted with a warning to the offending editor to not change the archives. If a discussion is worth closing, do it in public. —Kusma (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::Agree. With a very few exceptions involving some unacceptable corruption to the archive page, the only edits to archive pages should be removal of restored discussions. (I once suggested a OneClickUnarchiver as a very useful addition to the toolbox, but that never went anywhere.) ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:As long as some form of notification is made to the current talk page so that anyone watching is aware it shouldn't cause any issues. With that there is no possible undermining of any close challenge.
Restoring dead discussion on high traffic pages can also have negative impacts, especially if they are very large in size. Also this seems is undercut by the fact that not all discussions are closed, not even all the ones posted to WP:CR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::As others have said the discussion can also be unarchived when, and if, it is closed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::Changing an archive by adding content contradicts the purpose of an archive. The archive should correctly show that the discussion was not closed. Falsifying the archive by adding a closure is a violation of the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines in my view. Repeat offenders should be blocked. —Kusma (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::There's nothing in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines to that affect that I can find, only that discussions that have been closed shouldn't be modified. Did I miss something? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I haven't found the point made explicitly, but "do not edit archives" (as mentioned on Template:Archive) has been a standard practice here for the past 20 years. —Kusma (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I sense the need for some CREEP. This is important enough not to be consigned to the minds of experienced editors, and shouldn't require recurrent threads like this one. One appropriately-placed sentence would suffice. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::The talk page guidelines are intended for the active talkpage. Making any edits to archives that go beyond tidying up has always been contentious, and adding a new close definitely exceeds that bar. CMD (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Hence my point. This needn't and shouldn't be contentious. Codify it and the contentiousness ends along with discussions like this one. It should never come to this page unless someone wants to challenge the community consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::If that the case I would still make the case it could sometimes happen under IAR. Moving say a discussion many times larger than most novels out of an archive, just to see it rearchived a view days later, would be simply disruptive.
Separately none of this means it must be moved back before it's closed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I've yet to see a consensus that was immune to IAR (WP:BLP comes close), so your point goes without saying. That doesn't mean IAR is a bulletproof trump card; it can still be disputed, requiring (1) a "private" agreement between the bold editor and the challenger or (2) a one-time local consensus. The only difference is in the bases for the bold edit (B) and the challenge (R), which are important. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::{{tq|"That doesn't mean IAR is a bulletproof trump card"}} Oh, I couldn't agree more. My comment was just that there would still be situations were it was the better option, even if it is not the preferred one. I didn't mean to imply the to often used (and extremely tiresome) "my edits don't have to confirm with policy" interpretation of IAR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::You have not found the point made explicitly because the point that has been made, repeatedly, is in fact the opposite.

:::::There is actually no consensus about what kinds of edits to archives are acceptable, and there is no actual policy on the matter (as the talk page guidelines are guidelines, not policy).

:::::This is not a new situation; it was the case in 2016, and also in 2017. There is also a 2016 discussion] on this specific scenario (or at least something very similar to it). Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Per above, no major edits should be made to archived pages. Closures should be made on the pages they were discussed on. CMD (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:Discussions should be unarchived before closure, but editors don't need to unarchive them before they're closed. Similarly, editors shouldn't need to "bump" discussions that are awaiting closure. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::There's some existing guidance for this at

::*WP:Closure requests: "Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.",

::*WP:Closing discussions#Closing vs archiving: recommending an unarchive-then-close approach,

::* and WP:Talk page guidelines#Archiving: not specifically about closing, but endorsing the use of unarchiving for unclosed discussions where work was unfinished.

::Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:No. An archive should be an archive of the original talk page (apart from any required fixes). Changing the meaning of something in an archive would be a very bad idea. Johnuniq (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

• I'm always reluctant to close archived content. But bearing in mind that some discussions that need closing are huge, I do just wonder whether it's always mandatory to un-archive the whole thing, or whether it could be less disruptive to add a section on the current talk page to say that you've closed something in the archives. In that situation you'd obviously have to post the closing summary in full, and a pointer to the archived discussion.—S Marshall T/C 10:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :I don't see how it would be less disruptive. It creates an exception to the general archiving practice, splits the close edit history from the history of the discussion, and disconnects any post-close discussion from the original discussion. CMD (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::I agree with CMD. Editing archives is inherently disruptive. This disruption is tolerated when it is minor and the alternatives would be more disruptive (e.g. fixing linter errors), but neither is true for closing a discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :I don't see the harm in that procedure, the content must have sat unclosed for some time prior to archiving so not as if there were editors much interested in its fate, they could have unarchived it themselves if so. Selfstudier (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::No, I think the community consensus is 100% clear here. Don't close an archived discussion. Un-archive it, then close it, in all circumstances. We can likely update the guidance to say so.—S Marshall T/C 12:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::The guidelines already do say that. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::Unarchive it, close it, rearchive it.
• :::Pointless bureaucracy when you can achieve same thing directly by closing on the archive page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::That should be: Unarchive it, close it, leave it to be archived normally. Immediately rearchiving defeats much of the point of unarchiving it: making it clear to participants and watchers that it has been closed and what the outcome was. Thryduulf (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:Editing archives in general, and editing archives to close discussions in particular, should be absolutely prohibited. I prefer pinning discussions that need closing to requiring the closer to haul them out of the archive to close them, but that is a procedural detail and not the important part here. Toadspike [Talk] 14:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:Any discussion that has reached the archive should not be closed. However, such a discussion may be restored to the original talk page for a formal closure in case it was archived by a bot or a third party editor, provided that such closure is done within a reasonable time frame. For example, if a discussion gets archived 2 days ago by a bot, you may restore it and close it formally. But if it was archived 2 months ago, you should avoid it. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 19:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::I don't know. Sometimes it takes a couple of months to find an editor who is willing and able to write a closing summary. And sometimes the archiving timer is short, or it was one-click archived to get it out of the way while people were waiting.

::It does seem a bit silly to say that it's so extremely bad to edit an /Archive page that we would prefer:

::* Editing the archive page to cut the discussion out

::* Editing the talk page to paste the discussion back in

::* Editing the talk page to post the closing summary

::* Editing the talk page to cut the discussion back out

::* Editing the archive page to paste the discussion back in

::...just so we can say that the archive page wasn't edited (even though it actually was edited twice, and "not" editing the archive page would have meant only one edit to the archive page). While that is the standard practice, and it is also standard practice for the closer to not bother with the last two steps insisting that it must always be that way, even when common sense suggests that hauling a huge discussion back to a busy talk page will not be appreciated, sounds like it conflicts with WP:NOTBURO to me.

::I'd say that usually, archived discussions should be pulled back out (because usually that's not disruptive), but also that closers ought to use some common sense. Occasionally it'd be better to edit the archive page plus a note on the active talk page (e.g., a copy of the closing statement with an explanation of why you didn't unarchive the discussion). I agree that it's important for editors to know about the closing statement (irrespective of whether anyone would consider challenging it; merely because if it's not important for editors to get that closing summary, then we shouldn't be wasting editors' time writing it). But I think it is possible to achieve all the goals here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::As Thryduulf said, you should not immediately rearchive after closing. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Agree with all of this. Also want to note I'm not persuaded by the argument that not unarchiving first means talk page watchers can't see the close. If an editor really cares about a particular discussion, they can subscribe to it. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The argument also presumes that every participant is watching the page where a discussion is occurring on, which at least for me is not true. I subscribe to particular discussions, but I don't watchlist pages like VPP, WT:N, etc. because the sheer volume of edits means I'm likely to miss anything I'd want to keep an eye out for anyways. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Should definitely not happen. Defeats the purpose of both archiving and closure. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:Not usually, but there may be cases that I haven't thought of where it should be done. But why does this need to be spelt out in policy? Has not doing so caused a problem? Soon Wikipedia's policies and guidelines will be as extensive as the US tax code, and we will need highly paid lawyers to interpret them, rather than just using a bit of common sense. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm also on team "don't close archived discussions"; I would also argue that discussions which have been archived should generally not be unarchived purely for the purpose of closure. If they weren't important enough to close before they were archived, then it's usually not going to harm anything to leave them unclosed. In cases where a discussion is unarchived in order to close, it should not be immediately rearchived: we want the closure to be on the live talkpage for visibility reasons which are negated by immediate rearchiving; instead leave the discussion to be archived naturally. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq| If they weren't important enough to close before they were archived, then it's usually not going to harm anything to leave them unclosed.}} That's noy true. Really long/complicated discussions on major issues regularly get archived before an experienced closer can get to it. See the backlog at WP:CR. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:There is some misinformation going on in this thread about what the consensus is on editing talk page archives. As in, we literally just had a discussion on this less than a year ago, and that discussion ended in no consensus. Go look for yourself. When the issue has been brought up in the past -- in 2016, in 2016 again], and in in 2017 -- there was still no consensus about an absolute prohibition, and if anything the 2016/2017 discussions veer closer to "there is no prohibition at all." I'm sure that if I dug back further in discussion history (which is already more actual citation than most people in this thread have done), I would find more of the same. I don't even particularly care about whether discussions should be closed or unarchived then closed or left unclosed or whatever other bureaucratic tangle people are proposing for this uncomplicated situation, but the amount of status quo stonewalling going on here is ridiculous. It took less than a year apparently for people to blow right past "no consensus" to "block anyone who does this"? Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::That no consensus discussion last year was about carrying out maintenance tasks in archives. It did not extend to doing actual discussion in archives, which is what adding a close would be doing. CMD (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Is radiopaedia copyright? Specifically [https://radiopaedia.org/cases/ejaculatory-duct-cyst#image-11861727 image-11861727]

I checked the website and it says that it is NON COMMERCIAL CC-Free. I know the Wiki is non-CC and we can probably use those. However when I go to download the image (or check the commons upload), radiopaedia says "You CAN download the image (CC-Licence) so long as you ... do not copyright the material)" and I am worried that uploading it to commons adds copyright (so the website can share it). Also commons (related to its licencing, sentence before) says that you can upload somene else's work so long as they "give you permission to sell it" - which I think nulls being allowed to upload it? Thanks for help

signed [[User:Catcus_DeMeowwy]] (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:This is the wrong place for questions like this (this page is for discussions about Wikipedia's policies), but I'm not sure what the actual correct venue is off the top of my head (maybe Wikipedia:Media copyright questions?). However, to answer your question, the "Ownership and licenses" section of their terms of use[https://radiopaedia.org/terms?lang=us#ownership-and-licences] makes it clear that images are licensed under the "Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported licence" (cc-by-nc-sa). Non-commercial only licenses are non-free for Wikipedia's purposes, so you cannot upload this file to Commons.

:It might be possible to use the image only on the English Wikipedia as a non-free image (see WP:NFCC), but without knowing where and how it would be used and whether there are (or could be) free alternatives it is not possible to say definitely yes or no. Thryduulf (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::Sorry for making it in the wrong place.

::I thought that non-commercial was for Wiki! oops

::I know en. Wiki does that sometimes, and have seen it done. I won't do it, but the site might be useful for you to know about, or pass on to another editor, as a huge source of files for scans to use on articles if that is something.

::Thanks for answering the question, I will go away now because no images :( [[User:Catcus_DeMeowwy]] (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Catcus DeMeowwy, you could also ask for help finding a suitable image at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. (Who knows: Maybe someone there will even know the Radiopedia contributor, and we could get the image re-licensed.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::That is true. I only have this as my source (first result on Google), and no libraries come to mind (I have found DVDs though). Thank you for your advice [[User:Catcus_DeMeowwy]] (talk) 04:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I posted this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography last month but didn't get a reply, so I'm posting here to see if anyone else has an opinion on the issue.

{{blockquote|{{#invoke:Excerpt|main

| 1 = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography

| 2 = Government sources re WP:BLPPRIVACY

}}}}

Note: the above is a substituted Template:Excerpt from the original discussion.

I'd be really interested to hear anyone else's thoughts on this! Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:Government sources like Companies House shouldn't be used for full names and dates of birth. I think most editors with experience applying BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPPRIMARY would agree. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Firefangledfeathers Thank you, yes this is what I thought so I'm glad I'm not the only one! Would you say there is consensus to actually remove full name/DOB information from BLP articles if the only available source is Companies House? Pineapple Storage (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::My practice is to put in a good-faith effort at finding reliable secondary sources that include that info. If I don't find them, I remove the content every time. Yes, consensus supports such a removal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Firefangledfeathers That's been my policy so far too, so this is good to know. Thanks so much for your help! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

{{archive top|I'm just going to shut this down. The page, Wikipedia:Terms of use, is maintained as a convenience for internal links and navigation (including navigation via category); the TOU policy is not an English Wikipedia policy, it is a Wikimedia Foundation policy and is hosted no the foundation site here: :wmf:Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use. This will never be a local policy, as local policy is written by volunteers and TOU policies are between the actual site owners and the endusers. A link to this policy is provided on every page of every project as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)}}

As we can see, it is only a soft redirect page without any other valid content. I am confused that the page is a policy. Should the position of policy of the page be cancelled? 阿南之人 (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:What are you even asking? To get rid of the terms of use? Why? You also have just over 100 edits here. Go edit articles instead of worrying about what should or should not be a policy. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Voorts I am mainly active in zhwiki. As I am discussing something similar there, I am curious about this strange case. 阿南之人 (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::This is a slight imprecision in the wording of the template, and everyone understands what is actually meant. There is no need to fiddle with the template wording for a minor edge case like this. Floquenbeam (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:As stated on the terms of use page, it is a policy that applies to all Wikimedia projects. isaacl (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:The terms of use are a policy. They are hosted on another wiki so they appear here on en as a soft redirect. The soft redirect is marked as a policy so that people can find their way to this policy through, for example, policy categories. True, the soft redirect is not itself the policy, but it represents the policy within en and the meaning of marking it as a policy and the reason for doing so should be fairly obvious. rbrwr^± 14:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• We could make it a transclusion rather than a soft redirect? That way it would display with a user's preferred skin and CSS.—S Marshall T/C 14:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I thought we couldn't transclude across projects without enabling a special extension. Cremastra (u — c) 16:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:To be clear, the TOS is the policy under the control of the WMF, while what we say are policies on en.wiki are those agreed on by a consensus of editors. They should not be conflated due to who actually has control over what they say. Masem (t) 16:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}

I have uploaded a photo of Masood Azhar, who is the subject of a highly viewed page. However, it is extremely difficult to obtain a free photograph of him. Does the image have the correct license, or is it subject to deletion?–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 22:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think it's probably subject to deletion. That looks like a professional photograph, and there's a similar Reuters file photo online, so it likely fails WP:NFCC#2. I don't think this quite fails WP:F9. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

We have interesting discussion about whether "Color" (American English) should be moved to "Colour" (Commonwealth English) (see Talk:Color#Requested move 12 May 2025), as the page move discussion may have some impact of village pump (policy), specifically about national varieties of English. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:If there is any interest in this, there is a similar proposed move made by the same user at Talk:Defense#Requested move 12 May 2025. older ≠ wiser 12:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

A new Request for Comment has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons proposing a clarification to the wording of WP:BLPCRIME.

The intent of the revision is {{strong|not to change policy}}, but to make its application clearer and more consistent. The current wording has led to misinterpretation, especially in cases involving non-public figures and criminal accusations.

Community input is welcome:

👉 Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Request for Comment: Improving the wording of BLPCRIME

Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)