Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Resolve the inconsistency between WP:DRAFTIFY and WP:ATD

One of the most useless sections of articles about a (usually recent) event is the "Reactions/Responses" section. No one wants to know that the leader of some uninvolved country had "expressed condolences" for an XYZ event. I propose that there should be a MOS that prevents the addition of the reactions/responses (i.e., a tweet on x or whatever govt website a country uses) from countries uninvolved/irrelevant to the event. It's just bloat 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:I completely agree that routine condolences from random famous people are utterly useless bloat but responses in the form of concrete actions taken as a result of the incident can be encyclopaedic. The essay Wikipedia:Reactions to... articles (written by Fences and windows) however suggests that the community is not united in this view. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:One of the worst things that has been added for any event, particularly when most of the reactions are along the lines of "thoughts and prayers" and not in any way of any actions or commitment for action made in response (eg along the lines Thyduulf is saying). We should be writing for a long-term point of view, so just listing non-action reactions, or at least not distilling these into brief lists (eg "The attack was condemned by many nations, including X, Y, and Z" is far better than sentence after sentence) is not encyclopedic, and better at a Wikinews article than en.wiki. Masem (t) 12:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:At WP:ITNC, I always looked at it as cheap filler to pass the 1,500 character stub limit for recent disaster pages. —Bagumba (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::That's the thing. This section thing should be treated in the same way we treat the "Supported by" param of the infobox: Consensus must be reached in every article to include that section 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:I don't generally oppose Reactions/Responses sections, but I would support guidance against including routine condolences/condemnations/statements of support, especially when it ends up being a bulleted list that seems to attract flagcruft. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:It's a pretty classic result of WP:RECENTISM, as various reactions are going to be in a lot of immediate news content. It is usually bloat. However, it's also usually not worth fighting against. Like other aspects of current event articles, it's easier to treat it as something to take a new look at down the line. CMD (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::We have a larger problem that editors write breaking news articles as if we're a newspaper rather than an encyclopedia, these reaction sections are just part of that problem. We really do need to try to get back to writing current events as encyclopedic summaries, and if editors really want to write to the level of detail of news, that Wikinews is a far better venue for that. Masem (t) 02:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree, there just hasn't seemed to be a great solution to the problem. Who knows, it may even be something that draws in editors. CMD (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:This strikes me as something that is best to deal with on an article by article basis. In historical articles, such sections are very useful. For example, today's TFA contains a section mostly devoted to contemporary reaction, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860s_replacement_of_the_British_copper_coinage#Release_and_reaction here]--Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::I think the issue is less the abstract concept of covering reactions, and more the usual bulletpoint newsline that tends to grow in current event pages. CMD (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::There is a difference between quoting parts of prose critical reviews and things like "{{tpq|Cricket players from Australia and South Africa paid tribute to the victims of the crash during the World Test Championship final held in London.}}" from Air India Flight 171, and "{{tpq|The baseball team Philadelphia Phillies, basketball team Philadelphia 76ers, football team Philadelphia Eagles, and hockey team Philadelphia Flyers expressed condolences and thanked first responders in Twitter posts.}}" from (this revision of Med Jets Flight 056). Those are far from the most egregious examples I've seen. Thryduulf (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

{{collapse|title=Wrong discussion|

• If someone was born in 1610 in the Duchy of Lorraine, we should not say they were born in France (although we might say where they were born is now France), or if they were born in an area of Silesia in Germany in 1935, we should not say they were born in Poland. We should reflect the political reality of the time. I think this also generally means we should call places Rhodesia/Dahomey/Gold Coast/Burma/Siam/Ceylon when those were their recognized names. I am not sure the date Burma becomes Myanmar is as clear as the others. However we would use Pinyn Romanization for places at a time when most in the west were using the Wade-Giles system. In some cases it is useful to tell the reader where a location is now, or what the place is now called (the later comes up a lot with educational institutions), but we still should acknowledge the contemporary name of the place. We would not say someone was "born in Cathay" though. Even though at one time people in the west used the term. We would say the person was born in China.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• :@Johnpacklambert this comment seems unrelated to reactions/responses section. Did you mean to contribute to the discussion about modern geographic names? If so, that discussion was archived to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 202#Using modern geographic names (WP:MPN) by a bot a few hours ago. Thryduulf (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• I did. Sorry about placing this in the wrong place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)}}

:+1, this is something I've been saying for a while. I believe reaction bloat is already disallowed per WP:BALASP and in some cases MOS:TRIVIA. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:I wouldn't call the "Reactions/Responses" sections themselves useless, but some of the content in them (e.g. reactions from random, uninvolved politicians, celebrities, companies, etc.) is indeed irrelevant and should be removed. Some1 (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with Some1. "There was an earthquake, and the President of Ruritania said something socially appropriate" is as useless as saying a grant-dependent scientist saying that Further research is needed. But there are things that can be useful and appropriate, like "There was an earthquake, and Ruritania sent refrigerated tanker trucks full of milk" or "There was an earthquake, and Ruritania thought the resulting confusion made a great opportunity to invade the country". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:+1, impact/legacy is wp:encyclopedic, reactions/responses violates wp:nottrivia. Levivich (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:Reaction bloat should be removed but it would be better to pick battles worth winning. When something dramatic occurs, reactions are informative even if we are pretty sure it's just a tweet written by a PR hack. I would like a hidden template that activates in three months to say "Please remove WP:UNDUE bloat in this section". However, my advice would be to not fight plausible me-too additions when an event is current and everyone is excited. We rely on volunteers who come in all shapes and sizes and bludgeoning them with rules is not productive in the long run. Johnuniq (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::The problem starts because editors are adding every reaction they can find in the immediate wake of an event. Per NOTNEWS and RECENTISM, this is not necessary. Short-term reactions should be limited to actual actions or call to actions (eg a country leader offering their financial or manual support to help in the wake of a disaster), and avoid any of those that are just "feelings". In the long-term, if there is sufficient evidence and weight that the "feelings"-type reactions are important, then they should be added. We should be encouraging editors to be far more selective off the bat. Masem (t) 00:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I think Johnuniq is correct that it's easier and more effective to address this problem later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Developing events will have details that may eventually be lost due to BALANCE, but we should not be adding anything to an article that we know is going to be removed later. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::These sections resemble the "In popular culture" sections. When not effectively curated, such a section can attract trivial references or otherwise expand in ways not compatible with Wikipedia policies such as what Wikipedia is not and neutral point of view. Their inclusion should reflect their prominence in relevant literature. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Good comparison. CMD (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::The most efficient long-term method we can use is to stop the creation of articles about every news story and cover developments in existing articles where all of the information can be maintained in once place. The vast majority of the time, we don't need an article about a bridge collapse when we can have a section on the collapse in the article about the bridge itself. That would make it much easier to manage bloat where integrating it into the article is already part of the editing process and it's more clearly undue. All we need is a simple "hi, thank you for creating the article about this event, we've moved the information to the article about that place". There. No bite, no bloat, no big deal. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I still need to get my larger discussion on trying to get us back to respecting NOTNEWS, particularly in the current climate today, but this is absolutely a problem, part of it being an implicit desire to have article ownership and be the one to create a new article, rather than add to an existing one. It makes editors run to create articles on every event before its clear whether it makes good sense for a standalone. Flooding such articles with pointless reaction sections is a way to make the event look more significant than it is. A bridge collapse without any significant damage or death toll is exactly the type of event that's better covered in the article about the bridge (eg: I-35W Mississippi River bridge, Tacoma Narrows Bridge) Masem (t) 04:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tqq|... part of it being an implicit desire to have article ownership and be the one to create a new article ...}} I don't think it's usually a case of WP:OWN, per se, but there is a certain satisfaction in seeing "my" article. See the number of users displaying a list of their created pages. —Bagumba (talk) 06:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think I do manage to separate my desire for recognition for what I have done from exercising ownership over that work. That does require me to ocassionally bite my tongue. More to the current point, I spend days or longer (and in one case, 11 years) in developing new articles. I have, many years ago, started articles the same day I read something about the topic, but I now think that is a bad way to approach Wikipedia, and probably would support some way to slow down the process. As a wild idea, why not require new articles to be in Draft space or a user's sub-page for at least a day before moving to main space? That would force coverage of breaking news into existing articles for the first day. Donald Albury 14:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::I think this is the right line. Czarking0 (talk) 05:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Back in 2006, political userboxes were userfied per WP:Userbox migration as a result of the Great Userbox War. Since then, it appears that a lot of them have popped up again in the Template namespace. Also, the index page for WP:Userboxes/Politics by country, which had been userfied following MfD in 2009, was moved back to Projectspace in 2020 by a now-indeffed user, apparently without discussion. I was would revert the move, but then 16 years is a long time for consensus to possibly have changed, so I thought I'd ask here first:

1. Is current consensus in favour of allowing political userboxes in the Template namespace? Where is the line drawn for those that should only be in Userspace?
2. Is it acceptable that WP:Userboxes/Politics by country was moved back to Projectspace in contravention of the 2009 MfD?

I recently posted this at WT:Userboxes, though it that page doesn't appear to get a lot of traffic, so also asking here. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:Any content that's "inflammatory or substantially divisive" is not allowed in userboxes, per the guideline at WP:UBCR. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::That describes userboxes that are not allowed, period. My question, however, is about userboxes that are only allowed in Userspace and not Templatespace. The relevant guideline is under WP:UBXNS, which is rather vague. The convention was developed way back in 2006 and doesn't appear to have been clearly documented. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::Just curious as to what is sufficiently divisive to be banned. This user has an “anti-UN” user box, in addition to multiple pro-2nd amendment userboxes. They popped up in the anti-AI discussion using a signature saying “Hail Me” and crosses that are similar to the Iron Cross. This was addressed on their talk page; where they disclaim any connection to Nazism, but refuse to remove the crosses. 173.177.179.61 (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I failed to see why the ✠ have to be connected to Nazi Germany. I failed to see why multiple pro-2nd amendment and anti-UN statements are regarded as supportive to Nazism. I would again claim that I have no love for Hitler and Nazi Germany. I refuse to remove the ✠ from my signature as I didn't think that it is a symbol of Nazism. If you feel that the ✠ are sufficiently divisive to be banned you can go to WP:ANI for that. Have a good day. ✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 10:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::To clarify, I do not think the anti-UN and pro-2nd amendment userboxes are supportive of Nazism of themselves. But including them, along with several pro-Trump userboxes makes it clear you support fascist causes. Hope that helps clear things up! 173.177.179.61 (talk) 11:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I second this comment. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::This is at least the 3rd time I've seen someone bring up the iron crosses. At what point do we get to call a dogwhistle a dog whistle? Sock-the-guy (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Sock-the-guy and IP editor 173... this is the wrong venue for discussion of a specific editor, if you believe action should be taken then make your case, with evidence, at AN or ANI. If you don't believe action should be taken then stop talking about it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Sure, I’ll restate my original question then. Is a userbox for being “anti UN” sufficiently divisive to be removed?

::::::For clarification, I have only been browsing these boards for a couple weeks. I saw that this user was asked to adjust their signature, but there was no comment about the userboxes, so I was unsure if they were allowed or not.

::::::I don’t know how to file an ANI unfortunately. That said, I’m not really interested in helping out a community that is pro-Trump, so as a queer Canadian, I guess I’m outta here. 173.177.179.61 (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::: If User:SunDawn wants people to assume that they support fascist causes, then they are quite welcome to keep their signature, as long as they don't complain when people call them out on it. Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::The swastika predates the Nazis, but if you buy it in your signature you will end up having to explain why all the time. In the same way the iron cross predates WW2 but is now heavily associated with the Nazi's use of it, don't be surprised if people are offended by it's use. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I mean the other option for using the Iron Cross is generally to show allegiance to outlaw biker clubs. But this all seems something of a digression from the key question of the thread. Simonm223 (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Apologies if this isn’t allowed but I ended up commenting on this thread before & after I registered. So for complete clarity, the IP above (173.177.179.61) is me. ExtantRotations (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:All Userboxes should be moved out of template space. If you find one, move it.

:The unresolved question is whether political Userboxes should be moved out of Wikipedia?

:If Wikipedia:UBXNS is vague, fix it. Userboxes don’t belong in template space. Userboxes are Userpage content and are not real templates. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::I've never heard of any guidance to that effect. Presumably you don't mean to include Babel boxes? But what about user group userboxes? WikiProject membership userboxes? Legitimate areas of expertise and/or interest? --Paul_012 (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{ec}} {{tpq|All Userboxes should be moved out of template space. If you find one, move it.}} is this just your opinion? It's not something I've ever heard before and doesn't seem to match what is written at WP:UBXNS,

::{{tpq|If Wikipedia:UBXNS is vague, fix it.}} this is what they are explicitly seeking to do. Thryduulf (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia:Userbox migration SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::That's a historical page that proposes moving some userboxes to userspace and which explicitly eschews being a policy or guideline, it does not support your statement. Thryduulf (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::It describes the rationale and the practice, and it still occurs, and is often an MfD result. In my opinion nothing needs fixing, if someone doesn’t like a template space userbox, Userfy it to User:UBX. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::is this WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT? --cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 19:30, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::::No. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

:For me it's same shit, really. They can be probably deployed as templates, they can be coded, they can be in Template: or User: namespace (not projectspace though, because that IMHO is supposed to be somehow related to Wikipedia's functioning). It's like arguing over whether we want to put our luggage in locker 26 or 38 when they are the same size. The only thing that really matters is the userbox's content.

:There is a userbox discussion going on (at MfD) and I see some support for blanket removal of all political userboxes, userspace, templatespace or elsewhere, essentially per WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:NOTSOCIAL and as being generally not conducive to editing.

:And I suggest that we consider that option as well.

:Also, unwritten conventions like the one described just above me suck. If it is a convention that actually has much influence on outcomes, it ought to be a rule. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::Holy shit… I’m going to be real for a second. I’ve been hanging around reading things for a bit still cause I was like “well okay… maybe I jumped off the handle… it’s not like anti-LGBT userboxes exist, right? I mean, that would be crazy offensive.”

::OH! Oh wait they do and people have to argue politely and civilily as to why it might be considered upsetting to realize the person editing the same niche article as you disrespects you on a fundamental human level. 173.177.179.61 (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::Controversial Userboxes don’t belong in ProjectSpace because that gets read as implying official Wikipedia status. They don’t belong in TemplateSpace because they don’t function as templates, and because template gnomes don’t like them there and are template-deletionists. They do belong in userspace because they are a form of user expression. If they are idiosyncratic, keep them in their creator’s userspace. If they are broadly used, put them under USER:UBX.

::Let’s make this decades old practice “the rule”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I think a clearer definition is needed for "directly collaborative in nature," as currently stated. Logically, it should be fine for a userbox (even in Templatespace) to say "This user is interested in the history of Nazism," but not "This user identifies as a Nazi." The former identifies the user's area of interest in contributing to Wikipedia; the latter is just plain inflammatory (or a bad joke). Requiring such wording may be a way to draw the line. On the other hand, it might be opening a loophole for people to exploit. Anyone got better ideas? --Paul_012 (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::1. I would prefer, even if it is a small preference, for project supporting Userboxes to be organised in Projectspace, not Template space. I think many would belong in a WikiProject.

::::2. I suggest NOT seeking to define a good and proper userbox. This could be constraining on future good ideas. Instead, I suggest that if someone wants to challenge a userbox as not being for the benefit of the project, that they consider migrating it to userspace, to the authors userspace or to User:UBX. If definitions are wanted, define unacceptable Userboxes. This has already begun. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I note the userbox in the MFD linked earlier is already in the author's userspace. But since it touches on an area where we have many people intent on promoting the victimhood of certain groups, it's getting a lot of delete votes based purely on that activism. Perhaps we really do want to ban userboxes that take positions on divisive social and political issues, but that environment (or any where discussion is going to be dominated by people throwing around WP:NONAZIS or its various clones) is not a good place to make a reasoned decision. Anomie⚔ 12:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I’m sorry, I’m having trouble understanding your argument. Is your claim that LGBT people are “promoting victimhood” by voting to delete a userbox that reads “This user does not support the LGBT ideology” and that the delete votes are therefore insincere? They seem to come from genuine users. I don’t think it makes a difference who is placing the votes so long as they arent breaking rules. 173.177.179.61 (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::No, you're misinterpreting basically everything there. And this isn't the place for a political discussion. Anomie⚔ 17:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Okay, would you like to explain why you think only the Delete votes are due to activism? 173.177.179.61 (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::No. Anomie⚔ 17:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::AGF be damned. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 11:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}I'll be honest. I deleted all the userboxes from my user page a while back. This was principally because of two reasons: one - they'd got rather multitudinous and some of them were a snapshot of who I was nearly two decades ago more than now and two - the political userboxes never brought me anything but grief. I'd be supportive of a blanket elimination of political userboxes from Wikipedia full-stop. Frankly it would probably improve general adherence to WP:AGF even if it meant that we would lose the opportunity to occasionally have a bigot out themselves before they disrupt the encyclopedia meaningfully. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:I would support the deletion of all such boxes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'd be neutral to deleting all such userboxes. They can be useful to get an idea of someone's interests or possible biases. But I'd oppose deleting only the ones for positions an angry mob opposes while keeping the ones for their side, since the angry mobs seem to have difficulty distinguishing between actually-bad and just-expresses-an-opposing-viewpoint. Anomie⚔ 16:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:I worry that "political" may be conflated to end up supporting the removal of anything queer-related. Could we have assurances in any official thing that that wouldn't happen? Sock-the-guy (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::I support a total ban on political infoboxes. Addressing your concern, it's one thing to say "This user is queer" in the infobox. I'd question their judgment of posting their sexual orientation on the Internets, but if they really insist, there isn't much we can do. Just like editing under real-name identities - questionable practice but allowed.

::It's another to say "This user feels queers are being discriminated against" or even "This user supports LGBT rights". The first is an open invitation to a shitshow; the second is quite innocuous in most Western societies but this is a political statement nevertheless and has nothing to do with editing Wikipedia - and it may be very controversial in, let's say, Pakistan. Also, consider this for comparison: "This user supports LGB rights", which will inevitably start all sorts of drama over transgender editors. Yeah, just sit back and get some popcorn.

::If you are interested in queer topics on Wikipedia, "This user is part of WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies" is a great way to signal your editing preferences. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::This is exactly my concern, thank you for the transparency Sock-the-guy (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::The ideal solution would be to remove connotation of politics from the rights of people, but that'd be difficult to implement because it isn't only on Wikipedia, this is across society. --cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 19:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:I would support the ban of political advocacy Userboxes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

It appears from this discussion that there may be some support for banning political infoboxes (or "political advocacy" infoboxes). Before we proceed to further discussion, if it is ever needed, please tell me, among these userboxes, which kinds of userboxes would you be in favour of disallowing, if any?

I tried to sort them by categories so that it's easier to analyse them.

• the A cluster is political. A is "this user supports country X", which would seem to endorse a certain position in the conflict, e.g. Israel-Palestine, Pakistan-India, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Ukraine-Russia etc. A1 just lists party membership, without any further indication of political beliefs. A2 endorses/opposes particular politicians or personalities reasonably connected to politics. A3 lists the user's ideology. A4 indicates user's attitude to a certain political phenomenon. A5 indicates a user's attitude to countries or supranational bodies.
• B cluster is social. B is about LBGT issues (note: only in cases like: X should (not) have rights, should (not) serve in the military; it's not about declaring your sexual orientation), B1 is about opinions on marriage, B2 is about abortion, B3 is about censorship
• C groups causes that may appear uncontroversial.

:A. This user supports Palestine/This user supports Israel

:A1. This user supports the American Solidarity Party/is a US Anti-Federalist, member of the Republican/Democratic/Labour/Liberal/Swiss People's Party...

:A2. All userboxes in :Category:Politician user templates or Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics by country (e.g. was against Assad/Ivan Duque/Juan Manuel Santos/Alvaro Uribe/Rodrigo Duterte/Stephen Harper/Justin Trudeau; Bernie Sanders for President Trump's the best; admires Amelia Andersdotter, Anna Politkovskaya, etc.

:A3. This user is an anarchist, progressive, liberal, conservative, Communist, anti-Communist supports Hindutva/Pan-Slavism/MAGA (errm, I meant this), opposes monarchy, supports DEI, denies global warming...

:A4. This user ardently opposes the alt-right/futarchy/believes that the alt-right is killing the US Republican Party/that white nationalism is Anti-American/demands that Azerbaijan release Armenian POWs

:A5. This user supports a South-East Asian integrated community through ASEAN, against the EU/is Austro-European/supports the EU, Brexit templates, was against Euromaidan, against the UN... like 90% of the :Category:Political user templates

:B. Supports rights for queer people, gay people; does not support LGBT+ ideology due to legal, religious and moral reasons.

:B1. Supports/opposes polyamorous marriage/supports cousin marriage/equal marriage for all/marriage only between one man and one woman/believes that marriage should be religious/is against extramarital sex/is generally against divorce

:B2. Basically all templates in :Category:Abortion user templates except User:UBX/Abortion, Template:User WikiProject Abortion and User:The Homosexualist/Irrelevabortion

:B3. against most/no/all forms of censorship

:C. Against dictators/terrorism/racism/oligarchy/slavery

:C1. This user supports animal rights, Indigenous rights

:Note that any infobox of the style "This user is part of WikiProject" or "This user is interested in" or "This user is gay" is not in the scope as it either directly refers to Wikipedia activity or else is not a political statement. Also note that it is for now more of a brainstorm to see which formulation of the userbox guideline will be potentially in play. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• If you ask me, I believe every single one of these is inappropriate. We don't get to endorse, or not endorse, people's political views or social views with political relevance. This is not our goal. Therefore, we either need to allow them all or ban them all. I totally understand the people's outrage when a guy posts a "this person is a proud Nazi" or "this person believes we have to straighten up the gays" on their userpage based on the notion that "this is clearly disruptive" but the thing is, it is only disruptive if people notice it, and the current guidance simply says "wait and see until a bunch of editors drag you to MfD" instead of just "don't do it". People who post such things are either trolls - a not-so-easy block for less obvious cases - or genuinely believe this and will go like "Wikipedia is biased and libtards rule there". To the fullest extent possible, Wikipedia should be apolitical and this is a way to do it. The benefit to keep these userboxes is minimal; the potential harm and waste of time - pretty big. Imagine a ARBPIA RfC where an editor looks up a userpage and see something like "This person supports Israel". Do you think the pro-Palestinian editor will never think along the lines of "he should not be editing here because he just said he's biased?" Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

:The conflation of support for human rights with discrimination in this makes it impossible to support. Sock-the-guy (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

::If you want to announce support for human rights, you have plenty of options. Twitter, Bluesky, Blogspot, Wordpress, your local city hall, etc. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

::This was not meant to be "support all or nothing". You are free to propose which infoboxes are appropriate or inappropriate within a category. In fact, that was the whole point - I need feedback. If we are speaking of B, which I think was one of your key points you mentioned to me, AFAIK LGBT rights is a political issue in quite a large part of the world (the T part is in particular is in the vogue in the Western world, there's even an ArbCom case request about it). My position is clear on this, and because this is a controversial issue (it shouldn't be, but it is), I could not put it into the C cluster. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• As far as I'm concerned, every single one of the listed examples violates WP:SOAPBOX and is a misuse of Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• If political userboxes such as the ones listed above were banned, what's stopping editors from writing political statements on their userpages instead e.g. "This user supports/opposes _____."? Is there really a difference, for example, between having a userbox that says "This user supports Palestine" vs having an image of the Palestinian flag on their userpage with a message saying "I support Palestine"? Some1 (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I believe that if we decide that userboxes like these are inappropriate, it would be automatically inappropriate to write their content in plaintext. Arguing that it wouldn't be inappropriate would be wikilawyering. Also see WP:UP#GOALS ("Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc.") and WP:POLEMIC. That said, you make a good point. Updating WP:UP is probably a good idea. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• I would say allow them all. This isn't (exactly) about free speech; it's legitimate to say "you can say what you want just not here". That said, it's sometimes useful to know where people are coming from. As long as it's a simple statement of position (even a radically unpopular position) and doesn't devolve into disruptive argumentation, I think it should be allowed. --Trovatore (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• All of these are appropriate if they are written in a straightforward way that is not an attack. They are useful to indicate the bias or worldview of the editor. Perhaps there could be a way to classify the political biases of editors by how they edit. But far more difficult for the casual observer to determine in general. For it to be soapbox material it should be very prominent and the main feature of the user page. Claims of discrimination and violation of human rights by the existence or use of a userbox are unfounded, as boxes do not take away any rights or do anything that discriminates. It is also more useful to have userboxes rather than use of plain text as that would ensure that text used meets our standards for decency, and also make it easy to find who uses that box. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I mean, the existence of pro-discrimination infoboxes does make it clear to the individuals who are being addressed that they are not wanted here. Putting the burden on the targeted individuals to enforce rules will lead to a reduced number of them that stick around. ExtantRotations (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::At most, it suggests that there are some people who don't want them here. Which is always going to be true. There will always be some people who don't want you here. --Trovatore (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Personally, I decided almost 20 years ago to remove the closest things I had to political user boxes from my userpage [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Donald_Albury&diff=prev&oldid=28147244], so, yeah, I don't think such things should be on a user page, but I am hesitant to make that a hard rule for others. - Donald Albury 00:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• While I don't use such userboxes, it's certainly far too broad a brush to do anything about these as a broad category. "political userboxes" is essentially and "political opinion" (in a box), and a "political opinion" is just an "opinion" because everything is political. We can't really have a "C groups causes that may appear uncontroversial", as that it an inherent contradiction. If something was uncontroversial, it would not be a "cause". If it's a cluster by cluster whack, there should be care to nix all opinions, even those widely agreed on by the community. CMD (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• This seems to be escalating way beyond what I expected when originally asking. But what exactly do we mean by banning userboxes anyway? Like Some1 mentioned, it shouldn't stop people from writing the same statements directly on their user page. What about manually formatting them in boxes, without making them into transcludable templates/subpages? If that's allowed, then nothing should be stopping people from copying manually formatted boxes from other people's talk pages either. Deleting the index pages might add an inconvenience and discourage people from using them, but I don't think there's a realistic way to stop people from seeking them out. Maybe that's why the original solution from 2006 was just to userfy them. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• One issue with the userfication solution is that it largely amounted to much ado about nothing, as the userboxes hosted under User:UBX/Userboxes or anyone's user subpage are still performing the same function. Maybe they (and others that we think should be removed form Templatespace) should all be subst'ed. This would allow more diversity in users' self-expression and hold them directly accountable for the content they have on their userpage. I don't know if this will cause a significant increase in storage requirements; would appreciate if someone could do the numbers. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Userspace pages don’t speak for Wikipedia. This is a big thing for controversial Userboxes. Userfying diminishes the pecived problem. Subst’ing would work similarly. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• :In my opinion, “banning userboxes” would mean taking things in line with the username policy, whereby certain items would be eligible for immediate deletion or ban rather than allowing them to hang around until someone challenged them.
• :For clarity’s sake, I am also the IP further up this debate that asked about specific userboxes. In my opinion, I think “political userboxes” is a bit of an incorrect target. I do not have a problem with “political support” userboxes such as “this user supports Trump”. As much as I disagree with that statement politically, I don’t think it is designed to be inflammatory. But if the point of Wikipedia is to improve collaborative work, then it is counterproductive to allow userboxes that champion arguments Wikipedia itself deems as biased or false. ExtantRotations (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment most of this discussion, I don't want to touch with a ten foot pole. However in opposition to the maximalist view here, I do think some ideological userboxes are helpful as an easy way for editors to disclose possible sources of bias, which is part of WP:DGF. -- LWG ^talk 16:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I agree with LWG.
• :My current rule of thumb is that if a rule would require changes to User:Orangemike, then I don't want that rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Please advise on why official sources such as Airlines and Airport websites cant be used when adding information to Wikipedia.

Using Indepandant sources provides incorrect information. For example using a outdated article from clare fm saying Shannon- Paris is ending in October. Which is wrong because the official Airline and airport site state its NOT.

Wikipedia is supposed to be reliable source providing old links like that is wrong and unrelibale. Please allow official sites be used AVGEEK7813 (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

: They can? An airport's website would be a primary source, which can be used for {{tq|straightforward, descriptive statements of facts}} like whether that airport has certain flights. – Joe (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

:: Ok @TheBanner is convinced that only indepandant sources are allowed and not official sites. He is removing peoples updates that have been gotten from official sites and replacing them with old outdated links. AVGEEK7813 (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

::: Well if that is the case then he's incorrect. – Joe (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

:::: Are you a moderator on Wikipedia? You can confirm so we can use airport websites and airline websites as sources AVGEEK7813 (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

::::: That's not how it works I'm afraid. We don't have moderators. If you have a disagreement with {{u|The Banner}} (courtesy ping) about a specific source, you should discuss it with him and other editors on the article's talk page and seek a consensus based on policies like WP:V and WP:PSTS. – Joe (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

:::::: Ok thanks for your clarifications anyway AVGEEK7813 (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

:::: In fact, it was a case where an independent source was just removed. No replacement, just removal. And an unsubstantiated claim that the source used was incorrect. The Banner talk 15:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

::::: If a source is removed, usually the information the source supports should also be removed. The removal constitutes a challenge to the source and the information. If someone wants to restore it, the person adding it should include a different reliable source. Or, discuss on the talk page why the removed source is reliable after all. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

: See also User talk:The Banner/Archives/2024/July#Shannon Airport from last year, because apparently these two have been edit-warring over this for a year now.

: A simplified story might sound something like this: Is it okay to use [https://www.aerlingus.com/blog/were-launching-a-new-shannon-paris-service-in-september/ a public blog post from an airline] to say that they're going to offer a route between Airports A and B, or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shannon_Airport&diff=prev&oldid=1251554183 a press release from one of the affected airports]? Or should we require a local newspaper or radio station to repeat what the press release says, because – I don't know – maybe the airline doesn't know where it's sending its planes? Or there's some secret skullduggery going on, and the local news outlet will ferret out the malfeasance involved in claiming to offer a route to the local airport?

: Aer Lingus clearly is offering flights between Shannon and Paris–Charles de Gaulle; drop by your favorite airline website and see what happens if you try to book at flight between "SNN" and "CDG". It's a 1 hour, 45 minute flight, and the price for departures this Thursday is only US$156. Flight "EI 908" is scheduled to depart at 7:10 a.m., and if you happen to be in Shannon that morning, you could be on it.

: So can we stop fighting over this? @The Banner, it's good to have the best possible source, but it's bad to leave something completely unsourced merely because the most easily available source isn't the best possible source. Two self-published, non-independent primary sources are available and reliable for the fact that Aer Lingus flies between SNN and CDG. If you want a better source, then find it yourself, but until then, don't remove primary sources and replace them with a {{tl|citation needed}} tag. If you feel you must tag it, leave the mediocre source in place, and add {{tl|better source}} after it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::Generally speaking, Wikipedia's purpose is not necessarily to be a conduit for an organization's PR, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY might be relevant for an airport's connections. Editors might want independent sources to show that sources actually care about a given announcement and establish WP:DUE for inclusion. —Bagumba (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I know we just had in the last year a large discussion about airline destinations and connections from airports, with the consensus generally supporting these, but I think this argument above (how we are sourcing information only stated by a company) is why these types of articles are problematic, violate NOT#CATALOG if they aren't using predominately third-party sources. this type of information at this type of detail is far far better located at Wikivoyage, whereas the encyclopedic article should be focused on the high level descriptions of routes and destinations as reported by third-party sources. Masem (t) 03:06, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I think the problem is smaller than that. The Banner doesn't seem to have said "Eh, this whole list is WP:NOT something the article needs". It's just been "Bring me a source. No, not that source." WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, that is true sometimes. However, when Wikipedia is providing a complete list of certain facts (e.g., airlines that fly into this airport, or destinations with direct flights from this airport, or – to switch subjects – a complete list of books by this author, or albums by this band), then it's not a matter of {{xt|an organization's PR}}: It's a matter of making it easier for editors to figure out whether or not the item belongs in the list.

:::Whether the information should be included at all is a different question. What I'm saying is that you don't get to blank reliable sources and then add a {{tl|citation needed}} tag, or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shannon_Airport&diff=prev&oldid=1251554183 use an edit summary of "Vandalism"] when you remove someone's addition of a reliable source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::MOS:LISTSOFWORKS supports a complete list of works. I have no current opinion re: airports' flights. —Bagumba (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tqq|... you don't get to blank reliable sources and then add a {{citation needed}} tag, or use an edit summary of 'Vandalism' ...}} Yes, if an independent source is desired, {{tl|Independent source inline}} is more appropriate, and WP:NOTVANDALISM is a relevant policy. —Bagumba (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I don't know why this is suddenly showing up with my name ping, but we have WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. The Banner talk 09:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm sure that the advice page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content#Body contains what that small group of editors believes is good advice, but that doesn't change the fact that non-independent primary sources can be 100% WP:RELIABLE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::We have this RFC and the review of this RFC. The number of participants of RFC and its review is - in my opinion - not a small group. But feel free to start a fourth RFC. The Banner talk 02:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::That RFC does not say that that non-independent sources are unRELIable. It says that content (NB: content, not sources) that can only (NB: not "presently is") be cited to a non-independent source is unDESIRable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The RFC says the such content should only be included if it's verifiable to secondary sources, duplicating the airlines website is NOT. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::That's not what the RfC closing statement says. It says "airlines and destination tables may only be included in articles when independent, reliable, secondary sources demonstrate they meet WP:DUE." That doesn't mean "only be included if it's verifiable to secondary sources." It's possible for independent, reliable, secondary sources to demonstrate that destination tables meet WP:DUE whilst at the same time using newer primary, about-self sources to provide the most up to date verifiable details about those WP:DUE destination tables. The RfC does not require destination tables to be verified to independent secondary sources. Levivich (talk) 13:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Yes, sorry poorly worded. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::No worries (I'd say it's the close that's poorly worded, causing this confusion) and I think this is the crux of the dispute: TheBanner seems to think that only independent secondary sources can be used as references for airline routes, whereas AVGeek thinks airline websites can be used to provide up-to-date information. I think AVGeek is correct--independent/secondary sources are needed to show destinations are a significant WP:ASPECT at all (WP:DUE is the wrong section of WP:NPOV), but about-self/primary sources are OK to provide the latest/most accurate information. Levivich (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Here is a statement that I hope we can agree:

::::::::::::* If we are going to have a list of destinations, that list should be accurate and up to date (Per the very first sentence of WP:NOTNEWS: {{xt|In principle, all Wikipedia articles should contain up-to-date information}}) – even if the cost of being accurate and up-to-date means citing a non-independent, primary source in the list.

::::::::::::If any editor actually prefers out of date and inaccurate information, so we can match an older, outdated independent secondary source, then now's the time to express that view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I don't think "cost" is the right word. There's no cost to using a reliable primary source for straightforward descriptions of things that happened / are reasonably assured to happen, barring unusual circumstances. Whether or not a list should be present in an article, or all-inclusive, is something that editors need to evaluate separately from the concern of where the data is coming from. isaacl (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::The problem with official sources is that they are frequently the subject of contention but if there is none, then what's the objection? Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I would strongly disagree with that take on NOTNEWS. We do want editors to add up to date information on a topic but with the intent that that information will have some permanence in the article. For example, updating a death toll in a natural disaster as reports come out. But for information that is widely transient, like television network schedules, we don't want to encourage that per NOT Guide, or at least wait for that onfoation to be filtered through third party sources to show why it has permanence (like historical television schedules that showed how networks competed against each other) since airlines can shift schedules on a whim, this is the type of detail that feels needs to have third party sourcing to show relevance in the long term. Masem (t) 16:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::@Masem, if there is going to be a list of destinations in the article at all, do you prefer that it to be factually wrong because it uses outdated third-party sources, or do you prefer that it be factually correct, even if that means (at least temporarily) using an up-to-date non-independent source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::It should only be including what has been identified in third-party reliable sources. We don't need complete listings, that's something far better suited for WikiVoyage. Instead, our encyclopedic coverage should be what third-parties consider to be the significant destinations. There's nothing that requires us to try to include 100% of all destinations. Masem (t) 19:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::So you'd rather have an outdated and inaccurate list, than to get it right. I happen to have the opposite preference, and I suspect that most of the community does, too.

::::::::::::::::When you say that airport information is "far better suited for WikiVoyage", are you aware that the English Wikivoyage has explicitly rejected hosting this material, du to the maintenance burden? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:It would be worth investigating if it is really true that low-cost airlines rely more on corporate sources than other airlines, as I sincerely get that feeling. The Banner talk 16:23, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:My perspective is that official sources can be used in any article, but official sources are not to be used as indicators of notability. --Enos733 (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

::If, by "official source", you mean a non-independent source (e.g., from an airport or airline, about their own doings), then I agree with you.

::However, some "official" sources probably do indicate notability, because they're independent of the subject. (For example, if the "National Department of Education" provides information about local schools, then that "official" national source is probably independent and probably does contribute to notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:::No disagreement here. There are a (very small) subset of articles where verification may be sufficient. - Enos733 (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I have received a mail of a user whom I know for many years (not personally though) and who is mainly active on other Wikimnedia projects. Without giving too much detail, their account got caught by an IP block (only on the English Wikipedia, other projects are fine). The administrator who imposed the block is barely active or inactive. What would be the best course of action to proceed? I am willing to help them but I am obviously not a CU and I am not sure how appropriate for me would be to give them an exemption? If not, what it the best place for them to request the exemption? Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 10:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

: Wikipedia:Appealing a block says: {{TQ|The preferred way to appeal a block is to place {{tlx|unblock|2=reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} on your talk page ...}} — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks, but this is not an account block, this is just a technical issue. The account is in good standing. And I am not sure they want to associate it with the IP in public. Ymblanter (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Yep, sorry. Comes of drive-by checking of my watchlist while making a coffee. — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:Unless it is a CU block, it should be fine to grant IPBE, because the blocking admin could not have possibly matched a registered account with the background IP without CU rights. Some accounts may get caught mistakenly. {{nacmt}} —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 11:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::If only every user experiencing an IP block was collateral. Technically and in policy, admins retain the ability the grant IPBE, and in some cases that's entirely appropriate. It is advisable to consult a checkuser, and that's strongly recommended by policy, because checkusers have a unique perspective on the risks associated with any address or user (they are also well placed to 'fix' any blocks). Admins however often have good judgment about their fellow users. I see two ways forward (ignoring the OTRS and UTRS routes by the user themselves): either do it yourself and mention it to a checkuser, or ask a checkuser to look first and do the granting. You might also decide it's not worth doing either. The main question you need to ask is what is the probability that the IP block is aimed at an account operated by that user. Knowing there are often delays with the other routes, I'll offer up the option to email me. If you do decide to grant IPBE, please grant it for no longer than necessary. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I forgot to mention, WP:SPI#Quick_CheckUser_requests is a designated venue for such requests, mainly for admins. Options for the user are listed at WP:IPBE. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks a lot everyone, it is a clear way forward. Ymblanter (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::Just saw this. As a CU who does a lot of IPBE grants, I'd say to admins that they should give only limited-period grants: no more than 6 months, and preferably only 3 months. Please, please admins, do not give indefinite IPBE; if you think a user should have IPBE for longer than 6 months, refer them to a checkuser. And now having said that, I should go and work on the backlog. Risker (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Came here to say basically the same thing, and also that just about any checkuser ought to be willing to handle this sort of request privately by email for users who don't want to plaster their IP all over an unblock request. I certainly am, and frequently do. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

::::What's supposed to happen at the end of the short-term IPBE? Ask again (and again and again)? I've heard that editors using Apple's Private Relay frequently need IPBE, and that Google Chrome was planning a similar IP-anonymization think. That could be a lot of editors making a lot of requests. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::IPBE grants be can applied incrementally, just as blocks can be incremented. I've been through phases of extending up to 3 years. Most IPBE situations really are short term though, and not, for example, infinite. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:Level crossing#Unmanned or Unstaffed regarding what phrase should be used regarding level crossings. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at :meta:Requests for comment/Should paid editing as a CU be allowed. Some1 (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:* NO Their is risk of misuse of tools may harass or block competitors

:Andh Namazi (talk) 11:18, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

::the discussion's at meta, not here. please go there if you want to vote consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 11:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Template:Orphan includes a link to an external tool (edwardbetts.com/find_link). Is this within policy? It seems a little dodgy to have links to external sites embedded in places where people won't be expecting to be taken off-site. For reasons I don't understand, this link doesn't render with the normal northeast arrow icon which indicates an external link. RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:The plainlinks seem to be coming from way upstream in the box wrappers at Module:Message box. This EL has been in that template since 2017. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

::I turned back on the link for when this is called in general, see User:Xaosflux/sandbox152 for output, but there are layers and layers of other box wrappers that may be suppressing this, such as Template:issues. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Back to the original question, seems like there are two questions here {{ping|RoySmith}}?

• Should article message boxes suppress external link indicators (to actual external links)?
• Should article message boxes use external links at all?

:For the former, I don't think we should suppress indicators. Not sure on the later. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:58, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:For sure, we shouldn't hide the external link indicator. I can't see any plausible reason why doing so is a good idea. I won't pretend to fully understand how plainlinks works, but this seems like a fix which should be done at some higher level so it applies to all external links in boxes.

:As long as it's clear that it's an external link, I think I'm OK with external links in message boxes. RoySmith (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

::* External links should be visible (both normally and in this specific case), so people can decide whether they want to switch to a different website/different privacy policies.

::* I'd slightly prefer not using an external/non-WMF website in this (general) circumstance.

::WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)