Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab Miscellaneous 
The idea lab section of the village pump is a place where new ideas or suggestions on general Wikipedia issues can be incubated, for later submission for consensus discussion at Village pump (proposals). Try to be creative and positive when commenting on ideas.
Before creating a new section, please note:

Before commenting, note:

  • This page is not for consensus polling. Stalwart "Oppose" and "Support" comments generally have no place here. Instead, discuss ideas and suggest variations on them.
  • Wondering whether someone already had this idea? Search the archives below, and look through Wikipedia:Perennial proposals.
« Archives, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28

Automatically mark all stubs as stub-class[edit]

I would like to propose a bot action. The bot would find every article in Category:StubsCategory:Unassessed articles, and for every WikiProject banner on the talk page without a quality rating, it would add |class=stub. Since the quality ratings are managed by WikiProjects, they can opt-in to having ratings automatically added to the articles in their jurisdictions. Qzekrom (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Qzekrom: If there is consensus for this, I'd be happy to code up such a bot; I think it should be pretty easy (a SMOP) for me, given my scripts to get pages from categories and perform the same edit on all of them. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Great! Would the best place for this be WP:Village pump (proposals) or some wider venue? Qzekrom (talk) 04:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@Qzekrom: That would probably be the right place; can't really think of a wider venue. Or, if its on an opt-in basis, maybe on the specific wikiprojects you were thinking of? --DannyS712 (talk) 05:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I feel that this is mostly at the discretion of individual WikiProjects, but there might be externalities from tagging on a massive scale; see, for example, the current discussion about GreenC bot at WP:Village pump (proposals). I think we would post on WP:VPPRO and then put {{WikiProject please see}} notices on WikiProject Council and some of the largest WikiProjects' talk pages to see if they would be interested in participating in this bot run. Qzekrom (talk) 05:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Also, note—Category:Stubs contains articles while the likes of Category:Unassessed articles contain talk pages, so your script would have to do the matching. Qzekrom (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@Qzekrom: Yeah, the matching would be pretty easy, or I could create the list with AWB... but its more the consensus issue that should be addressed --DannyS712 (talk) 05:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: What do you think about this text?

I propose that we have a bot mark stubs as stub-class en masse. The bot would find every article in Category:StubsCategory:Unassessed articles, and add |class=stub to each approved WikiProject banner if the banner does not contain a quality rating. Individual WikiProjects would opt-in to having their articles automatically rated. DannyS712 has offered to write the code for the bot.
We have two questions:
  1. Would your WikiProject participate in this bot task?
  2. What side effects do you foresee from this bot task, if any?

Qzekrom (talk) 06:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Qzekrom: I say get some wikiprojects to opt-in first, and then make the full proposal. Something along the lines of:
...if there is community consensus for such a task, would you like to opt-in (meaning that stub ratings would be added to templates for your project)?
We (I) also need to figure out a way to ensure that it doesn't mark it as a stub if other wikiprojects have it rated as start or something - then it would need to be humanly resolved to determine which is right.
--DannyS712 (talk) 06:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Good point! Maybe the bot would throw it up on a noticeboard? It could also, more generally, detect conflicts between different projects' quality ratings for the same articles.
In terms of WikiProjects, I heard from Ferret on Discord that some of the most active WikiProjects are WP:MILHIST, WP:VG, WP:MED, and WP:ANIME. I'll also hit up WikiProjects that I'm part of, such as WP:ECON, WP:COMPSCI, and WP:URBAN. Qzekrom (talk) 06:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I would rather have the discussion in one centralized place, though. I'll post in WikiProject Council, then notify the major WikiProjects about the discussion. We can think of this as user research. How does that sound? Qzekrom (talk) 07:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@Qzekrom: That would probably work --DannyS712 (talk) 07:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Actually, here might be better because we already have a discussion going, and it's called the idea lab for a reason. It'd be better not to fragment the discussion. We could still post notices on WikiProject talk pages. Sorry for my waffling. Qzekrom (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Do you feel comfortable putting this up on WP:BRFA now? Qzekrom (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Qzekrom: I'd rather wait a bit longer, given how little discussion there has been so far. As far as I can tell, only 1 WikiProject (medicine) has officially opted in --DannyS712 (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: If only WPMED opts in, we'd only have 20 or so pages to auto-tag; Category:Unassessed medicine articles and Category:Unknown-importance medicine articles are both very small. We should focus our efforts on the Wikipedia assessment backlog (which I just realized was a thing). I'll go and ping some of the WikiProjects represented there. Qzekrom (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@Qzekrom: Thanks. Or, if you want to phrase it as opt-out (since assessing articles that are tagged as stubs as stubs should be non-controversial) that's another option --DannyS712 (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Attention WikiProjects[edit]

We are developing an idea for a bot script that would perform a few article assessment–related tasks. The tasks we've come up with are:

  1. Finding all stubs without a quality rating belonging to a specific WikiProject and tagging them as stub-class. This would be done only with the consent of that WikiProject as we don't want WikiProjects would be able to opt out if they don't want us to interfere with how projects they assess articles.
  2. Finding articles where different WikiProjects disagree on the quality rating and throwing it up on a noticeboard, where a human can review those articles and harmonize the ratings as warranted. Dropped as not feasible

Please tell us which WikiProject(s) you represent, whether you think these proposals would be useful to your WikiProject, any other ideas for assessment-related bot tasks that you have. Feel free to post any miscellaneous thoughts as well. Thank you! DannyS712 and Qzekrom (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Qzekrom: The noticeboard thing isn't as easy, but the bot would definitely skip pages where there is disagreement among WikiProjects as to the assessment, or disagreement between the rating and the presence of a stub template. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics Qzekrom (talk) 09:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I have historically done most of the article assessment for Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. I am familiar with WP:ORES and have worked with User:Nettrom on automated article assessments in the past. Stub predictions with ORES are perfectly reliable – I don't recall ever having found one that was incorrect. I welcome this being done for all medicine-related articles. If/when it's easy, I ask that you additionally tag any article that is also tagged for WPMED as a WP:BLP or as a business/organization with |importance=Low and |society=yes. (Please ping me if you have further questions.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I've seen very, very few instances in which differences in WikiProject assessment was based on substantive differences. More often than not, some editor only chose to update one banner or one of the banners has a required B-class process and won't trigger that classification without a bunch of other banner parameters letting it. In short, I'd be wary that the effort to build and maintain the tooling would be worthy of the fix. Plenty of other WikiProject maintenance tasks that needs tooling though... (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 22:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Czar: So, justs for marking these as stubs, since that's not really based on individual project's views, it should be opt-out? --DannyS712 (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
    Auto-classifying unassessed articles with prose length below 1500 bytes as stubs is uncontroversial, in my opinion. But sure, it's possible that some projects would want to opt-out. Depends what the bot operators require for consensus. But before investing in writing a bot, however, might want to check in on the meta:Community Tech/PageAssessments conversations linked from Template talk:WikiProject banner shell#Class once, which would ostensibly change the assessment tooling. czar 09:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Czar: It seems like most Wikipedians don't care whether assessments are done at the site level or project level; I reckon that WP:Ownership applies to project-level ratings as well.
    We are planning to get automatic consent for the bot at the project level but want to be careful in case there's a reason auto-assessments might be disruptive (have externalities). Qzekrom (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Personally, I'm okay with auto-assessment of stubs for computing and econ articles, but I'd want to check with other members first. Qzekrom (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women Qzekrom (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Side-question: Is it possible to have the banner detect the article's page length, similar to how the banner can automatically detect whether the article is a redirect? Would save a lot of bot trouble, if so. czar 01:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  1. Would the noticeboard be sorted by Wikiproject somehow? I don't usually have difficulty harmonizing ratings if one of my projects in involved but don't want to try to do this for other projects.
  2. How are stubs to be identified? I assume looking for {{*stub}} at the bottom of an article would be non controversial. Basing it on article size would require some discussion.
(2) Yes, we would look for {{*stub}}, but we'd skip articles that already have a rating higher than stub. I'm not sure what we'd do with articles longer than 1500 bytes, but we could temporarily mark them as stubs too and also put them on the noticeboard. We could also add |reassess=yes if the project banner supports that. Unfortunately, it's not in {{WPBannerMeta}}, and not all projects have the reassessment category.
(1) Yes, the noticeboard entries could be sorted by WikiProject. DannyS712, what do you think? Qzekrom (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Speaking of which, I think we should also create an "Articles needing reassessment" category out of all the individual project reassessment categories. Qzekrom (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@Qzekrom: I'm not so sure about a noticeboard, at least at first - it would be a lot harder to program. But, I would completely just skip any with issues. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Okay, we definitely don't have to do the noticeboard right away. I think we should propose (1) at BRFA now as it seems uncontroversial; we can skip (2). What are your thoughts? Qzekrom 💬 theythem 20:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
@Qzekrom: BRFA filed --DannyS712 (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

New WP 1.0 Bot[edit]

This may be only tangentially related, but y'all might want to check out this announcement. Qzekrom (talk) 06:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Permalinks to archived discussions[edit]

Can the archive bots be set up to change links to discussions to permalinks on the archive pages when those discussions are archived? Qzekrom (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

ClueBot already does this. It is, however, very expensive for ClueBot to do so, and has stopped ClueBot from operating before. --Izno (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Good question. Vorbee (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Vorbee: Please consider not "posting just to post". --Izno (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hide references.[edit]

I know we don't generally early-close good faith proposals at the Idea Lab, but I'm going to WP:IAR close this to save other people wasting their time reading or replying to it. As has been pointed out, the references are the most important part of any Wikipedia article, not some kind of optional extra, and there are no circumstances in which we're going to consider hiding them. As has also been pointed out, other than a very few articles from the early days which still have inline citations, the references are invariably displayed after the rest of the article, so their presence or absence has no impact on the reader experience for those who only choose to read the body text. ‑ Iridescent 08:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The references at the bottom of each page should be hidden and only be shown if the user presses on a special button, this way the user doesn't see a long page and doesn't get discouraged to read it, and this raises the average knowledge of humankind and will make humankind stronger!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamMichaels784 (talkcontribs) 17:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Nope, because mobile support for expanding collapsed content is so bad, MOS:DONTHIDE. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 17:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I also disagree with this idea, because people reading Wikipedia should understand that it is only reliable in so far as it cites reliable sources. The references are in fact the most important part of any article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Poster: Everyone pretty much understands that there are references in Wikipedia article, and it will be plain evident when they see the "Show references" bold (maybe yellow), I can imagine a way where there's the words in bold in red in mobile: "Show references" and clicking it is super easy and it will open the references, maybe even make when pressing on a number of reference in the article's text it opens references, most people just read the article and if there's something that is controversial they press on the number of references and it opens all the references and scrolls automatically to the reference chosen, as a 29 years old man who uses Wikipedia all day I have never in my life pressed to check for the reference, in the first place it's not hidden it's just not shown unless a tiny simple click is pressed, imagine how many people will proceed in reading after not being discouraged by the enormous "text" when opening a Wikipedia article and how much this will make people more knowledgeable especially in their fields, also when people read and understand and think this makes them smarter and by epigenetics this may even pass to their children's intelligence, you do understand the length of the page would drastically change and not a little bit right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamMichaels784 (talkcontribs) 21:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Your last comment consists of one 220-word sentence preceded by "Poster:". You have written exactly one full stop in this entire section—in the heading, where we generally don't use or need full stops. Please express your thoughts in sentences of reasonable length. Also, please WP:SIGN your comments in talk spaces. ―Mandruss  22:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
References are at the bottom of the article, hence the last thing you see when reading an article on a mobile. How exactly does this discourage you from reading Wikipedia? DaßWölf 22:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia at 20[edit]

Possibly a bit early, given that Wikipedia's 20th birthday is 22 months away - but could a 'WP 20 Challenge' be set up? There might be several levels - easy (updating a dormant/orphan page, creating a wanted page etc), moderate, difficult and 'fiendish but feasible' etc. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific on what examples of each category (easy, moderate, difficult and fiendish but feasible) might be? Thank you. Vorbee (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)