****I agree, unsure what exactly this section is voting on. [[User:CaptainEek|<span style="color:#6a1f7f">'''CaptainEek'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<span style="font-size:82%"><span style="color:#a479e5">''Edits Ho Cap'n!''</span></span>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 19:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC) *****Me three. I thought maybe this was a response to the OP way up top, but wasn't sure... [[User:Huggums537|Huggums537]] ([[User talk:Huggums537|talk]]) 17:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
== Proposal to improve customization of [[Template:Find sources]] ==
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 01:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1631322862}}
'''Background'''
This is a proposal to expand the functionality of {{tl|find sources}}, a template frequently used in {{tl|Talk header}} ([[Talk:Giardiasis|example]]) to help editors find sources to improve articles. Specifically, we seek to make it possible for different sets of links to appear for different types of articles, such as links to medical sources for medical articles.
Currently, there are <s>three</s> <u>four</u> related templates that generate find sources links:
* {{tl|find sources}}, the basic set of sources starting with five Google links, plus JSTOR, NYT, and a couple more
* {{tl|find video game sources}}, which contains the basic set above, plus three more links targeted to video gaming
* {{tl|find medical sources}}, a completely different set of links aimed at supporting [[WP:MEDRS]]-compliant sourcing
* <u>{{tl|find biographical sources}}, a set of links aimed at supporting biographies.</u>
We anticipate that additional templates in this family for other subject areas may be created in the future. Under this proposal, talk header will choose between the available templates, either automatically or on the basis of a manually set parameter, to display the one most appropriate for a given page.
'''Approaches for selection'''
We are considering several possible approaches for how to select which set of links to use:
# Through a new parameter that can be manually set (i.e. to display medical links at [[Talk:Giardiasis]], we'd change <code><nowiki>{{talk header}}</nowiki></code> to <code><nowiki>{{talk header|search-domain=medical}}</nowiki></code> at that page)
# Through auto-detection of WikiProject banners (i.e. [[Talk:Giardiasis]] would switch to using medical links because it includes the {{tl|WikiProject Medicine}} banner)
# Through auto-detection of Wikidata properties (i.e. [[Talk:Giardiasis]] would switch to using medical links because an automated analysis of [[wikidata:Q326071|its Wikidata item]] identifies it as a medical topic)
It would be possible to combine these approaches, such as implementing a combined option 2 – 1 approach, which in the case of {{tl|Talk header}} would default to option 2 (project auto-detect) but would allow any editor to set a parameter (e.g., {{tlc|talk header|search-domain{{=}}medical}}) which would then take precedence over the project auto-detect. Having the parameter available would also be extensible to use by other templates on article pages where project detection isn't applicable; see [[#Impact on other templates|below]].
Previous discussion is [[Template talk:Talk header#Param search-domain|at Template talk:Talk header]], and we have created functional prototypes of options 1 and 2 in [[Template:Talk header/sandbox|the talk header sandbox]], which can be seen at [[Template:Talk_header/testcases#Param_search-domain|the associated test page]]. (Current sandbox revision uses method 2, so testcases for method 1 currently fail, but pass successfully with the correct sandbox revision in place.)
Which approach(es) would you prefer?
'''Design'''
We are considering implementation via a wrapper template ([[Template:Find sources/sandbox|here]]) which does all the detection of search domain, and transcludes the correct flavor of template. By placing the wrapper template at the current title ([[Template:Find sources]]) and moving the old content to [[Template:Find general sources]], this remains transparent at the top level; all current transclusions of [[Template:Find sources]] after the changeover will invoke the wrapper, which invokes {{tl|Find general sources}} by default. Outside of the Talk header template, this means a seamless transition for all other transclusions which will do exactly the same thing after go-live as they did before; that is, they will continue to invoke the basic "Find sources" link set, albeit by one extra call where {{tl|Find sources}} transcludes {{tl|Find general sources}} which invokes the Module.
Currently [[Template:Talk header]] includes the basic set of source links for all articles where it is not suppressed by parameter. After go-live, the behavior of "find sources" in [[Template:Talk header]] may change, depending which solution is chosen. If the parameter method is chosen, then the links in the Talk header would remain the same, until someone added the parameter. If auto-detect by WikiProject is chosen, then the links in the Talk header of pages on medically-related topics will switch to the medical links, and on video-related topics will switch to the video links; all other Talk headers would remain as before.
{{anchor|Impact on other templates}}'''Impact on other templates'''
Other templates use the {{tl|find sources}} templates, such as {{tl|unsourced}} and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%7B%7Bfind+sources%7D%7D&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns10=1 other maintenance templates], as well as [https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Find_sources&namespace=10&limit=500&hideredirs=1&hidelinks=1 many others]. Depending which approach is chosen, this could affect whether the other templates will be able to take advantage of them. A combined approach allowing auto-detect and via param would permit both.
We look forward to your feedback on the considerations above and the proposal overall. Thanks! [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) and <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Sdkb'''</span>]]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 23:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC) <small><small>updatedto add biographical sources; by [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 22:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)</small></small>
* <small>'''Listed''' at: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine]]. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 23:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)</small>
* <small>'''Listed''' at: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games]]. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 23:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)</small>
* '''Support''' as helpfully expanding the utility of this talk page banner. I would in particular be a fan of the wrapper template idea, as it is the least disruptive imo. I think the parameter approach via "search-domain=medical" is the best solution for how to label pages as needing MEDRS in the banner, though I think the auto-labelling is a good idea. My suggestion would be to try the auto-labelling first, and revert to manual labelling anything that is medical if it goes haywire and labels a lot of unnecessary things.--[[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 23:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
*As co-nominator, I obviously support this. Given how widely the find sources links appear, I think it's important that they are as useful as possible, and this will help with that by making them more appropriate to their context.{{parabr}}Regarding selection approaches, I favor mainly option 2 (project banners), with the ability to override via option 1 (manual parameter setting). That's because I think it's important to have an element of automation to get this adopted on a wide scale. Option 3 (Wikidata) doesn't seem technically feasible, so that leaves project banners. I think "Is this tagged with {{tl|WikiProject Medicine}}?" is an excellent metric, because the project tag belongs on all medicine-related articles, which is also basically the set we want to have the medicine links. However, it's nice to have the ability to override the default for the rare cases where it isn't working as expected, and having the parameters from option 1 will allow that. The only thing weighing against them is added code complexity, which isn't a huge downside.{{parabr}}Regarding the wrapper template implementation, that's been more Mathglot's area of focus, so I'll defer to them and others who comment here. Also, I realize all this is more complex than some of the stuff that comes across VPR, so if anyone has questions or wants clarification, please don't be afraid to ask! Cheers, <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Sdkb'''</span>]]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 05:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
*I support the general proposal. I do have some questions about the implementation - I think if an automated detection system is implemented it will need to have a bit more subtlety than 'does this have a WikiProject Medicine banner?'. Articles about people in medicine, healthcare companies, medical books or journals, the history or social/political aspects of medicine, etc. are usually tagged with WPMed, but these articles do not necessarily require MEDRS sourcing for all claims. I wouldn't say this is a 'rare' case. If it's possible to take the ''intersection'' of WikiProject banners into account (e.g. don't default to 'find medical sources' if there is a WPBiography tag on the page in addition to WPMed) that might help, but I think this might need to be handled via a supervised AWB run or similar. Also, a hybrid of the 'find medical sources' and 'find general sources' template could be helpful for topics that might contain claims needing MEDRS sources but which are not strictly medical. [[User:Spicy|Spicy]] ([[User talk:Spicy|talk]]) 19:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
*:I like the thought of the hybrid template, since for the examples you gave, most sources wouldn't need the MEDRS standard but several might. For instance, a medical researcher would need it for the part of the page discussing their discoveries, a company for discussing their products, a journal for discussing medical controversies about their work, a history page for discussing medical details about viruses involved in a pandemic, etc. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Sdkb'''</span>]]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 20:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
*: {{re|Spicy}}, regarding "{{xt|don't default to 'find medical sources' if there is a WPBiography tag on the page in addition to WPMed}}" this could definitely be added; it poses no great difficulty and would be isolated in the wrapper. It just depends on whether that idea gains consensus.
*: Another option to consider, is that there's no need to choose only one set of "find sources" links. If the article is in both projects as in your example, one could imagine various outcomes: we could let the Talk header template grab the medical links automatically, and then add a biographical links below it, the second one either added automatically as well, or manually by adding {{tl|biographical sources box}}. Yet another possibility, would be to have the order of WikiProjects matter: if Med is first and Biog second, then you only get the "find medical links" automatically, anything else you'd have to add manually; if Biography WikiProject was first, then it would be the other way round. But maybe it's too subtle operationally, even if well documented ("You mean, I'm spozed to read the stinkin' documentation?") Not sure why AWB would be involved; I think it's all doable in the wrapper.
*: Sometimes having too much choice gets to be a problem because you can get [[choice overload|paralyzed with all the possibilities]], so at the outset I'm inclined to go with the simplest useful proposal that gains consensus; not because that makes it easier for template writers, but because that will give editors some time to see and use the new functionality, which may subsequently percolate into a more specific and informed wish list of increased functionality based on their real-world experience with the early version. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 22:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
*::The reason why I suggested AWB is because I think human judgment could be required for some of the edge cases - I don't think we should be giving people the impression that a MEDRS-compliant source is required to cite a medical device company's yearly revenue, for example. I suppose this could be handled in other ways, like the system you've described or Sdkb's hybrid template idea (although both of those rely on the assumption that the WikiProject tagging is accurate, which isn't always the case)... [[User:Spicy|Spicy]] ([[User talk:Spicy|talk]]) 06:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
*:::Not too familiar with [[WP:AWB|AWB]] but would there be any significant downside to first using [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot's]] logic-based approached based on WikiProject with a manual override? Centralizing the logic where possible seems preferable. In the case of a medical company, maybe just add priority logic to check for 'WikiProject Companies' and assign those topics to display the general link set. AWB could still be used to mass apply overrides if there's a scenario that can't be accounted for in the root logic. - [[User:Wikmoz|Wikmoz]] ([[User talk:Wikmoz|talk]]) 20:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
*::: {{re|Spicy}}, Hopefully as people see it live and perhaps read the expanded /doc, they'll see some of the options and apply whatever makes sense to get the desired display. As far as not requiring MEDRS links for the medical devices company revenue case, two possibilities occur to me without changing anything said prior (although these examples are no doubt not obvious since it's not live, and there's no doc):
*:::* Add an additional set of links to the header outside the scope of the new header functionality, by separately adding {{tl|General sources box}} after the Talk header, so that you have both the medrs links automatically added by the new template functionality per Med project presence, ''and'' the "regular" links. You can see how this would look in [[Talk:Cochlear Limited/Talk header test|this mocked up Talk page]] for the "Cochlear Limited" article <small>(note: the actual Cochlear article TP does *not* have WikiProject Medicine on the Talk page; I had to add it to the mockup for the purposes of this test)</small>
*:::* turn off find-source links with the existing 'hide' param, and add {{tl|General sources box}} (i.e., the Talk page will look the way it does now) (the third, "hybrid" solution has been mentioned already)
*::: I was trying to find a medical devices company with the Medicine WikiProject already present so it would be a good example of your concern, but I gave up and had to force project medicine into the mockup for the test. (I didn't look very hard.) The question, I suppose, is this: "Is the benefit of having medrs links produced automatically via project detection worth the disruption that might be caused by losing the general "find sources" links for cases like medical device companies tagged with project Medicine, or in other cases where the correct WikiProjects are not applied and so the general link set would be better?" Is that a fair statement of your concern? I'm not sure we know the answer to that until we try it, unless someone wants to do some clever analysis and see what's out there now. I'm not opposed to undoing the installation after the fact, if on balance it turns out that the new approach is not helping editors improve the articles concerned by proposing a better set of reliable source links for most articles most of the time, because that is the whole point, right? [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 01:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
* I broadly support the idea, allowing for tweaks to get the [[usability]] issues right. It's worth steering people towards suitale sources somehow. [[User:Shooterwalker|Shooterwalker]] ([[User talk:Shooterwalker|talk]]) 22:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. I think this is a good idea. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clover</span><span style="color:green">moss</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 22:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
* <small>'''Listed at:''' [[Module talk:Find sources]]. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 22:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)</small>
* <small>'''Listed at:''' [[WT:WikiProject Biography]]. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 23:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)</small>
* '''Support'''. Very cool idea and great work [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] and [[User:Sdkb|Sdkb]]! I think Option 2 (with the manual override function) sounds like the best approach. It's probably not worth getting too hung up on the edge cases. For those, I'd favor whichever approach is easiest to engineer and maintain with a slight preference to avoid hybrid or stacked link sets. - [[User:Wikmoz|Wikmoz]] ([[User talk:Wikmoz|talk]]) 01:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
* [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]], [[User:Sdkb|Sdkb]]: What would be the next steps? - [[User:Wikmoz|Wikmoz]] ([[User talk:Wikmoz|talk]]) 04:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
*:{{hp|Mathglot}}Thanks for the follow-up, {{u|Wikmoz}}. This hasn't garnered too much participation, but since it's been in a visible location and reactions so far have been positive, I'd say it's safe to move forward with implementation using option 2 with manual override function. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Sdkb'''</span>]]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 20:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
*: Yes, that sounds reasonable to me. Once it's been moved live in template form and had time to gain some page views, we could take another look to see if more tweaks or other changes are needed based on any feedback from those encountering it for the first time. Perhaps subsequent to that, I imagine one would check to see about moving parts of it into the module. Adding [[User:Sdkb|Sdkb]]. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 20:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
== Proposal to Improve Template:Infobox artist by adding parameter for existing works... == *'''Support''' [[User:MarioGom|MarioGom]] ([[User talk:MarioGom|talk]]) 22:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC) {{abottom}}
== Recommendations for auto-protections ==
So... I been seeing a lot of massively-viewed articles without a protection, due to it being expired. Should we start discussing the idea of an auto-protect bot for articles that get over 250K views a day, and depending on size like is it a B class or GA class, should it be protected. It will help most of the CVU/AVU jobs. [[User:MoonlightVector|<span style="background-color: black; color: white">''Moonlight''</span>]][[User talk:MoonlightVector|<span style="background-color: White; color: black">'''''Vector'''''</span>]] 16:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
:You are seeing unprotected pages with lots of views because [[WP:5P3|this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit]]. Unless there are ''specific'' and ''persistent'' problems that cannot be solved by any other tool except protection, we should not prohibit thousands of people from engaging in the one thing that sets us apart from every other website (see [[WP:NOPREEMPT]]). If there are particular pages that counter-vandalism patrollers notice are being persistently disrupted, regardless of page view stats, protection can be requested at [[WP:RFPP|requests for page protection]] where a human will review the best tools to stop the disruption. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— [[User:Wugapodes|Wug·]][[User talk:Wugapodes|a·po·des]]</span> 20:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
::This has very little chance of passing, even with a very conservative threshold, but I wish we wouldn't dismiss it out of hand so quickly. We recently [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive335#Nazi_Party_flag_instead_of_articles|had a very acute lesson]] in what can happen when we wait to see if vandalism occurs rather than acting preemptively. There's not a huge difference in pageviews between a template that appears on 500 smallish articles and a single extremely high-visibility article. I would be interested to see a (hopefully non-public; feel free to email me) list of the unprotected pages with the most pageviews. There's good reasoning behind our founding-era principles, but at this point they're 20 years old and they're not gospel, so we shouldn't be afraid to re-examine them as needed. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Sdkb'''</span>]]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 21:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Sdkb|Sdkb]], while there might not be {{tq|a huge difference in pageviews between a template that appears on 500 smallish articles and a single extremely high-visibility article}}, it is much more common for templates to use more complicated wikisyntax than for articles, so the protection likely prevents widespread damage from unsuccessful good-faith "fixes" by unexperienced editors and not just vandalism. Sure, this can (and does) of course as well happen to articles, but again, these usually have more simple syntax (and afaik the VisualEditor is now the standard option?) <span style="display:inline-block;text-align:center;vertical-align:bottom;line-height:0.5em;">~~<nowiki/>~~<br/><span style="font-size:0.7em;">[[User:1234qwer1234qwer4]] ([[User talk:1234qwer1234qwer4|talk]])</span></span> 15:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
::::Indeed, the reason for protecting templates isn't page views, it's the technical aspects of how templates work. The harm of good-faith-but-incorrect edits is a major reason, but the damage caused by bad faith edits to templates can persist even after a revert because of how pages are parsed and served to readers. Rather than processing each page every time a reader requests it from the server, we cache them. An edit always invalidates the cache, forcing a re-render of the content. Most vandalism is reverted quickly if it even gets past filters, and since the edit purges the cache the vandalism immediately disappears. This is not true for templates. Because updates to templates can invalidate millions of caches, any update to a template is slowly rolled out across pages that use it. So no matter how quickly vandalism to a template gets reverted, it can stay up on articles for potentially hours after the revert, until the cache gets updated. These are vastly different levels of damage, and the idea that preemptive template protection is the same as preemptive article protection only makes sense if you don't dig into the specifics of how these attacks work. Vandalism to a template used on many small articles can easily have much greater consequences than vandalism to a single highly visible article.{{pb}}{{re|Sdkb}} It may seem like I'm dismissing the idea out of hand, but I'm not interested in giving multi-paragraph responses every couple of weeks on substantially the same topic, and even less interested when the proposals show no understanding of our policies or the dozens of substantially similar proposals in our archives; the most recent discussion on preemptive protection on this board closed less than a week ago, and the one before closed less than two weeks ago after lasting two months. Compare those two most recent proposals to this one and consider why I was more willing to engage with them seriously. I spent part of yesterday updating our protection policy and an explanatory supplement to reflect the most recent discussion, so yes, I'm not keen to rewrite here what I already wrote at [[WP:PPOL]] and [[WP:HRT]] yesterday. If we are going to amend a foundational principle of the website and major clause of the protection policy, per [[G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_fence|the parable of Chesterton's fence]] I'd want a proposal that shows some understanding of the protection policy, or at least mentions it, before I support spending substantial volunteer time entertaining a perennial proposal. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— [[User:Wugapodes|Wug·]][[User talk:Wugapodes|a·po·des]]</span> 21:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Wugapodes|Wugapodes]], that's fair. It doesn't look like we've added this to the [[WP:PERENNIAL]] list yet, which might be a good idea. When recently-discussed topics are raised, it's good to have easy access to a concise history with wikilinks. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Sdkb'''</span>]]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 21:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
::@[[User:Wugapodes|Wugapodes]], the fact that {{tq|this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit}} does not mean we should absolutely not install preemptive [[WP:pending changes protection|pending changes protections]], which, while allowing everyone to edit an article, would make edits subject to a review before being displayed. I don't have any strong opinion on the issue, but I wanted to point out that the "protection" mentioned in the opening comment does not necessarily refer to a protection from editing. <span style="display:inline-block;text-align:center;vertical-align:bottom;line-height:0.5em;">~~<nowiki/>~~<br/><span style="font-size:0.7em;">[[User:1234qwer1234qwer4]] ([[User talk:1234qwer1234qwer4|talk]])</span></span> 15:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
::I thought thatwe ecisevely rejected thatan idea in a vey well attended RfC afew yearsago. I don't see that we've beome any worse since then. (I sometimes think of editing deWP, but their pending change protection always causes me to go away.) '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 06:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
== RFC: New PDF icon == |