Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:35, 8 October 2024

This page is part of the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject User warnings. This means that the WikiProject has identified it as part of the user warning system. The WikiProject itself is an attempt to standardise and improve user warnings, and conform them to technical guidelines. Your help is welcome, so feel free to join in.

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, all uw-* template talk pages and WikiProject User warnings project talk pages redirect here. If you are here to discuss one of the uw-* templates, be sure to identify which one.

Reminder template for undue detail per WP:BALANCE?

It's possible that a majority of edits I have to routinely revert are that aren't covered by a template are substantial additions of sourced, verifiable, but deleterious material that is some combination of tangential, excessively detailed, redundant, or otherwise irreparably undue as to unbalance the coverage or coherence of the article. {{uw-fringe1}} is the closest, but is obviously not appropriate in most cases described above. Perhaps the template can standardize the common suggestions to move the content to a more specific article, more briefly summarize it in context, or compare with how analogous content is treated across several related articles Remsense ‥ 论 22:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Templates Lang1 through Lang4

{{lang1}}, {{lang2}}, {{lang3}} and {{lang4}}, which are redirects to different user warning templates, have been nominated for discussion or deletion at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 19#Template:Lang1. Please leave any comments you have there to keep discussion in one place. Thryduulf (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

New template?

Is there any way we can create a template regarding people who comment on closed discussions? Because I ran into that problem a couple weeks ago and had to use a generic level 2 disruptive editing template and append a message onto it; when I think a level 2 template specifically for commenting on closed/archived discussions would have been a lot more appropriate. Hurricane Clyde 🌀 21:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Is this happening often enough that there's really a need for a template? It seems to me you could just leave a message saying something to the effect of, "Please don't comment on discussions once they have been closed/archived. Thanks!" DonIago (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I’ll get back to you on it. That particular editor had done so twice. Hurricane Clyde 🌀 03:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: new uncited-content template

I'd like to propose this draft new template. I've noticed an increasing number of editors are deleting content they think is accurate and verifiable. They wrongly think all uncited content must be removed, not just WP:BLP content. This is not what policy says.

New editors often add uncited content. When uncited content mostly got cited or tagged, editor numbers were growing exponentially. When it mostly gets deleted, editors numbers decline or just about stay steady. More fixing and tagging of uncited content could significantly increase editor retention.

My goal is to give recipients information about what policy is, and why, and what the alternatives to deletion are.

Crit and suggestions very welcome! HLHJ (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting templating the regulars, or is this only intended to be used when it's newer editors who are removing unsourced content? DonIago (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

It's mostly new editors and even IPs I've seen removing unsourced content (I once saw an IP which reverted very solid unsourced content on Japanese furniture by an admin living in Japan; I confidently restored it). If a regular wrote or behaved in a way that convinced me they believed they needed to remove content they thought was unsourced but otherwise fine, then I suppose an informational template would be actually informative, and hope it would therefore not be resented. I'd be slower to assume ignorance in the case of an experienced editor, but I'm still finding corners of the wiki where I am ignorant, so I'm not offended when people tell me stuff I might not know. The rvv stuff is a bit obvious, but I think it's needed as a counterbalance. I can't promise no-one will ever misuse this template, but I can hope... HLHJ (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really a fan. Speaking from experience, I think editors who are willing to remove unsourced content already face a great deal of pressure if/when they do so on a regular basis, and I think templating newer editors who are presumably operating in good faith in this manner is just going to lead to more editors who are afraid to touch unsourced content lest they get sanctioned for doing so. If we could guarantee this template would only be used in cases of egregious overreach I might feel differently, but there's no such guarantee of that. As such, I think while it might be understandable to advise editors in cases where one feels they're unnecessarily removing unsourced content, I don't think we should routinize and depersonalize the process.

I guess my other question is in regards to when this template is intended to be used. I feel there's a difference between newly added unsourced content where the adding editor can be identified, and unsourced "stable" content. If an editor is removing uncontroversial "stable" content for lacking sources, then I would agree that there were probably better options available, such as tagging it. If an editor is focusing on newly added content though (as I do), then I have much less of an issue with it being removed if the editor who added it is being asked to provide a source in the process; indeed, I think this is one of the primary ways that many editors become familiar with the general need to source content when adding it.

TL;DR I'm not comfortable with the template presently, but might support a version clearly intended to be used only in cases of egregious removals of unsourced content in cases where the unsourced content had also been in the article for a significant amount of time. DonIago (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah. In that case I agree with you; the template is clearly not saying what I meant it to say. I want to encourage editors to ask other editors to provide sources. I agree that this is an essential part of teaching new editors. Clearly the template needs a drastic re-write. Thank you very much for the feedback.

The research evidence cited here seems to say that it's significantly more effective to teach sourcing by promptly tagging unsourced new content than by removing it and then trying to engage with the editor. Evidence is that most new editors struggle, and indeed fail, to use talk pages. They also mostly don't understand that reverted edits are still accessible in the page history. But they often check back repeatedly to look at the content they added. If the content is newly-added, and another editor tags or improves it right away, the new editor is likely to see that and respond, usually by fixing up the content or adding more content (following the model they have been shown) and they are much more likely to keep editing. I want to encourage prompt criticism and correction, and I want to encourage it in its most effective forms.

Of course sometimes prompt deletion is unavoidable, and I want to encourage that, too.

I agree that the template should not threaten sanctions; it's intended to be informational. Sanctions are not a suitable remedy for ignorance.

Perhaps a flowchart-like form would work better? Something vaguely like:

Draft: Was the content obviously added in bad faith? That is, the editor isn't trying, not even really incompetently, to improve the encyclopedia? Delete. Use curt edit summaries, like rvv. Avoid engaging the bad-faith editor. Is it BLP content? Remove immediately, linking to WP:BLP in the edit summary. Are you pretty sure it's unverifiable (that is, no sources exist, or it misrepresents the balance of sources)? If appropriate, replace with a sourced contradiction. Otherwise, remove, giving the reason and linking to WP:V in the edit summary. Is is probably verifiable, but you haven't checked? Ignore it; always an option on a volunteer project. This is more suitable for uncontroversial topics, and topics where misinformation is fairly inconsequential, and topics where misinformation is more likely to be fixed. It is also more suitable if you lack expertise or interest in the topic. There are other editors. Ask other editors to check. This is more suitable for controversial topics, expert topics, and topics where misinformation is dangerous andor unlikely to be fixed. Check Did you find sources? Add them. Are you having trouble finding sources? Ask the editor who added the content to add sources (this is most effective if done with inline tags; also sending a talk message is optional) Is finding sources impossible (that is, you've decided that it's unverifiable after all)? Modify the statement and cite it, if possible. Otherwise, delete with explanation, and engage with the editor as appropriate. Engage editors if they are new and well-intentioned but not yet competent. If you have to delete their edits, try to make sure they understand why; new editors often don't see edit summaries and talk pages notices. If possible, help them make a productive edit. It's a lot of work, but it significantly increases their chances of becoming long-term editors. If your actions retain a new editor, you've doubled your contribution to the project.

Does the imperative makes this sound patronising? The very basic level of some of the content? It's hard to write something that is clear to the newest editors without splaining anyone.

I'm mostly worried about editors (often with semi-automated tools) regularly deleting stuff with comments like "good content but needs sources, sorry", "probably true but removed cuz uncited", or just "removing unsourced content" (people making similar statements in discussions can just be replied to, templates not needed). In some cases a closer look shows that it's unverifiable, or BLP, or some such, but sometimes an editor will delete a lot of well-written, really easy-to-cite content, without any attempt at engaging a new editor, and will even indicate that they don't like doing this but think it's their duty, because unsourced content cannot be allowed in Misplaced Pages, even temporarily. I want to tell them there are alternatives. Perhaps we can narrow the template scope accordingly. HLHJ (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I think there's a few templates I would like to have but know shouldn't exist, and this is one of them. We only have standardized uw templates for fairly straightforward consequences of P&G, and it should likely stay that way. Having a direct extemporaneous conversation explaining "yes WP:BURDEN says what it says, but think about what we're trying to accomplish here" etc. will help users understand more than boilerplate could in this specific instance. Editors who don't learn how not to disrupt the encyclopedia are going to run into trouble in any case. Remsense ‥ 论 20:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. Okay, maybe a template isn't the best format for correcting the misconception I'm trying to correct. I admit I was hoping the mere existence of such a template would reduce the need for its use. An essay seems inadequate, though, and conversation doesn't always work. People are understandably very reluctant to give up on this misconception if they've removed a lot of content on that basis, and telling them it discourages new editors increases their reluctance to believe they didn't have to do it. HLHJ (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

They wrongly think all uncited content must be removed, not just WP:BLP content. This is not what policy says. It doesn't have to be removed, but it may be removed per WP:BURDEN. I do not see a problem here that cannot be covered by {{uw-bite}}. Cremastra (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I think there are cases where we can say it's bad that they're removing it, and WP:BURDEN is essentially a fig leaf enabling a certain compulsive behavior. Remsense ‥ 论 13:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Citing Misplaced Pages in Misplaced Pages

Do we have a warning template for people who cite Misplaced Pages in Misplaced Pages articles? I have looked, and cannot find one, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: There's the {{subst:Uw-unsourced1}} set; it says "you didn't provide a reliable source" - if they complain, explain that Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source, directing them to WP:CIRCULAR and possibly WP:SPS. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm looking for a template specifically referring to the issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Like this? User:Pigsonthewing/uw-wpsource1. Mathglot (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, but it turns out that what I wanted was {{Uw-circular}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Template:Uw-circular

Ah, that is useful, but the name is obscure. I'll create a redirect for it under {{uw-wpsource}} (which is where I looked), and if you would please create one for whatever search terms you used in trying to find it initially, that would help others in the same boat. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Mathglot (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• WikiProject User warnings