Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:01, 26 June 2025

Latest revision as of 12:01, 25 August 2025

(25 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)

Line 2:

{{rfclistintro}}

</noinclude>

'''[[Wikipedia talk:GoodVillage articlepump nominations(proposals)#rfc_398BA4Arfc_BBD4CC3|Wikipedia talk:GoodVillage articlepump nominations(proposals)]]'''

{{rfcquote|text=

Should the Contents link be removed from the sidebar? [[User:Interstellarity|Interstellarity]] ([[User talk:Interstellarity|talk]]) 13:20, 22 August 2025 (UTC)}}

Proposal: some nominations will not be displayed on [[Wikipedia:Good article nominations|the GAN page]] if the backlog is high, the nominator has a low ratio of reviews to GAs, the nominator has more than one nomination waiting, and the nominator has more than some minimum number of GAs total. Support comments for this proposal may indicate a preference for these numbers that differs from the recommended numbers given in this RfC (see example !vote below). The RfC will only pass if there are not only enough supports, but there is consensus for each of the three numbers that must be agreed on. Initial recommendations for those numbers are included in this RfC but commenters may choose to support other values for those numbers as they see fit.

'''[[Wikipedia:Village pump (WMFpolicy)#rfc_679849Brfc_D90E1F5|Wikipedia:Village pump (WMFpolicy)]]'''

{{rfcquote|text=

We had an RFC earlier this year around how to handle LLM/AI generated comments. That resulted in [[WP:HATGPT]] after further discussion at [[WT:TPG]]. Recently, an editor [[Special:Diff/1304748131|started a requested move using LLM generated content]]. I ran that content through two different AI/LLM detection utilities: GPT Zero says "highly confident", and 100% AI generated; Quillbot stated 72% of the text was likely AI generated.

Should HATGPT be expanded to allow for the closure of discussions seeking community input (RFC/VPR/CENT/RFAR/AFD/RM/TFD/RFD/FFD/etc) that are started utilizing content that registers as being majority written by AI?

The nominations to display on WP:GAN will be determined as follows.

* If the total number of nominated GANs (including ones already under review) is less than or equal to '''825''' (MAX_BACKLOG), all GANs are displayed.

* Otherwise, any nomination for which any of the following statements are true is displayed:

** The nomination is already under review

** The nominator has at most '''3''' (MAX_GAS) promoted GAs

** The nomination was made prior to RFC_IMPLEMENTED_DATE (the date on which this is implemented, if it passes)

** The nominator has a review-to-GA ratio greater than or equal to '''0.95''' (MIN_RG_RATIO) (measured either over the whole history of GA reviews, or from RFC_IMPLEMENTED_DATE, whichever is most favourable). This ratio will be calculated to only include completed (promoted or failed) GAs and reviews; nominations and reviews in process will not be counted in the ratio. A GA that has later been demoted, or promoted to FA, will still count as a promoted GA for this purpose.

** The nomination is the oldest nomination for that nominator.

* Any nomination not displayed per the rule above is a "deferrable" nomination; the other nominations are "visible" nominations.

** If the number of visible nominations is greater than or equal to MAX_BACKLOG, no deferrable nominations are displayed.

** Otherwise the oldest deferrable nominations are displayed, but only as many as necessary to have a total of MAX_BACKLOG nominations displayed.

I was tempted to just start an RFC on this, but if there's alternate proposals or an existing [[WP:PAG]] that already covers this, I'm all ears. =) —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 00:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)}}

The GAN page will include a comment indicating how many nominations are deferred but not listing the nominations themselves. The deferred nominations can still be reviewed by a user who visits the article's talk page and starts the review from that page, but there will be no link from the GAN page to those nominations. However, the nominations will still be listed in [[User:ChristieBot/SortableGANoms]] and [[User:SDZeroBot/GAN sorting]].

'''[[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#rfc_F2BDF5D|Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)]]'''

If you oppose this proposal regardless of how these values are chosen, simply '''oppose''' in the support/oppose section below. If you support this proposal, please indicate your preference for the three parameters: MAX_BACKLOG, MAX_GAS, and MIN_RG_RATIO. To the closer: if there is overall consensus for support, please indicate what level of these numbers has consensus. For the first two, a preference for a lower number indicates agreeement to any higher number as well; for the third parameter it is the reverse. For example, if someone supports 700, 0, and 1.0, they can be assumed to support 800, 2, and 0.95, as those are more lenient values for those parameters.

The value of these three parameters may change in the future; this would be determined by consensus discussions at [[Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations|WT:GAN]].

Example !votes:

* '''Support'''. MAX_BACKLOG should be at least 750, MAX_GAS at least 2, and MIN_RG_RATIO should be no more than 1.0. [[User:Example|Example user 1]]

* '''Support'''. Agree with the recommended numbers, except that MAX_GAs should be 3. [[User:Example|Example user 2]]

* '''Oppose'''. I think this proposal is a bad idea, no matter which numbers are chosen. [[User:Example|Example user 3]]

-- [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 11:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)}}

'''[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Temporary account IP-viewer#rfc_EA00C59|Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Temporary account IP-viewer]]'''

{{rfcquote|text=

WhatShould shouldthe icons in the minimum[[Module:Message criteriabox/configuration|message forbox grantingmodule]] be updated from the TAIVcurrent userAmbox rightones rightto bethe Codex ones? 1713:0156, 2111 JuneAugust 2025 (UTC)}}

'''[[Talk:Pope Leo XIV#rfc_226E820|Talk:Pope Leo XIV]]'''

{{rfcquote|text=

Should the introduction use a '''comma''' or a '''semi-colon''' between the birth name and the birth date? 13:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)}}

'''[[Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria#rfc_76423A4|Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria]]'''

{{rfcquote|text=

Should understandability be added to the featured article criteria? And if so, which wording should be used?

# It should be added to the well-written criterion as

## '''well-written''': its prose is engaging, [[WP:MTAU|understandable]] to a broad audience, and of a professional standard;

## '''well-written''': its prose is engaging, [[WP:MTAU|understandable]] to its [[WP:audience|audience]], and of a professional standard;

# It should be a separate criterion: 1g. '''[[WP:MTAU|Understandable]]''' to its [[WP:audience|audience]].

# Status quo: no explicit mention

[[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 11:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)}}

'''[[Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#rfc_679849B|Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)]]'''

{{rfcquote|text=

Should the English Wikipedia community adopt a position on AI development by the WMF and affiliates?

This is a statement-and-agreement-style RfC. 05:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{RFC list footer|prop|hide_instructions={{{hide_instructions}}} }}