Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

You have a sentence or two at the top of this page for where to post for various kinds of topics, but nowhere (accessible) do you have an explanation of the steps in the proposal process or of ways to help shepherd the proposal to approval or even to get an acknowledgement of awareness by people who make decisions on proposals.

The lack of the explanation does not properly acknowledge people's efforts in making a proposal, and it can result in just a waste of time for the proposer and anyone who reads the proposal and especially comments on it. This ultimately discourages people from making proposals to try to improve Wikipedia.

Thank you for your consideration. ~2026-90420-1 (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Proposals are posted here and discussed by those interested in doing so to reach a consensus. For high profile issues, a mass message drawing attention can be sent out, though we try not to pester people, either.

The best thing that someone can do to persuade others to support a proposal is to explain what concern/issue the proposal is trying to remedy and why the proposal is the best way to do that.

I'm guessing you've wanted to offer proposals but have felt discouraged? Please offer one now, if desired. 331dot (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I actually already made a proposal, which did include the reasons for the proposal -- appearance and sustained readability. It was discussed on various points, people went out of their way to contribute some helpful graphics and other things, *there was no controversy to draw many comments*, and then nothing more happened, and it went to archive (227).

My point in this proposal about the explanation is that I have no idea how the proposal is supposed to get the attention of actual decision makers. I have no idea what progress would look like or what the criteria are to help the proposal go in that direction. And then there's no demonstrable justification for the proposal to just fade away.

That comes across as Wikipedia saying, "We just don't care. And we don't care that you put time and effort into proposing something, and that other people put time and effort into noticing it and commenting on it (and more). We just don;t care about the efforts of anyone who was involved in this proposal."

"And given that we don't explain anything about the process ahead of time, we don't care if you waste your time again in the future." I think that Wikipedia probably does care; that needs to be demonstrated. ~2026-15808-31 (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

There is not a single Wikipedia voice. The people who make decisions on proposals are you, me, and anyone else who comments. In practice, in order to get anything accepted, it needs someone (who may be the originator of the proposal) to run with it and ensure that consensus is enacted. You, too, can be that person. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

First, that's interesting information. And as I said, it should be included at the top of the Proposals page.

Second, included in the explanation of the proposal process, what does "run with it and ensure that consensus is enacted" actually mean? How is something enacted? ~2026-15808-31 (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

How something is enacted depends on what you're trying to do. If for example your proposal is to modify a particular policy or guideline, then you enact it by making the necessary edit. Athanelar (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. Again, it needs to be at the top of the page. And that needs to include how you know when consensus is reached to make the change appropriate. And how do you edit the Proposals page?

Also, the experience that led to this is the proposal that's now archived at 227, regarding another background color option. I program, but not web pages. That's a broadly technical change involving whatever the mechanism is to add the option where the Dark Mode option is, and changing at least one part of the CSS. Obviously, if not done correctly, this could be very harmful. So, who enacts that? (Who enacted the Dark Mode option?)

So again, it's important to have this information beforehand to be sure of how and where to guide any type of proposal, so that you don't just waste the time of anyone who contributes their time to the process.

227 is an example. It would indicate that this likely happens more regularly than that. So, that's a lot of wasted time. It's also a lot of missed opportunity to improve Wikipedia. How many good ideas have just faded away because the process wasn't handled as it needed to be? ~2026-15808-31 (talk) 05:58, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Are you talking about Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 227#General Background Color ? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes. ~2026-15808-31 (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

You could create a free account and post a feature request on Phab: for this. I'm doubtful that the team of professionals that spent multiple years designing and building the current look would be excited about this suggestion, but you never know if you don't ask.

Alternatively, have you looked into getting a plug-in or add-on for your browser, so you can change the appearance of any site you want? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I encountered what is very likely an objectionable illustration of what is likely intended to be a creature below age of consent on the encyclopedia. I reverted the edit and don't know what else I should do.

EDIT: Seeing that I have no replies, let me clarify: Furry Child Porn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phlogiston Enthusiast (talk • contribs) 20:11, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Aaaaaand why would we need a new policy with regards to this? It's very easy to argue that posting explicit cub artwork is de facto disruptive without needing a specific policy for it. (In fact I'd argue that, given it is illegal in some jurisdictions, there's literally no reason for us to use any sort of cub images.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

You know, Talk:Virgin Killer is still making people upset, so maybe we should consider a sort of blur filter + click-to-view-this-disturbing-and-maybe-illegal-somewhere-lead-image? Like how people post nsfw stuff on Discord? 3df (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

We already have Template:Hidden begin, which can be configured to float and have something like "Sensitive image" as the title (see example).
Such initiatives would require massive amounts of volunteer effort and time, though, because finding all such images and tagging them is nowhere near a trivial task, and I don't think it would be a productive use of either of these. ~2026-17718-24 (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

The images are already on an actively maintained list at WP:BIL. 3df (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Support removing content - Wikipedia is not censored and all, but we can't just use it as an excuse to post disgusting content on an encyclopedia, especially when it lacks educational justification.

Just like what Jeske said, certain countries have made laws that designate such content as illegal and I don't think that we should risk getting banned in these countries just because we want to die on a hill that'll tank our reputation.

Overall: I think that you are very justified to revert these edits and I'm willing to back you if possible

GuesanLoyalist (talk) 03:34, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the content in question was removed and the edits where it was added revision-deleted. Hence my comment about not needing a new policy above. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 03:48, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

So it was indeed removed? Thanks for telling me on that one GuesanLoyalist (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

The revisions were undeleted, @Jéské Couriano. Relevant discussion is at Talk:Yiff#Hidden page revisions. Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Topicstarter is talking about Clop (erotic fan art), if anyone is wondering. Looking at the picture - no, I don't think the character depicted is underage. sapphaline (talk) 08:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Though I agree that Commons' policy on CSAM doesn't seem to cover cub porn, especially when the character isn't really anthropomorphic. sapphaline (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Wasn't there some whole saga about this with Wales where him deleting some lolicon image on commons set off some whole controversy? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Look at the articles Decatur, Georgia and Decatur County, Georgia. (This is for all cities and counties in Georgia with the same name.)

I think there should be 2 special templates. One is for cities in Georgia that have the same name as a county in Georgia, and the other is for the reverse. For the first template, putting it in an article titled "X, Georgia" will automatically put in the heading "Not to be confused with X County, Georgia". Likewise, the putting the second template in an article titled "X County, Georgia" will automatically put in the heading "Not to be confused with X, Georgia". Any thoughts on such templates?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I think keeping the existing state of affairs is preferable to this proposal. Using a more general template (like Template:Distinguish, which is currently in use on those two articles) means that the templates are more able to accommodate potential page moves; the existing approach also makes maintenance simpler for editors who work on a wide range of topics, since they only need to be familiar with the general-purpose navigational hatnotes instead of needing to remember specific hatnotes for each topic area. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:37, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see the point of having such templates for all the states in the US, the Länder in Germany, the federal subjects in Russia, the provinces in China, the states in India etc. when there are probably only a few dozen such cases. We can deal with them without special templates. Or am I missing something and is there something different about Georgia? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Basically what it says on the tin. Wouldn't be that hard to code, ensures that people can always find someone active with that userright from the category, and prevents accidental "stolen valor" from people who forget to or can't remove the userbox. (I mean ideally, they should be going to listusers, but still.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:25, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Some but not all userboxes have a "former" parameter (e.g., Template:User Wikipedia/Administrator); it seems like it would be less disruptive to flip that switch. Also, I think this would perhaps be better as a database report than as a bot task? That would at least give a better sense of how many we're talking. My hunch is dozens, not thousands. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:15, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

For a quick sanity check, I just went through Category:Wikipedia administrators, Category:Wikipedia interface administrators, Category:Wikipedia checkusers, and Category:Wikipedia oversighters, and found no issues. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:17, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I can do a database report first, and yeah, happy to flip the |former switch instead; those are pretty small/well-trafficked categories, look at Category:Wikipedia autopatrollers. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:20, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

looks like that param is only there for some userboxen? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

This is something I run an occasional script for, at least for the most significant rights. There might be a handful to do every few months. Category:Wikipedia checkusers currently contains two non-holders, Category:Wikipedia oversighters contains one, Category:Wikipedia administrators contains about two (all of which are not overly urgent). There's some others in subcategories. A couple of observations: 1) this is a great way to find troublemakers (Special:Diff/1343649183 just one variation) and you might need to fix other things. 2) You'll often have to sift through an assortment of subpages and transclusions (example). 3) You'll sometimes come across deceased users, and others with recent rights, where some sensitivity/delay will probably be appropriate. For those reasons I'd recommend the DB report method (and as many |former= parameters as you can make). Also, just give me a shout if you want a copy of the script (it's not currently on-wiki). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:12, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

fair enough, database report it is! i'll set it up :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:15, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: I imagine this might not be directly relevant, depending on what you code, but I think it's only fair to point out a previous ANI discussion tangential to such things. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:02, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

all right, got a list going: User:GalliumBot/taurus theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:54, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. I suspect this is mostly due to Wikipedia talk:Autopatrolled#RfC: Inactivity requirements for autopatrolled, which resulted in ~1,200 accounts losing this user right. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I would like to propose updating Wikipedia's copyright classification for works by governmental entities in the State of Tennessee. These works should be considered to be in the public domain, mirroring Wikipedia's classification for works of governmental entities in the State of California.

Pieces of media created by California governmental entities are marked as being in the public domain and accompanied by the following notice in the "Licensing" section:

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the State of California that was in any way "involved in the governmental process" and "prepared, owned, used or retained by any state or local agency" or officer. That work is available pursuant to court interpretation of the Sunshine Amendment of the Constitution of California, and/or the California Public Records Act (CPRA), which contained no relevant provision(s) for copyright.

It is not copyrighted because (lacking an exception in statute like those for works of the Department of Toxic Substances Control or works of certain colleges established by statute) "unrestricted disclosure is required".

See County of Santa Clara v. CFAC. In brief, the "CPRA contains no provisions either for copyrighting [this work] or for conditioning its release on an end user or licensing agreement by the requester. The record thus must be disclosed as provided in the CPRA, without any such conditions or limitations." Subject to general disclaimers.

PD Public domain false false

As the notice states, Wikipedia's designation of works by California governmental entities as being in the public domain stems from the California Courts of Appeal's decision in County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition.

In contrast, pieces of media created by Tennessee governmental entities are either not included due to copyright concerns (such as the lack of official government portraits for Tennessee state elected officials), or included under fair use and accompanied by a notice like the following in the "Licensing" section:

This logo is an official seal of a governmental entity or one of its government agencies, and may be subject to copyright, trademark, and/or other restrictions on its reproduction, especially in commercial contexts. The copyright is likely held by the government or agency in question. It is believed that the use of images of seals

• to illustrate the government or agency in question
• on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under the Copyright law of the United States. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement.

Use of this seal here does not imply endorsement by Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation, nor does it imply endorsement of Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation by the organization. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Logos for more information.
Fair use //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)

true

However, like California, media from Tennessee governmental entities should be designated as being in the public domain due to the Tennessee Court of Appeals' 2023 decision in Public.Resource.Org v. Matthew Bender (available here: ). Citing the US Supreme Court in Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., the Tennessee Court of Appeals held that works authored by an arm of the state "in the course of its official duties" are legally "ineligible for copyright protection." Therefore, all materials produced by Tennessee governmental entities are inherently in the public domain. Just as Wikipedia points to County of Santa Clara to consider works by California governmental entities as being in the public domain, Wikipedia should, under the court's ruling in Matthew Bender, likewise consider works by Tennessee governmental entities as being in the public domain, and a bot should be used to update the copyright classification of the applicable media on Wikipedia. Thank you for your time! ToxicOJ (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if this needs to be run by the WMF's lawyers. 331dot (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I mean it sounds correct, but I'm neither American nor a lawyer. This doesn't seem like something we should be changing based off an editor consensus of it seeming correct. It's best to have someone with expertise look at it. ―Maltazarian ^{(talk${\displaystyle \lor }$investigate)} 21:03, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

This is really more of an issue for Commons, but I don't think that decision says what you think it does: unless I'm missing something, the court is just holding that the Tennessee Code Annotated is uncopyrightable under federal law (see government edicts doctrine/Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.), not that Tennessee disclaims its interest in works that are copyrightable under federal law. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

You’re absolutely correct that the Tennessee Code Annotated was the sole work at issue in the case. However, the reason this decision makes all other works created by Tennessee governmental entities public domain is the underlying reasoning behind the decision. The court held that the TCA was ineligible for copyright because it was created by an arm of the state "in the course of its official duties" and is therefore legally "ineligible for copyright protection." This ruling inherently means that all works created by an arm of the state in the course of its official duties are in the public domain. This is just like the California case, where the only work at issue was a GIS map. The court’s underlying reasoning was that, because that single map was created by a California governmental entity, it is in the public domain. This ruling inherently meant that other similarly situated California works are in the public domain as well. This reasoning was sufficient for Wikipedia to classify all other similarly situated California works as public domain. The same should be true in the wake of the Tennessee case. ToxicOJ (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer and neither are you, but this decision explicitly relies on the government edicts doctrine to find that the Tennessee body of law is uncopyrightable, annotations or no, and cites the Supreme Court case about Georgia's similarly-annotated laws. The California case doesn't - the map data isn't covered by the doctrine or the Supreme Court case, and it was decided on state law and the state's constitution. —Cryptic 07:23, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the Tennessee and California courts rely on different authority to reach their conclusions. However, their conclusions are substantively the same. The fundamental takeaway in both cases is that the California and Tennessee governments cannot claim a copyright in their work. In Tennessee, it's because the works are ineligible for copyright under Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., and in California, it's because California state law provides no authority to claim copyright in the works; the end result is exactly the same. Each court just uses a different road to reach the same destination. Further, Tennessee specifically addresses your argument that this only applies to Tennessee's body of law. The court refutes this point by stating that it determines copyright eligibility based on "a straightforward rule based on the identity of the author" (i.e. Tennessee governmental entities), and that this standard "applies regardless of whether a given material carries the force of law." ToxicOJ (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

You're just quoting the U.S. Supreme Court's description of the government edicts doctrine. Nothing in the opinion indicates that it applies outside that context. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I am quoting the Supreme Court because the Tennessee Court of Appeals directly quotes Georgia as their main justification in Matthew Bender, and the Tennessee court adopts the U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning as its own. This is shown in their statement following their direct quote of Georgia, in which the Tennessee court plainly states that "The U.S. Supreme Court in Georgia was sweeping in its analysis of the government edicts doctrine. That analysis yields the same result in the appeal at bar." ToxicOJ (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Exactly, the Tennessee court is just applying U.S. Supreme Court precedent on the government-edicts doctrine. Clearly that doctrine doesn't apply to seals and portraits and the like. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the court is applying the government edicts doctrine. However, the court makes clear that Tennessee's standard for what is considered a government edict for purposes of copyright ineligibility under the government edicts doctrine is determined by authorship alone. As I quoted above, the court stated that Tennessee employs "a straightforward rule based on the identity of the author." Therefore, if a work is created by an arm of the state "in the course of its official duties," Tennessee considers that work to fall under the government edicts doctrine and be legally "ineligible for copyright protection." While the title "government edicts doctrine" may appear to limit itself to laws only, the court explicitly rejected this limitation by stating that this standard "applies regardless of whether a given material carries the force of law." In fact, the court conspicuously places no limitations on what types of government-created material can meet this authorship standard. This means that seals and portraits and the like, as long as they satisfy the court's "straightforward rule" of authorship, Tennessee therefore considers it ineligible for copyright. ToxicOJ (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Right, right. Just wondering, are you by any chance a member of the American Bar Association? ―Maltazarian ^{(talk${\displaystyle \lor }$investigate)} 20:18, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I’m a law student, and I have an American Bar Association student membership, but I’m assuming that you’re mainly looking for whether if I’m a bar-licensed attorney, which I’m not. I agree with your earlier comment that it would be best to have an attorney from Wikipedia give their input. If you know how to get in touch with them or how to fold them into this discussion, I would absolutely welcome that. At the end of the day, Wikipedia editors make copyright determinations for tons of media all of the time. Just as previous editors ultimately decided to classify California government works as public domain because of changes to the law, I'm simply advocating for my view that a similar change for Tennessee works would likewise better align with recent changes in the law and improve Wikipedia. My view may totally be in the minority, and that's ok! After my research on the topic, I just figured that it at least was worthy of discussion. ToxicOJ (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Actually you being a student member does make me take you more seriously. I mean as far as I could tell you could just as well just be some guy going entirely off vibes, and I wasn't expecting anything else so I'm pleasantly surprised that you actually have some clue what you're talking about. I still think we should get further input but I'm certainly not dismissing your opinion here. ―Maltazarian ^{(talk${\displaystyle \lor }$investigate)} 21:51, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I've dropped a line at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 03:50, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

From my reading (though I am not a lawyer), ToxicOJ is right. This is more a discussion for commons and we should probably run it through a few people before going forward with a commons tag or anything. Maybe we can consult the WMF copyright people? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I've made a table of pages in the active-editing categories that haven't been edited in 3–10 days – see User:GalliumBot/sinusoid. I don't think it'd be too difficult from there to write a short script to just go through the entries that haven't been edited in too long (say, >10 days) and just get rid of them. (In use tags older than 12 hours would get converted to under construction tags.) Thoughts? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:31, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

(obviously, would deal with the test cases that aren't supposed to be transcluding into the category manually.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:35, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: JL-Bot already does this. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 18:21, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Huh. Then why so many old ones on the list still? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:27, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

ah, I see it doesn't seem to work for drafts and some niche templates. Maybe JL-Bot's role could be expanded? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:27, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Just took a quick glance at the code; adding more templates seems simple (see line 31), but I'm not sure what's happening with those drafts. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 19:46, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

It seems to work just fine in draftspace though. Draft:Lun Htin does use {{New article}} which could be causing the issue, but Draft:Neo-illuminism uses {{In use}}. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 20:36, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

That task currently only runs in article space. For the draft articles in 45dogs' link above, if you check the draft's history, the bot removed the template while the article was in article space and then the article was moved to draft space afterwards. It would be trivial to expand the processing to draft space. It would also be trivial to add newer templates (since the bot task was created) to be checked for removal, I would just need to know which ones. If there is community agreement on making those changes, I can run it by the Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group and implement. -- JLaTondre (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Extending to draft space would be a speedy approval too. Just make a new thread in the original BRFA and ping me, or make a new BRFA and ping me and I'll review and rubber stamp things as needed. Assuming everything's fine and dandy and all. Which I expect them to be. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:23, 25 March 2026 (UTC)