Editing Eurovision Wiki:Village pump (proposals)

<noinclude>
{{short description|Discussion page for new proposals}}{{Village pump page header|Proposals|alpha=yes|
{{redirect|WP:PROPOSE|proposing article deletion|Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|and|Wikipedia:Deletion requests}}The '''proposals''' section of the [[Wikipedia:Village pump|village pump]] is used to offer specific changes for discussion. ''Before submitting'':
* Check to see whether your proposal is already described at '''[[Wikipedia:Perennial proposals|Perennial proposals]]'''. You may also wish to search the [[Wikipedia:FAQ index|FAQ]].
* This page is for '''concrete, actionable''' proposals. Consider developing earlier-stage proposals at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)|Village pump (idea lab)]].
* This is a high-visibility page intended for proposals with significant impact. Proposals that '''affect only a single page''' or small group of pages should be held at a corresponding [[Help:Talk pages|talk page]].
* Proposed '''policy''' changes belong at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)|Village pump (policy)]].
* Proposed '''WikiProjects''' or '''task forces''' may be submitted at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals]].
* Proposed '''new articles''' belong at [[Wikipedia:Requested articles]].
* Discussions or proposals which warrant the '''attention or involvement of the Wikimedia Foundation''' belong at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)]].
* '''Software''' changes which have consensus should be filed at [[phabricator:|Phabricator]].
Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for {{Th/abp|age|{{{root|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|cfg={{{cfg|1}}}|round=y}} {{Th/abp|units|{{{root|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|cfg={{{cfg|1}}}|round=y}}.<!--
Villagepumppages intro end
-->|WP:VPR|WP:VP/PR}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{centralized discussion|compact=yes}}
<!-- This notice should be automatically hidden unless the page size is excessive -->{{#ifexpr:{{PAGESIZE:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|R}} >= 400000|{{notice|This page is too big.  Excessive page size can cause [[Wikipedia:Accessibility|accessibility]] problems for some editors.  Please temporarily speed up the page archiving rate or split large discussions to separate subpages.}}}}
__TOC__
{{anchor|below_toc}}
[[Category:Wikipedia village pump]]
[[Category:Wikipedia proposals| ]]
[[Category:Non-talk pages with subpages that are automatically signed|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:Pages automatically checked for incorrect links]]
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(7d)
| archive = Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 227
| maxarchivesize = 300K
| archiveheader = {{Wikipedia:Village pump/Archive header}} 
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 5
}}</noinclude>
{{clear}}

== RfC: Should we deprecate [[WP:RfA]]? ==
{{Discussion top|reason=No previous discussion. And the premise is false, [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vacant0]] was closed just a week ago [[User:Cambalachero|Cambalachero]] ([[User talk:Cambalachero|talk]]) 19:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)}}
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 16:01, 13 March 2026 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1773417667}}
This process has seen rare usgae, even its counterpart [[WP:RfB]] is not even used. Should we deprecate it? [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-36939-5|&#126;2026-36939-5]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-36939-5|talk]]) 15:56, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
===Survey===
*'''Deprecate''' per my ratioanle. [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-36939-5|&#126;2026-36939-5]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-36939-5|talk]]) 16:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' in the absence of an [[WP:RFCBEFORE]], this should be speedily closed as premature. It would only be feasible if [[WP:AELECT]] were significantly expanded anyway. [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-80954-2|&#126;2026-80954-2]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-80954-2|talk]]) 16:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
{{Discussion bottom}}

== Zoom-in for fossil ranges ==

{{Automatic taxobox| fossil_range = Middle [[Eocene]] – Early [[Oligocene]] {{fossil range|43.5|32.5}}{{Period fossil range|Paleogene|43.5|32.5}} | image = Museum of Natural History Palaeotherium magnum.jpg | taxon = Palaeotherium | name = Palaeotherium | display_parents = 0| authority = [[George Cuvier|Cuvier]], 1804
| type_species = {{extinct}}'''''Palaeotherium magnum'''''
| type_species_authority = Cuvier, 1804
| subdivision_ranks = Other species
| subdivision = {{species list
 |{{extinct}}'''''P.&nbsp;medium'''''|Cuvier, 1804
 |{{extinct}}'''''P.&nbsp;crassum'''''|Cuvier, 1805
 |{{extinct}}'''''P.&nbsp;curtum'''''|Cuvier, 1812
 |{{extinct}}'''''P.&nbsp;duvali'''''|[[Auguste Pomel|Pomel]], 1853
 |{{extinct}}'''''P.&nbsp;castrense'''''|[[Jean-Baptiste Noulet|Noulet]], 1863
 |{{extinct}}'''''P.&nbsp;siderolithicum'''''|[[François Jules Pictet de la Rive|Pictet]] & [[Aloïs Humbert|Humbert]], 1869
 |{{extinct}}'''''P.&nbsp;eocaenum'''''|[[Paul Gervais|Gervais]], 1875
 |{{extinct}}'''''P.&nbsp;lautricense'''''|[[Hans Georg Stehlin|Stehlin]], 1904
 |{{extinct}}'''''P.&nbsp;muehlbergi'''''|Stehlin, 1904
 |{{extinct}}'''''P.&nbsp;renevieri'''''|Stehlin, 1904
 |{{extinct}}'''''P.&nbsp;ruetimeyeri'''''|Stehlin, 1904
 |{{extinct}}'''''P.&nbsp;pomeli'''''|[[Jens Lorenz Franzen|Franzen]], 1968
 |{{extinct}}'''''P.&nbsp;crusafonti'''''|Casanovas-Cladellas, 1975
 |{{extinct}}'''''P.&nbsp;llamaquiquense'''''|Casanovas-Cladellas & Santafé Llopis, 1991
 |{{extinct}}'''''P.&nbsp;giganteum'''''|Cuesta, 1993
}}
''For subspecies suggested, see [[#Inner systematics|below]].''
| synonyms = {{collapsible list|bullets = true|title=<small>Genus synonymy</small>
 | ''Paleotherium'' {{small|Cuvier, 1804}}
 | ''Paloeotherium'' {{small|Cuvier, 1804}}
 | ''Palaetherium'' {{small|[[Constantine Samuel Rafinesque|Rafinesque]], 1814}}
 | ''Paloetherium'' {{small|Rafinesque, 1814}}
 | ''Salaeotherium'' {{small|[[François Désiré Roulin|Roulin]], 1829}}
 | ''Palacotherium'' {{small|[[Christian Erich Hermann von Meyer|von Meyer]], 1838}}
}}
{{collapsible list|bullets = true
 |title=<small>Synonyms of ''P.&nbsp;magnum''</small>
 |''Palaeotherium girondicum'' {{small|[[Henri Marie Ducrotay de Blainville|Blainville]], 1846}}
 |''Palaeotherium aniciense'' {{small|[[Paul Gervais|Gervais]], 1848–1852}}
 |''Palaeotherium subgracile'' {{small|[[Auguste Aymard|Aymard]], 1853}}
 |''Palaeotherium magnum parisiense'' {{small|Gervais, 1859}}
 |''Palaeotherium stehlini'' {{small|[[Charles Depéret|Depéret]], 1917}}
 |''Palaeotherium franzeni'' {{small|Casanovas-Cladellas & Santafé Llopis, 1980}}
}}
{{collapsible list|bullets = true
 |title=<small>Synonyms of ''P.&nbsp;medium''</small>
 |''Palaeotherium brivatense'' {{small|[[Auguste Bravard|Bravard]], 1843}}
 |''Palaeotherium suevicum'' {{small|Fraas, 1869}}
 |''Palaeotherium möschi'' {{small|Stehlin, 1904}}
 |''Palaeotherium euzetense'' {{small|Depéret, 1917}}
}}
{{collapsible list|bullets = true
 |title=<small>Synonyms of ''P.&nbsp;crassum''</small>
 |''Palaeotherium indeterminatum'' {{small|Cuvier, 1822}}
}}
{{collapsible list|bullets = true
 |title=<small>Synonyms of ''P.&nbsp;curtum''</small>
 |''Palaeotherium latum'' {{small|Cuvier, 1822}}
 |''Palaeotherium buseri'' {{small|Stehlin, 1904}}
}}
{{collapsible list|bullets = true
 |title=<small>Synonyms of ''P.&nbsp;duvali''</small>
 |''Palaeotherium heimi'' {{small|Stehlin, 1904}}
 |''Palaeotherium kleini'' {{small|[[Wilhelm Otto Dietrich|Dietrich]], 1922}}
}}
{{collapsible list|bullets = true
 |title=<small>Synonyms of ''P.&nbsp;castrense''</small>
 |''Paloplotherium magnum'' {{small|[[Ludwig Ruetimeyer|Ruetimeyer]], 1891}}
}}
{{collapsible list|bullets = true
 |title=<small>Synonyms of ''P.&nbsp;siderolithicum''</small>
 |''Plagiolophus siderolithicus'' {{small|Pictet & Humbert, 1869}}
}}
{{collapsible list|bullets = true
 |title=<small>Synonyms of ''P.&nbsp;eocaenum''</small>
 |''Paloplotherium depereti'' {{small|Stehlin, 1902}}
}}
{{collapsible list|bullets = true
 |title=<small>Synonyms of ''P.&nbsp;muehlbergi''</small>
 |''Palaeotherium velaunum'' {{small|Blainville, 1848}}
}}
{{collapsible list|bullets = true
 |title=<small>Dubious species</small>
 |''Palaeotherium gracile'' {{small|von Meyer, 1839}}
 |''Palaeotherium parvulum'' {{small|[[Pierre Toussaint Marcel de Serres de Mesplès|de Serres]], 1844}}
 |''Palaeotherium commune'' {{small|Blainville, 1846}}
 |''Palaeotherium primaevum'' {{small|Aymard, 1853}}
 |''Palaeotherium gervaisii'' {{small|Aymard, 1853}}
}}
}}

Hi folks! A proposal for [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology#Zoom-in_for_fossil_ranges|providing zoomed-in fossil ranges]] focusing on a single period, with {{tl|Period fossil range}}, was discussed on [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology]], which received broad support for being used in specific cases. It would show up in addition to the main range generated by {{tl|Geological range}} (for example in taxoboxes or formation infoboxes). Some editors suggested querying broader input outside of the WikiProject, so I am asking here if anyone has feedback about it!

Here is an example to the right, suggested by [[User:IJReid]]! Beyond this one, all 12 possible bars can be found at {{tl|Period fossil range/rangebar}}. Courtesy ping to people in the earlier thread: @[[User:The Morrison Man|The Morrison Man]] @[[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] @[[User:African Mud Turtle|African Mud Turtle]] @[[User:LittleLazyLass|LittleLazyLass]] @[[User:IJReid|IJReid]] @[[User:Jens Lallensack|Jens Lallensack]] [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 20:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

:It feels like a useful inclusion for us at our WikiProject, but there is always the worry that by including additional "technical" details we could oversaturate the infobox with details that are in some way against the interest of informing those who aren't as knowledgable about the geologic time scale. Input on its appearance and intuitive use would be appreciated; does it make sense in the example infobox on the right here how the timescale bars are related among other things. '''[[User:IJReid|IJReid]]'''&nbsp;<sup><small>{<nowiki />{[[User talk:IJReid#top|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/IJReid|C]] - [[WP:DINO|D]] - [[WP:TREEREQ|R]]}<nowiki />}</small></sup> 03:40, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
::I appreciate your reasonable concern about oversaturation, but the infobox on the right seems way shorter than the chemboxes that we currently have at pages like [[Calcium]]. [[User:LightNightLights|LightNightLights]] ([[User talk:LightNightLights|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/LightNightLights|contribs]]) 17:26, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
:::For the sake of completion I have modified it to include the entire contents, originally it was abbreviated to focus just on the upper region. '''[[User:IJReid|IJReid]]'''&nbsp;<sup><small>{<nowiki />{[[User talk:IJReid#top|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/IJReid|C]] - [[WP:DINO|D]] - [[WP:TREEREQ|R]]}<nowiki />}</small></sup> 17:38, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
::::{{small|([[Special:Permalink/1341719594#Zoom-in for fossil ranges|partial-contents permalink]])}} I see; thank you for that! That does change things a bit: still shorter with lists collapsed than Calcium, but still long. We probably should have a mandatory maximum infobox size but thinking about it, that's a discussion for Wikipedia at large, not Wikipedia's taxonomy infoboxes in specific. [[User:LightNightLights|LightNightLights]] ([[User talk:LightNightLights|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/LightNightLights|contribs]]) 19:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::For what it's worth, ''Palaeotherium'' is a bit extreme in having such a long list of species and synonyms. Many fossil genera have only one species and few if any synonyms, and thus have very short taxoboxes. Giving a "see text" notice as with ''[[Dimetrodon]]'' is also an option when it simply becomes too much, or collapsing the list as at [[Titanosauria]]. [[User:LittleLazyLass|'''<span style="color:#BA55D3">LittleLazyLass</span>''']] ([[User_talk:LittleLazyLass|Talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/LittleLazyLass|Contributions]]) 19:39, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
{{Automatic taxobox
|name=Horodyskia
|fossil_range = Middle [[Calymmian]] – Late [[Ediacaran]] {{long fossil range|1480|550}}{{Period fossil range|Proterozoic|1480|550}}{{Period fossil range|Mesoproterozoic|1480|550}}
| image = Horodyskia moniliformis holotype.png
| image_caption = The holotype fossil of ''Horodyskia
| taxon = Horodyskia
}}
{{automatic taxobox
| name = Primates
| fossil_range = {{Fossil range|65.9|0|earliest=85}}{{Period fossil range|Cenozoic|65.9|0}}
[[Early Paleocene]] to [[Holocene|Present]]
|taxon=Primates
}}
:I've been playing around with this template in my sandbox and I really like the idea. Is there a plan to add graphical support for the Precambrian? I see that the template documentation says that {{tq|Periods before the [[Cambrian]] are not formally subdivided into epochs or ages, and this template will not work on them}}, however, I feel like it could be possible to add this support, maybe on a different scale? As an example, I added an infobox excerpted from ''[[Horodyskia]]'' with the template added twice. The first bar is using the parameter <code>Proterozoic</code> (an [[Eon (geology)|eon]]) and the second bar is using the template <code>Mesoproterozoic</code> (an [[Era (geology)|era]]). The bar appears to display correctly in both cases (the runoff is expected as the [[Mesoproterozoic]] ends midway through ''Horodyskia'''s range), just without the graphics. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">[[User:Mdm.Bla|<span style="color: DarkGreen">md</span>]][[User talk:Mdm.Bla|<span style="color: Indigo">m.b</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Mdm.Bla|<span style="color: Maroon">la</span>]]</span> 18:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
::Yep, now that I think about it, that could also be a great addition! I'll try to see if I can set this up for the Proterozoic as a demo. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 18:25, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Additionally, not sure of the reason behind this, but the {{tl|All time 250px}} template is wider than the Phanerozoic one (which is 220px). Should they be uniformized, or should I make a separate 250px wide template for Precambrian subdivisions? [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 18:32, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
::::They can probably just be uniformized. [[Template:All time 250px]] also appears to display as a larger font than [[Template:Phanerozoic 220px]]. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">[[User:Mdm.Bla|<span style="color: DarkGreen">md</span>]][[User talk:Mdm.Bla|<span style="color: Indigo">m.b</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Mdm.Bla|<span style="color: Maroon">la</span>]]</span> 18:40, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
::Added a slight fix so the bars wouldn't have runoff, and are instead displayed as open on that side if there would have been some. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 19:36, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
* In the first example, the meaning is not intuitively accessible from the display. I spent awhile thinking the longer green bar was intended for the upper line of geological periods, as its green bar is very small. Would it work if the second bar is below the zoom in? [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 08:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC) 
*:That could work! Although I'm not sure of the effect of having the more detailed/technical bar first. Alternatively, we could have the green bar on the bottom side of the second bar, or even just space them up by a few more pixels? [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 09:24, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
*::I believe having it on the bottom of the second bar is what they were suggesting. [[User:LittleLazyLass|'''<span style="color:#BA55D3">LittleLazyLass</span>''']] ([[User_talk:LittleLazyLass|Talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/LittleLazyLass|Contributions]]) 14:20, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::How would that work when there are more than two bars?
*:::Either some sort of highlight (surrounding circle?) when a bar is narrower than (some amount) to make it more prominent or (probably more difficult to implement) a link between the bars would be clearer imo. c.f. [[:File:Vatican_Europe_Location.svg]]. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 14:42, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
*::::From what I understand, there shouldn't be more than 2 bars per infobox if/when this is added to mainspace. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">[[User:Mdm.Bla|<span style="color: DarkGreen">md</span>]][[User talk:Mdm.Bla|<span style="color: Indigo">m.b</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Mdm.Bla|<span style="color: Maroon">la</span>]]</span> 14:47, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::::Yep, that's also what I'm having in mind. The only case where nested bars could be possible is the one to the right (as both the Proterozoic and its eras have bars), but in that case we should just pick the most precise one that fully covers the range (in this case, the Proterozoic as a whole, as the Mesoproterozoic one sees half the range be cut off).{{pb}}A link between the bars could also be possible, I'll have to look into it. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 15:01, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
*::::::I mean, theoretically you could have era-level bars for the Phanerozoic as well (see example for ''[[Primates]]'' with the parameter <code>Cenozoic</code>), but at that point you might as well just also create [[Template:Era fossil range]]. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">[[User:Mdm.Bla|<span style="color: DarkGreen">md</span>]][[User talk:Mdm.Bla|<span style="color: Indigo">m.b</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Mdm.Bla|<span style="color: Maroon">la</span>]]</span> 15:11, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::::::Honestly, it makes sense for the Cenozoic as its periods are already quite short and you're likely to see ranges overlapping (especially between Neogene and Quaternary), but in that case, you wouldn't want another period-level range below it. Also, given the already broadened scope, I'm open to renaming the template something like {{tl|Detailed fossil range}}. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 15:21, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
{{Automatic taxobox| fossil_range = Middle [[Eocene]] – Early [[Oligocene]] {{fossil range|43.5|32.5}}{{Period fossil range/sandbox|Paleogene|43.5|32.5}} | taxon = Palaeotherium | name = Palaeotherium | image = Museum of Natural History Palaeotherium magnum.jpg | display_parents = 0 | authority = [[George Cuvier|Cuvier]], 1804}}
*:::::::For comparison, here's the sandbox version with the zoom-in and the bars on the lower side. Not especially a fan of that alternate design, although if the community prefers it I'd be happy to go with it. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 13:16, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
*::::::::On second thoughts, that design is starting to grow on me, especially on a full-width infobox where it doesn't look too busy. Still torn between both, personally. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 16:18, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::::::::I do think the addition of the zoom-in makes this a favourable version, could help with any confusion as to how the bars relate to one another. [[User:LittleLazyLass|'''<span style="color:#BA55D3">LittleLazyLass</span>''']] ([[User_talk:LittleLazyLass|Talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/LittleLazyLass|Contributions]]) 16:32, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
{{Outdent}}
:I very much like this template as an idea, and quite like the current implementation. Although the template could use much better documentation. I also prefer the version with the zoom-in and bar on the lower side (can we just call it option 2?). However, in the case of the zoom-in on option 2, I'm uncertain that it is sufficiently visible. Likewise the colors used to demarcate stages and epochs are very close to each other.
*I could not decipher the Pre-Cambrian sections, but by my count it has the following (very useful) possibilities: 5 period-to-stage level zooms for Paleozoic, 3 period-to-stage zooms for Mesozoic, 1 era-to-epoch level zoom for Cenozoic, and 3 period-to-stage level zooms for Cenozoic as well.
**Courtesy of [[User:Monster Iestyn|Monster lestyn]] in a convo on Discord: the Pre-Cambrian sections are 2 eon-to-era for the Archean and Proterozoic Eons, and 3 era-to-period for the Proterozoic's eras. That far back, it doesn't need to get more granular.
*I will note that there are ''not'' era-level zooms for Paleozoic and Mesozoic, whether to the better-known periods or the epochs (like Cenozoic has); I do not deal with Paleozoic or Mesozoic paleontology often enough to say whether those who do edit in that area would find those useful.
*The unofficial, but frequently used, split of the Carboniferous into the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian periods is not treated at all. I have no opinion on whether there should be two extra for these but am mentioning it for others' sake.
:Personally, I have an issue with the Quaternary-to-stage bar, because in the Quaternary, the stages are more commonly called the Early/Middle/Late Pleistocene than Gelasian/Calabrian/Chibanian, and the rigorous adherence to having the sections proportionate to the time span means the Holocene doesn't show up at all. I would ask that the names be amended and the sections more evenly proportioned.
:Overall, I thank Chaotic Enby for their hard work and support widespread implementation of this template. [[User:SilverTiger12|SilverTiger12]] ([[User talk:SilverTiger12|talk]]) 22:30, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
:I saw this on the WP:Palaeo Discord and overall, I really like the concept! While I do agree that oversaturation could be an issue with it, having it in tandem with the overall timescale is nice. I prefer the second method (the one with the zoom in) because in my opinion it helps connect the two and explain the concept to the layperson. My only gripes really are with the Quaternary period. the ages like '''[[Middle Pleistocene|Chibanian]], [[Gelasian]],''' and '''[[Calabrian stage|Calabrian]]''' aren't commonly used in literature, it is much more common you hear the unofficial terms "Early Pleistocene" = Gelasian & Calabrian, "Middle Pleistocene" = Chibanian, and "[[Late Pleistocene]]" (not official recognized, but very commonly used. I really think for the Quaternary, you should have one range that separates into the Early, Middle, Late [[Pleistocene]], as well as the [[Holocene]]. Its unfortunately not as neat as the official terminology, but it is much more widely used in literature and by the public. All, in all, I really like the proposal and am more than happy to support it once some of the kinks are worked out --[[User:Montanoceratops|Montanoceratops]] ([[User talk:Montanoceratops|talk]]) 22:32, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks both of you for the feedback! @[[User:SilverTiger12|SilverTiger12]], I can't really change the proportions as the bar length is proportional to the time length. For the stage/epoch demarcation, I've been using the official ICS colors from {{tl|Period color}} – I've been thinking of adding one-pixel dividers between them to make the demarcation more visible.{{pb}}The Mississippian and Pennsylvanian are a bit of a mess. They're not on the main timeline, so adding them as a zoom-in might be confusing (especially since the Pennsylvanian uses a similar color scheme to the Carboniferous itself), but I'm open to still offering them as an alternative.{{pb}}For the Quaternary: thanks @[[User:Montanoceratops|Montanoceratops]], I didn't know about that! I tried to follow the official one (which is why the L for Late Pleistocene is in italics), and, while I'm worried that the timeline would be visually very unbalanced if more than half of the period was a single subdivision, I could do it if that reflects the sources better than the "official" version. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 01:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Yeah, unfortunately there really isn't a perfect solution since there's a lot of variation in the geologic timescale. While I do think having half of the Pleistocene as one period is a little silly, I would like to definitely prioritize the most common terminology used in scientific literature if possible, since, from my experience, most folks in Quaternary research use/are familiar with the early/middle/late terms over the "offical" ones (based on both my research into formations myself for Wikipedia and my friends' book, as well as my discussions with folks interested in Pleistocene research and paleomammology). And at least for the Chibanian, that's already what Wikipedia redirects to. Unfortunately really no matter how its split there's compromise involved, because there's a lot of nuances in the international timescale, as well as the many, many local scales that sometimes get utilized over the international ones (this is thankfully becoming increasingly rare, except for maybe land mammal ages). Still, I do think this template is really great and it will be a very useful addition to extinct species pages (as well as many straight up geology formation pages which also use the same template). I do hope you add an arrow icon for specific date. For example, if something is exactly 47 Ma, it doesn't display anything, but sometimes dates can get really precise (down to a few thousand to hundreds of thousands of years). 
:::Additionally, I personally think its fine not distinguishing the Mississippian from the Pennsylvanian too heavily. The colors already imply it, and most modern resources usually say Carboniferous first and foremost over Mississippian or Pennsylvanian.
:::All in all, great work! [[User:Montanoceratops|Montanoceratops]] ([[User talk:Montanoceratops|talk]]) 04:56, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
::::I've made quite a few changes, including moving the zoom from the sandbox to the main template, slightly darkening the zoom color, adding dotted bars to distinguish epochs (which add a bit of visibility to the latest epoch when it's short), fixing the Pleistocene timescale, and adding the arrow icon. As I believe these are all the changes that could be addressed, I'll mark it as ready for mainspace! Thanks a lot to all of you for the feedback! [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 16:03, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::Thank you for these changes. I should clarify I was not asking you to add the Mississippian/Pennsylvanian, just pointing it out for everyone else. The dotted lines definitely help. I'm happy to call this template ready for widespread use. Thanks again, [[User:SilverTiger12|SilverTiger12]] ([[User talk:SilverTiger12|talk]]) 20:34, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
{{clear}}

== CentralNotice banner in Indonesia explaining the recent block on auth.wikimedia.org and linking to ID WP community statement ==

Background: Indonesian government blocked the login/registration authentication subdomain in Indonesia since Feb 25th.
* (Indonesian) [https://www.komdigi.go.id/berita/siaran-pers/detail/kemkomdigi-batasi-fitur-login-wikimedia-karena-belum-daftar-pse-privat Kemkomdigi Batasi Fitur Login Wikimedia]'''
* https://en.tempo.co/read/2091029/contributors-urge-indonesia-to-unblock-wikipedia-login-access 
* https://voi.id/en/news/561350
* https://www.techinasia.com/news/indonesia-limits-wikimedia-access-after-registration-delay 

The communities from Indonesia have written a statement together, and proposed to put up a banner: 
* (Indonesian) https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pernyataan_resmi_komunitas_Wikipedia_bahasa_Indonesia_terhadap_pembatasan_akses_auth.wikimedia.org_di_Indonesia
* [https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pembicaraan_Wikipedia:Pernyataan_resmi_komunitas_Wikipedia_bahasa_Indonesia_terhadap_pembatasan_akses_auth.wikimedia.org_di_Indonesia/Isi#Embassy Place to discuss this statement in English]
* [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CentralNotice/Request/Official_community_statement_of_Indonesian_projects_contributors Banner (ongoing) request] in Meta.

I would like to invite English Wikipedia to put a banner as well, to be displayed through March 10, 2026, with Indonesian geolocation (according to stats.wikimedia.org, in February 2026, English Wikipedia has 58 million page views from Indonesia), explaining the restriction and link to the community statement.

Wikimedia Foundation statement can be found in [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2026-03-10/In_the_media#Logins_blocked_in_Indonesia]]

Banner content (feel free to copyedit):

:Since February 2026, registration and login access to Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects has been '''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-03-10/In the media#Logins blocked in Indonesia|blocked in Indonesia]]'''. At this time, these sites remain accessible to read, and to contribute to as logged-out users.
:[[Wikipedia:Open letters/Official statement from the Indonesian Wikipedia community regarding the restriction of access to auth.wikimedia.org in Indonesia|read more]] →

Cheers. [[User:Bennylin|Bennylin]] ([[User talk:Bennylin|talk]]) 06:30, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

:A banner is probably a good idea to inform editors/users of the situation as it will impact some users, but the second sentence directly communicating with the Ministry does not seem necessary for this. May as well include a link to that Signpost which seems to explain the situation, unless we want to spin up a separate information page. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 07:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
::Feel free to edit the banner. We were thinking of tagging the ministry in social media and such. [[User:Bennylin|Bennylin]] ([[User talk:Bennylin|talk]]) 07:22, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
::A separate information page wouldn't be a bad idea. It could focus specifically on how it affects readers and editors and what actions they can take, with a link to the Signpost for more information on the background. '''[[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#0c4709">Thebiguglyalien</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#472c09">talk</span>]]) 21:12, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I would combine then with a few tweaks like so, with the signpost link as a placeholder for a specific information page:{{pb}}{{green|Since February 2026, registration and login access to Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects has been '''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-03-10/In the media#Logins blocked in Indonesia|blocked in Indonesia]]'''. At this time, these sites remain accessible to read, and to contribute to as logged-out users.}} [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 03:46, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]] maybe this link instead? [[Wikipedia:Open letters/Official statement from the Indonesian Wikipedia community regarding the restriction of access to auth.wikimedia.org in Indonesia]]. [[User:Robertsky|– robertsky]] ([[User talk:Robertsky|talk]]) 04:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::I would not link an open letter from another Wikipedia so prominently unless endorsed by the English Wikipedia community. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 05:31, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
::::I've incorporated CMD's version. We can still discuss where to link the "Read more" to (or none at all). Thanks. [[User:Bennylin|Bennylin]] ([[User talk:Bennylin|talk]]) 08:51, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
:'''Support'''. Also in agreement with CMD. [[User:Robertsky|– robertsky]] ([[User talk:Robertsky|talk]]) 07:11, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
:'''Support.''' [[User:Jack Wylde|Jack Wylde]] ([[User talk:Jack Wylde|talk]]) 08:30, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
:{{Agree}} But, as mentioned by CMD, instead of directly urged by "us", should we use the literal translation from Indonesian copy that encourage our readers to do so? Or, is it intentional in English?
:So, what do you think if we go with: "Since February 2026, registration and login access to Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects has been restricted in Indonesia. We ['''encourage you to'''] urge the Ministry of Communication and Digital <s>Technology</s> ['''Affairs'''] to revoke this restriction so that we can continue to disseminate knowledge together!" [[User:William Surya Permana|William Surya Permana]] ([[User talk:William Surya Permana|talk]]) 13:25, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
::I have incorporated your changes. Thanks. [[User:Bennylin|Bennylin]] ([[User talk:Bennylin|talk]]) 17:31, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
:WMF's statement: {{tqq|At this time, Wikimedia projects remain accessible to read and contribute to as logged-out users.}} should probably be added to the notice too. [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 13:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
::That would be obvious because they're able to visit that wiki page, no? [[User:Bennylin|Bennylin]] ([[User talk:Bennylin|talk]]) 17:32, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
:'''Support''' a banner with whatever wording the community agrees upon. This should be the response when Wikipedia is forcefully censored. It's frightening how common it's becoming, and it's even more frightening that, to this point, a portion of the community has been so resistant to protesting when it happens. '''[[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#0c4709">Thebiguglyalien</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#472c09">talk</span>]]) 21:09, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

== Explanation of the Proposal Process ==

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. [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-90420-1|&#126;2026-90420-1]] ([[User talk:&#126;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. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-15808-31|&#126;2026-15808-31]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-15808-31|talk]]) 19:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
:There is not a single Wikipedia voice. The {{tq|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. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk: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? [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-15808-31|&#126;2026-15808-31]] ([[User talk:&#126;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. [[User:Athanelar|Athanelar]] ([[User talk: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? [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-15808-31|&#126;2026-15808-31]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-15808-31|talk]]) 05:58, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
:Are you talking about [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 227#General Background Color]] ? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:11, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

== Syntax - Mathematical Expression - Coding Examples ==
More than 15 years ago looking at coding of mathematical expression in Wikipedia with the background of Computer Science (parsers, compiler theory, ...) I perceived the mix of XML-tags for the MATH-tag and LaTeX inside the XML-tag as big technical challenge while the rest had a simple Markdown like notation for the source text editor. Now I can appreciate those decisions:
* '''user-centric approach''' Editors are used to LaTeX for mathematical expression in their work, so for a least a part of the community members it is much more convenient to uses the source code editor even if WYSIWYG editors are available. 
* '''interoperability''' - Web libraries like [[w:MathJax|MathJax]], [https://extensions.libreoffice.org/en/extensions/show/texmaths-1 TexMath extension] for LibreOffice use LaTeX, so it allows interoperability for creative commons content.
* '''Code chunks in Wikipedia''' [[Knitr|KnitR package]] or [[Project Jupyter|Jupyter]] notebook use syntax mix, to create executable code that calculates the values of mathematical expressions while there is syntax highlighting for programming code that shows equivalent code for processing mathematical expression (e.g. [[numerical analysis]])
Now I see a transformation away from the MATH-tags towards a template driven rendering of mathematical expressions. Is there a best practice or are there recommendations/proposals how to keep coding examples and corresponding mathematical expression in MATH-tags in sync with the syntax highlighting tags to be displayed on Wikipedia article?--[[User:Bert Niehaus|Bert Niehaus]] ([[User talk:Bert Niehaus|talk]]) 09:03, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

:This sounds like a topic for [[WT:WikiProject Mathematics]]. For the last discussion, see [[WT:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2025/Dec#HTML vs LaTeX]]. [[User:Preimage|Preimage]] ([[User talk:Preimage|talk]]) 11:45, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
:If a math formula is added in the visual editor (Insert > Math), then it will use {{tag|math}}. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:13, 19 March 2026 (UTC)


== Innapropriate content involving fictional children ==
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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Phlogiston Enthusiast|Phlogiston Enthusiast]] ([[User talk:Phlogiston Enthusiast#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Phlogiston Enthusiast|contribs]]) 20:11, 17 March 2026 (UTC)</small>

: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'' [[WP:DE|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.) —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^&lowbar;^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 21:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
:'''Support removing content''' - [[WP:Censored|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
:[[User:GuesanLoyalist|GuesanLoyalist]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:REVDEL|revision-deleted]]. Hence my comment about not needing a new policy above. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^&lowbar;^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 03:48, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
:::So it was indeed removed? Thanks for telling me on that one [[User:GuesanLoyalist|GuesanLoyalist]] ([[User talk:GuesanLoyalist|talk]]) 03:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
:::The revisions were undeleted, {{re|Jéské Couriano|p=}}. Relevant discussion is at [[Talk:Yiff#Hidden page revisions]]. [[User:Chess enjoyer|Chess enjoyer]] ([[User talk: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.  [[user:sapphaline|<span class="skin-nightmode-reset-color" style="color:#c20;text-decoration:underline">sapphaline</span>]] ([[user talk:sapphaline|<span class="skin-nightmode-reset-color" style="color:#236;text-decoration:underline">talk</span>]]) 08:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
::Though I agree that [[:commons:Commons:Child protection|Commons' policy on CSAM]] doesn't seem to cover [[:en:wikt:cub porn|cub porn]], especially when the character isn't really anthropomorphic.  [[user:sapphaline|<span class="skin-nightmode-reset-color" style="color:#c20;text-decoration:underline">sapphaline</span>]] ([[user talk:sapphaline|<span class="skin-nightmode-reset-color" style="color:#236;text-decoration:underline">talk</span>]]) 08:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)