Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab Miscellaneous 
The idea lab section of the village pump is a place where new ideas or suggestions on general Wikipedia issues can be incubated, for later submission for consensus discussion at Village pump (proposals). Try to be creative and positive when commenting on ideas.
Before creating a new section, please note:

Before commenting, note:

  • This page is not for consensus polling. Stalwart "Oppose" and "Support" comments generally have no place here. Instead, discuss ideas and suggest variations on them.
  • Wondering whether someone already had this idea? Search the archives below, and look through Wikipedia:Perennial proposals.
« Archives, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28


Add dark mode option to Wikipedia[edit]

It would be easier on the eyes (especially at night) and waste less battery life. X-Editor (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Is mw:Skin:Vector-DarkCSS what you're looking for? You might want to go to your preferences and check "black background, green text" as an alternative. ‑ Iridescent 15:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@X-Editor: You might also be interested in phab:T122924. Jc86035 (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I want a button on Wikipedia that you can click to change to dark mode for the causal reader and editor, not something you have to download or something that requires multiple steps. X-Editor (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
You will likely need an account, but otherwise that is one of the tasks to watch. You can also watch phab:T26070 and children. --Izno (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
MusikAnimal was developing 'NightPedia'. When (and if) that is completed, it might be what you are looking for. 125.63.105.110 (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
There are a number of tasks out there about a night/dark mode. Following meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Reading/Night mode, we will see a solution sometime this year for all skins, including mobile, and all users, logged in or out. Investigations and designs are still in the early stages. My own Nightpedia is merely a user script that mostly looks good (I think) and works for all skins, except it flashes on every page load because it's not a proper gadget. You can try it by adding importScript('User:MusikAnimal/nightpedia.js'); to your common.js, but don't expect perfection. MusikAnimal talk 15:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't expect perfection, I just want a decent dark mode option, and I'm glad you are working on that. X-Editor (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedian resource groups[edit]

Do we have anything resembling employee resource groups? My new employer has three: one for women, one for employees of color, and one for LGBTQIA+ employees. I think this is a good idea for Wikimedia projects to implement, and would add to it: lower- and working-class Wikipedians, and Wikipedians with disabilities. I think this could work especially if it's complemented by an off-wiki space like a new channel in our Discord. Qzekrom 💬 theythem 05:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Users here only disclose what information they want to, so they may or may not identify as members of some group you may be interested in. You can start navigating at Category:Wikipedians and expand out categories, you will see some of the groups you mention there. "Color" is a very American way to pigeonhole people, but there is Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality‎. I don't like the idea of these subsets being "resource groups", as if they are about to be exploited. Self interest in the Wikiprojects is where our users take their initiative at volountyeering for work. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I, as a member of two of the groups identified above, also don't like this idea. Participation in any sort of group on Wikipedia, such as Wikiprojects, should be available to anyone interested in the relevant subject rather than just "insiders", and, as Graeme said, we have no means of identifying whether anyone is really a member of any group. There's also the danger that such groups would become a vehicle for advocacy rather than a means of improving Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Drafting a partial blocks RfC[edit]

A few weeks ago, I started a discussion on MusikAnimal's talk page regarding partial blocks and whether the English Wikipedia had any interest in adopting this feature. As a result of the discussion, I created a draft RfC which is now at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Partial blocks. I wanted to push this here to get more input on the draft. Is the format too messy? For "Option B", the limited implementation, should we include more subcases to start? Should we allow users to add their own suggested subcases during the RfC? Mz7 (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Amorymeltzer: In response to your question re. enforcing vs. recording editing restrictions, I was mostly trying to put into word the proposal about recording restrictions that MusikAnimal had suggested – presumably part of the purpose would be to help enforce editing restrictions, with the caveat that the restriction might apply to pages not covered by the block. I've added the word "enforcing" to B.3 to clarify this. Mz7 (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I would like to ping SPoore (WMF) to this discussion, since she has information about how other Wikipedia (e.g. Italian Wikipedia) have used partial blocks. Perhaps we might choose to follow the lead of other projects in deciding how to implement this. Mz7 (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Mz7, I'm working on getting metrics and use cases for partial blocks for the wikis that are using them now during the testing phase. SPoore (WMF), Strategist, Community health initiative (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
What would the most common use cases for admins be if they had free-reign (Option C)? Tazerdadog (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me that the way you've structured the RFC with respect to option B would get messy quick. I think as the RFC progresses people would add more use cases to B, and people who !vote early on may not come back to evaluate the later added options. It might be better to make it a two part RFC, and if option B (allow partial blocks in specific use cases) passes, then have a second RFC on what use cases people want. While discussion of the first part progresses, there should be a sub section for discussion (but not !voting) of possible use cases to be added to the second part. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@ONUnicorn: Right, I had that thought as well. Your two-parter RfC idea did cross my mind, and I think I will change the draft to that format. Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Adopt an article[edit]

Is there a system for "adopting" articles after they pass AfC? I'm creating a draft article under a conflict of interest condition and want to trust that someone else will be maintaining it, since I can't be the one to maintain it after it is moved to mainspace. Essentially, after submitting the article, I want to hand it off to another editor who is interested in the subject and plans to add to it whenever new information about the subject becomes available in reliable, published sources. Qzekrom 💬 theythem 07:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Not a single editor to the exclusion of others, see WP:OWN. If other editors become sufficiently interested they will perform the maintenance. There's nothing to stop you {{ping}}ing an editor you think will assist though, see WP:OAS. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Qzekrom everything on Wikipedia is volunteer work, and people work on whatever catches their interest. We have over 5 million articles, so a lot of articles just fall into the background. However you can indirectly maintain the page. You can use {{request edit}} on the article's Talk page to propose updates or other changes. That will bring in someone to review the edit request for neutrality and other criteria. They may make the full edit, or part of the edit, for you if hey find it appropriate. There's a bit more info at WP:Edit requests. Alsee (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

RfA reform: straight vote?[edit]

Is it really practical to expect 200–300 people to have a discussion that leads to consensus about a controversial topic (as opposed to near-unanimous landslides)? In any "close call" situation, any assessment of consensus is likely to upset a significant number of editors and be seen as a supervote, which hurts the RfA process, the candidate, the 'crats, and the !voters. Does requiring/encouraging oppose rationales encourage mud-slinging/dirt-digging/rehashing old disputes, where a secret vote would not? Maybe it would be better to have a clear, simple vote, in both directions?

What if the system was:

  1. Anyone can nominate an editor for RfA including self-nominations. There's a period for questions to the candidate and discussions, followed by a vote (like ArbCom elections). > 50% support gets the bit.
  2. Anyone can nominate an admin for a "vote of confidence" (including self-nominations). There's a period for questions to the candidate and discussions, followed by a vote. < 50% support loses the bit.
  3. Editors who make bad faith or frivolous nominations can be TBANed through the usual community procedures.

Thoughts? Levivich 16:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom functions very effectively to desysop admins when this is required. Not broken so don't fix. As for RFA, there have been perennial reform proposals and none of them have proven better than the existing process. Jehochman Talk 16:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Per Jehochman, other desysoping alternatives have been proposed at RfC - I've proposed some of them. None of them gained traction. Years ago at WP:RFA2011, the RfA process was examined in depth, compared with the systems on other major Wikis, and thoroughly analysed for solutions but none of the many suggestions even reached RfC stage. What we were left with was the one single verdict that the voter community needs to smarten up its act. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    Indeed, but how many editors who are active now were active in 2011? I never really understood the Wikipedian reaction of, "we don't need to talk about this, we talked about it already five or ten years ago." I would encourage you (or anyone) to put forward whatever you think are the best ideas from previous discussions, and let a new generation of Wikipedians examine them (if they haven't already). To me, there's a difference between talking about something that was talked about a year ago, and talking about something that was last discussed eight years ago. Levivich 17:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Without prejudice to the outcome of this discussion, the last time I asked about average tenure about six months ago, it was my understanding that over half of active and very active editors had 7+ years of tenure, and more than 70% of admins did. I rather doubt that's changed very much. I'm sure someone with number crunching skills and sufficient computing power could give a definitive answer. Risker (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
        I know I've seen charts that show editors by tenure with multiple colored bands for the "generations", but I can't find it now. Per your understanding, though, about half of active editors didn't take part in the in-depth 2011 RfC, and the other half now have seven additional years of experience to draw upon. I don't think we should be shy about brainstorming solutions (and documenting our efforts at WP:RFA reform), because the potential problems–decrease in admin, decrease in admin:editor and admin:article ratios, increase in backlogs–are objectively-measurable problems. (Even if the idea I posted is not the solution. I'll note Useight has posted a list of concerns for discussion here.) Levivich 07:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • My favorite RfA reform is the idea of bundling - that every 3 months ore when there are 5 RfA candidates, whichever happens first, there is an RfA. In this way the focus is taken away from any individual editor which would hopefully provide some "safety in numbers" in general while still being a small enough grouping that each editor could be appropriately vetted by the community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • First of all, 50%+1 is far too small a threshold for granting advanced permissions. Secondly, restricting the RFA process to uncommented votes makes it difficult for people who don't know the candidate. Understanding why people are supporting or opposing a candidate is arguably more important for building consensus than just that they are supporting or opposing a candidate "I vote oppose because I'm an asshole who opposes all RFA candidates" is a very different rationale than "I vote oppose because here's this evidence that this candidate would not use the bits wisely <diffs>" and bureaucrats need to weight the voting based on the strength of the rationale behind them. Certainly, number of votes is a factor in determining strength of support or opposition, but so is why people are voting that way. I wouldn't want to remove that aspect from the vote. --Jayron32 16:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    What are your thoughts on running RfAs like ArbCom elections: discussion and Q&A pages with a SecurePoll, straight vote (at whatever threshold of success), scrutinized by stewards for integrity but no consensus assessment by 'crats. Levivich 17:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    No, that's worse. Crats are promoted expressly because their ability to read the nuance in discussions of this nature. We want more nuance in our governance, not less. --Jayron32 17:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • What about the opposite? People can submit comments on nominees, and then the bureaucrats decide if someone passes, and what or may not take whatever is said into consideration. Similar to CU/OS. Natureium (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Nothing on this site works as a straight vote, everything is a discussion, and I don't think it makes sense for RFAs to be any different. I don't know about you, but I certainly try to read at least most other comments before posting my own. I'm sure the current system isn't perfect, but it does give a very good opportunity for people who are unsure on an issue to see the evidence that other users think is most important, examine it, and then evaluate others' arguments before coming to their own conclusions. RFAs are basically super RFCs, with a somewhat more formal structure and closure restricted to bureaucrats. English Wikipedia is 100% committed to that formula as the ultimate process in resolving questions, so it's only fair that administrators are picked the same way. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree that RFA shouldn't become a straight vote, for many reasons, but it is not true that nothing on this site works as a straight vote. We vote for arbitrators. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, "nothing" was something of an exaggeration. I'd say that the arbcom elections are the exception that proves the rule. It's the only election or formal vote for anything, as far as I know. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Well argued oppose rationales have their use. They can swing the discussion and, regardless of the outcome, can show the candidate aeras in which they can improve. Challenges to oppose !votes can also help turn a straight oppose into something other editors can use to inform their deliberations. Cabayi (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Please note that whenever the question of whether RfA needs reform 60% to 70% say "yes" but that no proposal for a specific fix has ever reached even 5% approval. Now we are pretty much seeing new people reinvent ideas that were rejected in the past. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • We have a declining number of admins, so having an additional and unnuanced route to desysop would be moving in the wrong direction. As for straight votes, remember quite a few of us got through on the second or subsequent run, as someone who got through on my second RFA being able to know why people opposed in the first was useful. More importantly, only a tiny proportion of RFA voters actually research candidates, most look no further than the nomination and the page of the RFA itself. But those few who do research candidates do sometimes find reasons that rightly torpedo an RFA. Moving to straight votes loses that vital safeguard. You don't need it for Arbcom as few will vote for non admins. There have been quite a few changes to RFA over the years, so improvements are still possible, however this proposal would not be an improvement. ϢereSpielChequers 20:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I am not a fan of the above proposal. However I will say that I have always believed that an admin's tenure should run no more than maybe ten minutes past the point where it becomes clear that s/he has lost the confidence of the community. Arbcom should properly retain the last word on involuntary desysopping. But if a serious motion of "No Confidence" based on credible evidence of egregious misconduct or serial bad judgement calls was presented at AN/I and it became clear that by a wide margin the community had indeed lost confidence in a given admin, I would hope that they would resign. Any such "motion" of course would not be binding. But it would be really hard to ignore and I would assume that Arbcom could enforce it if the vote was overwhelming. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Argued oppose rationales are critical - they reveal some seriously important concerns at points. I'd be perfectly happy if Support votes were also subject to challenge, but perhaps that's just me. Nosebagbear (talk)
  • Personally, I think setting some minimum criteria for non-behavioural criteria (edit count, manual count, articles created etc) should be agreed, and then no oppose votes on those bases would be counted (e.g. If an editor had the agreed 18k edits, no oppose vote on "too few edits" would count). Nosebagbear (talk) 11:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Sandbox edit notice or some other method of discouraging article creation in sandboxes[edit]

Dear editors:

While sandboxes are useful for playing around with wikitext, etc., they often are used to draft articles. There is a process flaw that can happen; for example:

  • Editor A creates a draft article in their sandbox
  • Editor B moves the contents to Draft space or to mainspace (perhaps after an AfC review or a request for help at the Teahouse). This leaves the sandbox with a single diff about the move, attributed to Editor B.
  • Editor A creates a new draft in the same sandbox
  • The new draft is then moved to mainspace, along with Editor B's move diff from the first article
  • Editor B is now credited as the originator of an article that he or she may never have seen.

Here's an example Happy (manga character) - if you check the history you will see my username as the first edit, although I have nothing to do with this article.

Why is this a problem? Well, for example, today I received a notification today from Page Curation that an article was about to be deleted, and that I could contest the deletion. (User talk:Anne Delong#Speedy deletion nomination of Poseidon Asset Management) However, the actual creator of that article was not notified, and likely won't know that the article was deleted or how to contest the deletion.

Really a better way for users to create article drafts in their own space is to make user subpages (for example, User:Editor A/Pagename). That way, the subpages are not reused, and the history of each is clean.

Is there some way to encourage that? Maybe an edit notice on sandboxes ("This sandbox is for experimenting; if you are starting a draft article you can make a user subpage for it. Here's how: Wikipedia:User pages#Creating a subpage". The only problem with this is that that link leads to a video which actually encourages a user to draft articles in the sandbox. It would be nice if this could be changed.

Alternatively, the edit notice could say "This sandbox is for experimenting; if you are starting a draft article, click here" - which would take the user to a process that would ask the name of the proposed article and open an edit window "User:Editor A/Pagename".

Anne Delong (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

When you move the page out of the sandbox, uncheck the "leave redirect" box, if you can. If you can't, then tag the redirect for deletion. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Get people to read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution[edit]

I don't know if anybody has noticed, but there's a lot of edit warring, flame warring, and general hissy fitting when people disagree about content. It would help a great deal if more people read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution before getting into arguments. (Yes, I'm guilty of not reading it too. See my talk page.) We need to think up ways to change this. My own pet ideas:

  • The first time a logged in user reverts, we ask them to read it. Anonymous users, every time.
  • Simplify the damned thing. Does it have to be that complicated?
  • Draw a flow chart of the DR process.
  • Create a cutsey animated video.

I'm sure others have their own ideas. Let's hear them! Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Add Simple English back to Language selector in sidebar[edit]

Don't have time to develop the idea, but I legitimately thought that people just stopped writing Simple English articles ever since the new language selector went into beta. Erik Humphrey (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Its a bug. See phabricator:T210840. The work around for now is to turn off Compact Language Links in your settings and it will start showing up again. -DJSasso (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Help[edit]

I dont know if I am posting this at the right place. But there is some kind of technical difficulty with the Annual readership-tag that can be placed on an talk page of any article. The tag works for a a day or two and then go dead, so no new data over how many readers a article gets over a period of a year or so. It is just a little but annoying problem. My idea was that this particular tag could be upgraded or similar. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

So this is Template:Annual readership. The right place to ask about this would be WP:VP/T. I hope this is not a joke because you add the template to the pages of the recently dead. I wonder if the page has to be purged to update the template contents. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Citation proposal[edit]

I use shortened notes linked with {{tl|sfn}} and citation templates, styled Sudirman, (the featured article on the day I joined). The benefits I find using {{tl|sfn}} are no large interruptions in prose when editing, and {{tl|citation}} for the alphabetization of sources. The only detriment is the auxilliary set of references in addition to sources.

- <ref></ref> and {{reflist}} {{sfn}}}, {{reflist}} and {{citation}}
Prose Within hours, the Paris prosecutor's office had opened an investigation into the fire, led by the Paris Region Judicial Police.<ref>{{cite news |title=Notre-Dame de Paris : une enquête a été ouverte pour "destruction involontaire par incendie" |url=https://www.laprovence.com/actu/en-direct/5459359/notre-dame-de-paris-une-enquete-a-ete-ouverte-pour-destruction-involontaire-par-incendie.html |accessdate=15 April 2019 |website=La Provence |date=15 April 2019|language=fr }}</ref> The cause of the fire was not immediately known. The investigation most strongly suspected a case of "accidental destruction by fire", but had not ruled anything out, saying it was too early to know the cause of the fire.<ref name="ladepeche">{{cite web |url=https://www.ladepeche.fr/2019/04/15/incendie-a-notre-dame-lorigine-de-lincendie-reste-inconnue,8132982.php |title=Notre-Dame : la piste accidentelle privilégiée, les ouvriers du chantier entendus en pleine nuit |trans-title=Notre-Dame: prioritized accident investigation, construction workers heard in the middle of the night |website=La Depeche |accessdate=16 April 2019 |language=fr}}</ref><ref name="six_questions">{{cite web |url=http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/six-questions-sur-l-incendie-de-notre-dame-de-paris-15-04-2019-8054094.php |title=Six questions sur l’incendie de Notre-Dame de Paris |trans-title=Six questions about the fire of Notre-Dame |website=Le Parisien |accessdate=16 April 2019 |language=fr}}</ref>

==References==

{{reflist}}

Within hours, the Paris prosecutor's office had opened an investigation into the fire, led by the Paris Region Judicial Police.{{sfn|La Provence Staff|2019}} The cause of the fire was not immediately known. The investigation most strongly suspected a case of "accidental destruction by fire", but had not ruled anything out, saying it was too early to know the cause of the fire.{{La Depeche Staff|2019}}{{La Pariesen Staff|2019}}

==References==

{{reflist}}

;Bibliography

  • {{citation|author=La Depeche Staff|url=https://www.ladepeche.fr/2019/04/15/incendie-a-notre-dame-lorigine-de-lincendie-reste-inconnue,8132982.php|title=Notre-Dame : la piste accidentelle privilégiée, les ouvriers du chantier entendus en pleine nuit|trans-title=Notre-Dame: prioritized accident investigation, construction workers heard in the middle of the night|website=La Depeche|accessdate=16 April 2019|language=fr}}
  • {{citation|author=La Parisien|url=http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/six-questions-sur-l-incendie-de-notre-dame-de-paris-15-04-2019-8054094.php|title=Six questions sur l’incendie de Notre-Dame de Paris|trans-title=Six questions about the fire of Notre-Dame|website=Le Parisien|accessdate=16 April 2019|language=fr}}
  • {{citation|author=La Provence Staff|title=Notre-Dame de Paris : une enquête a été ouverte pour "destruction involontaire par incendie"|url=https://www.laprovence.com/actu/en-direct/5459359/notre-dame-de-paris-une-enquete-a-ete-ouverte-pour-destruction-involontaire-par-incendie.html|accessdate=15 April 2019|website=La Provence|date=15 April 2019|language=fr}}
Benefits One-level Bibliography Continuous prose
Alphabetical, centralized Bibliography
Detriments Interruption in prose
Disordered Bibliography
Two-level Bibliography

Proposal[edit]

A script, loaded during publishing, which scans the page, and matched {{sfn}} with {{citation}}, generating a BACKREF suffix, after the appropriate citation. By using {{sfn}} and {{citation}}, built the way I've described, there will be no two-level Bibliography, saving page space, no large interruption in prose, making it easier to read, and an organized, alphabetized bibliography.

In the case of pages, or locations, they will be added in the suffix, and linked to the selected citation via CITEREF, (example, p. 25, highlighted in blue), after clicking.

*Ricklefs, M.C. (1993). A History of Modern Indonesia Since c.1200 (2nd ed.). London: MacMillan. ISBN 978-0-333-57689-2., ^ a p. 12 b p. 25 c p. 74

Logic[edit]

IF {{sfn|Ricklefs|1993}} AND {{citation|last=Ricklefs|date=1993}} THEN: CITEREFRicklefs1993a AND BACKREFRicklefs1993a

AND (a second reference is used)

IF {{sfn|Ricklefs|1993}} AND {{citation|last=Ricklefs|date=1993}} THEN: CITEREFRicklefs1993b AND BACKREFRicklefs1993b

For the prose: [[CITEREFRicklefs1993a|[[1]] ]]; to link to the Bibliography section.

For the Bibliography: [[BACKREFRicklefs1993a|a]]; to link to the article citation.

Proposal
References
Article

Regional Community Theater is the debut studio album from the American pop duo Ladybirds.

After the breakup of Ley Royal Scam in 2006, Tyler Pursel returned to working with Gym Class Heroes and writing dance-pop music on the side, while Teeter Sperber relocated to Oregon.[1][2] When composing, Pursel originally intended for many vocalists to be featured on the album, however, contacting his former band-mate Sperber to sing one of the tracks ultimately led Pursel to ask Sperber to sing the entirety of Regional Community Theater.[1] Most of the album was arranged while Pursel and Sperber were in different regions of the United States, but by January 2007, they joined at a Creep Records basement studio in West Chester, Pennsylvania to put the final touches on Regional Community Theater.[2] Tyler Pursel is credited as producer.[3] The album was released on 18 September 2007, on Creep Records on compact disc and digital download.[1] Regional Community Theater was reissued by Mint 400 Records digitally on 5 July 2011.

While in post-production, Sperber was singing "How can we be the best, yet be failing all the time?" for the title track, which elicited uproarious laughter from Pursel. In a Billboard interview, she explains "I sang the word "best," like a total, unabashed thespian spazz, arms raised to the sky, channeling my very best Bernadette Peters [and] once we composed ourselves I said, "Geez Ty, I am so sorry for getting all Regional Community Theater on your ass" to which he said "It's okay, Teet, as long as that can be the title of our record."[4]

Regional Community Theater is an eleven track album of dance-pop, described by Corey Apar of Spin as a "Nintendo version of Candyland, where eight-bit blurps, shiny werps and ticks, and apple-colored synth beats entertain the whole way to Candy Castle."[1] Lyrically, the album focuses on relationships; from friendship to romance.[5] Several rock lead vocalists appear on Regional Community Theater; The Get Up Kids' Matt Pryor sings on "Cooper, Thanks for the Birds" and Max Bemis of Say Anything sings on "Maxim and the Headphone Life."[6] Additionally, Danger O's' Justin Johnson and Fairmont's Neil Sabatino appear on the album.

The opener "Slice Our Hands (We Are Blood Sisters)" is constructed with 8-bit music by Pursel. The second song, "Brown and Red Divide," was released as a single in June 2007, and accompanied by a music video.[2][7] A children's chorus, the class of one of the Creep Records owner's daughters, sings the refrain on the love song "Andy Lex."[2] On the title-track "Regional Community Theater," Max Bemis makes his first appearance assisting with vocals.[8] The final song, "You Are The Torro King" is an instrumental track, which features distorted drums, dark synthesizers, vintage electro-accordion and bells.[6]

Professional ratings
Review scores
SourceRating
AbsolutePunk85%[8]
AllMusic4.5/5 stars[5]
The FaderMixed[6]
PopMatters6/10[9]

Reviews for Regional Community Theater were mixed to positive. Joe DeAndrea of AbsolutePunk gave a favorable review, noting the "superb" list of guest vocalists and calling it "overall a very fun listen."[8] Similarly, in an AllMusic review Jo-Ann Greene applauds the album, saying "..so upbeat is the music, that inevitably the characters have no choice but to make peace." She goes on to explain that Regional Community Theater "work[s] on two levels, enchanting the kids whilst simultaneously capturing the imagination of adults."[5]

In a mixed review in The Fader, Meiyee Apple likens Sperber's vocals to Hilary Duff, and calls the album "cute electro-pop[,] if you like being sung to by a baby, and you are an actual baby." Sharing the same sentiment in a PopMatters review, Adam Bunch describes Regional Community Theater as a mostly straightforward album, but admires the moments of variety such as children’s choir (in "Andy Lex") and pitch-shifted vocals.[9] However, Apple acknowledges Ladybirds admission of their "sticky sweet sound," saying that they do a "good job [in the] department of mindless fun."[6]

Current
References
Citations
Online sources

- NorthPark1417 (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

So, in other words, you want to have a script that somehow reinvents what the Cite extension already does in a slightly different way? For this example you can fix the "interruption in prose" disadvantage by simply using WP:List-defined references (LDR) instead of {{sfn}}. It's unclear what benefits you see in alphabetical ordering of the references in a hypertext document using numbered note markers (versus a text document with [[[parenthetical referencing|parenthetical references]]).

The usual argument for {{sfn}}, which LDR doesn't fix, is that it allows more compact referencing of multiple pages in a work (as with Cite-style footnotes you have to repeat the entire citation with only the page number changed). But IMO to solve that it would be better if the change proposed at m:WMDE Technical Wishes/Book referencing were implemented. Anomie 11:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

An interesting and well thought out idea. I'm not certain however that a two-level bibliography can be dismissed without discussion as a "con". Possibly because I have a background in computers or else possibly due to familiarity I have no problems with a normalised two table approach. Others may disagree. @Anomie: I've used LDR referenced articles in the past and the solution is a workable one, but it does lead to a requirement for editors to devise and keep track of a naming scheme; {{sfn}} does this for you. LDR also can generate messages along the lines of "Cite error: A list-defined reference named "FOOTNOTELa Chesnaye des Bois1770table at the end of the volume" is not used in the content (see the help page)." which have the clarity of mud.
As Anomie points out though, work is progressing at m:WMDE Technical Wishes/Book referencing to address all these points and it would be wasteful to spend a lot of time on yet another approach. I've even heard a whisper that a citation manager such as Zotero could be integrated at some point in the future and allow an automatic, uniform citation style. A final point, when exactly would your script run? If it is as part of the preview or publish process (ie effectively a "subst:") that is reasonable, but if it is to be implemented as part of template processing it may have a notable impact of server load and page responsiveness. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
IIRC, Zotero is what's behind VisualEditor's citation insertion/formatting tool, but the uniform styling comes from our family of citation templates rather than the fact that Zotero can be used to help fill in those templates. Anomie 13:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I always use the traditional text editor, not the visual one - just personal choice. I accept what you are saying about the styling within citations coming from CS1/2, I was thinking of the slightly larger picture, possibly "layout" rather than "styling" would be a better term. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:CITEVAR would prevent such a script from being used. * Pppery * has returned 13:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Anomie, Martin of Sheffield, and Pppery,

To Anomie, List-defined references does address most of my proposal, however, the naming of citation, and mixing html with template, are not ideal. For a single citation with multiple locations or pages, it separates instead of one listing. Alphabetical listing is easier to read, familiar from school.

To Martin of Sheffield, It would run at publishing the page, included in mw.loadData. The idea came from other Editors changing the citation style I write with, to compact the referencing. They noted that {{sfn}} was primarily used for multiple citation locations in a work, which does not typically occur with webpages. The user has to click once to the citation and again to the bibliographical listing.

To Pppry, to not interrupt the current citation style, I realize it would probably require a uniquely titled template (say, {{rfe}}) for in prose citation, to recognize not to generate a {{reflist}}. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks like I badly misinterpreted what was being proposed here. However, given that CITEVAR says you can't convert existing articles to this style, is it really a good idea to invent your own unique citation style that is going to be used on some tiny minority of all articles? * Pppery * has returned 21:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
An example of a page I have written, with excessive white space, as a result of the {{sfn}} and {{citation}} format, which I would convert. The style I am proposing may attract editors who are writing new articles. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)