Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

Help:Guided tours are a very powerful functionality that can allow for easy onboarding of newcomers, or help out more experienced users get a hold of tools/workflows with steep learning curves. However, they are sadly quite underutilized. I've recently worked on one to help administrator election clerks set up SecurePoll, and I would love to hear out your ideas for more functionalities that tours could help with! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:26, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Chaotic Enby: I like this suggestion. I boldly quoted you on meta:Talk:Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2026-2027#Guided tours, and added some of my own comments there. ↠Pine (✉) 04:09, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to see something like this that helps familiarise new users with some of our policies and guidelines. Many new users aren't familiar with the existence of our policies & guidelines, let alone how to find them, so bumping up against them is an unfortunately common (and often discouraging) occurrence. I'm not sure how this could be done exactly, but guided tours seems like it could be helpful to direct users in the right direction. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  One thing we've heard from newcomers in the past is that almost all of the policies and guideline pages look the same. If you don't remember the name, you're stuck. There's no fallback to help your memory or communication, like "Um, I think I was looking at a page with a grumpy cat on it?" or "It was a weird shade of green". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Solution: put a different memorable animal on each page, like we've done at Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:53, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  A la O'Reilly Books? "Please get out your copy of the cricket book, and we'll both turn to page 123, where it says..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Made me think of the dragon book, which was used in a course I took in the early 1980s. Donald Albury 13:02, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See mw:Article guidance – maybe this could be developed further to broader scope/application and it could be sth like that is already planned but I'm not sure about it...could also be a broad goal about helpful guidance at point needed/useful or nothing 'official'. Two other or related ways for this is some editor assistant tool as proposed here which can provide links and maybe help if you ask things in natural language and videos – see c:Category:Instructional videos on using Wikipedia. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

These all look very interesting, although a bit separate in functionality from guided tours, as the first one is another extension intended specifically for article creation and the second one is some kind of chatbot, which might not be as well-received by the community. Guided tours are more flexible (as they can be directly written on-wiki without requiring developer work, since the extension already exists) and can provide interface-level guidance, so they are in some way complementary with what you suggest. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:14, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Article guidance currently is just about article creation but again maybe that could be expanded. The context was that the extension you linked seems not use much by both people providing tools and especially users and has been developed it seems around 2013 while the article guidance is used by many users and has been developed just recently. So to me it seemed like expanding that is probably the more feasible approach for optimal results. Maybe one could ask about the differences between the two at the article guidance talk page where maybe it could be clarified if the guided tours extension could be used or why not. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:53, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very confused as these two extensions seem to have very different purposes and functionalities, so using one over the other doesn't seem especially meaningful? For example, the SecurePoll setup tours aren't something that could have been done with the Article guidance extension, as the goal is to guide users through navigating an existing interface rather than have them answer a series of questions. Noting that the latter extension is also currently experimental, and hasn't been fully deployed yet, so expanding it would be a bit premature (although it's good to plan it in advance!) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:34, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Guides tours are interactive tours of a part of Wikipedia. They are meant to complement help pages, by showing users directly how to do something in a step-by-step way overlaps with Article guidance … provides tailored, community-adjustable guidance throughout the creation process [in this context also other processes and pages] and I don't see why it couldn't be adapted for SecurePoll setup; also things like SecurePoll setup seemed like an example, not some particular thing you were asking about. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The intent is similar, but the actual execution is different, as Article guidance provides a standalone window while Guided tours show up as an overlay. Both are helpful in different use cases – to go back to my SecurePoll example (which I'm referring to as it's the one I've developed recently, so it helps to have a concrete example), the setup requires the clerk to use Special:SecurePoll/create, while article creation is more flexible and a separate window can be used to send preload data (which I don't think is feasible with SecurePoll). In general, Article guidance is still experimental and more tailored to the specific task of article creation, and doesn't yet have options to be adapted by the community for other tasks. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:42, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I had originally started this as a new topic before I realized its already somewhat talked about here, so I'm just copy pasting here instead:

I recently started editing on wikipedia (like a month ago), and I found that one of the most challenging parts of wikipedia was knowing and understanding all the various policies and all the things I even could do in wikipedia. And, if you do ask questions or aren't sure what you can or should edit, I've seen people be hit with a 'be bold!' which can read to me as "I don't want to help you understand processes, I just want to correct you when you're wrong" which is discouraging when you barely even know the tenants of wikipedia or how to contribute.

All in all, It was... overwhelming. And while I was ready to take the time to sift through through pages upon pages of WP:Whateverxyz, what I really really would have loved is even more hand holding in my very first edits - even beyond what is already there.

For example - say as part of one of my newcomer tasks, I try to add a citation to an article, I would love a box to pop up the first time I add a citation that gives me a summarized "here's what a reputable source looks like and resources that could help." Or say I am adding a large chunk of text for the first time, an automated box pops up saying "here's how you edit for tone, here is the POV you should be using, etc.". The newcomer tasks gives a good explanation to a lot of things, but so much else you really have to dig to understand. And it's not for lack of the policies and explanations being there, it's just the sheer quantity and how to find it is vastly overwhelming.

I know my idea is vague- I think what I'm looking for is even more of those guided tours that you see in newcomer tasks for ALL areas of wikipedia (like AfD discussion, submitting an AfC, even contributing here in the village pump)- that perhaps only show up the first time you do it or show interest. Something like a live "oh you clicked on AfD for the first time, lets walk you through contributing" rather than me having to sift through procedure explanations and see what other people have been doing. Or even, if the page you are editing is a certain category, certain categorical explanations pop up like subject specific notability and things like that.

Perhaps my experience is different than what is expected - that most people learn and expand their contributions over the course of months or years and aren't trying their hand at contributing to AfD discussion within the first month (and I kinda speed ran this because I got so invested). Any thoughts? Does this already exist and I'm just not really seeing it?  Stormh99 (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply][reply]

This is actually amazing feedback to have, thanks you so much! Many Wikipedia introductions are pretty much written for an imagined content writer/copyeditor who wouldn't branch off in other areas before being already experienced everywhere, which doesn't really match the reality (or diversity) of editors we see. Even these few ideas (AfD, AfC, village pump) are already good starting points for me to work on and write tours for them!

Also: while the technical capacity to add tours to the interface is limited to a dozen or so people, suggesting ideas, tour content, or even whole tour outlines that we can then implement faster helps immensely, and I would honestly be so happy to have other folks working on this. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:45, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'd be happy to help out or provide outlines, or honestly just be an extra set of newcomer eyes to flag any areas where I might be confused- feel free to let me know. I have some limited knowledge of CSS, Java, and JSON, but not really enough to contribute in that way (and also uh yeah still newcomer so I wouldn't call myself in expert in these processes)- though if you're willing to train me up on specific items I'm willing to learn if it helps you create tour outlines. This sounds like a cool project to be part of- would love to chat more. .

The biggest help (and I've got no idea the technical capabilities of this) would be if you had hover-over boxes for any WP:link. Like if you hover over WP:GNG it gives you a tiny blurb saying something like "A commonly cited reason for AfD, this refers to general notability guidelines for wikipedia including that a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

This alone would be super helpful because right now these WP shortcuts that are a subsection of a larger page don't really give much context unless you click the link and do a lot of reading. Having a quick hover-over summary would go such a long way. Additionally, a cool technical thing would be to automatically have the guided tour explain policies that have already been mentioned in the discussion or provide a list of the the most commonly brought up discussion items (such as WP:GNG), or an explanation of the different outcomes as part of the guided tour (delete, merge, keep, etc.)

I even in my editing stumbled upon an article that I thought could be deleted or merged, but had to do some digging before I found if I (as a new user and not an admin) could even nominate it, how to nominate it, and what that process was. My initial assumptions were that only admins could do this. Stormh99 (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That looks great, and I think this might be possible (not the hover part, but at least the "find the relevant discussion items and add them to the tour") with MediaWiki's JavaScript! And also point out a few important ones to consider that might not always be written explicitly, such as GNG or WP:BEFORE. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:34, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and i think this would help quite a bit new editors since the community/working station area of wikipedia is a mess of forums and boards, many of which are obscure or hard to navigate, and oftentimes one may even ignore their existence. I think informing editors in some sort of quick tour would render newbies more likely to collaborate and integrate themselves to the community. + Madotea (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on a prototype for the AfD guided tour, it can be found here (the tour can be started through the menu on the right)! Wondering if I should additionally bring up the different outcomes suggested in !votes (I already have the code for that, although I don't want the tour to appear too bloated). Courtesy ping to @Stormh99 for the idea! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:05, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sweet this looks great! Yeah I would include the different vote outcomes - even just briefly listing them if not going in depth. I would also put right before the final message an explanation on how an AfD is officially closed/final decision made beyond 'if a consensus was reached'. Does an admin make the call? Can a non admin decide- if so how?

Additionally - as I know it's not released yet, will this tour appear automatically for first time visitors to the AfD page, or do you have to click start a tour to see it? I myself sometimes glaze over the details of a page because it all looks a bit similar after a point- took me too long to realize there was a helpful toolbar on the right side and it wasn't just more links to stuff I don't know lol. So having it be an almost forced popup upon first visit might be helpful. Stormh99 (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about showing it the first time an editor visits AfD, although I'm not sure if the extension currently supports "complex" cookies like this, or automatic tour starts, which is why it's currently in button form. Having both would be ideal, as many editors might just skip it the first time they see the pop-up, and want to go back to it later. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added both ideas from your first paragraph, thanks again for your feedback! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:56, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a good idea! I really like what you're doing. There are three things I feel strongly about, but it might make it too complicated were they to be included: (1) special considerations of lists, especially notability of non-navigational lists, and non-need for sourcing for purely navigational lists; (2) NPROF, which loads of people don't seem to know exists; (3) How to handle deletions based not on lack of demonstrable notability, but on suspected LLM-usage? Elemimele (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Our current policy says that:

"Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources."

I think that this is a bit silly considering the fact that we regularly cite local news and other sources that are often seen by fewer people than the average thesis, and are in general subject to less scrutiny. This has come up a few times in at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard over the years, and there is normally a strong contingent of editors that argue in either direction, for many reasons. I will ping any of them here and cross-post this discussion, but I think there might be enough interest in at least loosening these restrictions to something more along the lines of:

"Masters dissertations and theses are **presumed** reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. **If this can not be shown, they should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. ** Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources."

This would allow the use of good and well researched thesis, particularly in history and other liberal arts fields, to be evaluated on merits, rather than on number of citations, which puts papers about more esoteric or niche subjects at a disadvantage.

Pinging @Dreamyshade, @Phil Bridger, @Dclemens1971, @TarnishedPath, @Narutolovehinata5, @Simonm223, @Yesterday, all my dreams..., @Mackensen, @GordonGlottal, @Generalissima, and @Agnieszka653, who all contributed to the previous discussion.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsmasher678, do you have any links to other prior discussions? TarnishedPath^talk 05:47, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some previous discussions on RSN in the past few years:

• 2026: Is the use of a Master's thesis to cite much of the article on Bumpus Cove proper? - conversation that prompted this question, about a history thesis for use on Bumpus Cove (I participated in this one).
• 2026: Masters thesis as citation - about a civil engineering thesis for use on Cyclone Hudhud.
• 2025: Master's thesis for biographical details - about a history thesis for use on Jacob Steinhardt.
• 2025: Master thesis - about a thesis for use on Voisava Kastrioti.
• 2024: Published Master Thesis - about a history of religion thesis.
• 2024: Where do the RfC options come from? Who decided these were the official four? They're bad - has a relevant comment at the end.
• 2023: Use of one student's conference presentation to verify sweeping generalization - has a few relevant comments.

Related from RSN talk page:

• 2025: Proposal to tighten policy on dissertations - about doctoral dissertations and the quality of the university.

Dreamyshade (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Masters thesis are essentially self published sources. They are reviewed by a committee, but their quality is inconsistent. They also vary by country, department, and institution. Committees are often not deeply reading a thesis, and will pass people if it is "good enough" even with problems still in the document. Stuff slides through the cracks. If we allow the general use of thesis, there will be serious problems with unreliable information being cited. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:04, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend that we evaluate masters theses on a case-by-case basis using RS guidelines in general, instead of broadly considering them reliable (too generous) or considering scholarly influence to be the only relevant criteria for reliability (too restrictive). We can productively use a wide range of news articles from news publications of widely varying quality because we have the guidelines of WP:SOURCEDEF and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I believe that a well-researched history masters thesis on a relatively narrow and well-scoped topic, from a department that specializes in that topic area, can be a sufficiently reliable secondary source for non-controversial claims in non-contentious topic areas.

I'd suggest a change like this to WP:THESIS: "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence, or on a case-by-case basis if carefully evaluated under reliable source guidelines in general." Dreamyshade (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just expanding on this suggestion with a couple of selected quotes from the past discussions I linked above:

• March 2024: "The situationality of reliability is a great point, and it's about more than just individual reporters. The fact that a masters' thesis isn't at all usable for media and drama interpretation, but a rushed, insignificant capsule review in Rolling Stone is, is sheer lunacy." (@Theleekycauldron)
• May 2023: "It's a bit odd to me that we treat thesis papers as if they were all deprecated (worse than Fox News!), when many of them are actually pretty excellent; their only problem is inconsistent quality depending on uni, supervisor, and field. Some thesis papers are complete nonsense or fringe, but it's unfortunate that we often treat all of them as borderline radioactive." (@DFlhb)

Dreamyshade (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would put the average thesis only slightly above an undergraduate research paper in terms of quality. I've seen some truly excellent Reddit posts, doesn't mean they are reliable. A thesis is fundamentally still a learning exercise where a student learns how to conduct research, and how to write in an academic voice. With news sources, we can at least debate trends in bias from the publication, a thesis is a one off from an unknown individual. The journalists hired by a News agency are not writing an article to learn how to write articles, they have presumably passed some screening process to borrow the reputation of their agency. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:03, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's this, and more. A news organization's standards and practices are brought to bear on every article published. With some exceptions, reliability largely derives from the publication itself and not the individual journalist. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I used to mark masters theses. No committee for the ones I marked. And they were only part of the degree. Doug Weller talk 08:58, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Having written a Master's Thesis that made a significant historical error that slipped by because it was tangential to a main point of the thesis, they are a mixed bag and need to be very carefully used. Viking metal uses one because it's some of the earliest scholarship that presaged a (relative) explosion of scholarship of that genre ten years later. Much of that late scholarship references the thesis.----3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 00:35, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I share the sentiments of GegSage in that the quality of master items are often highly inconsistent. Once in a blue moon we get a master thesis such as the 1978 thesis by Chu which became a serious item via Chu spaces. But I personally can not recall another case that comes anywhere close. In many cases if a professor is top class in his field and has a tough character, he will check the thesis carefully. But in 80% of cases the committee members just go along with what the adviser says. They may need him when one of their own students is standing up to defend his PhD thesis. The role of departmental politics should not be ignored. And do you think the committee members have time to read the thesis page by page? No way. And in many cases if committee members are from another department they just sit there to collect the small fee they get for attending. I still smile when I recall attending the PhD defense by another student. One of the outside committee members was a world class fellow who has a well known discovery named after him. He was a few years before retirement at the time. He sat there and literally read that day's newspaper as the student made his presentation. At the end he asked a simple question that showed he had no idea about the thesis, which was outside his department. We all knew he came there just to get the fee. So in my view theses quality is as random as a roulette table outcome. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 06:56, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Personal anecdote, I'm pretty proud of my master thesis. My entire committee was very involved and one member was fairly recognizable in the field, it won regional awards, has been cited by at least one peer-reviewed publication, and consistently has a relatively large number of weekly views on ResearchGate. I don't think it should be cited on Wikipedia. My methods were good enough, but amateur. I've considered trying to get the results peer-reviewed, but would want to conduct the entire study again to address several issues I ran into. I've never seen a thesis that I'd consider good enough to meet the threshold for "reliable," and I've read quite a few exceptional ones. That said, I'm the outside committee member for a defense today, and hope to be proven wrong. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 07:40, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  GeoSage, let us all be reminded that some roulette table outcomes are wins, and sometimes big wins. Chu was a big win, and your thesis was a win. But that is how roulette tables work. As for your thesis meeting today, please be sure to take a newspaper, just in case. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 08:08, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  They brought doughnuts, they bribed me for full attention. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:37, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @GeogSage Curious, would you consider your thesis mostly a primary source or a secondary source, as defined by WP:PSTS? Broadly, it seems like some masters theses are mostly reporting and discussing new results from a study or experiment (often in scientific fields), and some are mostly synthesizing and interpreting existing source materials (often in humanities fields). This is part of why I'm interested in revising WP:THESIS to allow case-by-case evaluation of whether a masters thesis can be a reliable source - the secondary type is more likely to be a useful reliable source for Wikipedia citation purposes. Dreamyshade (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Dreamy, your categorization of master theses into 2 groups is based on your experiences. John Tukey would frawn... We have no data to support that assumption. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thesis has a rather extensive literature review which would be secondary, followed by the experimental methodology, results, analysis, discussion, and conclusion, which is primary. As proud of my literature review as I am, I do not think it should be cited. The sources I cited would be much more appropriate to use. Something I'm guilty of in it that I see often in others is using the thesis to be edgy from an academic perspective, and to use it as an opportunity to soap box about a hot take or opinion. While I don't necessarily disagree with the opinions I advanced, I don't think it was as supported by the literature as I thought it was. Masters thesis are usually written by people just out of undergraduate course work, and they are often closer in quality to a good term paper then a peer-reviewed publication. The thesis is a step towards learning how to write well, do research, and contribute to the literature. During the course of writing one, students are given feedback from their advisors, but ultimately the final decisions are left to the student. There isn't editorial oversight, and the professors are generally trying to make the process as painless as possible and not trip the student up if something goes really poorly. A bad article is rejected, a bad thesis will be polished a bit and the student will move on. A Ph.D. dissertation is where the requirement is contributing to the literature in a meaningful way, and most of the time in the U.S. the good parts of a dissertation are published in journals, so it is unnecessary to cite the dissertation itself. If a masters thesis is actually really good, then the student is often encouraged to clean it up and submit to a journal as well, at which point we wouldn't need to cite the thesis. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:05, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

King, to get more responses you may want to put links to here on some project pages. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 08:04, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• These days it is rather standard to get thesis content (MSc and up) published in peer-reviewed article form, which then makes the material reliable by our standards. If that does not happen, it may be due to the author being busy with the next thing, but in my experience there is also a good chance that the reviewers agreed that this was good enough for a degree, but not good enough to enter the body of research. In other words, the current guidelines seem correct to me - be careful with hanging anything on a thesis source if the material was not published as a proper article. Having said that, I'm not sure how applicable the notion is to older theses; the "build your thesis as a future journal submission" approach is a relatively recent trend, and probably does not apply to (my guess) material from the 80s or earlier. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:57, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that this shift from thesis-in-itself to quasi-journal article is worth taking into account. Practices likely vary by field as well. Toadspike [Talk] 13:41, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree that a journal article (from a reputable journal) is distinct from a thesis. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  +1 and I would treat most journal articles from reputable journals as WP:BESTSOURCES. The question becomes one of reputation. We all know about the Frontiers journals and the Journal of Controversial Ideas as journals with minimal or negative reputations so it's not just non-predatory = good but, in general, if a thesis is published in a journal then we can just use that version. Simonm223 (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, and I think this goes without saying. We evaluate journal articles by the standards for journal articles. The credentials of the lead author or first author may occasionally be a consideration but we would not evaluate the reliability of a journal article as though it were a master's thesis. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Elmidae, I think your point about the student intentions is valid, but needs more detail. Some students do a master degree because they intend to go on to a PhD. Some others do it because it improves their chances of getting a better job in industry. This second group does not gain a lot by getting things published. And of course it is all highly dependent on the ability and intelligence of the student. The very clever students (yours truly included) figure out how to "work the system" and move on to a PhD without writing a master thesis. So, in a sense, the most clever master theses are never written. I generally do not trust master theses unless they have been published in an RS source. But then we would NOT need the thesis. So let us only reply on RS journals. I see no point in the RFC. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"presumed" is used in some specific ways on Wikipedia, I would be strongly against using it here.
There is variability in the quality of master thesis, and I don't think the current wording takes that into consideration. So many of them will be of far higher quality than most websites that are regularly used for referencing. I'm unsure about the particular wording though, "If this can not be shown, they should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis". I think it should reflect that it's the editor wanting to use it that needs to show why it should be used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:43, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actively, I agree, specially about your last sentence. We would need a super WP:BURDEN criterion. As I said above to Elmidae, I would prefer not to have any references to master items not published in an RS journal. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would be okay with the ability to ask for an exception to use a thesis, however I would not want to greenlight it as general practice. It's hard to prove something isn't reliable, and it is really hard to get people to avoid using bad sources as it is. On a talk page I've pointed out an article failed the RS noticeboard, is in a predatory journal, and is likely 95% AI generated, and they still argue for its inclusion because it has been cited several times (I suspect many of those citations are equally dubious, but haven't checked). If using masters thesis becomes generally accepted, instead of only as rare exceptions, there will be a lot of time wasted trying to demonstrate why a thesis is not a good source. I also suspect there will be a lot of hurt feelings when students try to anonymously insert their thesis into an article, and get it eviscerated by editors. Even if it isn't the student, I would feel a bit bad ripping into a thesis someone else tried to get cited on the off chance some poor grad student stumbles upon the discussion. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:41, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This would be acceptable to me. What would you recommend for wording? Kingsmasher678 (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, if someone is going to use a thesis as a source, the burden should be on them to prove that:

• No better source exists
• The thesis is of high quality
• The thesis satisfies a need within the article, and is not just superfluous information.
• The thesis is used to describe or describe something objective/factual/quantitative, not speculation or interpretation by the author.

Generally, if something is notable enough to include on Wikipedia, there will be other sources, which would make this a very rare occurrence. I'd suggest the thesis first pass the reliable source noticeboard, at the very least. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:51, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is reasonable. Having the policy in place that allows the source to pass the noticeboard is my goal. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also maybe have a tier list for the reliability of the journal itself? Are masters's theses published in journals like Nature or just PhD's? This may be a dumb question but my only experience is with PhDs. Agnieszka653 (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Masters thesis are usually published on Proquest, or something equivalent. Same with dissertations. After they are published (or sometimes before), they can be trimmed and worked into a format for a journal. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:10, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they should need to be preapproved, that sounds a bit to much like having to ask for permission to edit. But if challenged the editor wanting to use a master thesis should be required to show that it's a suitable source. This is meant to be an exception not a green light. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:17, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think when it comes to masters thesis, I would rather see them all considered unreliable then to be allowed unless challenged. I've dealt with this recently, as an example, on the third RfC in the last 6 months on the Dead Internet Theory talk page, the user opened it with a table of sources they scraped off of Google Scholar. They did not vet these sources, at all. The RfC moved forward considering them as evidence, and I had to spend hours checking each source for reliability. The damage to the RfC is done, people don't go back and check their statements, and honestly most editors are probably just going with their gut most of the time anyway. Allowing masters thesis puts the burden of checking documents that might be hundreds of pages long on the person challenging it, not the editor that wants to see it included. Most of them are not appropriate sources, if an exception has to be made for edge cases, it needs to be carefully implemented. Most people don't check the sources others are adding in any great depth as it is, it could be really easy to get a thesis published at a disreputable university, add something to a page, and have it sit for years. The most serious issue is it risks citogenesis situations. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:20, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of something like this. But maybe we should join it with a special rule against any user citing their own thesis, whatever other circumstances apply. Because I think it will be a particular problem with MA theses. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, impossible to enforce rules should not be put on the books at all. If a source is good, then it doesn't matter who is adding it. We don't know the names of editors, and while it is possible to dox them, that goes against the rules (and for very good reason). If a rule like this is put on the books, it just leads to impossible to prove accusations that get in the way of discussions about content. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:37, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we shouldn't have a special rule for MA theses. And WP:SELFCITE already covers this. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• In general, I tentatively support using them, but only in genuinely obscure fields where there are few or no better sources in English, and their status should be clearly disclosed. And perhaps no COI use as per GordonGlottal (not just the student, but profs and pals). Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  We do have the COI guideline of WP:SELFCITE, which I'd consider sufficient to address the concern about self-citation. Dreamyshade (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  J.B. how well can we evaluate these "very obscure" fields, with close to no sources in English? By definition they are hard to understand and evaluate. I do not like walking in the dark with my eyes closed. Do you? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  We have editors with expertise in obscure fields, obscure topics, and languages other than English. We also have editors with general experience in a field who can competently pick up and improve related material without necessarily having prior background in a specific sub-field. Dreamyshade (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed we do, and if they come along and upgrade the sources, that's great. But usually they won't. Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Luckily, there is no deadline. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I like Dreamyshade's proposed wording. Echoing the points above, they can be useful if there are no better sources available, but should only be used on a per-claims-basis and not for anything even approaching WP:EXCEPTIONAL. I've used some occasionally for blind spots in the literature and have found that those tend to have several cites in peer-reviewed scholarship (according to Scholar), which makes usage a lot more comfortable. Have even seen unpublished theses used in historical scholarship. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:16, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would ideally like to include master's theses I am an inclusionist by nature. However echoing some of the other points above, I think it's hard to pick and choose what master's theses are worth citing and which ones are questionable. Considering that so many graduate degrees are pushed through every year the quality of these publications can very widely which I think is one of the major issues here. Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agnies, I agree. It is a roulette game. But I have already said that. So let this be my last comment here. I am done on the discussion here. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As a Masters holder in the humanities myself, I agree with what most of Greg Sage says. Sometimes a thesis has as much rigor and value as a professionally published work and sometimes it does not. The point of a grad school thesis is different from that of a published article. The candidates are there to demonstrate that they can research and write in a certain way. It's not always about the content of the text, so the thesis, even if reviewed by professionals, is not getting the same kind of attention as an article composed for publication. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: My general comment is more that everything said against masters theses is also applicable to many of the other sources that are regularly cited. We have decided that our editors are competent enough to determine reliability in that case. There is no reason the same can not be done for this one. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is some of us are not competent enough--hence why we have the RS noticeboard. Like I stated above I would love to include more sources and I actually don't agree with the tier list, the reason the RS noticeboard exists is to (theoretically) prevent not only mis and disinformation from permeating the platform but to also prevent ideologically abuse--as in prevent bad actors from abusing certain sources to fit an ideological narrative. I think unfortunately higher ed particularly the social sciences and liberal arts (though it is now permeating the hard sciences too) has issues with research being skewed to fit a certain world view. Also there is the Replication crisis where experiments are having issues with being repeated by different research teams where they are NOT achieving the same results. Since a Master's Thesis is usually an academic or newly minted professional's first foray into scholarly writing and research I'm not sure we should treat these sources as reliable for this reason. Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense for certain types of theses, like hard science one in chemistry an the like. It is not a concern for history, as long as we use common sense in the ways that we do for all other sources. If we want to raise the bar to meet these requirements in all situations, fine, but it is not fair to act as if the rest of the common sources we use, like newspapers and the like, don't have those same issues. In those cases, we use our brains and minds to figure out how to balance biasis, and there is no reason not to do the same here. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would actually argue its the other way around. I actually trust masters theses in chemistry and physics way more than I would those in history because the latter is not supposed to be based on subjectivity. Newspapers are supposed to be much more reliable as well because they are (ideally--not saying it's great all the time) supposed to be reporting on current events--ie facts. Can be facts be subjective? Can two different journalists have completely different interpretations of a breaking news story? Yes. It's a lot harder though to deduce this in a masters thesis where an extremely obtuse liberal arts or social sciences field could have very few scholars who may have a shewed view of a topic with very little outside pushback. In the hard sciences your masters thesis should be based on quantifiable results produced over years of observable results from carefully constructed experiments based on other scientists previous work. Agnieszka653 (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the hard sciences your masters thesis should be based on quantifiable results produced over years of observable results from carefully constructed experiments based on other scientists previous work. Reality is that in the hard sciences, they are usually based on one or two experiments that were done in the last two semesters (or often, the last semester) of grad school. The first year of a masters thesis is mostly coursework and some literature review, generally ending with a proposal. Students just don't have the time or money to be very rigorous, and unfortunately because time is a limiting factor, often have to stick with the results they get the first go around without following up with additional experiments. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:47, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. that's unfortunate I worked in a lab for many years that only had PhD students and post-docs so that's probably where my skewed perspective is coming from. Agnieszka653 (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do it. Ph.D. is another beast entirely, 4 to 6 years instead of 2, and the requirement is generally that you make a novel contribution to the body of knowledge. Depends on the discipline, university, and department, but it is common for it to essentially be three journal articles that are loosely related sandwiched between an introduction and conclusion section. In these cases, the core chapters have passed peer-review or something like it (I've also seen book chapters used in a dissertation that were not peer-reviewed but did have editorial oversight outside their advisor/committee). Much higher bar then a thesis. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:33, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find the comparison to other types of sources like news articles fitting. Reliability is a factor of the types of claims for which a source is (generally) reliable and the underlying standards and practices that confer such reliability. News stories are not usually reliable for claims about ancient Egyptian pharmacology or comparative religion novel rating scales for storm damage. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I lean against this proposal. The provision that master's theses that cannot be shown to have had significant scholarly influence […] should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis doesn't add much guidance and would seem to just open up more disputes. I didn't read every linked discussion in its entirety, so I may have missed something, but it appears that in most cases the thesis is determined to be unusable and in a few it has been given a pass based on some exceptional set of circumstances. I think it should continue to be uncommon that we cite a master's thesis, that has not been cited or discussed in other literature, for a factual claim that is not found in any other sources. I'm open to the idea that there are exceptions, for example areas where there are systemic gaps in the literature and the thesis was supervised by a recognized authority in the field. I would think there should be a high bar and these should perhaps include in-text attribution. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly, I just want to find a way to allow the use of theses that study understudied things and area, like the history of environmental disasters in Appalachia. There are often very serious and life changing events that get little or no coverage outside of the rare theses or the like. This whole thing cam up when I was writing the article about Bumpus Cove. The only half decent, and collected, coverage of the whole superfund site located in the cove is in an extremely well written master thesis. I had to spend HOURS digging through newspaper archives to find enough to source the article, and it is still a bit shaky. That seemed very stupid to me, so it ended up here, and RSN and DYK and on the article's talk page.

The policy clearly needs a bit more flex, I just don't have the experience to really nail down how much. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. And you've done a great job navigating all these discussion forums and policy considerations, laying out the issues, and, I think, gaining at least some support. I'd be more comfortable allowing a one-off exception for Bumpus Cove than loosening up the guidance. (Note—I have not reviewed the Bumpus Cove issue closely enough to confidently make that assessment, so this should not be taken as a firm endorsement.) —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I second that--and I agree it makes sense for that article--and articles like it. Agnieszka653 (talk) 01:22, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Myceteae and @Agnieszka653, I appreciate that! I have to say that I would prefer some sort of process that others can follow. I like what @GeogSage said above:

Generally, if someone is going to use a thesis as a source, the burden should be on them to prove that:

No better source exists

The thesis is of high quality

The thesis satisfies a need within the article, and is not just superfluous information.

The thesis is used to describe or describe something objective/factual/quantitative, not speculation or interpretation by the author.

Generally, if something is notable enough to include on Wikipedia, there will be other sources, which would make this a very rare occurrence. I'd suggest the thesis first pass the reliable source noticeboard, at the very least.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The double describe was supposed to say "describe or explain." I need to proofread better. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:39, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That criteria sounds reasonable to me. I wonder if a good next step could be writing an WP:ESSAY that summarizes this discussion to provide informal context and suggestions for interpreting WP:THESIS for masters theses, as a reference for future discussions on RSN. Could also add a version of the checklist I used in this discussion about the Bumpus Cove DYK. Dreamyshade (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An essay is a good idea. It would help to workshop and refine this over a longer period of time and with more test cases. The essay and its talk page could serve as a repository of links to relevant discussions. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think @Dreamyshade's analysis here did a good job of this. The provision that it satisfies a need within the article is important and gets and gets at other potential issues related to notability and neutrality (specifically WP:DUE and WP:PROPORTION). —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So we have a bit of an egg and chicken problem here though. Because for a master's thesis to fill that need we'd need to establish encyclopedic significance absent the master's thesis and that would imply better sources already exist in which case why not just cite them instead. In other words: if the only source is a master's thesis we can't really establish relevance. Simonm223 (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some locations are notable like the Bumpus Cove example. Per Wikipedia:NPLACE. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm very aware that Bumpus Cove is at the root of this discussion. My question is rather about how to establish that the Master's thesis is needed there if it's the only source for the information it contains. It's a circular establishment of relevance: the master's thesis becomes the argument for its own necessity in inverse proportion to the number of other sources that exist. And that's problematic as a source inclusion criterion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Another example I'm thinking of is Isla Vista, California, which, like Bumpus Cove, is a census-designated place. It is undeniably notable, especially due to significant secondary coverage especially post-1970, but there are few reliable sources available about the earlier history of the place, especially 1910s-1960s. See the local university's list of resources about Isla Vista history - the best sources available for pre-1970 history are largely self-published works and theses written at the neighboring university, including several masters theses and one PhD dissertation published in 1994. The article's early history section is poorly cited at the moment, but I want to work more on it at some point, and if I had to limit myself to the dissertation, the section would miss out on depth and balance. Dreamyshade (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This raises additional issues. The difference between these cases is instructive. At Bumpus Cove, the MA thesis is used as a citation 13 times. In 7 of these instances, it is supported by at least one additional citation. Overall, my impression is that the thesis fleshes out important details but is not the sole source in terms of verifiability/reliability, notability, or neutrality. For Isla Vista, California, if there is a 60-year time period that is only covered in master's theses and is systematically underrepresented in generally reliable sources, this suggests we should not devote substantial coverage to it in our article. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is secondary coverage available in newspaper and magazine articles, but the historical material is largely derived from research published by students - for example, this 2026 news feature quotes the person who wrote a 1987 masters thesis and 1994 dissertation, which is great because she really is the best expert on this material. As another example, this 2025 news feature is mostly a synthesis of previously published research, along with some primary source research done by the author, who is a knowledgeable community member without formal training. There are also government reports with some summaries of early history. I can cite these materials as supporting sources, but they're not necessarily more reliable for factual information than the masters theses. In general it wouldn't be WP:DUE to write a particularly lengthy section about the early history of this place, but I do want the material to be substantive and use the best available sources. Dreamyshade (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would be wary about over-reliance on primary sources and master's theses but I can appreciate that for local history sourcing is limited. WP:INTEXT citation might be called for here. It's difficult to assess reliability or due weight without looking at specific article content and the how sources are used. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Comparing a government source to a masters thesis, the issue is institutional accountability. A government source is backed by the government, and if it is incorrect then we can point to that as an issue. A peer-reviewed publication has the reputation of the authors institution and the journal to back it up. A news article is backed by the agency that published it. A masters thesis is essentially self published, and while a bad one might reflect poorly on their advisor, the point of the thesis isn't to create sources but to teach a student how to do research. Universities are not staking their reputation on the quality of individual students thesis work, and students are told they are the only ones responsible for the statements written in their document. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:54, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can speak to geography as an example. A region might be notable, but specific details about that region might not exist, or be difficult to find, in the literature. A thesis written by a student about that region might contain something about it that might satisfy a need. It could be something as simple as "_________ region, known locally as __________" where the local name is demonstrably known to us from unacceptable sources like social media, but not in a reliable source. Once we find the fact in a better source, we can swap the thesis for that. Generally, I'm not in favor of adding them at all, but I can see where it might be useful in some situations, and if we are going to do it would want it heavily restricted to ensure it remains an edge case. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:44, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a real problem. I didn't want to get too off-topic but this issue really is at the intersection of all these inclusion criteria/considerations. I think it's possible there can be a situation where:

1. A subject is notable
2. A particular aspect of the subject is important enough to warrant coverage, perhaps even so much so that omissions would run afoul of DUE/PROPORTION
3. A high quality master's thesis is the best source for specific details

But it's a tough case to make and should be a high bar. Bumpus Cove appears to be a special case that may clear that bar but I'm not convinced we should open the flood gates. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of in the same place. I know at RS/N I was pretty rigid about Bumpus Cove but that was because that's the reliability rules we have in front of us. Based on this extensive discussion it seems like an edge case. My concern is that we don't want to be building policy from the edges in. Simonm223 (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I like the comments by WhatamIdoing and David Eppstein in the 2025 discussion on dissertations, especially the comment "the key question isn't "Is it reliable?" but "Is it reliable for this claim?"" In that vein, I don't think blanket prohibitions or even discuragemnt of finished theses and dissertations matter, it is whether there are no better sources for the claim exists. (And I would strongly hesitate to use only a master's thesis for determining notability, but again extrordinary circumstances may arise). --Enos733 (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron I noticed you expressed an opinion about this here, thought you might be interested. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA and @Cremastra from here. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with theses is that they vary so much. However, I dislike the status quo of what is effectively total prohibition. I think it would be beneficial to be given more latitude; maybe a presumption that masters' thesis are no consensus off the bat rather than generally unreliable. It varies wildly by field, so I think making it more case by case would be reasonable, as in some fields masters theses are respectable contributions with overview and in others they are effectively worthless to cite. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: I would encourage people to send this to anyone they think may be interested. I would like to have as much imput as possible before starting any sort of official RFC. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notice placed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think there is certainly an issue of variability with master's theses and the level of scrutiny they undergo. One issue is the wide variation in expectation for a master's thesis, in particular (in the UK at least) the difference between research master's and taught master's (including integrated master's). A taught master's thesis is basically an extended essay on a project, with most of the marks being from examination on taught courses, while a research master's thesis is the basis for most of the marks for the degree and is examined in a similar way to a PhD, with external examiners reading the thesis. A taught master's thesis is therefore only slightly higher than a final year bachelor's project and I think the presumption that these are not reliable is reasonable. A research master's is, in contrast, often supposed to be work of publishable quality and a much stronger argument can be made for treating these as reliable. In the UK, institutional research repositories will normally hold research master's theses but not taught master's theses.

However, the same variability also applies to doctoral theses, with some doctorates (particularly in the US) awarded for taught programmes. The general advice at WP:THESIS includes "If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature, supervised by recognized specialists in the field, or reviewed by independent parties." At the moment, only the first of these is considered to make a master's thesis reliable, which seems over-restrictive. The implication of the policy as currently written is that it's okay, even if not preferable, to cite a thesis from a taught professional doctorate (such as a US JD) that has been supervised by a non-specialist and has not been reviewed by an independent examiner, but that a research master's thesis supervised by a recognised specialist and reviewed by an external examiner is considered unreliable unless it can be shown to have had "significant scholarly influence". Such a division in how we treat theses based on what an institution decides to title its programme does not seem particularly useful.

I think the 'treat on a case-by-case basis' idea has some merit, but requires guidance. I would suggest that for a thesis to have been reviewed by independent parties is a minimum bar for all theses (not just master's theses) to be considered reliable, and that research master's theses that have been subject to external review and that are expected to be work of publishable quality should be considered reliable in the same way as research doctoral theses (with the onus on the person wanting to use the thesis to demonstrate this, in the same way it currently is). Robminchin (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a misread of the situation. The bulk of the guidance, including the portion you quoted, applies to Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate. Only the last two sentences apply to Masters dissertations and theses, which have more restrictions on use. In the US, professional doctorates like JD and MD do not include a dissertation, so the guidance doesn't really apply. As I just learned, the use of "thesis" vs. "dissertation" for master's vs. doctoral degrees is opposite in different countries. Perhaps the guideline could be improved by specifying doctoral theses and masters theses. You're right that terminology varies even within each country, from program to program, and that we can't rely on something simply being called a "thesis". —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are JD courses in the US that have a (sometimes optional) thesis component, e.g.,[1] There are also other places that have non-research doctorates with thesis requirements below those for master's degrees, e.g.,[2]. In an international encyclopedia we can't rely on doctorate vs masters any more than thesis vs dissertation as a discriminator of the level of a work.

As currently worded, a thesis produced after two years of research and subjected to external review for an MPhil is unreliable, but a 5 credit-hour internally marked thesis for a JD is acceptable. This clearly needs major revision, not just tinkering. Robminchin (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

True, fair point. That is quite different from a dissertation (US usage), and I read doctoral theses as meaning dissertations here but I see that it is open to different readings. I read it as clear that the first part would not refer to a thesis in a professional doctorate program in the US but strictly speaking, as worded, it is open to different readings. As I read it, a US JD "thesis" or master's or doctoral "capstone" is not explicitly addressed here. I see two separate (but intertwined) issues here that might be handled differently. One is to possibly clean up the wording and the other is to decide if there is going to be a change in the standard. If the reliable sources standard is not changing, then it's just a question of confirming everyone's current understanding and clarifying the wording as needed. Although it's not clear doctoral dissertations or JD theses have been a source of controversy in the past. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the current policy allows limited usage of master's theses/dissertations, based on specific circumstances and good-faith vetting by the editor. In addition, the policy indicates a preference for secondary publications. At first, I thought it was adequate, but am beginning to change my mind. It might be helpful to change the phrasing to “good-faith vetting”, " strengthening the concept of researching the source before using it. Should we also note that such sources would not count toward notability and should not be used to support the majority of an article's content?

We should probably discuss how such works can serve as both primary and secondary sources. A master’s thesis or dissertation might have a limited distribution, but is not self-published. Although there is an assumption that such works are always primary sources that present original research, many serve as secondary sources that provide analysis or summaries of the works of others. Wikipedia recognizes the potential for this dual role, noting that newspapers, for example, can be a secondary source. Such clarification could limit how these sources should be used, but could also strengthen the case for how they could be used. Rublamb (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree largely with these issues raised and I'm unsure how to proceed. My sense, based on this discussion and the others linked, is that the guidance has served us fairly well despite real ambiguity in the terminology, unclear applicability to certain degree types, and some disagreement about the current scope. I worry about WP:CREEP, bogging down the guidance with a lot of minutiae about terminology and special circumstances—or adding vague guidance about good-faith vetting or a case-by-case basis—and potentially creating more loopholes or disputes. To be clear, I find my own objections here rather unsatisfying. tl;dr: You raise good points and I don't know what the right answer is. A key question for me is whether these issues have been a locus of recurring disputes. As for the primary vs. secondary source discussion, I'm not sure it is the critical test here, especially if we get the rest of the guidance right, although it may be worth mentioning and linking to existing guidance on this. If an MA thesis contains primary research that goes on to be widely cited and considered a major contribution to the field then we can probably use it, with the usual caveats that secondary sources may still be better. On the other hand, a master's student's secondary analysis of prior literature is generally unusable unless it's been published or cited elsewhere. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Myceteae has it correct above in some of their responses: If the only place where we can find information is in weak sources then that information (probably) doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article.

With that said, I have no objection an editor using a Master's thesis that can be demonstrated as being sufficiently reliable (which is the same position I hold for any kind of source). But I think the current approach of defaulting to not presuming that a Master's thesis is reliable is the correct one given what we know about how they are typically written and reviewed. So I'm not convinced that our current policies and practices need to change. ElKevbo (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On "If the only place where we can find information is in weak sources then that information (probably) doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article", who is "we" here? We (in this discussion) are essentially talking about what to do when we find an average WP editor, more than likely only using sources available online (and of course in English) has found a masters thesis and used it. What are "we" to do? Of course "we" could ideally conduct a full library etc search (multilingual if necessary) for better sources, but "we" probably won't. Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"We" would be the reliable source noticeboard and the article in questions talk page. I think including a thesis should be hard to do, and the burden to prove an exception should be on the editor wanting to include it. If we find any source in a more traditionally acceptable medium, we replace the thesis with it. Alternatively, we just don't use masters theses at all. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:36, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My own Master's thesis was a research thesis. It was reviewed by two academic reviewers, one in the UK and one in Australia. (The PhD was reviewed by three, all experts, all overseas.) It is cited more often in books and articles than the PhD and required just as much work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:14, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If a thesis is cited in peer-reviewed books and articles (such as yours), it meets the threshold of significant scholarly influence. Mine won an award from an international organization in the field--I think this would qualify as proof of significance/reliability, but maybe not of influence. However, one person in my cohort didn't even meet the minimum length, was not passed by peer reviewers, and go the degree anyway. As noted above, all works are not equal. There are a few dissertations that I have used as sources for Wikipedia articles because the author is widely accepted as the leading authority in a particular subject, often publishing on the topic as a professional (but with fewer details than found in the thesis or dissertation). Considering this, some changes to the wording of the policy might be beneficial, but maybe not as broad as allowing a case-by-case analysis, as that will totally depend on who is reviewing these. Maybe wording such as "significant scholarly influence or other external evidence of scholarly reliability" might open up usage, but would not invite every editor to make their own determinations regarding a thesis. Rublamb (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The amount of work that goes into a document has little to do with how reliable it is. Awards have little to do with how reliable they are, especially if the awards are for presenting the research and not the document itself. We could cite the scholarly sources that have made the choice to cite a thesis, but should generally avoid citing them. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:59, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your sentiment, but you are making an assumption that a secondary scholarly source replicates the contents of the thesis. The caveat here is when an editor lacks access to a better source. As I said above, there are rare cases where a scholar's thesis and dissertation become the definitive source on a subject. The best examples I can think of are works about specific architects that have yet to receive treatment in a book (and probably never will). The sources used for the thesis or dissertation are largely archival, with the thesis or dissertation providing analysis and an amalgamation of facts. A book or article might cite the thesis regarding a building or the architect, but they are unlikely to replicate the biographical content or the comprehensive analysis of the architect's style and contributions found in the dissertation or thesis. Yet, the dissertation or thesis might be heavily cited in a nomination form for the National Register or Historic Places (which are heavily used as sources in Wikipedia), making it important when it comes to identifying and recognizing significant structures in the U.S. I know I am going very specific here, but my point is that there are cases when this type of publication is appropriately used as a source. Our current policy allows for such usage.

FYI: In my case, the award was for the paper, without a presentation. Thus, the award consisted of a review by a panel of international experts in the field. I was also approached by a publisher to convert it into a book. However, my thesis is unlikely to be used as a source in Wikipedia; I was just using it as an example because there are numerous such awards out there that can be used to help determine the credibility of a thesis or dissertation. Rublamb (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In these exceptional cases where no other source exists, we can have a discussion and make exceptions. Some barrier should exist to keep the exception from becoming the norm. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:09, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, these represent exceptional cases. And, again, this gets back to the issues of notability and due weight, in addition to reliability. If an architect is wiki-notable enough to have a standalone article and the only source for key biographical details or unique interpretations of their style is a master's thesis. And, yes, this is a different standard than a biography published by a reputable book publisher or in a peer reviewed journal. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Georg, I agree their use should be the exception and should never be the "go to" source for anything. I actually feel the same way about doctoral dissertations. I provided these examples as a possible reason to allow their use in a limited way, since there was some pushback on that concept. In terms of the wording under discussion, isn't this type of analysis (primary vs. secondary sources, reliable vs. unreliable) covered in general guidelines for sources in Wikipedia? Rublamb (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In general, a thesis is covered on Wikipedia:Reliable sources under WP:THESIS. I think the language used there is too lenient, and that in general, most fall under WP:SELFPUB. Fundamentally, they are reviewed by a committee, but that review is just to ensure it meets minimum standards to pass the defense. The student is responsible for the content of the thesis, and copies generally need to be paid for by the student out of pocket. To publish on ProQuest, it is often a requirement to be under the open-access license which the student generally needs to pay for out of pocket. They often include both primary and secondary information, but more importantly, they are ultimately self published by individuals who are going through a very rushed learning exercise. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:59, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wearing my librarian hat here: A thesis is not self-published; it is technically published by the academic institution that binds, catalogs, and stores the document. APA Style says, "A dissertation or thesis is considered published when it is available from a database such as ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global or PDQT Open, an institutional repository, or an archive." Note that there is a middleman/publisher between the author and access to the publication, which is different from publishing and selling your own book. In the old days, the fee for a copy of a thesis/dissertation was shared between the university library and the vendor--the author was not part of the conversation. Today, the thesis is supposed to include a copyright page, with the author signing an authorization for the library to distribute copies through a vendor. Once ProQuest gets involved with digital or microfilm copies, the publisher is considered to be ProQuest. You could say that ProQuest is not a reliable publisher of scholarly works, as it makes no review for quality. However, many general nonfiction books are published by reputable houses, with the scholarly side of the book only receiving a narrow review with regard to its accuracy. Such firms have also been known to hire general writers, rather than experts, for a series of books. These books are not scholarly but are used as sources in Wikipedia without question.

Rushed is relative--one semester of research and one semester writing is a longer time than is spent on many nonfiction books that are considered reliable sources. It is certainly more time than is spent on newspaper or magazine articles that are considered reliable sources. I have seen an event happen, with books from reputable publishing appearing on library shelves within 3 to 4 months. And that was before AI!

Are we getting overexcited about a minor issue. How often do people use a thesis or dissertation as a source? Their general lack of availability through a Google search probably limits their use. I guess it depends on discipline. I would rather see a thesis citation than no source or a random Internet source. However, ask me again in twenty years when there are shelves full of AI-crafted and reviewed theses.... Rublamb (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ProQuest doesn't check the work you publish, they explicitly tell you that before they take your money. There are a number of Vanity press that will publish things for you and enter it into a database. ResearchGate will make anything available you want in a database as well, in fact I tell my students to upload their conference posters onto it, and it even generates DOI numbers for them (Every poster I have ever presented is on ResearchGate with a DOI, they even show up if you search well enough on Google Scholar). There are Degree mills that will give anyone a paper that says "Master."
• I've recently seen them attempted to be used on dead Internet theory, and have seen them on other pages. Google Scholar readily shows theses.
• In the context of research, they are usually quite rushed. Students are busy, and generally have a graduation date in mind, limited funding, and job offers. I had to hurry through my thesis and defend over a Summer session because I had been accepted into a Ph.D. program, I had to defend my dissertation over a Summer because I had accepted a job offer. On my dissertation, I was forced to cut two publications out as my committee didn't think they would be ready in time to defend (5 instead of 7, with a minimum of 3, so it wasn't a problem, but it wasn't as complete as I intended in my proposal). This is pretty normal from what I've observed, people don't have the time or energy to dedicate to these that you would expect from other original research.
• I would rather not include content then have it poorly cited. I have read a lot of theses, and something that I have noticed across all of them is that students like to slip in hot takes that are tangentially related to the main topic. This is something that is expected as they experiment with the idea of having an expert opinion, but the result can be pretty damaging if we green light theses as acceptable sources.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:06, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, we're allowed to use news sources and magazine sources with wild abandon. The review that goes into a masters thesis is usually going to be above most news organizations, and more of an expert quality work than any news source, but news sources are generally reliable and masters theses are generally unreliable. Absurd. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The review that goes into most masters theses is three people who are offering suggestions a student should do to meet minimum standards. Most of the time, only one or two committee members offer substantial feedback. The people want the student to pass, and students will often ignore some of the suggestions and as long as it isn't to outrageous no one will stop them. A news and magazine source will have editorial oversight, and importantly, if it publishes enough slop we can exclude it. A thesis is a one off, and most of the time it is by a person who is unknown. There isn't really any organization that is accountable for a really bad or inaccurate thesis, and few people will ever look over a document after the student pays to have proquest host it. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:24, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Accountability is a big one. There was a discussion not too long ago at RSN about a major blunder by The Times. There was an initial call to downgrade their 'generally reliable' status but the overall sentiment was that one error did not sully their entire reputation and that their response, which included pulling the article and issuing an apology, demonstrated their overall reliability. The overall news ecosystem also contributes to reliability. For the controversy surrounding The Times, the fact that other outlets reported on and verified the true facts shows how news org's hold one another accountable and gives us multiple sources to assess the reliability and neutrality of individual pieces of reporting. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be interested as to whether the comments above are based entirely or near-entirely on experiences of masters theses written and reviewed in the Global North. I suspect that might well be the case. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I know that what constitutes a masters thesis can vary by country, but I haven't seen a trend where the Global south is substantially different overall. What is the difference in your experience? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 12:02, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Rather negative, I'm afraid. A number of bad experiences especially with theses on Central Asian history. Barely-veiled polemical nationalistic screeds masquerading as a scientific analysis, no doubt "reviewed" (if at all) by a tick-box committee.

  That said, having read more of the 10k words above, I wouldn't be totally opposed to a change which allows limited use of masters theses on obscure topics with the caveats that their due weight should not be over-represented and that they have limited bearing on notability standards. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I've read some poor theses from various places, and unfortunately there is one country (shall remain nameless) I've read several from, yet never seen a good one. Didn't know there was a broader trend people were noticing. I've graded a lot of student work, generally a thesis is about on par with a long final paper. I teach my students how to make a ResearchGate and generate their own DOI, it is not difficult for a student to post a term paper on there and make it look really professional, but we should not be using those. A thesis is pretty much just graded work, and pass/fail at that. They are hosted at the school library and published on ProQuest, but that is not much different from uploading to ResearchGate. I think this is true across most countries; however, some may have looser standards than others. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 13:23, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you think the academic institution makes a difference? Rublamb (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  No, at least not meaningfully in a way we could model. The department matters a lot, and presumably the countries University system. The saying I've been told repeatedly is that there are exactly two types of mutually exclusive masters thesis: Perfect, and finished. That philosophy exists as long as there are students on a short time line and faculty wanting to kick them out the door so they can bring in the next cohort. The emphasis is always on "good enough," and if it is really good then students are encouraged to go the extra mile and polish it for review after they graduate. A thesis is very much functionally just a massive term paper. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:22, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• If my current experience in the (physics) academia with master's theses is anything to go by, it is that they are in general not reliable. The current guideline is fine as it stands and needs no change. JavaHurricane 17:11, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've been thinking of this for a while now, and think that a major issue is people are not really understanding what a thesis is. Rather then thinking of them as a scientific publication, they should be viewed as an assignment that is graded pass/fail by three professors and then self-published by the student as a requirement for their degree. Fundamentally, it is closer to a term paper then a scientific article, and just like a term paper, if it is good enough the student can get it peer-reviewed at which point it has external checks by parties without an interest in seeing the student succeed.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:23, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not all master's degrees are in science, and different subjects have different requirements. For example, a history thesis or dissertation requires a thorough analysis of prior publications on the topic. That, in and of itself, is a significant amount of research that would not be included in a typical term paper. Other subjects do not require a literature review. A chemistry or physics thesis might involve an experiment, while a geology thesis might involve field work. The latter is highly unlikely to be involved in a term paper. As someone with two undergraduate degrees and two master's degrees spanning science, social sciences, and the humanities, I find it baffling that anyone would say that a thesis or dissertation is the equivalent of a term paper. Term papers are 10 to 15 pages long, and often have limits of no more than 20 pages. A thesis or dissertation is usually 60 to 100 pages, although some subjects will allow as few as 40 pages. I never spent an entire semester conducting research for a term paper or an entire semester doing nothing but writing one. Nor did I ever write a term paper that involved a written review and oral discussion with a cohort of peers, along with one-on-one consultation from two faculty members. Furthermore, I can remember when term papers could be handwritten! My point is that term papers are usually rushed, written at the end of a semester while a student is juggling other classes and exams. A thesis or dissertation is/should be more considered, more comprehensive, and more of a passion project. Are there graduate students who crank out crap--absolutely. Are there varying degrees of reliability within theses and dissertations--absolutely. But to say that all theses or dissertations equate to term papers is akin to saying that all theses and dissertations are great sources. The truth is somewhere in between.

Also, dissertations and theses are not self-published; although the student is the author and holds the copyright, such works are published by the university that accepts, binds, catalogs, and stores them. This is a well-established academic and library cataloging standard that pre-dates the era of computer publishing. Rublamb (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I hold three degrees, have sat on committees, and have read theses across multiple disciplines. Theses are certainly big papers, but not much different from a typical term paper, lab report, or similar assignment. They are definitely the largest single assignment most people are likely to do, but that is because they are the last assignment you turn in to complete the (often terminal) degree. The 100+ page thesis is usually rushed, with the bulk written at the end of the final semester, while students are juggling other classes, exams, and TA/RA work. While they have large page counts, that is often double spaces, and sometimes even printed single sided. I have a minor in history, and have written multiple 20 page literature reviews for those classes, if I bound them together, it would easily exceed the length of my masters thesis. I have done field work for physical geography and geology classes that involved written lab reports that were as long as the results section of my thesis. In fact, my masters thesis has content from multiple term papers I wrote in it, as we were encouraged to do work related to our thesis in those classes. Masters theses are something that take a lot of work, and are definitely a passion project, but that does not make them a reliable source. Fundamentally, a theses is a big assignment that spans multiple semesters and is required to receive the degree, typically graded pass/fail by three professors.

Vanity press publishers also accepts, binds, catalogs, and stores publications after receiving payment from the author, Universities are not much different. There might be checks related to format of the thesis before the University accepts it, but content is not considered by the publisher and the student bears all responsibility for the final product.

I think you're confusing the pride and effort that goes into creating a document with reliability as a source. As you stated, there are varying degrees of reliability, and graduate students do crank out crap. Professors are on the students side, they don't want to fail a student and are likely to overlook issues that would get a paper rejected from an academic journal. The thesis is a learning experience more then a demonstration of ability, and that is kept in mind when evaluating them. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:37, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I had to have five members on my PhD dissertation committee. I was able to bring in someone from another university in the state system so that I could have two members on the committee who had some idea of what I was writing about. Donald Albury 17:59, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A dissertation is not a master's thesis; five on a committee for a dissertation is the norm, thesis is three. In terms of dissertation, classically if it was a really good dissertation, the student would turn it into a book (an example of this is Theoretical Geography by William Bunge). Today, it is much more common to do the three peer-reviewed publications sandwiched between a unifying introduction and conclusion chapter, although it varies. One of my chapters is still needing to go through peer-review (it has been returned with minor revisions I still need to make), I would not recommend anyone cite the content of it on Wikipedia until it is in a journal, and I'm very proud of that chapter (it won a national award and several regional awards). On that one for example, four of my five committee members are co-authors. I led the work and did 95% of it, but fundamentally, dissertations, like theses, are judged by people who are biased in favor of the author. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:11, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that even for a PhD dissertation only two members of my committee were qualified to evaluate what I was doing, hardly a selling point for the reliability of the work. Donald Albury 13:11, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How is the one editor at a tiny hometown newspaper supposed to be more qualified than that? Kingsmasher678 (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified for what? One would assume that if a thesis is being cited, it is as a scholarly work, rather than as something one would expect to find in a local newspaper. As always with citations, context matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is the core reason why I'm interested in a tiny bit of wiggle room for evaluating citations to masters theses using RS criteria beyond scholarly influence. We have a lot of articles that merit a quite high standard of sourcing, including many scientific topics with strong peer-reviewed literature available, and there's rarely a good reason to use a non-peer-reviewed masters thesis on those articles unless it has significantly scholarly influence. We also have a ton of articles about small populated places, which may be notable under WP:NPLACE rather than WP:GNG, where most of the secondary sources available are local newspaper articles. That's the kind of article where I'm interested in the option to cite a history masters thesis from a regional research university that provides helpful synthesis of past government records, newspaper articles, oral history interviews, etc., on a topic of local interest. Dreamyshade (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A Wikipedia I originated was mentioned in a "Letter from the editor" section of a peer-reviewed publication, specifically that "the page deserves to be opened and read[3]." The Wikipedia page is not a reliable source because it was mentioned, and even if it was cited would not transform the Wikipedia page into a reliable source. A journal article (or several) citing dubious content doesn't necessarily elevate that content to reliable either. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:20, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well it depends on the type of claim being cited. We would not cite a small-town local paper for a bold new archaeological discovery or a novel chemical synthesis. For details about local festivals or the mayor's race, it would be a good source. For local history, its might depend on the specifics. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. It really does come down to the credibility of the source for a specific subject. Historically, we have trusted certain newspapers and magazines because of their editorial standards and reputation for having qualified staff. Journalists for reliable publications are trained professionals who studied their craft in college and adhere to professional standards. The local paper might be great for an article about a hometown hero or local history, but it would not be the best source for national news. Someone above, another editor noted that the academic institution does not make a difference with theses and dissertations. However, the publisher’s reputation (the university) is supposed to be part of the source evaluation process. A student writing a thesis or dissertation for a well-regarded department at a highly selective academic institution should have a higher level of reliability than a thesis from a lower-ranked institution or department. That does not mean that all master's work from an Ivey League school is fantastic, but this does provide some reasonable guidance when considering such sources. Rublamb (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Universities are very clear that they are not responsible for the content published in a thesis. The only evaluation given by the University itself is usually related to format. University department rankings are largely arbitrary, and programs that are well regarded because of faculty research may not give as much attention to their students as you might think, while smaller programs you've never heard of might give almost all of their attention to students. Especially at the masters level, it will be very hard to tell just based on the program. Each thesis needs to be considered individually for reliability, independent of the institution and advisor as we know the institution doesn't check content, and don't know how involved the advisor was. Such consideration needs to start with with the assumption a thesis is not a reliable source unless proven otherwise, with a high burden of proof needed. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:46, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A peer-reviewed publication might have been read by three peer reviewers, if you're lucky. It depends on the journal, the desperation of the handling editor, the subject-area, and the laziness of the reviewers. A thesis probably has been read by some examiners, who might be independent-minded, depending on how over-worked they are, how close to the student's supervisor, and in an external examiner's case, how long they had on the train on the way to the exam. It's really hard to decide which is better-reviewed, a thesis or a publication. I'd say this has to be case-by-case. Elemimele (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A term paper might also be read by the professor, this doesn't mean a term paper is a good source, even if it gets an A and the student publishes it on arXiv or ResearchGate. Fundamentally, a thesis is not aiming at creating a resource for reference, it is a demonstration of a students capabilities and the final assignment necessary to get a master degree. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:24, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump/technical § Adding red links to the app version of Wikipedia

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Versions111 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a good idea to add a link to WikiProjects (Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory) on the Main Page (Template:Other areas of Wikipedia)? Some Wikis in other languages feature this. Guilherme Burn (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Doing something like this would go quite far to satisfy my "Wikipedia-wide recommitment to WikiProjects" objective in my WikiProjects 2.0 vision statement (part of a new project of sorts I'm in early development with). the Stefen 𝕋ower 23:52, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is someone volunteering to spend 100 hours updating the directory first? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And to continually update it going forwards (assuming an agreed way to determine activity is found). CMD (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

what if we get a wikiproject together to update the wikiproject list Goetia [She/They] (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject-ception! In solidarity, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 18:40, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically, Wikipedia:WikiProject Council supports Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. There's also Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory, which was supported by the Wikipedia:WikiProject X bot project. Compare, e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Science#Medicine vs Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Medicine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think there used to be a bot that could do that, but it hasn’t updated the automatic list in years.

Conditional support if we can get a bot to do the hard work consistently. If this can be done, it would be a great way to direct readers to areas of interest, which can allow them to migrate to the wider Wikipedia community.

On a side note, I think drawing more readers to portals (or the ones in good shape) would help too if anyone has ideas for that. Mitchsavl (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we need to find out which wikiprojects are active or not first? I havd belonged to some in the oast that have just died a deathDavidstewartharvey (talk) 10:26, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:INACTIVEWP. the Stefen 𝕋ower 10:42, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the responses were positive—it’s a good idea. The issue raised concerns the state of the Wikiproject directory, which is out of date regarding their inactivity. But is this really a problem? Isn’t expecting something to be perfect before presenting it a kind of “Nirvana fallacy”? Perhaps even inactive Wikiprojects might spark some kind of spirit of revival or restoration.Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of two minds on the directory. One, we should make a reasonable effort to clean it up, but also Two, we shouldn't fret too much if there are errors, as those can be reported and fixed (or boldly just fixed). Also, I'm not sure that the directory is the best introduction to WikiProjects unless we have something like:

WikiProjects (directory) – groups of contributors who work together to improve Wikipedia, usually focusing on a specific topic area.

the Stefen 𝕋ower 18:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If we do this, which of the two directories should be linked?

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory

WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to call for a merger of largely duplicative sources. So, then, we would just have one. I think the council is the appropriate home for WikiProjects at-large. the Stefen 𝕋ower 21:16, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But the other directory, which was assembled by bot through the Wikipedia:WikiProject X work (a WMF grant-funded project) might actually be the better directory. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Let's compare them on various merits, with Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory being #1, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory being #2.

• #1 could be more accurate, but its updating bot seems to have not visited in months; #2 receives sporadic manual updates.
• #2 has more extensive introductory material on its front page than does #1.
• #2 is well connected to other WikiProject Council pages (useful WikiProject-related materials), while #1 seems standalone.
• #2's directory front page gets nearly 19× as much views as #1's, going by the last 30 days of visit data.
• #1, when its bot was operating, was collecting data (table counts of articles, project participants, and subject editors over past 90 days, and editor listings for each project) about projects that #2 hasn't been doing.

So it seems each one provides some value that the other doesn't. A true merger would take a lot of development effort.

My hunch is we should go with #2 because it's getting the traffic and is ensconced in the Council, then at some point add the X-project stats somehow into it. #2 already links to Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProjects by human changes, which shows the number of project participants for each WikiProject over the past year. I have ideas for how to bring the other data into the picture, but I don't want to overcommit just yet.

The bottom line here I think is making WikiProjects more prominent on the Main Page, and gradually we can address errors and functionality. the Stefen 𝕋ower 01:41, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Further, we could link from the directory we use (presumably #2) to the other one (#1) until everything is merged. We can say #1 is "an alternative directory of WikiProjects with occasionally updated statistics" and link to it until we feel we're covering everything in #2.. the Stefen 𝕋ower 02:42, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia's sister projects like Wiktionary or Wikisource should also have mobile apps like Wikipedia with a similar interface. 𝕷𝖆𝖛𝖆𝕾𝖆𝖑𝖙𝕬𝕺𝖅 - 𝖑 (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine this might be better brought up at those projects than here? DonIago (talk) 06:32, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ok 𝕷𝖆𝖛𝖆𝕾𝖆𝖑𝖙𝕬𝕺𝖅 - 𝖑 (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some already do - see m:Wikimedia Apps. I'd guess the talk page of that page would be the place to ask about new apps, but tbh it seems a bit of a backwater so there may be somewhere better you can find by following links from that page. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry everyone, since I use ios, I thought only Wikipedia was available. End of discussion. 𝕷𝖆𝖛𝖆𝕾𝖆𝖑𝖙𝕬𝕺𝖅 - 𝖑 (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That would require the WMF be interested in tech development. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 16:32, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cremastra, that would be true for an official app, but there is nothing stopping anyone writing unofficial apps. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:40, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Reconstructing history of instructions of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Village pump (idea lab) § An idea for Link Circle visualizations in Wikipedia

 – isaacl (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I propose a “Link Circle” visualization for Wikipedia articles, where the current page sits in bold font at the center and all connected articles branch outward in a circular diagram. Articles that link to the page would appear as red nodes, articles this page links to would appear as blue nodes, and articles that do both would appear as purple nodes. Each surrounding node would be clickable, allowing readers to jump directly into those articles. This simple, color‑coded design would make Wikipedia more explorable, help readers discover related topics, and provide a clear visual sense of how each article fits into the broader web of knowledge. The little contributor (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you suggesting that these visualisations should be placed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m suggesting that these visualisations be placed within the existing ‘What links here’ tool. Instead of just showing a plain list of linked pages, the tool could display them in a circular, color‑coded diagram that makes the connections easier to explore. The little contributor (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that most readers would prefer a compact text-based list. Your proposal adds no information that such a list can't already provide, and a list does so in a manner that makes looking for a specific entry easier. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The usual response to such things (that seem like nice ideas but whose advantage over the current way of doing things is not immediately apparent) is to simply say "do it yourself". Do you, or does someone you know, have the technical ability to make at least a prototype? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Similar sorts of visualisations do exist, see eg [4] or [5]. It would be possible to make it work the way OP suggests, although whether it would work as a what links here replacement instead of a standalone site is a different question. CMD (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Someone did this ~15 years ago to see how User_talk: pages interconnected. It was interesting (SandyGeorgia was at the center) but not exactly legible. There were just too many pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising those points, @AndyTheGrump:. I agree the list format is efficient for targeted searching, and I wouldn’t want to replace it. My suggestion is for an optional visualization alongside the list, which adds distinct benefits: it makes clusters, hubs, and isolated nodes instantly visible, supports intuitive exploration of the “web of knowledge,” offers clear educational value for visual learners and newcomers, complements the list by serving broader exploration while the list remains best for precision searches, follows precedents from other platforms that use network visualizations effectively, and is technically feasible since it would build on the existing What links here data rather than requiring a new dataset. In short, the visualization doesn’t replace the list but complements it, offering perspectives the list alone can’t provide. The little contributor (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not propose changes using llms. CMD (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thx for the feedback, i will stop using llms. i just used them to polish my ideas only. but the idea is mine. The little contributor (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it would be as intuitive as you would like. Graphs of Wikipedia data can get big fast and if you want labels displayed it can become visually busy. Take your link to Purple for example. That would have over a thousand red nodes around the circle (if you limit it to links coming in from article namespace 0) and hundreds of blue nodes. And if you display edges, it can be visually confusing, even if you bundle them. I use graphs sometimes to do stuff but they can quickly get out of control and be more confusing than lists. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It reminds me of reblog graphs for Tumblr, which I heard about recently. ~2026-31819-56 (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a problem caused by some people who don't know about WP:AES and think they always need to type something in the edit summary box. If you check the list of recently created redirects you will basically always see summaries like "Redirect." or "Created redirect" or something just as unhelpful that goes against WP:SUMMARYNO. On the other hand, if these editors just left the summary blank then an automatic summary would have been generated which includes the target. You can see how bad this can get with something like this where checking which of these redirects fails WP:FORRED is probably 10 times slower that what it could have been. I proposed an edit filter to fix this in EFR but they sent me here. So, how do we fix this? How can we make it so we can always tell what the target of a redirect is by looking at the edit summary? Warudo (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When I create redirects I usually state the reason for creation rather than the target as that's what I find helpful at RfD where I already know the target. I can see why you would find the target useful in the creation summary though. My first thought as to a solution is for the software to append the redirect target as/in a manner similar to a tag. I haven't a clue how easy that would be to program though. I agree though that an edit filter prohibiting summaries that don't include the target isn't the right solution. Thryduulf (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the kind of redirect. If it's a {{R from short name}} like Special:Permalink/1339839836 or a {{R to disambiguation page}} like Special:Permalink/1339428536 then it is helpful. But if it is a {{R from alternative language}} like the examples above then just saying for example "Created redirect to subject's name in Hebrew" is less helpful than "Redirected page to [name of subject]" because I can already see the name is in Hebrew but I can't read it to see if it's obviously a valid FORRED or if I need to look at the target article to find affinity.

Also, while not including the target can sometimes create problems, there's no harm from including the target every time. Special:Permalink/1339839836's sumamry could just as easily have been "new redirect form a short name of Horatio Arthur Yorke". So, even though I understand that my original proposal seems draconian, I don't see why it's not the right solution or why an edit filter "would end up being disruptive" as User:Daniel Quinlan asserted without any explanation. Warudo (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But more importantly that all of that, getting the developers to fix this in the software level, while it is almost certainly the best solution, is going to be much slower than simply making an edit filter and that's assuming they will get to it eventually. Alternatively, we can make the filter now, ask the developers to fix the issue on phabricator and disable the filter after they do. Warudo (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Filters interrupt the editing workflow so they should generally be reserved for more serious issues, not constructive good-faith edits. Given a notification after attempting to save their edit, many users will simply abandon the edit, or make an incorrect WP:EFFPR report that someone will have to handle, rather than read the notification and fix their edit. The right place to address this is in the editor (perhaps as part of Wikipedia:Edit check), but it needs careful design and testing to avoid similar downsides, which is why I suggested VPI rather than a direct feature request. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say to that is WP:CIR. If editors choose to abandon an edit instead of fixing an easily fixable problem with it because they can't or refuse to read an error message, that's on them. Warudo (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very ableist (for want of a better term) view. Error messages are scary and unless very carefully written often hard to interpret for those who don't already know what they need to do. What is trivial for very experienced editors like you are I is absolutely not for the majority of contributors. Every barrier to making an edit decreases the likelihood of the edit being completed (WhatamIdoing has stats on this I believe), so minimising barriers is important and intentional ones should be reserved for actual problems not just nice to haves. Thryduulf (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Editing team has a dashboard that shows the editing equivalent of a Conversion funnel. I doubt that there are recent stats available. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The entire field of UX exists because that approach consistently produces bad outcomes. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But what about the user experience of the rest of us? Editors who do this make the interface more difficult for us to use by obscuring information. I don't think I have much more to say because having a conversation is much harder after the -isms start flying around, but why are we only focusing on the UX of people who can't or won't follow instructions? Warudo (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I am guilty of this since my last redirect creations were with the summary "Create", "create", "Create redirect", and "create redirect". Preventing constructive edits from happening because they don't have an edit summary never happens and would end up being disruptive. think they always need to type something in the edit summary box I have a preference checked that literally makes me verify that I meant to submit an edit with no edit summary. It is manifestly more difficult for me to edit if I do not submit an edit summary. I just tried to make a redirect with no edit summary and it stopped me from doing so. 1brianm7 (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have a preference checked that literally makes me verify that I meant to submit an edit with no edit summary that is actually disabled when creating redirects because the automatic summary is good enough (unless you use the 2017 editor). This is actually the reason I stopped using the 2017 editor because I also have this setting enabled. Warudo (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am using the 2017 editor, so I guess that's why it happened. I have created 11 redirects in 2026, which really isn't enough to justify moving to a worse editor. 1brianm7 (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My practice varies. I typically leave the edit summary blank when I think the basis for creating the redirect is likely to be obvious or uncontroversial. Otherwise I will typically provide a brief explanation or rationale in my edit summary, like Thryduulf. I would have told you I usually include the target when I write my own edit summary but in looking at my history, I see I often omit this. I agree it's helpful when the target is included in the edit summary for the redirect creation (and every subsequent retargeting). At RfD and when assessing redirects on my own, I find the history of prior targets and the explanations are both helpful. For most redirects it may not make a huge difference but for those that have more than a few edits, it is helpful to be able to quickly see when, where, and why the redirect was targeted without having to click through each revision. If the target can automatically be appended for redirect creation (and retargeting?) without erasing the editor's own edit summary, that would be great. But I wouldn't want to lose the ability to add my own edit summary. I'm have no idea what the technical implementation would look like nor have I thought through all the implications of a mass, automated process. As an aside, I will try to remember to include the target when creating my own redirects. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the problem. When I look at that list of contributions that you linked, I just hover over the redirect title and the popup shows me the article it targets. (I think that's from Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups.) That seems just as effective as having the target in an edit summary. Schazjmd (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That does not work in Special:RecentChanges and Special:Contributions. If I link to H.A. Yorke here and hover over it I get a popup, but if I go to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Thryduulf&namespace=all&tagfilter=mw-new-redirect&start=&end=2026-02-22&limit=50 and try it, I get nothing. Warudo (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And even if it did work having to hover over every individual redirect would be significantly slower. Warudo (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, works for me in both contributions and recent changes. Schazjmd (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, my bad. I enabled page previews but not navigation popups in my testing. When I enabled the gadget it also worked in those pages. Still, a gadget that is not enabled by default is hardly a solution. I'm not looking to just solve the issue for myself here. Warudo (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like the issue is being able to see the redirect target without opening the page; nav popups helps with that. I don't think it's very likely that the community will approve an edit filter or any other means of enforcing a specific type of edit summary. It is not burdensome to enable the gadget. Schazjmd (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is being able to see the redirect target without opening the page at a glance. The gadget still takes time to use because you have to hover over the link. More importantly vague summaries go against WP:SUMMARYNO so there is still an issue to solve here. Warudo (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Vague edit summaries are a social problem, not something a proposal like this can do anything about. Thryduulf (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"a gadget that is not enabled by default is hardly a solution", if the scenario is one that ordinary editors encounter. A gadget that is very widely used by the tiny fraction of experienced editors who do this kind of work is an acceptable solution. It sounds like this is a problem that can be solved via documentation. The FAQ might look like this:

• Q: If someone doesn't link the redirect in an edit summary, then I have to actually look at the page. This wastes my time.
• A: So turn on NAVPOPS already.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A dictionary API to get alternative words of the same meaning. Example: I don't know crimson right click, then select alternative meaning. Red, other words. Now i know what this article is trying to tell me. Its often the case that most people understand the consent of an ideas but not the words that try to represent those ideas. Alternatively this could also be its own built in system but getting something already made seems easier. Im definitely a robot (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can probably get a web browser plug-in or similar tool that will offer this feature on all websites. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Im sure but i was hoping for this to be for everyone natively as some people wont add things that would help them. and its often kids or older people that have the most trouble. Im definitely a robot (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think most people would want a dictionary feature that is native to their browser, because they'd want to look up words on other sites, too. isaacl (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure your right that people would want to add it but some people that would appreciate having it still don't sadly. Im definitely a robot (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be Wikipedia's responsibility to fix browsers. People can ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing for instruction on how to install extensions already. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be Wikipedia's responsibility to fix browsers either but I think it should improve its quality of life if it can. Allowing everyone a great experience no matter what there situation or current knowledge might be. In addition extensions could pose a security risk to a user as some extensions have been used to deliver malware. Im definitely a robot (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This information sounds to be in scope for Wiktionary where entries can have a synonyms section. So the information there is more structured for this kind of use. But perhaps the tool could be useful for editing Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really that sounds like it could work well, If Wikipedia could be right click, then select alternative meaning from Wiktionary that would be even better. I would be happy if it was used in any context, editing Wikipedia including. thank you for your input. Im definitely a robot (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Where would this information come from? In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Any free and reliable source like a dictionary API or like Graeme Bartlett mentioned Wiktionary. Im definitely a robot (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a need for why this has to be built-in to Wikipedia. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 22:55, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One reason that I would pose is to assist in the easy of learning for anyone as even common knowledge can be unknown for some. Having yet another tool to make learning easier can keep someone engaged longer without simply moving on or right clicking and using first result on googles AI definition as over 50% of people will google's AI overview as there final answer. Im definitely a robot (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]