Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 81

• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals (persistent)
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous

Village pump (miscellaneous) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

---

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82

Clarification on what soapboxing is or isn't

I'm coming here because ANI seems like an overreaction at this point, this isn't a content dispute that Wikipedia:Dispute resolution could easily deal with, administrative action review is pretty much only for admin actions, and it seems like everyone is talking past each other. The gist of the situation is that a new editor made this edit and was reverted here. This was then discussed at Talk:Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses#Source material and then also at my talk page. Three editors (including me) think that a newbie citing a reference can't possibly be soapboxing. Jeffro77 disagrees (and to their credit, has apologized for some of their behaviour). Is there any way there could maybe be more eyes on this to resolve the situation so there's not some back and forth going on at my talk page? The crux of the issue really does seem to be whether citing a source can meet the definition of soapboxing.

Courtesy pings to Jeffro77, JPxG, and Hey man im josh. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what the editor's intentions were but it may not have been soapboxing. It may simply have been to supply a source that they felt supports one of the preceding assertions better than the existing source did—but I agree with the sentiment that that source itself, by virtue of its title and subject matter, introduces an awfully volatile topic, without a foundation having been laid out for it, into an otherwise inocuous lead, and seems out of place. Also, I agreed with reverting the addition of "all male" to the first sentence. While the council is all male, that's a characteristic of it (even if a mandatory one under the by-laws), not its identity. Second sentence is fine. Largoplazo (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The editor added a source that is explicitly about a controversy to ‘support’ a fact that is not directly related to the controversy. The source does not discuss the cited fact. Giving undue attention to a controversy is soapboxing—Jeffro77 Talk 03:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Did you consider finding a different source for the claim? If someone wants to specify that the council is all male (not IMO an unreasonable thing to say in an article), and they cite a news article that is primarily about a child abuse scandal, then you could replace the source with a better one. If the editor's goal was to get the scandal-oriented source in the article, then you'll find out soon enough, and can tackle it head on. If the editor just spammed in the first source that mentioned the uncontested fact that they're all men, then you will have improved the article.

I don't think that it's worth worrying too much about sources. We need them to get the article content right, but readers don't seem to care. WP:RSBIAS (which explicitly permits citing biased sources) is one of our rules, and besides, almost nobody reads the refs. In an article with that level of traffic, we'd expect just one (1) reader per day to click on any one (1) source – and if there are a lot of sources on the page, then it's almost certainly not going to be that one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It isn't a biased source, though. I wouldn't say it's ideal for much because it's mostly interviews, but it's not like ABC News is some random blog out to call Jehovah's Witnesses a cult or something. The new editor made it clear on the talk page that they were trying to help address the primary source tag (because almost all the sources in that article are from the religious group's own publications). I don't think it's odd that a source that mentions Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sexual abuse would mention the Governing Body, as they create the protocols and doctrine for everything (this is somewhat explained at Jehovah's Witnesses#Organization). It's why one of the members was called to testify at the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. I think it's very harsh to say someone is soapboxing for citing a source and not doing anything to the content unless you have a very good reason. And again, that's usually covered by other policies that you can point towards without assuming bad faith, like "please cite a reliable source". Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Bias can be in the eye of the beholder, and it is not unusual for editors to complain that citing a "negative" source for routine content is inappropriate (e.g., any source that is primarily about a scandal, to support any content that isn't specifically about the scandal). It can be a form of POV pushing, but it can also be an understandable impulse to not accidentally imply anything defamatory, especially if they're editing a BLP.

WP:BURDEN requires the source-supplying editor to provide exactly one (1) source. That's because a few editors kept reverting sources, and then demanding that you WP:Bring me a rock again. Once that first source has been added, if you dislike the source someone else added, IMO you should just replace it with a {{better source}} yourself (however you define "better"). If that means you need to spend a little while searching for a news article that mentions this group is all male but doesn't mention a scandal, then that's what you need to do. People are rarely upset when you replace their weak-but-maybe-okay-ish source with a better one (and when they are, that often reveals interesting things about their goals). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you (my advice was to cite a source that covers them in more detail and another editor already has), I just don't think that saying a newbie citing a negative source is "soapboxing" in any capacity. The crux of the issue is whether that's an assumption of good faith or bad faith. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

This particular case doesn't look like soapboxing to me, but adding new text and sources to the lead can be soapboxing, especially under definition 2 (Opinion pieces). Soapboxing can be done in good faith, although perhaps raising it is not always the most effective way to carry out discussion. CMD (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Need access to journal "Women's History Review"

I need to read an article in "Women's History Review" 21 (5): 733–752. (year 2012). Access online is via the Taylor & Francis company; cost is $65 to access the article. There used to be ways in WP to get free subscriptions to do research; or sometimes WP already had subscriptions that could be used by editors. Anyone know how I can legally access that article for purposes of WP research? Noleander (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

You should try WP:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request for specific articles, or if you meet the requirements there's WP:The Wikipedia Library that I believe gives access to some of Taylor & Francis' publications. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

One of the nice things about Google Scholar is that it often provides multiple sources for a single article. This is the Google Scholar cluster for that article, and there's a link to a free academia.edu copy there. It's also sometimes worth investigating whether JSTOR has a copy, as JSTOR gives people a fairly large number of free-to-view articles per month. Last but not least, article authors are often happy to email a copy of the article to someone if they ask. Looks like this has the author's current email address. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion - Thanks, that is perfect. I qualify for the WP Library and was able to get access to the article I needed. Noleander (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

why does dark yellow look ugly

it only just occurred to me that dark yellow is ugly, why is that Northpark997 (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

This question belongs at the reference desk, if anywhere, not here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Whether something is ugly is a matter of personal perception. Nobody else can tell you why you find something ugly. Largoplazo (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Need copy of magazine "American Weekly" 27 Mar 1934.

Does anyone know where I can get a copy (digital/online is okay) of the 27 Mar 1934 issue of magazine "American Weekly"? I've searched high and low on the web, and cannot find it anywhere. I did find a mention of it in Library of Congress, but that appears to be just a typed draft of an article that may or may not have made it into the magazine. Also, I found several not-reliable websites that purport to have the text of the article, but I need a trustworthy source. Noleander (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Did you try asking at WP:RX or looking in WP:TWL? –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, I posted an inquiry in WP:RX. Noleander (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Awesome. I hope it helps. Good luck in your search :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

See The American Weekly. These is a citation in there to an archived copy of a 24-year old blog website (since usurped) of someone who had a lot of issues (1918 to 1943) of the publication.[1] The email link doesn't work, but there may be enough there for you to track them down. A long shot, at best, but if all else fails ... Donald Albury 14:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

BAG nomination

Hi! I have nominated myself for BAG membership. Your comments would be appreciated on the nomination page. Thanks! – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

UK to require age verification for adult content

"The UK announces that, as of July, any site that allows adult content — including social media sites — will have to age/identity verify all users, or face enforcement action by the British government." - [2]

Pass the popcorn... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh yeah, face enforcement. That's where you get Siri to check your older brother's face. And it checks he's still alive by poking his tongue out and saying spin, bro. 2A00:23C7:518:7B00:216C:A32E:70C7:3F80 (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Texas is trying to do this, too. https://www.texastribune.org/2025/01/15/texas-porn-site-ban-us-supreme-court/ 331dot (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Nothing new here. Virginia's had this for a couple of years. I'm unaware of any jurisdiction that's pursued Wikipedia over this, if it's concern over that that motivated this thread. Largoplazo (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Ofcom's guidance is online here. Please point out the part that exempts Wikipedia. Or Wikimedia Commons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Please point out where anyone claimed that such an exemption exists. Largoplazo (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Florida's law applies to websites on which more than one-third of the material is "harmful to minors",[3] so WP will not be affected for now. Donald Albury 18:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Texas's is at least a bit more limited. It seems the UK wants age verification for any site where a child might possibly see something "harmful to children", including any site where users can post content (even if no "harmful" content is ever posted), while Texas's law (which is already in force, BTW, but is being challenged) is only for sites where over 1/3 of the content is pornographic. Anomie⚔ 14:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm guessing the WMF is aware of this? 331dot (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable guess. You could ask them? 🤷 Anomie⚔ 21:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

What's the UK's definition of "adult content"? The article makes it clear that the main concern is about kids watching pornography, and it's not clear how they're planning on implementing anything. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Rosguill: The guidance is online here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that page seems to be even more explicitly focused on "pornography", so this may not end up impacting us based on what I can see. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

from one of the PDFs linked there, "Pornographic content is defined in the Act as “content of such a nature that it is reasonable to assume that it was produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.”". Which WP immediately would not be in violation since we specifically do not allow for such images and moderate those off. — Masem (t) 17:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't the Commons be affected? There are some pornographic content and categories on that site (e.g. c:Category:Erotic photography). Some1 (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

There is certainly some instances of erotic photography that would meet an encyclopedic need, but I do think that category appears to be used for ppl just dropping their personal erotic photos in there, and probably should be dealt with. Masem (t) 18:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the inclusion criteria for Commons isn't that the media meets an encyclopedic need, but an educational need. An image could be inappropriate for Wikipedia's needs, but could still be useful, for instance, in a class on erotic photography as part of an MfA photography program. Photos of Japan (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but I'd hope it would be identified that way. Masem (t) 00:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Usually people upload first and only discuss the educational merit of media if its nominated for deletion. Out of scope explicitly excludes low quality pornographic content, but I'm not sure how the community evaluates what constitutes that. My comment though was mostly concerning how it's a wiki faux pas to imply being unsuitable for Wikipedia makes something OOS for Commons. Photos of Japan (talk) Photos of Japan (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Debbie Does Dallas#Legacy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

We live in the real world, not some sort of libertarian utopia (or dystopia). Part of being one of the top sites on the Internet is that we have to take our reponsibilities seriously within the law. The WMF has done that in India and other places (in my view sometimes in the wrong way), and will do so in the UK. Just please nobody propose [redacted per WP:BEANS]. I hope that the WMF will take legal advice, but make the final decision themselves on whether to follow it. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

How to request user talk page access revocation

What's the approved way to request the removal of a blocked user's access to their talk page when you see them using it only to rant, carrying on the behavior that got them blocked in the first place? Largoplazo (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:ANI. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Largoplazo (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Succession boxes

Which WikiProject deals with succession boxes? GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Succession to what? A political office? A peerage? Something else? Blueboar (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Political offices. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization, though said to be semi-active. PamD 06:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Quite a bit of tumble weeds in that WikiProject. A politics-based WikiProject might be best. GoodDay (talk) 06:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

New essay on recentism

After seeing years worth of (what I believe to be) misuse of WP:RECENTISM as an essay, I've created an essay for responding to it, WP:CRYRECENTISM. Hopefully it speaks for itself, but my core problem is that RECENTISM is sometimes used in a way that allows people to completely dismiss all sourcing on something recent, which doesn't reflect what RECENTISM says (it doesn't even describe recentism as a bad thing!) and contradicts WP:NPOV. Obviously we have to be cautious about giving undue weight to recent events, and sometimes it's true that something recent is so undue relative to the topic as a whole that it should be included entirely - but these arguments ultimately have to be made using sources (or the limitations and lack thereof), not just by bludgeoning people with all-caps links to essays. It feels like WP:RECENTISM has become a go-to argument for anyone who wants anything recent excluded for any reason, which isn't really constructive because it doesn't reflect policy, provides no real room for discussion or compromise, and implicitly allows people to just ignore any degree of coverage in a way that contradicts WP:NPOV's requirement to use sourcing as the basis for weight. --Aquillion (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Not a bad essay… but it leaves me with a question: would you say that RECENTISM could be a valid argument for temporary omission rather than exclusion? ie, arguing that it is too soon to add some bit of material, and that we simply need to wait a bit - so that we can properly determine how much (if any) weight to give it. Blueboar (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Sometimes? But it has to engage with the sources on some level. I've sometimes said "there's not enough sourcing yet, let's swing back later", which is certainly a fair argument. My problem with WP:RECENTISM is that it's frequently used as an argument that ignores current sourcing entirely, which I don't think is appropriate (or policy-compliant.) The main point of the essay, I think, is that WP:NPOV means you have to engage with the sourcing somehow, even if it's just to say "sorry, this requires a very high threshold and these sources aren't enough"; there has to be a level and type of sourcing that would allow for immediate inclusion, otherwise we're deciding article content based on our guts. Arguing for temporary omission without regard for the sources would still have the same problem. --Aquillion (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you give some examples of where this has caused a problem? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

If this is the conclusion reached by WP:RECENTISM, then I'd say it's reason to improve the recentism essay rather than using it differently. I wrote an essay in the past that's something of a counterpoint: User:Thebiguglyalien/Avoid contemporary sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

"Insisting that a recent event should be excluded simply for being recent, without further explanation or analysis, is not helpful to building an encyclopedia."

The problem with this essay is that strawmans WP:RECENTISM. Recentism addresses a real issue: certain subjects are perennially in the news and every news spike of them leads to content added to their article until they are inundated with material that is of no lasting interest to the reader. Recentism doesn't reject content just because it is recent, it asks people to provide justification for including content beyond just the fact that it was covered by a flurry of news sources. Photos of Japan (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

AI-generated comments?

I'm not sure where is best to ask about this, but as someone who works on film articles and participates on their talk pages, I am seeing a lot of comments that seem AI-generated, being lowercase and half-nonsensical. I detail this more here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film § AI-generated comments? Any thoughts from anyone, or recommendation of another page to post about this? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Those don't seem AI-generated to me. If you see stuff like that, just revert it. If it continuously comes from one IP, then you can raise that at WP:AIV or WP:AN/I. It looks like this is all from the same IP range. CMD (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. AIs usually have perfect grammar. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

They're probably not "AI" in the LLM sense. But they do fall into a category of unconstructive drive-by talk page edits that started in 2022. Some are AI prompts, some appear to be text-to-speech or Siri/Alexa/etc prompts, some seem to be bot-generated (which these seem to be.)

When you see them nuke them on sight (which the Wikipedia policy WP:NOTFORUM allows) and nuke them ASAP because if they go into the archive (which is out of people's control, everything is bot-archived nowadays) then people will yell at you for following policy. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

This matter seems well-explained by User:Photos of Japan here (permalink), if others want to know. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct annual review: provide your comments on the UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines

I am writing to you to let you know the annual review period for the Universal Code of Conduct and Enforcement Guidelines is open now. You can make suggestions for changes through 3 February 2025. This is the first step of several to be taken for the annual review. Read more information and find a conversation to join on the UCoC page on Meta.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. This annual review was planned and implemented by the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, you may review the U4C Charter.

Please share this information with other members in your community wherever else might be appropriate.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

"1987 [[SFRY|Yugoslavia]] film": Short description of related articles, tried wikilink /mobile/

Related articles at Lepa Brena has second item 'Hajde da se volimo (film series)' with description below: "1987 [[SFRY|Yugoslavia]] film".

I could not find a source for tried wikilinking, while the article itself has no short description template and Wikidata description was not good ("1987 film by Aleksandar Đorđević"; now changed to "1987–1990 Yugoslav film series"). Expect refreshed import from Wikidata in a while, and/or find where exactly is "1987 [[SFRY|Yugoslavia]] film"? 5.43.67.103 (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Got a specific question for us? How can we help? –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Please, remove unwikilinked text for proper display below the item 'Hajde da se volimo (film series)' that is "1987–1990 Yugoslav film series" (current description at Wikidata). 5.43.67.103 (talk) 12:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC) [e]

 Done, though I reworded the short description a bit. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Regarding of name

Is Wikipedia the actual name or is it like “WikiPedia” or “WikipediA”

By the way, this may be placed in the wrong place, if so, tell me to please move my question to a different place. SCiteguy1024 (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the standard capitalization. I think one of our old logos stylizes it as WikipediA, but I've never seen that written in text. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

That would have been the Usemod era, I would guess that WikipediA was a play on article titles sometimes having that final capital letter. You can see some such titles at Wikipedia:Usemod article histories. Very old history though, I wonder how it's come up now. CMD (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

The logo currently at the top of this page (at least in Vector 2022 and Monobook) mixes normal caps and small caps in a way (WikipediA) that makes it look like WikipediA. Anomie⚔ 12:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Interested in participating in an interview study regarding LLMs?

Dear Wikipedia editors,

It is our pleasure to invite you to join a study at the University of Minnesota! The objective of the study is to understand how large language models (LLMs) impact the collaborative knowledge production process, by investigating knowledge contributors’ interactions and experience with LLMs in practice.

If you have used LLMs (e.g., GPT, Llama, Claude...) in the process of contributing to Wikipedia (eg. grammar check, finding resources, writing scripts...), we’d love to join the study! You will be engaging in a 45-60 min interview, talking and reflecting about your experience with Wikipedia and your perception/usage of LLMs in Wikipedia. Your valuable input will not only help us understand practical ways to incorporate LLMs into the knowledge production process, but also help us generate guardrails about these practices. All participation would be anonymous.

In addition, if you know any editor who may have used LLMs during their edits, we highly appreciate it if you could share their contact with us, as we can reach out to them.

To learn more, please feel free to start a talk page discussion with me or send me an email or take a look at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:How_LLMs_impact_knowledge_production_processes or direcly sign up: https://umn.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_bqIjhNRg9Zqsuvs

Thank you so much for your time and consideration!

All the best, LLMs and knowledge production Research Team

Phoebezz22 (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Have not… and will not. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that by limiting your survey to people who have actually used LLMs you are completely invalidating your study. Many people on Wikipedia have suffered at the hands of LLMs rather than using them. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

SEO impact of wikipedia citations

Hello,

I would like to understand your perspectives on SEO and Wikipedia, particularly regarding these points:

1. What are your thoughts on the relationship between SEO and Wikipedia citations?
2. Does secretly adding a website as a reference in Wikipedia articles have any positive SEO impact on that website?
3. How can we avoid this type of manipulation?

as In my community (fawiki), there is a significant number of such manipulated links. Additionally, there are numerous websites that offer "Wikipedia SEO and link building services" for a fee - essentially monetizing the manipulation of Wikipedia citations, Could you please share any relevant links, discussions, or resources where I can learn more about this topic?

Thank you for your insights. WASP-Outis (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Of course this goes on, and frequently. If we had a proper database of citations (User:Harej) it might be possible to build applications to statistically check for possible SEO abuse of citations. -- GreenC 16:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

It's already being avoided. It has been since at least 2007 and I'm guessing it has been from the beginning. As you can see if you examine the source HTML behind a Wikipedia page in your browser, Wikipedia adds a rel="nofollow" attribute to references and external links, in the same way that any decent blogging platform does to reader comments. Mainstream search engines, on encountering these, don't count the links in page rankings, so they're of no use at all for SEO. This is explained at Wikipedia:Spam, as it is in the level 2 and level 3 warnings that can be posted on the talk pages of users who appear to be spamming. Largoplazo (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, but that doesn't affect spammers who see a positive in putting their link everywhere. Adding spam is low effort with a potential payoff of more traffic. Johnuniq (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Very little more traffic.

@WASP-Outis, I don't know if the numbers will be different at fawiki, but here, the research shows that a reader clicks a link in one ref on 1 out of 300 page views. For the median enwiki article (4 refs, 1 page view per week), that means the spammer's link will probably get clicked on once every 25 years. For a "higher traffic" article, it might be once a month.

Perhaps if we wrote an article about Wikipedia and SEO, more people would discover how pointless it is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I was answering the question, about whether it influences SEO. It doesn't, regardless of whatever other benefit they get out of spamming, or think they're getting out of it. Largoplazo (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@GreenC,@Johnuniq,@Largoplazo,@WhatamIdoing:

Based on my internet research, nofollow links can significantly impact a website’s SEO. Moreover, if a link remains on a page for more than a month, it has a positive effect as a backlink on search engines. From what I understand, if a website is cited as a reference in Wikipedia, Google eventually recognizes that website as a credible source in the long term.

These are the findings I discovered through my research on backlinks and SEO, and you’ll find similar information when searching on Google.

In WikiFa, we have questionable links that have been cleverly embedded in articles and may have remained in the wiki for years.

What made this topic interesting to me was a conversation I had yesterday with an SEO expert. He mentioned that he uses Wikipedia for link building and has methods to prevent his links from being removed. No matter how much I tried to convince him that Wikipedia has no effect on his website’s SEO, he wouldn’t accept it and claimed he had seen its positive impact firsthand.

I really don’t know how to combat this issue. Perhaps instead of having a blacklist for untrustworthy links, if we had a whitelist for verified links in the wiki, this problem could be resolved. WASP-Outis (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Now I wonder: Did you ask him to show you an example of how he did it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Of course, since he knew I was a Wikimedian, he wouldn't answer such a question:) WASP-Outis (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Too bad. It would have been interesting to see what he was doing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I know nothing about how Google works but what you are saying makes sense. My point earlier was that the details don't matter to most spammers. They just take every opportunity to post links because it is a very low cost and has a potential for a good benefit. However, I agree that it makes sense that Google would have algorithms which notice the longevity of links at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 08:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

First you wrote that based on your own research, nofollow links can significantly impact a website's SEO. Then you wrote that an SEO expert claimed this and you tried to convince him that it isn't true. Can you clarify?

Anyway, I see what's going on: the convention that held for years, the the major search engines by convention would ignore "nofollow" links, was exited by Google in 2019. It says it now treats "nofollow" only as a "hint", whatever that means. It's a wishy-washy statement saying more or less that they'll count the links toward rankings if they feel like it. It also added two new hints, "ugc" (user-generated content) and "sponsored", with the same lack of commitment to treat them any particular way. So, basically, Google said, "Hey, go ahead and spam websites, you might get somewhere!" Thanks, Google. Largoplazo (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Feminism and Folklore 2025 starts soon

Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wiki Community,

You are humbly invited to organize the Feminism and Folklore 2025 writing competition from February 1, 2025, to March 31, 2025 on your local Wikipedia. This year, Feminism and Folklore will focus on feminism, women's issues, and gender-focused topics for the project, with a Wiki Loves Folklore gender gap focus and a folk culture theme on Wikipedia.

You can help Wikipedia's coverage of folklore from your area by writing or improving articles about things like folk festivals, folk dances, folk music, women and queer folklore figures, folk game athletes, women in mythology, women warriors in folklore, witches and witch hunting, fairy tales, and more. Users can help create new articles, expand or translate from a generated list of suggested articles.

Organisers are requested to work on the following action items to sign up their communities for the project:

1. Create a page for the contest on the local wiki.
2. Set up a campaign on CampWiz tool.
3. Create the local list and mention the timeline and local and international prizes.
4. Request local admins for site notice.
5. Link the local page and the CampWiz link on the meta project page.

This year, the Wiki Loves Folklore Tech Team has introduced two new tools to enhance support for the campaign. These tools include the Article List Generator by Topic and CampWiz. The Article List Generator by Topic enables users to identify articles on the English Wikipedia that are not present in their native language Wikipedia. Users can customize their selection criteria, and the tool will present a table showcasing the missing articles along with suggested titles. Additionally, users have the option to download the list in both CSV and wikitable formats. Notably, the CampWiz tool will be employed for the project for the first time, empowering users to effectively host the project with a jury. Both tools are now available for use in the campaign. Click here to access these tools

Learn more about the contest and prizes on our project page. Feel free to contact us on our meta talk page or by email us if you need any assistance.

We look forward to your immense coordination.

Thank you and Best wishes,

Feminism and Folklore 2025 International Team

Stay connected  

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Folklore is back!

Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wiki Community, You are humbly invited to participate in the Wiki Loves Folklore 2025 an international media contest organized on Wikimedia Commons to document folklore and intangible cultural heritage from different regions, including, folk creative activities and many more. It is held every year from the 1st till the 31st of March.

You can help in enriching the folklore documentation on Commons from your region by taking photos, audios, videos, and submitting them in this commons contest.

You can also organize a local contest in your country and support us in translating the project pages to help us spread the word in your native language.

Feel free to contact us on our project Talk page if you need any assistance.

Kind regards,

Wiki loves Folklore International Team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Help

Hi ,what happen this (File:Logo Jubilee 2025.png) its my first time uploaded a non free but how deleted this template? AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

It sounds like only an old revision of the file will be deleted. The file itself (the current revision) will be kept. I imagine that's probably an acceptable outcome. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

This is routine for non-free pics uploaded on en-WP. There is a "proper size", and a bot comes by to impose it. The bot-approved version of the pic will remain, and the old version will be automatically deleted after awhile. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae @Gråbergs Gråa Sång:Thanks but i didn't see my notifications in Miscellaneous (google translator). AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Again with Alexander McQueen?

Of all the possible articles, we get another about superficial trash. Is it random? 97.126.180.47 (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Which Alexander McQueen, who are "we", who/what gave it to you and is what random? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

They might be talking about Today's featured article. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 22:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

To paraphrase an old adage, one man's superficial trash is another's substantial treasure. Largoplazo (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep an eye out for tomorrow's, which is about an eccentric old man. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

So Stanley Green died in 1993. It is really true that the passage of time speeds up as you get older, as it seems to me that I saw him only recently. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Old? I'm an eccentric older man than James Joyce ever was. —Tamfang (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Related discussion at Talk:Main_Page#Alexander_McQueen. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Interesting how the ones about women's fashion are the ones that are "superficial trash". Kind of says more about you, friend. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Smithsonian has made millions of images available under Creative Commons Zero

Not sure if this is already well known, but I just came across this info and it seemed worth sharing: Smithsonian Open Access allows people to "download, share, and reuse millions of the Smithsonian’s images ... more than 5.1 million 2D and 3D digital items from our collections—with many more to come. This includes images and data from across the Smithsonian’s 21 museums, nine research centers, libraries, archives, and the National Zoo." FAQ here. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Possibly a lot at Commons:Category:Smithsonian Institution CMD (talk) 05:55, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

We should download all of these to preserve them before somebody decides to shut it down. RoySmith (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Global ban proposal for Shāntián Tàiláng

Hello. This is to notify the community that there is an ongoing global ban proposal for User:Shāntián Tàiláng who has been active on this wiki. You are invited to participate at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Shāntián Tàiláng. Wüstenspringmaus _talk 12:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC) Hope, that this message is well placed here. If not, please feel free to move it

Reminder: first part of the annual UCoC review closes soon

This is a reminder that the first phase of the annual review period for the Universal Code of Conduct and Enforcement Guidelines will be closing soon. You can make suggestions for changes through the end of day, 3 February 2025. This is the first step of several to be taken for the annual review. Read more information and find a conversation to join on the UCoC page on Meta. After review of the feedback, proposals for updated text will be published on Meta in March for another round of community review.

Please share this information with other members in your community wherever else might be appropriate.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Old logo Ecological Movement of Venezuela (2008).png

Hi,please why the user tagged as deleted for this (File:Old logo Ecological Movement of Venezuela (2008).png) the User Minorax checked the license as yes but why the user tagged as deleted?? (google translator) AbchyZa22 (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@AbchyZa22. The image appears to be copyrighted. In general English Wikipedia tries to avoid using copyrighted images (we prefer images with open source licenses). We make exceptions to the "no copyrighted images" rule sometimes, but you have to fill out a bunch of questions to verify that it meets the WP:NFCC. Looks like whoever reviewed that image disagrees that this image meets the WP:NFCC. They wrote The image/logo is not located at the top of the article in the infobox, and is not serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject (WP:NFCC#8, 10c / WP:NFCI). Image/logo is not the object of sourced commentary, and is used primarily for decorative purposes (WP:NFC#CS); its omission would not be detrimental to understanding of the topic. +NFCC#3a. Ping Iruka13, who tagged it. In the future, you can ask your questions at the WP:TEAHOUSE. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Is the same user accused by @Star Mississippi in this discussion (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1177#Stalking from @Iruka13)pinging this. AbchyZa22 (talk) 10:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @AbchyZa22 @Novem Linguae I believe the key takeaway there and on Iruka's talk was that it was a conduct more than a policy issue, and that they had policy on their side. Files are not an area where I'm particularly active so I defer to the consensus there. Let me know if I can help further at all. Star Mississippi 01:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Wiki course to give visibility to poets of the Anthology of Latino Poetry

Join us on an 8-week literary journey to learn how to edit Wikipedia while exploring the most iconic works of Latino poetry. Whether you're a seasoned reader or simply passionate about literature and poetry from around the world, this course offers a unique opportunity to delve into the beauty, depth, and influence of Latino verse.

• 📝 Enroll by: February 24.

• 📅 Course begins: March 4.

Don’t miss this chance to immerse yourself in the richness of Latino poetry, thanks Oscar_. (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Question

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Account is now CU blocked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

---

Am I allowed to make a account just for reverting vandalism? Stumblean! ^{Talk ☏} (he/they) 06:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Do you mean a second account? A WP:LEGITSOCK is allowed, but I haven't seen this as a reason before. CMD (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I meant a second account. I've seen vandals submit my sandbox for review on AFC and I don't really want that. Stumblean! ^{Talk ☏} (he/they) 09:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

and also I don't want ppl annoying me about template deletions while I'm reverting vandalism Stumblean! ^{Talk ☏} (he/they) 09:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

That's probably an unnecessary inconvenience for yourself. I see that a couple of people have edited your sandbox, including the current nuisance editor, and as you're a newcomer you may get the impression that this is an ongoing threat. But I've been reverting vandalism for over 15 years and have had maybe four or five people attack my user page, in each case easily reverted and then done with, so it hasn't been frequent. For that reason, it may not be worth the trouble of repeatedly logging out and logging back in all the time.

Besides, you can prevent such abuse altogether by requesting permanent "semi-protection" for your sandbox (and your main user page) to prevent IP users and any account less than four days old and with fewer than 10 edits from being able to edit those pages. If that turns out to be insufficient, you can ask to have the protection level increased to "extended confirmed protection". (According to the logs, you, yourself, acquired extended confirmed access five days ago, so you wouldn't be blocking yourself by doing this.)

See WP:Protection policy for details. If you're using Wikipedia's Twinkle gadget, it's especially easy to request protection by going to those pages and using the RPP (request page protection) option on the Twinkle drop-down menu. Largoplazo (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that this would not fall under WP:LEGITSOCK. RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

So I'm not allowed to make it? And I would get blocked? Stumblean! ^{Talk ☏} (he/they) 19:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd think it could count as Maintenance: An editor might use an alternative account to carry out maintenance tasks, or to segregate functions so as to maintain a user talk page dedicated to the purpose. The second account should be clearly linked to the main account. Anomie⚔ 22:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

k. Stumblean! ^{Talk ☏} (he/they) 01:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that creating a second account as you describe is not a good idea. But, if you do go ahead and do so, please read WP:SOCK#NOTIFY to make sure you provide proper notification. RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Done Stumble Anti VandaI (talk) ^{[alternative account of Stumbleannnn]} 03:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Blocked by User:The Anome " because your username, Stumble Anti VáñdåI, you have deliberately obfuscated letters in the word "Vandal" in a way that makes it hard to recognise, search for, or remember." Doug Weller talk 14:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

If I may lend some further advice, we're here to write an encyclopedia. Despite our plethora of rules, the only rule that really matters is "Everything you do needs to further the goal of improving the encyclopedia", and every action gets judged through that lens. RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

And if you do still want to follow this course (which I don't recommend), please rename the account (or just create a new one) without the silly diacritics and the use of 'I' for 'l' in the word "Vandal" that makes it hard for anyone to remember the actual username, apparently deliberately, thus making working with it difficult for other editors. Seriously, what's the point of that? I'd just use your own account for anti-vandalism work, and ask for page protection. — The Anome (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

It kept blocking the word "vandal" Stumblean! ^{Talk ☏} (he/they) 22:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

And for very good reasons! — The Anome (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah, it's true that certain words are blacklisted because of expectations that they'd be used mostly for disruptive purposes, like someone trying to call themselves "Bwahaha the Masked Vandal Bwahaha". Largoplazo (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Stumbleannnn, several people have told you that this is a bad idea, and offered you other ways to achieve what you want, but you still went ahead. We don't have policies against every bad idea that someone may dream up, but that doesn't make it any less of a bad idea. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Minor Planet Center blocks links from Wikipedia

Harvard/Smithsonian/NASA founded institution blocks Wikipedia for whatever reason. If someone can help please see here: Template talk:Minor Planet Center#Links from Wikipedia are blocked. Nux (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Setting Wikipedia's Referrer-Policy header (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Referrer-Policy) so visits from Wikipedia cannot be distinguished from other visits may help with this. Doing this, however, will need (one-liner!) help from WMF Engineering team. You might want to take this to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). — The Anome (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

As you mentioned elsewhere, it looks like MPC is deliberately blocking our traffic to prevent disruption of their system due to the large amount of traffic we're sending them. It would be impolite at the very least for us to deliberately camouflage our traffic to get around that. Our own TOS requires that You do not harm our technology infrastructure and you follow the policies for that infrastructure. Your suggestion is basically suggesting that we do exactly that to somebody else. Not cool. If we were to invoke WMF Engineering's efforts on this, we would do better to ask that they implement some sort of HTTP cache on our end to cut down on the traffic we send what I imagine is some poor little PC running in the corner of somebody's lab. RoySmith (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done this is fixed now on the MPC side (as explained on the template talk page). Nux (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Recent Changes feed improvements survey

Hello! The Moderator Tools team is looking to gain insight into the different ways that community members use the Special:Recent Changes log list, which information is the most useful, and receive feedback on early design ideas.
Currently, the team is recruiting contributors to take a quick survey (10-15 min). If you are interested please visit the survey at:
https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3zaigQl9TIYh5yK

You can find more information about the Recent Change work on the project page.
If you have any further questions, please contact: otichonovawikimedia.org

Thank you! OTichonova (WMF) (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

How to handle AI generated content

These two contributions are likely to be AI generated (also containing "invented" sources): [4], [5]. I am not 100 % sure but let's say 97 %. How to handle this? 88.91.102.139 (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

If the sources are fake, just revert the addition. Blueboar (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Bruce1ee could you comment here? I can't find this source you added in Special:Diff/1170493106/1271835912. The DOI comes up as invalid, and JSTOR draws a blank on the title. On the other hand, I found this paper which has the right title and authors, but a different DOI. So what's going on here?

Dugdale, J. S.; Kristensen, N. P.; Robinson, G. S.; Scoble, M. J. (1999). "The smaller microlepidoptera grade superfamilies". Lepidoptera, Moths and Butterflies Volume 1: Evolution, Systematics, and Biogeography. Walter de Gruyter: 217–232. doi:10.1515/9783110846271.217.. RoySmith (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I didn't add that. It was added by Bithisarea here. —Bruce1ee^talk 00:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Translations

Hello everyone. I am interested in knowing lists of articles that have been translated from Spanish to English. On Wikipedia in Spanish we use the translated ref template to comply with the Wikipedia text license and indicate which article the information has been translated from, but I see that this template does not exist here, and I would like to know if there is any way to obtain lists of these articles. Thank you. Vanbasten 23 (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I can't say it's used consistently, as some will simply acknowledge the translation in an edit summary, but the template you're looking for is Template:Translated page, which is posted on talk pages. The template places the page into one of the subcategories of Category:Translated pages. For example, over 10,000 pages appear in the category Category:Pages translated from Spanish Wikipedia. Largoplazo (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Fair to use policy for update Movie posters

Hello, first of all i wish the best for all the people in the Forum.

Please let me know if its possible use fair to use policy for update Movie poster

Regards

George Barahona GEORGEB1989 (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Are you talking about uploading the image of a movie poster on "Wikimedia Commons" or "Wikipedia in English" ?

My question can seem useless but the two platforms haven't the same policy.

To help you , I need an answer. Anatole-berthe (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Question

So while I've been patrolling RC, I've begun noticing individuals changing things like Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America, and similar stuff to other renames. I know WP:COMMONNAME indicates keeping Gulf of Mexico, but how should I respond when I see these things? (Also I'm sure there is an existing thread about this but I cannot find it for the life of me) Thanks! Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 13:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

• If you revert you could cite MOS:GEO, which notes that places should be referred to by their article title (outside of specific historical circumstances). CMD (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• Existing thread‽ That is an understatement. See Template:Editnotices/Page/Gulf of Mexico, Talk:Gulf of Mexico, Talk:Gulf of Mexico/Archive 2, Talk:Gulf of Mexico/Archive 1, and Talk:Gulf of Mexico/FAQ. Uncle G (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

  Oh thank you so much. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 20:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Clearinghouse of recovery efforts in response to removed US government data

US government data are used as RSs in diverse WP articles, and there are widespread data removals from US government websites under the Trump administration. Just figured I'd highlight a new coalition, the Data Recovery Project, as it's a useful clearinghouse for data recovery efforts/info, in case editors are trying to find additional archives and/or alternatives for data that have been removed. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Various images of Stockholm flags, coats of arms, etc.

Not really sure where to put this, but as far as I can make out, the images that we are calling the coat of arms here and here, or the flag here are in fact not the official images, but user-created. Is there a copyright reason we should not be using the official flags? It seems misleading to present these as if they are official. I suppose this goes all the way back to commons though,[6][7][8] so maybe that is where it should be addressed, although I am not active there. --woodensuperman 14:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

This website shows what they should look like. --woodensuperman 14:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Also here and here --woodensuperman 15:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Your guess is right. It is a copyright issue. The coat of arms on the city’s website is an artist’s interpretation of the blazon. Per Swedish copyright laws that is a copyrighted image. Sjö (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the explanation. In which case it seems heraldry-wiki.com must be breaking copyright law. It just seems strange that we are using shonky images on articles such as Coat of arms of Stockholm without an explanation that these are merely a graphical representation, rather than an offical rendering. It seems misleading. So much so that amusingly, people are selling trinkets with these images on![9] --woodensuperman 10:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

No it's not weird or misleading, it's just how arms work. It's not "an unofficial representation", it's exactly as accurate a rendering of the arms described by the formula as any. You're bringing in your own deeply anachronistic assumptions about the subject that aren't justified in the slightest. Remsense ‥ 论 11:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we should have an explanation about this in a suitable Wikipedia article? Or an essay? (Maybe we already have one?)

For example, the official law about the US flag describes it this way: "The flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be forty-eight stars, white in a blue field." Two more stars have been added since that date, but that's all there is. Anything fitting that description is a "real" or "legal" US flag.

This means:

• Although the horizontal stripes are conventionally equal in width, they don't have to be.
• Although the red stripes are conventionally placed at the top and bottom (resulting in 7 red and 6 white stripes), they don't have to be.
• Although the stars are conventionally arranged in offset rows, you could arrange them in a different shape.
• Although the blue field is conventionally a particular shade of blue, so iconic that it is nicknamed flag blue by printers, it doesn't have to be. ("Blue" means any color in the range of Azure (heraldry), as opposed to Bleu celeste.)
• Although the Canton (flag) ("union") is conventionally a particular size and proportion, it doesn't have to be.

We are so used to seeing the "conventional" version that unconventional but still 100% legal versions look "wrong". I think that if people learned about this, they would not feel so concerned about deviations from the convention. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Letter of support for a French Wikipedian

FYI one of our fellow contributors on fr-wp has received threats of doxxing and complaint to his [alleged]] employer. The French community has drafted a letter of support : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Lettre_ouverte_:_non_%C3%A0_l%27intimidation_des_contributeurs_b%C3%A9n%C3%A9voles#Signataires

Nattes à chat (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi. An English translation is available here, thanks to Romaine. Best, — Jules* ^talk 13:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I fear this is going to get increasingly more common over the coming months and years. Within only the last few months, we've seen Asian News International, the Heritage Foundation and now Le Point intimidating and threatening our colleagues (on top of years of attacks against Belarusian and Russian editors). Wishing all the best to FredD and the Francophone Wikipedia community in general; I hope they can mount a solid defence against this. Can editors from other Wikipedias sign the letter, or is it specifically for Francophone editors? --Grnrchst (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Grnrchst: editors from all wikipedias are welcome to sign the letter, and dozens already have. We do now have translations directly available on the top of the letter: fr:Wikipédia:Lettre ouverte : non à l'intimidation des contributeurs bénévoles.

Thanks for your support. I share your fear. Btw I published a short piece about the Heritage Foundation threats in the February issue of the RAW, the French equivalent of the Signpost, because I think we are all concerned by these attacks against Wikipedia(ns). — Jules* ^talk 21:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Open letter has already received coverage in Ouest France, and a response from Erwan Seznec himself (did you know we are literally 1984?). --Grnrchst (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Nattes à chat & @Grnrchst Thanks for the information about the letter ! Anatole-berthe (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Theoretical question involving the mentorship module

I know that we just recently extended the mentorship module to 100% of all new accounts, for anyone who's curious. My question is, hypothetically, would it be possible to go to MediaWiki:GrowthMentors.json and change the "weight" parameter to, say, 5 or 6? What would happen then? Just as a hypothetical. Thanks! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 00:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Only an admin can do it, of course. I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't work, but I'm not an expert in this. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Martin Urbanec could probably tell us what the result would likely be.

The whole point of having those .json files here is so that we-the-community can make our admins mess around with them, so what won't happen is anybody at the WMF yelling about us messing with "their" stuff. They spent a lot of time and effort making it possible for us to change these settings all by ourselves, so we should not be afraid to do so. That said, we don't want to break anything, so we'd want to know what the "weight" actually means/does before changing anything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Well I know it changes the flow of the amount of mentees you get per month. For example, my current "weight" is 4, which means I'm getting twice the average amount of mentees. Someone with a weight of "2" would get the average, and "1" would be half the average. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 02:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

If 4 is the max, then changing it to 5 or 6 (i.e., to any invalid number) would likely either be equivalent to the nearest valid value, treated as the default value (whatever that is), or result in the item being skipped. You could look up the code to find out, or perhaps Martin will have mercy on our curiosity and tell us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• The answer is you would break stuff, that's why we don't just do something like that, and why we put warning on that page not to mess around with it if you don't know what you are doing. We trust our admins to heed warnings on things that could break that they don't understand. To avoid breaking things, you shouldn't edit that file directly, but use one of the other methods that has input validation built in. As to what will happen: you will cause an error in the parsing of that json file, because it won't correspond to one of the mapped values. (c.f. Wikipedia:Don't delete the main page) — xaosflux ^Talk 02:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing no, what it does is break things. WP:BEANS reasons, phab:T386826 can look in to that more. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

  That's a restricted/security task. We'll have to wait until it's resolved to find out which of the many varieties of "break things" this is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations § Temporary accounts

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations § Temporary accounts. JJP_Master (she/they) 03:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Change of the title

Hi,how to change the name of this file (File:Logo Kam Air (Afghanistan).png) this airline is not a iran its a airline in Afghanistan?? (Google translator) AbchyZa22 (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I believe you have to use Template:Rename media. Some1 (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok,thank you. AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

For future reference, this would be a better fit for WP:HELPDESK or WP:TEA Mgjertson (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikepedia Media Rating Bias?

Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 21:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Upcoming Language Community Meeting (Feb 28th, 14:00 UTC) and Newsletter

Hello everyone!

We’re excited to announce that the next Language Community Meeting is happening soon, February 28th at 14:00 UTC! If you’d like to join, simply sign up on the wiki page.

This is a participant-driven meeting where we share updates on language-related projects, discuss technical challenges in language wikis, and collaborate on solutions. In our last meeting, we covered topics like developing language keyboards, creating the Moore Wikipedia, and updates from the language support track at Wiki Indaba.

Got a topic to share? Whether it’s a technical update from your project, a challenge you need help with, or a request for interpretation support, we’d love to hear from you! Feel free to reply to this message or add agenda items to the document here.

Also, we wanted to highlight that the sixth edition of the Language & Internationalization newsletter (January 2025) is available here: Wikimedia Language and Product Localization/Newsletter/2025/January. This newsletter provides updates from the October–December 2024 quarter on new feature development, improvements in various language-related technical projects and support efforts, details about community meetings, and ideas for contributing to projects. To stay updated, you can subscribe to the newsletter on its wiki page: Wikimedia Language and Product Localization/Newsletter.

We look forward to your ideas and participation at the language community meeting, see you there!

MediaWiki message delivery 08:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Indian legal issue again

https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/fir-filed-derogatory-edits-chhatrapati-sambhaji-wikipedia-profile-9849244/

The Maharashtra cyber police have filed an FIR against @Ratnahastin for their edits in the Sambhaji. Nemoralis (talk) 09:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Already being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Article being reported to cyber police, Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 8#In the news once again, and User talk:Jimbo Wales#New India-thing. CMD (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Cripes. Cremastra (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

This is frankly getting ridiculous. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I can't believe that the Indian legal system will find against the people who are simply reporting what is published in reliable sources about Sambhaji, but it works (as do most legal systems) very slowly. For a year or two editors will suffer legal harassment, and for the rest of their lives will have to be frightened of vigilantes. This is the outcome that I predicted when the WMF caved in over the ANI affair. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Anecdotal experience with the mentorship module question system

Hello all, I have been a mentor for about two years now, and the biggest interaction I have with the system is new users leaving questions on my talk page. I have received a total of 165 questions over that time period, and responded to almost all of them. Recently, I categorized the types of requests I got with the questions, and the results were quite interesting. Here are the most frequent requests:

• 31 questions about the article creation process, and 13 about making autobiographies or self-promotional articles, for a total of 44 questions or 26.7% dealing with making an article
• 19 questions or 11.5% about references and citations
• 17 questions were incomprehensible or nonsense, 3 were not English, and 10 were non-question greetings, for a total of 30 or 18.2% being totally unproductive
• 15 questions were simply asking how to edit, while 4 asked what to edit, for a total of 19 questions or 11.5%
• 15 questions or 9.1% were asking for me to review their edits. These were the most productive questions and often led to good results and returning users.

This experience tells me that what Wikipedia needs to improve on its end with regards to new users is informing them of the article creation process. More than a quarter of new users just want to come and make a page, often about themselves, fundamentally misunderstanding Wikipedia. I am curious as to whether other people who are mentors have had similar experiences, and if there is any research of this sort being done by Wikimedia to assess the issues new users have. Fritzmann (message me) 18:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for compiling this. The summary may convince me to finally sign up to be a mentor. Knowing in advance what kind of questions a mentor gets, and thus what kind of answers to prepare for is a big help. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma, my talk page is almost entirely questions from mentees (their form sets a heading Question from user link), if you'd like to take a look. Schazjmd (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this. The attempts to use Wikipedia to create autobiographies is old, there are a few essays, like WP:ABOUTME. It comes up at WP:AfC too, and on Commons for personal photos. There has been research into new user experience (eg), but it's clearly a persistent problem. It's cheering to hear that you've had positive results and returning users. CMD (talk) 06:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking how nice it is that only a quarter of questions were about autobiographies and self-promotional articles.

I would not characterize non-English questions and greetings as "totally unproductive". Depending on people's culture, they may find an exchange of greetings to be an important step. Replying to a greeting with a simple welcoming message may make them feel more connected to Wikipedia (which is good for us) and reassure them that the mentor is responsive and willing to receive their real questions. The https://no-hello.com/ approach is considered rude behavior in some cultures.

This comment (at the top of the OP's talk page) caught my eye. I assume this was counted as "incomprehensible". Looking at the following section – which seems to be a reply, rather than a separate question – I wonder if the newcomer was looking for the article Dewe (woreda) or for the number of woredas in Ethiopia. I therefore think this is something else that mentors should be prepared for: people with limited English skills attempting to communicate, and you are left guessing what they actually want to say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, thank you for your insights! I think you bring up a good point about the mentor side of things. It would definitely be worthwhile to invest in training mentors, because right now they are very much thrown into the deep end. I know I have given poor advice or not known how to handle an interaction, simply because I had no experience. Fritzmann (message me) 19:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I think your analysis makes a good starting point for figuring out what training would actually be useful to mentors. Some of it's going to be easy. For example, we know mentors will get a lot of autobiography/self-promotional questions, so maybe we should set up a page for mentors about that subject. It could have links to pages like Wikipedia:Autobiography and perhaps a couple of sample replies that mentors could copy/paste to save time or use as inspiration for personalized messages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm relatively new to being active on Wikipedia, so I don't really have any experience with the mentorship system other than having asked questions to a couple users I found on those lists. I have however made the observation that the mentorship system seems to be somewhat inefficient. I think a key factor here may be that editors are being introduced to the mentorship system too soon.

Basic greetings, how and where do I edit, etc, would perhaps be better suited for the teahouse, where they will likely get an immediate response rather than having to wait for a single editor. I've noticed some mentor talk pages where the mentor is understandably busy and not able to quickly respond to these simple greetings and questions, which could cause those new editors to get the impression that they aren't welcome. It may be that somehow new editors are being directed to mentors before the teahouse, which leads to elevated levels of these kinds of messages to mentors.

People who sign up to be a mentor are largely, I assume, very experienced users. These would be editors who can answer more technical questions, know the real ins-and-outs of the policy, and the history behind why things are the way they are. A user of any experience level can direct people towards pages to edit, show them the article wizard and the help pages, explain what a draft is, or just say hello.

To be fair, the variety of discussion pages on Wikipedia is pretty confusing. From a new editors perspective, it can be difficult to determine whether your question belongs in the teahouse, the help desk, the talk page for an article, the village pump, the reference desk, a wikiproject, or directed towards a mentor. This is something that could potentially be addressed, but it would be a long discussion.

Granted, a large part of this can probably also be attributed to new editors who simply "can't be bothered to read all that". While anyone can edit Wikipedia, of course you have to follow certain guidelines and policies, and generally not be a nuisance to your fellow editor. It might be difficult for a new editor to contribute effectively if they're unable or unwilling to read over the help pages and other available resources. MediaKyle (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Central banner for c:Commons:Wiki Loves Bangla 2025 contest

A photography contest is going to happen from March 1, 2025 to March 31, 2025 on commons to enrich the content and a central notice request has been placed to target English Wikipedia users including non-registered ones from Bangladesh and the Indian states of West Bengal. Thanks. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Americana

Does anyone have access to all the entries of the Encyclopedia Americana? I am looking for a PDF of it. Hulu2024 (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think you're going to be able to get a PDF of the entire encyclopedia, but I would imagine most good libraries would be able to get you a scan of a particular article. I see the New York Public Library has a copy at a branch near me, so if you're looking for something specific, I could probably get it for you.

As a more general answer, WP:TWL and WP:RX would be good places for this kind of thing. RoySmith (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith thanks. Hulu2024 (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

That's owned by Scholastic, which is not a partner for the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Are these possible to use on English Wikipedia?

Are these possible to use on English Wikipedia? [10] [11] [12] - Maybe something under fair use?

And maybe this depiction of Jahan Khan? [13] - I think it could be used on Sardar Jahan Khan for the use rational of depiction purposes. Noorullah (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, but I think the answer is 'no' for the architectural images.

For the second, I think the book was published in 1959. Do you know whether the drawing was made for the book (and so is the same age)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Pretty sure the drawing was made for the book, yes. Noorullah (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

It seems to be made by a "Trilok Singh", theres an inscription on the photo near the bottom. - I believe this person: Trilok Singh Chitarkar.

Another picture of it found here: [14] Noorullah (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Then it's unfortunately not public domain yet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Erik Satie has an RfC

Erik Satie has an RfC for possible consensus. Infoboxes have been a highly contentious topic in the past so getting more comments would be helpful to help find a concensus. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. It can be found under the heading Infobox RFC. - Nemov (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

BTW, if anyone likes adding infoboxes, then please look into Category:Wikipedia articles with an infobox request. Editors could probably add decent infoboxes to 10 articles in the time it takes to argue over just one of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

In which countries are physically servers for Wikimedia projects ?

I can't found the answer to this question on Internet.

I'd like to know in which countries can we find servers for Wikimedia projects ?
You understood I'm not only talking about Wikipedia. Anatole-berthe (talk) 04:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

The main servers are in the United States, with caching proxies all around the world. See m:Wikimedia servers. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this answer ! I had better than expected. Anatole-berthe (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Template:Incumbent

A new template {{incumbent}} has been created which can be used to print the name of current holder of a 'position' by specifying the name of the position as it's parameter. It uses wikidata. Useful for infoboxes, can be used in running text too. Riteze (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Please note that this template is not yet suitable for use in infoboxes, and its link to Wikidata should be supressed in prose, per the relevant RFCs. I have explained this requirement to the template's creator, but they have not yet made their new templates compatible with the RFCs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Academy Awards

I found that the category award title in every edition are changed. The name are different now. It feels strangeness. Stevencocoboy (talk) 08:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Real Clear Politics

Why did Wikipedia decide to remove the RCP average from a chart showing various poll aggregators? One of your editors claim RCP has a strong right-wing bias. Have you ever actually read RCP. They have one article from the right followed by one from the left. They actually aggregate all polls. Historically, they have been the most accurate poll aggregator. What's more, they called the election results exactly. Perhaps the editor that made the claim needs to be edited. 71.178.70.53 (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:RealClearPolitics there is not a consensus on how to treat RCP as a source. They appear to have the trappings of a reliable source, but their tactics in news reporting suggest they may be publishing non-factual or misleading information. Use as a source in a Wikipedia article should probably only be done with caution, and better yet should be avoided. I would not personally consider them to be a reliable source for the reasons mentioned in the quote above and also because I find their definitions of key terms like "left" and "right" do not line up with academic consensus surrounding those terms and I find their assessment of media bias lacks rigor or an observable methodology beyond vibes. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

So, you cite a newspaper that tilts to the left as your reason why you don't use RCP because it supposedly tilts to the right. There are articles on RCP right now that are decidedly left of center. Some far to the left. There is no doubt there are articles that tilt to the right too. That is called being even. But that is not how they manage their aggregator. They simply take a braoder range of polls. Polls that others exclude because they are supposedly right of center. And yet, those polls were the most accurate and are the reason RCP has been historically accurate. So again I ask, why would you exclude the most historically accurate poll aggregator? They actually called the election spot on and they called the election before as well. They weren't considered right wing when they reported that Biden had the lead in the polls. It appears they are only right wing when they publish something with which the WP, which was completely wrong on the last election, and Wikipedia disagree with. That is called censorship. 71.178.70.53 (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

"The" election? As if there is only one election in the whole world that matters?

I'm not sure what you mean by "you cite a newspaper that tilts to the left as your reason". Nobody has cited any newspapers either in this discussion or in WP:RealClearPolitics (linked above). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I say 'the election' because RCP was specifically aggregating the 2024 US Presidential Election and it was because of their aggregation on this election that Wikipedia stopped using them. And to push back on me because I say 'The election' is disingenuous since we all know what election this is about. The left of center newspaper is the New York Times since Wikipedia pulled RCP directly after the NYT article. Furthermore, no one has addressed the fact that RCP is historically the most accurate aggregator, and Wikipedia only pulled it after its aggregation favored Trump, which was accurate. It wasn't pulled during the 2020 election when it favored Biden. RCP actually called the electoral college exactly and was much closer than any of the polling sources and aggregators Wikipedia uses. Why would Wikipedia exclude the most accurate of the aggregators? 71.178.70.53 (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Generally, when you want to know why something happened on Wikipedia, you need to look at the prior discussions. The WP:RealClearPolitics list entry links to a discussion in 2019, and a bigger discussion in 2021.

Both of those significantly predate "the" election, and I assume that "the" NYT article appeared somewhere during the run up to the 2024 United States presidential election, so – time travel not really being a thing – neither that election nor that article could be related.

Looking through the past discussions for the article about the election, I find this discussion, which is started by a logged-out IP editor from Australia, who claimed that bias was a good reason to remove RCP. Based on the comments from registered editors, that doesn't seem to have been a persuasive reason, though. They seem more concerned about lax methodology. (Weak methodology can result in an accurate answer, but it's less likely to do so.) One person mentions two articles from the NYT, but others don't say much about that, so I don't know whether anyone even read them, much less thought that was a useful basis for making a decision.

There are probably other discussions elsewhere. Maybe it would help if you posted a URL actually showing that One of your editors claim RCP has a strong right-wing bias. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I find this all very confusing as some of the comments in this thread seemed pointed at my response but I said nothing about RCP having a bias. I said their definition of key terms didn't match academic definitions, that their methodology was somewhere between lax and fully absent and that their work lacked academic rigor. None of these issues speak to any specific direction of bias. Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Someone else said that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Off-topic political ranting, WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am a former Wikipedia user and supporter. I found donating to them to be a worthwhile investment because I used to see what I thought to be a journey toward truth. It wasn’t allowed as a source for collegiate purposes or even in high school essays because it’s written by users and it takes users to identify errors. Now, I see so much of the anti-right and even woke content and it sticks. We have the president of the United States with a Wiki profile that looks like a collection of CNN headlines that have since been debunked. Then we go to Obama’s page, and we see all of the so-called accomplishments he made during his terms. Here is a fun fact: all presidents have had an underwater approval rating since the beginning of Obama’s term before he flipped the script two years in. That is, until now. Trump has had a positive approval rating since the election and the reason for that is because the wokeness that exists online, in the media, and in Hollywood is not what we Americans agree with. Just because we are not ranting on TikTok on the daily, in fact mostly stay off mainstream social media platforms, does not mean we aren’t out there and actually do still seek truth. Wikipedia is no longer a vehicle for getting information, at the very least as a starting point. It’s now another source that we have to assume to be untrue until proven otherwise, which doesn’t happen. The fact that you located something out there that may not fit the woke narrative is almost reassuring, but we still have a very long way to go while we call a ban on drugs that have been proven to be harmful and irreversible specifically for children (kids, minors, those under 18) as anti-trans by the media, the cesspools and Hollywood. I hope that more Wikipedia articles are being published that are rooted in truth and reality. Neo-pronouns, white systemic supremacy, and the idea that feelings equal truth are why our country is in the position it is. My suggestion is to learn how to accept differing views and be tolerant of other people’s opinions instead of placing every non-woke idea into a box with 10000 labels that end in “-ism” or “-it’s”. Best of luck. 2601:881:200:F7E0:619A:C4E1:A496:7C8B (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion about splitting creeks from river categories

We're starting a discussion here. Please feel free to join in the discussion. — hike395 (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Typo Team/Guild of Copy Editors

Now that I'm aware of the existence of both of these groups, I wonder why there isn't just the Guild — because catching typos is part of copy editing. Does anyone know? Augnablik (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

The typo team was created in November 2003 and the Guild of Copy Editors was created in July 2008 (though its predecessor, the League of Copyeditors, was created in November 2006). Typo-fixing is its own specialisation, with specific tools for that purpose, so I don't think the separation is a problem. Graham87 (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @Graham87, for such a quick response. But I can’t imagine why all editors specialising in copy editing wouldn’t have access to whatever “specific tools” for fixing typos there may be. Augnablik (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

No worries. It's not generally a problem of access, but rather technical acumen and a desire to use those tools. Many copyeditors are happy with their own methods. Graham87 (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

If you really think these two projects should be merged, a better place to suggest it would be on the two project talk pages. I suspect you won't find much support for merging them, however. Both projects do useful things and while there's some overlap, they're really not the same. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. RoySmith (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith, I’m only just now becoming aware of both groups, so I have no strong feelings based on personal experience at this point.

My question came from wondering about what seemed very possible duplication, which I know some editors believe we have too much of with articles. And to be a little more transparent about all this, I’d also been thinking to get involved with proofreading and copy editing as one of my Wiki niches. Augnablik (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Augnablik, I look at them as different approaches: GOCE is about fixing many problems in one article at a time; Team MOSS is about fixing one problem in many articles at a time (using data query dumps). Schazjmd (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

A data query dump in this context would be a results list when searching for one particular word or piece of punctuation — that sort of thing?Augnablik (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

As Wikipedia:Typo_Team/moss#How_the_lists_are_made explains: The moss spell checker is run against a recent set of database dumps, which are generated on the 1st and 20th of every month (but take a few days to process). All the articles in the English Wikipedia are examined. (In looking for that, I noticed that the typo team pages have evolved since I participated there; it used to list misspellings and you'd click to find all the articles with that misspelling, then fix them.) Schazjmd (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Just as in real life, they're groups of people interested in collaborating together that formed separately. For instance, someone might create a Catan gaming group, and later on, someone else might want to play a broader set of games and create a more general desktop gaming group. The first group might want to merge its coordination under the second, but it doesn't have to. The two should ideally avoid competing with each other, of course. Bringing it back to this specific English Wikipedia example, the copy editor guild wouldn't need to replicate the techniques used by the typo team, but it should feel free to address typos when improving articles. isaacl (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about the excessive use of Al Jazeera on Israel-Palestine articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/1 Al Jazeera in English and Arabic is not considered a reliable source on topics related to the Arab-Israel Conflict. But despite this many articles on the topic cite it like they would the BBC or Reuters. To solve this, we should get rid of these citations and any text only supported by them in IvP articles. It'll have to be a group effort because it's simply too much for 1 person. Denninithan (talk) 06:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Read RSP again, it says "biased", but that is not the same thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I would have pretty serious neutrality concerns over excluding AJ from the Israel - Palestine topic area considering there's few other reliable news sources in English for an Arabic POV. Simonm223 (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

While an Arabic POV is important using good sources is more important. And if the only sources that can be found for a claim are all biased or banned for being propaganda then the reliability of that claim is questionable and it shouldn't be included. I feel like using Al Jazeera along with other more reputable sources is fine (and this is very common) but my main issue is with articles where the vast majority of citations are either AJ or one of many smaller Palestinian website who's reliabilities I question; in my experience most of these articles are flat out biased. Denninithan (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Universal Code of Conduct annual review: proposed changes are available for comment

I am writing to you to let you know that proposed changes to the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement Guidelines and Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) Charter are open for review. You can provide feedback on suggested changes through the end of day on Tuesday, 18 March 2025. This is the second step in the annual review process, the final step will be community voting on the proposed changes. Read more information and find relevant links about the process on the UCoC annual review page on Meta.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. This annual review was planned and implemented by the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, you may review the U4C Charter.

Please share this information with other members in your community wherever else might be appropriate.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) 18:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Adding "Paid subscription required" to New York Times citations

The New York Times website has a paywall that prevents you from reading all articles unless you subscribe. But for some reason, most if not all citations that cite the New York Times website don't have the "paid subscription required" tag, which should have been added.

(Note to administrators: Please relist this if it doesn't fit into the "miscellaneous" category) RaschenTechner (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Meh… I can go to my local public library and search the NYT for free (both the hard copy paper and the on-line version). Blueboar (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I only just now became aware that this the {{cite web}} template includes a parameter to mark a source as requiring registration. Anyway, that's a matter of the person creating a citation knowing about that parameter and thinking to set it. It doesn't have anything specific to do with the New York Times. Largoplazo (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• This is true of every subscription site. The |url-access=subscription is underutilized. There may be good reason. Pages may start out as paywall, then revert to free (or other way around). There might be some free access (5 per day etc). Possibly geography plays a role. Archive URLs often get around paywalls. Thus, access can change over time, and be relative to the viewer. IMO I see no reason to maintain these across millions of citations. Either you can get the page, or you can't, with whatever means is at your disposal. The warning doesn't change the verifiability, it's a courtesy, not a necessity. -- GreenC 00:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  I think that it's 10 free articles per month at The New York Times (but that may be wrong or outdated). Like Blueboar, my local library provides both hard copies and online subscriptions for free. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Missing 9/11 backup data

While I was attempting to download a data dump an host a mirror to aid others, I came across this weird fact. On https://dumps.wikimedia.org/ under the missing backups page, it seems to insinuate that the only missing backup page is a 2007 version of the September 11th article. On the given URL there is a link that appears to list "backup dumps of wikis that no longer exist". Upon opening said link there only a single article listed . September 11 wiki dump from September 2007. Why is this? Eternallygr8fu1 (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be better if we had a link to the ressource mentionned.

I think I'm unable to help you as I haven't the technical level necessary but it would be better with a link. Anatole-berthe (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@Eternallygr8fu1 The sep11wiki isn't the September 11th article, it was a completely separate project. After 9/11 a wiki was created to act as a memorial and document everything about the events. This wiki was moved to a different domain before being deleted. See Meta:911wiki for a short information page. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 08:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

86.23.109.101, you just got in the way of a good conspiracy theory there! Phil Bridger (talk) 08:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

-ve stuff

Is it wise to put -ve stuff on the Wikipedia home page. ? 220.240.117.89 (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Probably not, but your question is so lacking in context that it's impossible to answer properly. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Likely that they meant one of the ITN or DYK blurbs as those sometimes have negative (BLP) stuff (like the Arrest of Rodrigo Duterte). Nobody (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, if the -ve stuff have good sources. Lova Falk (talk) 10:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

What is "-ve stuff"? Schazjmd (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I presume "-ve stuff" means "negative stuff". What had me stumped were the questions of what the "Wikipedia home page" is, and what negative stuff does it contain or someone want it to contain. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

How to flag Arab-Israeli conflict related article

The article Alhambra Cinema (Israel) has a long history of people changing the country-designation of the pseudo-flag mounted on top of the building in the 1937 image. I think this article should be included under "Israeli–Palestinian conflict and all related issues" as listed in WP:List of controversial issues. I found the template {{Contentious topics/Arab-Israeli editnotice}}, but I'm not sure how to deploy it. (I'm not familiar with the geopolitical conflicts, I've just watchlisted this article about a building, and am annoyed with the back and forth edits.) Any help on how to reduce the long-term edit warring?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

No tips? Anyone?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@Grorp, if you mean that you want to add the big warning on the talk page, then you post {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Okay, I added that. However, the message states "You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic" but one can still edit the page as a non-logged-in IP editor (I tried it). There must be another step to limit editing on the article page.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 05:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

The default is to allow anyone to edit. Now the page is tagged it warns about the situation, and an admin can protect the page if trouble comes along. For the talk page, others may wish to make edit requests. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

But the flagging shows only when you edit the talk page, not the article itself, so the warning is inadequate for drive-by editors.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

We only protect the pages when it is actually necessary. It is not, strictly speaking, necessary to protect a page just because someone might edit it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Actually all articles within PIA can be ECR by default. I've protected. Valereee (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Valereee!   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Do we need Recent changes" in the sidebar?

On special-purpose wiks with low volumes of traffic, recent changes is a great way to review what's been going on. But enwiki has such a high rate of edits that recent changes presents an essentially random sampling of pages. Is there really any value to having this in the sidebar? RoySmith (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

That is a good question but in my knowledge every Wikipedia linguistical version have an equivalent button.

I don't know if this can be deleted as I'm far to be a specialist. Anatole-berthe (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I assume this is something that an WP:INTADMIN can change. Or of not that, then certainly a dev by editing the project config file. But before we go there, we should figure out if we really want it or not. RoySmith (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith It can be removed by editing MediaWiki:Sidebar. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Putting #n-recentchanges { display: none } on your css page works if anyone wants to hide it. Nobody (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I use Special:RecentChanges all the time. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:39, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2020 left sidebar update there was consensus to keep this. At the time I voted to keep, saying Not only does it serve a important purpose to editors, but it also serves as a live demonstration of Wikipedia's editing activity to those unfamiliar with the site; I still agree with this.  novov talk edits 01:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

It actually has many uses. I use it to deal with vandalism all the time. It might not be useful in its base forms, but with some filters set up it can be quite helpful. Gaismagorm (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. I also didn't realize there was a prior RFC on this, so I guess this can be closed. RoySmith (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Minecraft wiki feedback button

I just noticed that the Minecraft wiki has added a "Share feedback" button in a prominent position next to the article title. This button allows readers to anonymously post a message to the talk page via a bot. I'm still developing my own thoughts on this, but my initial reaction was "if we added something like this to Wikipedia, would readers be more encouraged to help out?" As a reader, I barely even knew what the "Talk" button did before I started contributing (despite its seemingly obvious nature). Of course, there are definitely problems with anonymizing feedback, such as encouraging talk page vandalism and unconstructive comments. I'm also not sure how this would impact our image as a collaborative project, as there's definitely a corporate veneer surrounding such "share feedback" buttons. Just wanted to see the community's thoughts Gracen (they/them) 18:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

We had WP:Article feedback tool once. It didn't work. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for linking me there! I'll read through the RfC. I'm a bit surprised it was discontinued, but I'm not one to argue with community consensus. Gracen (they/them) 18:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@Gracen There's a report on the tool here mw:article feedback/Version 5/Report. For the English Wikipedia only about 10% of the comments were looked at by editors, and only 12% of comments were found to be useful. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

After reading through the RfC and IP's kind link, I'm no longer surprised it was discontinued. Damn shame that so many people just don't want to or don't know how to constructively contribute. Gracen (they/them) 19:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

CentralNotice for Bangla Wikiquote contest

A contest will take place from April 7, 2025, to May 7, 2025, on Bangla Wikiquote to enrich its content. A central notice request has been placed to target both English and Bangla Wikipedia users, including non-registered users from Bangladesh and the Indian state of West Bengal and Tripura. Thank you. ≈ MS Sakib  «TalK» 02:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Can anyone add citations to ovenbreak being older than Canabalt?

It’s on the page endless runner. Therealbubble (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

"Expatriates by nationality" and "Emigrants by nationality'"

Kind regards. I just found the categories Expatriates by nationality and Emigrants by nationality and I wanted to ask for the difference between both, for anyone familiar with the categories or at least that has a better idea. Many thanks in advance. NoonIcarus (talk) 10:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

The distinction is that an Expatriate intends to return to their original country, while an Emigrant does not intend to return. Blueboar (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Blueboar: Sounds good, thanks! --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I unintentionally created the “Red link example” page

I thought this page was fully protected on creation instead of only extended confirmed protected, so I tried testing the sysop protection by just writing “test” and pressing Publish, thinking it wouldn’t let me create the page. But since the page was only extended confirmed protected (unbeknownst to me) and I am extended confirmed, it let me create the page.

I immediately nominated it for speedy deletion after it got created, because it’s supposed to be a red link used in examples.

Very sorry for having to waste an admin’s time with this. I will not do this again. ApexParagon (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@ApexParagon, don't worry. It'll be easy to fix. I see that you've already tagged it for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion, so an admin will take care of it soon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

An admin re-deleted it. Phew

I requested full create-protection on RfPP to prevent this sort of scenario happening again. ApexParagon (talk) 03:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

No worries. BTW, if you ever accidentally break Wikipedia, and help them fix it again, you'll win a T-shirt. I understand that very few of these T-shirts have been earned in Wikipedia's 25-year-long history, and I believe none of them have been earned through editing. You should proceed to WP:Be bold with the confidence that nothing you can do on the site is irrevocable. Any mistake like this is easily fixed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

And don't forget the Wikipedia:Village stocks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Citation needed for Samson's "pushing or pulling" statement

I translated Samson into Chinese (link) which has recently passed DYKN (the discussion). As a GA here, I plan to have it nominated as a GA on Chinese Wikipedia. I found many statements that were not found (or too hard for a non-native en-3 person like me to find) in the cited sources, but I overcame that by reading the sources and rewriting the contents. (I don't plan to mess up with those because I don't have time. I may translate Chinese content back into English in the future, or do a GA reassessment if I don't have time.) But one particular statement, a caption for two images, caught my eye:

Pushing or pulling?

According to the biblical narrative, Samson died when he grasped two pillars of the Temple of Dagon and "bowed himself with all his might" (Judges 16:30, KJV). This has been variously interpreted as Samson pushing the pillars apart (left) or pulling them together (right).

To me, this statement is quite interesting and would be a great loss if not added to the Chinese version, as it carries additional information that readers would wonder about. Unfortunately, with my best efforts, I could not find any sources (at least from what's listed) that claim either of the above happened or stated the controversy. Therefore, I could only conclude that the above statement was original research or was non-verifiable, and therefore commented it out in the Chinese version.

After some tough WikiBlaming, I found that StAnselm first added the above statement in revision 495845636 (WikiBlame results), and the original image captions suggesting Samson was either pulling or pushing the pillars were added by Y12J in revision 484932198 (WikiBlame results). @StAnselm and Y12J, may I invite you to explain how you concluded or found the above controversy? I'd like to also invite @Katolophyromai, who reviewed the article in the GA nomination, and @深鸣, ItMarki, and 自由雨日, who gave constructive comments on the Chinese DYKN, to discuss this topic. 1F616EMO (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Just realized that Y12J is a sockpuppet of Tyciol, a user blocked by the ArbCom and also globally locked, but anyways. 1F616EMO (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

And because the CheckUser block on Y12J came after the ArbCom block on the main account, I'd not be surprised if ABF'ing their edit makes sense. 1F616EMO (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of this topic, but from what you said, I won't be sad if it were to be removed. ItMarki (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the tag, though I don't know why it's here rather than on the article talk page. I don't really think it's OR since the difference is right there in the pictures. But it's certainly an interesting question: the majority view is that it is pushing, and that is made explicit in some English translations: e.g. "he pushed outwards powerfully" (NASB). I don't see any English translations that have "pulled" but I do see the verb used in some sources.[15][16] The Hebrew word can mean "push" or "bend" so both are indeed a possibility. StAnselm (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for posting here... I am not sure where should I post this type of problem, given that individual talk pages would not be visited a lot.

For the OR problem, the ideal case would be having a source directly stating the controversy, though citing multiple reliable sources on both stances would work. And for the sources you provided: Cambridge Dictionary said that "pull something down" means "to destroy a building", i.e. without the implication of actually pulling the supports. Both the Jewish Encyclopedia and biblearchaeology.org used this phrasal verb, so I doubt they can become a prove. 1F616EMO (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

OK, I found a better citation. StAnselm (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Adding one more instance of the pushing view: Judges 16:29-30 MSG also said that Samson pushed [the two central pillars] hard with all his might.

By the way, the Strong's Number of the word "bow" (Hebrew: נָטָה, romanized: natah) is H5186. In the Strong's Lexicon it says, The Hebrew verb "natah" primarily means to stretch out or extend. [...] It can also imply bending or inclining, as in turning one's ear or heart towards something. From my understanding on this text, it seems like the explanation of "natah" being "bend" is only valid when talking about turning one's ear or heart towards something, but not when applying force to something. 1F616EMO (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

No, it's also used in Genesis 49:15: "he bowed his shoulder to bear, and became a servant at forced labor" (ESV). And Psalm 144:5 as well. StAnselm (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

clickbaity fundraising title

The fundraising title has gone a bit too scary than the usual? Red background with "The internet we were promised, March 20: An important update for readers in Italy", there is no daily breaking news here, it's not like another nazist government legislation attempt. 62.98.160.86 (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Cleaning up Category:Wikipedia requested images/photographs

I've been cleaning up the category Wikipedia requested images. One of the things I found frustrating was that when using the template Image requested there was no quick way to know what subject I could write. So I made this list. The problem I ran into was that there was no consistency of when to use the word images and when to use photographs in the category name. Examples aircraft and aircraft, airports and airports, architecture and architecture, beer and beer just to name a few. (Usually the category for photograph is inside of the category for images of the same subject). Another problem is that some categories don't follow the naming convention of the template, for example Star Wars articles needing photos should be Wikipedia requested images of star wars, Ant articles needing images should be Wikipedia requested images of ants. Obviously not all of the categories can follow this naming convention, but many of them can and should.

From what I can gather a large part of the inconsistency comes from the fact that when you write in a WikiProject template that the article needs a photo (example: {{WikiProject Food and drink|needs-photo=yes}}) then it goes into the photograph category. But when you use the template Image requested it goes into the image category.

I was not sure where to bring this up since there is no WikiProject Images. Also, before someone says it, I know that image and photograph don't mean the same thing. Images can be maps, diagrams while photographs are (as far as I know) usually taken by a camera. In other words: Photographs are always images but images are not always photographs. My point is to simplify these categories and standardise them so that there aren't unnecessary duplicates. And so that we can use the Image requested template more consistently.

My suggestion is that we always use the word images instead of photographs because images includes all photographs but photographs doesn't include all images. Steinninn 05:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Since there was no response to my idea I moved the discussion to here in hopes of a response. Steinninn 01:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I believe the hope here was that it could turn into a work list for photographers: "If you are in Lake Wobegon, please take a picture of..." Non-photo images may be wanted, but I don't think that was the original intention behind this process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy/essay about not citing wikipedia policy/essays without elaborating

Is there a Wikipedia policy or essay that talks about not citing wikipedia policies or essays without elaborating? Senomo Drines (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:WTF. Remsense ‥ 论 19:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Funnily enough, you're the one who motivated me to ask for this, but I digress. I don't see how that wikilink has anything to do with what I'm talking about. Senomo Drines (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

If such a policy existed, I would cite it without elaborating all the time. BD2412 T 20:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

In that case, the person you are disputing can cite that very same policy against you. Senomo Drines (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

You might be looking for WP:UPPERCASE, thought that's a bit more about not trusting the shortcut to be a full, complete, and accurate description of the rule.

Other options:

• Wikipedia:Don't cite essays or proposals as if they were policy
• Wikipedia:Per nom (specific to deletion discussions)
• Wikipedia:What does "per" mean?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

That is very surprising. I expected there to be at least 1 page (essay or policy) dedicated to this topic. All the examples you've listed don't exactly fit in with what I am saying. WP:UPPERCASE is about misinterpreting the shortcut. What I said was to not use the policy without explanation, 2 different things. The other 3 options are also very different. The first is about essays not being the same as policy, the second is on not using "per nom" as a reason, and the third is just an explanation on what "per" means. Senomo Drines (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have policies on details like that. You might not have clicked the WP:WTF link. But it is a good essay on the topic of the question. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

That one doesn't exactly relate to it either. It is based on excessive use of shortcuts and jargon, different to using them without elaborating. Senomo Drines (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:VAGUEWAVE. —Cryptic 03:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not being funny, but having to explain WP:UCN (or whatever) as well as direct an editor to WP:UCN where they can read the policy themselves seems redundant. And a waste of time. Sometimes I quote a sentence of a policy and say "per WP:FOOIAN" but that's about it. I'm all for welcoming new people, but we also have policies and editors (even new ones) need to be familiar with them. If someone doesn't like being directed to policy so they can familiarise themselves with it, then I'm not sure how they are going to navigate WP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
  • A common situation is that a group of not-newbie editors are discussing some disagreement over whether certain text should be included, or whatever. In that kind of situation, someone posting a comment consisting of WP:RS or WP:NPOV is unhelpful and borderline trolling. Instead, an attempt should be made to explain why a particular source is or is not a reliable source for a particular claim, or why particular text is or is not neutral. Johnuniq (talk) 08:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
    • Well, that I understand. But a general policy against using policy shortlinks when interacting with other editors seems unnecessarily draconian. This seems like a sentence along the lines you mentioned could be added to WP:EQ. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
      • No one is suggesting there be a new policy. The OP is asking whether there is a policy or other page with the advice in the OP. Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

  Don't misunderstand. I am not saying you need to explain what the shortcut means. I am saying you can't just cite it as the basis of your argument. You need to elaborate, ideally quoting a section from it, not just use the shortcut verbatim as is. Senomo Drines (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

If you think this would be useful and you can't find one that says what you want to say then write one. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not particularly experienced at writing Wikipedia essays, but if no such rule exists, then I'll think about it. Senomo Drines (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Please consider that in accordance with the desire to not just point to an essay, it may be simpler for you to say something like "Can you provide more details on how (page X) applies in this situation?", and of course customizing the question to fit the specific circumstances. isaacl (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you could say that, but that doesn't enforce anything. Linking to a rule in Wikipedia pertaining to not elaborating would give you more persuasion in a dispute. Senomo Drines (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Part of collaborating is engaging in discussion to gain understanding. The simplest remedy to someone not explaining adequately is to politely ask them to explain. (There is of course context to consider as well, so a response has to be tailored to fit the circumstance.) Personally, I feel the existence of an essay on this specific point is too specialized to have much effect on the community. Of course, you can still write one anyway (often essays are most helpful to the author, as the writing process helps clarify their thoughts). I'm just cautioning you to not get your hopes up that it will help with any specific discussion. isaacl (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

In re Yes, you could say that, but that doesn't enforce anything: Policies do not enforce themselves. Editors do that.

Or I could have just written "See WP:ENFORCEMENT", and anyone who clicked on it would discover what I meant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays for information on how to write an essay. I think Cryptic is correct that the page you want is WP:VAGUEWAVE. You could adapt that to non-deletion contexts if you wanted to write a broader article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Here is a simpler solution… If/When someone points to a policy or guideline, and you are not sure how that policy or guideline applies to what is being discussed… it is your responsibility to ASK for clarification. Blueboar (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

The concept is definitely the same to what I am referring to, but I would like it to not be specific to deletion pages. I suggest moving that section to a more broad-spanning article, there is no reason to have it be selective to deletion discussions. Senomo Drines (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Trump admin closing and dismantling institutions

I'm looking for a List of institutions dismantled or closed by Trump, or something like it.

Examples recently:

• Pentagon website purage, af.mil dismantling
• United States Institute of Peace, usip.org shutdown
• USAID, usaid.gov shutdown
• US Dept of Education, ed.gov dismantling for possible shutdown
• Institute of Museum and Library Services, imls.gov dismantle for possible shutdown

Levels of effect might be:

• "degrade" - some staff removed, some services ended, de-funding eg. Pentagon
• "dismantle" - massively degraded by removing key staff, most services stopped, massive de-funding to the maximum extent allowed by law eg. US Dept of Education
• "closed" - formally closed, no longer a institution

-- GreenC 02:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Different issues are addressed in different articles, but here are two places to start:

• US federal agencies targeted by DOGE
• Anti-DEI deletions by the U.S. Department of Defense

FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks helpful. I wonder, we need a master list. It's not only DOGE, or DEI. The scale of changes to the Federal gov are unprecedented in US history, and far from over. It's unlike any other previous administration. It's too soon to coin a name for it, like Great Society ("a series of domestic programs enacted by President Lyndon B. Johnson in the United States from 1964 to 1968") but that's probably what will happen using my proverbial crystal ball, this period will get named. We might still start an encompassing article until the name becomes clear. Changes to the U.S. Federal government during the second Trump administration is descriptive but long. -- GreenC 20:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the changes are unprecedented, and I wouldn't be surprised if it gets named. But I don't know what you envision by an article with a "master list." You can certainly try to create an article that gives an overview, summarizing other relevant articles (e.g., the ones about DOGE, the one about the mass removal of federal data, the one about the mass federal layoffs, the court cases that have already been filed), and identifying them as "Main" articles. But I don't see how you could create a comprehensive article about everything that's going on. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

The changes involved in destroying and weakening America are so vast and occurring so quickly (a drug fueled frenzy) that a timeline/list article will likely be the best we can do. It would link to other articles and use only one wikilink or one or two RS for each listing. With time, some themes will emerge as good enough for their own articles. Check out the timelines listed here to get an idea of how it works: Timelines related to Donald Trump and Russian interference in United States elections They are a very valuable resource. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Response to the Department of Government Efficiency is a valuable article in this regard. Keep expanding it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Notability of a group of articles

Are any of the 90 or so "comparative ranks" articles in Category:Military comparisons actually about a notable topic, a standard grouping / comparison? Or are they just galleries? I personally see zero reason why enwiki should have something like Comparative army enlisted ranks of the European Union, but perhaps others can argue in general why such articles belong here, or else whether they should be deleted or transwikied somewhere? Not wanting to start 90+ AfDs or one mass AfD if I'm missing something obvious. Fram (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

And I see there is also Comparative army enlisted ranks of Europe, which seems to encompass 'Comparative army enlisted ranks of the European Union'. I actually see close to 300 articles of this type (not just "comparative") in Template:Military ranks by country. Some of the articles listed there do have a paragraph or two of prose at the top, but many are just galleries. Donald Albury 19:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The ones that deal with one country (say, Military ranks of Eritrea), are probably acceptable as a topic, even if the current execution may be lacking. An encyclopedic article about the military ranks of an individual country should in most cases be possible and should have good sources, considering how many books about military topics get written. Fram (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Are any of the comparison articles between countries which don't have articles for the individual countries with the insignia already shown? If not then they don't add anything to Wikipedia. I think this problem spreads to comparison articles about other things. Those that aren't galleries are consumer guides, such as the software comparison articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

This feels like a lot of original research to try to say that ranks in one country's military forces is equality to ranks in another country's military forces, in addition to excessive comparison via mostly images. I see no reason we should have these lists. --Masem (t) 02:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I would expect state departments to track this so they can get the Order of precedence correct in ceremonial circumstances. You don't want to insult your guests by saying that their 'X' officer is less than your 'Y' officer, when it's the other way around. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, articles about the military ranks of a single country are entirely encyclopaedic, as Fram appears to accept above. The question being posed appears to be whether articles on comparative ranks are. Many military history sources provide equivalent ranks to assist the reader in understanding. The fact that a SS-Oberführer in the Waffen-SS didn't really have an equivalent even in the German Army of WWII is useful for the reader to know when mentioning an officer of that rank. If you look at Ranks and insignia of the Waffen-SS it provides equivalents in the German Army of the same period and in the UK and US militaries cited to what appear to be reliable sources. This is exactly what can be found in the appendices of many WWII history books. My preference would be for individual country (or branch) articles of this type to provide information on their equivalents in standard English-speaking militaries like the UK/US rather than attempt to cover a huge number of countries in one article in the way that Comparative army officer ranks of Africa attempts to do. I've mentioned this discussion at MILHIST as others might like to chime in. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:49, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I do think some of the articles are honestly a bit too oddly specific, but I agree that overall they have been very useful for us. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Regardless of all else, all the MOS:DECOR-violating insignias in those comparison articles make it impossible to easily compare ranks... and that kinda defeats the purpose of those articles. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree that these articles are a problem. Besides the gallery-only nature of many of them, many of the articles have large detailed images of insignia that have not been used for decades or centuries. While there may be discussion in reliable sources about the significance of the appearance of such insignia, that should be conveyed in prose, with images used only to illustrate salient points. Donald Albury 15:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Chiming in to say I've found a few of them (some comparisons across NATO countries, between branches of one military, or across history within one branch of one military) useful for research. I've got Comparison of United Kingdom and United States military ranks bookmarked and also had to dip into Royal Navy ranks, rates, and uniforms of the 18th and 19th centuries multiple times.

(The latter, btw, has a ton of value as an article beyond just the tables of ranks. I don't know how much there really is to say about comparisons between modern ranks, but articles with that richness seem like what we should be striving for in an article. On the other hand, most of these comparison articles are really just over-illustrated lists.)

And agreed that we should not have to scroll past all the insignia to unearth the data. The insignia aren't what make the comparison useful -- the names and levels of the ranks are. (And on the off chance one has any desire to see the insignia for some specific military/branch/rank, those are easy enough to locate on the pages about that particular military/branch/rank).

For instance, the format in this template is utterly fantastic: {{United States uniformed services comparative ranks}}. Clear, compact, and information-dense. With a sentence or two of context, that could stand alone as a pretty good List article.

-- Avocado (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The difference between this discussion and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparative gendarmerie enlisted ranks of Francophone countries is rather remarkable... Fram (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Wikipedia

Google is misrepresenting Wikipedia with its answer to the search "how did james cook die". When I performed this search, the fourth simple textual response said
"He died of tuberculosis on 22 August 1779 and John Gore, a veteran of Cook's first voyage, took command of Resolution and of the expedition. James King ..."
This is headed up with the Wikipedia logo and the url to the article. The first search hit is Wikipedia with the correct cause of death, linking to Death of James Cook, whilst the erroneous "tuberculosis" is taken from a misreading of James Cook.

My immediate reaction is that Google are misrepresenting Wikipedia with this incorrect reading of a perfectly well-written article. What is the response of Wikipedia to this sort of thing? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 20:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no responsibility for and, moreover, no control over Google or any website or anybody misrepresenting or misinterpreting what they read on Wikipedia, especially when Wikipedia itself doesn't have consistent information. It's a combination of "not our problem" and "who has time for that?". You can always send a correction to Google yourself, but good luck with that. Google Nick Lazzarini (a dancer), and Google will present the beginning of Wikipedia's article on him and then inform you that his spouse is Elizabeth Lazzarini. This information appeared in his article when a vandal put it there in January 2014 (also changing his birth year to 1944 in a subsequent edit), and stayed there till someone removed it in January 2015. Here we are 10 years later, and Google hasn't gone back for a refresh.

I sent Google a correction years ago but obviously nothing came of it. Largoplazo (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear, there is nothing wrong with the facts stated in either Wikipedia article dealing with James Cook. This is simply a case of google's AI not being very intelligent. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I have contacted Google about the James Cook issue. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

There is a 'large gap' between the date and the actual cause of his death in the James Cook article. This probably led to the error. Secondly, ", who" instead of ". He" in the 'Aftermath' section might have prevented the error. Riteze 12:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

W._B._Yeats has an RfC

W._B._Yeats has an RfC for possible consensus. Infoboxes have been a highly contentious topic in the past so getting more comments would be helpful to help find a consensus. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. It can be found under the heading RFC: Infobox writer proposal. - Nemov (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Feedback wanted on Wikidata in Watchlist and Recent Changes

Hello everyone,

We are looking for a few Wikipedians to speak with us about their experiences looking at Wikipedia watchlist and recent changes lists. We are especially interested in your understanding and interpretation of the information displayed when the edits are caused by Wikidata.

The format will be a roughly 1-hour long interview with our UX researcher and conducted in English, compensation is available.

If you would like to participate, please register your interest as a reply to this post or on our Talk_page and we will shortly be in touch.

Thank you, - Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC) (posting on behalf of the Wikidata for Wikimedia Projects team)

Wait… I thought we had consensus that edits should NEVER be caused by Wikidata. Or am I misinterpreting what is being discussed? Blueboar (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

So can I claim compensation for talking about nothing for an hour? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Ha, well we certainly wouldn't fill the hour with silence, but would have a series of questions and visuals about the information that is currently shown from those watchlist entries caused by a Wikidata edit. You absolutely do not need to be a Wikidata-expert to participate, but we do welcome a cross-section of experience. Feel free to reach out with any more questions -Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

These entries caused by Wikidata in your Wikipedia Watchlist or the Recent Changes list can be triggered by a number of ways, including but not limited to:

• adding, removing or changing
  • a language link
  • a badge
  • Wikidata item label, description and/or alias
  • a claim (Property and/or value-pair)
• connecting or disconnecting an article to a Wikidata item

Wikidata edits in the watchlist are not visible by default. To include them, you can toggle them from your preferences/watchlist/advanced options section.

Alternatively, a toggle can also be found under the Filters dropdown in the Type of change section, directly from your Watchlist/Recent Changes page. -Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

It won't take up an hour, but as an initial piece of feedback, enabling the watchlist toggle means every wikidata change is displayed separately, as opposed to the (default) article behaviour of only showing the most recent edit, which can absolutely wreck watchlists. For example, if I currently enable the toggle, my watchlist is a wall of changes to wikidata:Q9027, apparently because Nordic Council is on my watchlist(?). CMD (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback @Chipmunkdavis. Just curious, do you also use the 'Group changes by page in recent changes and watchlist' feature (from Preferences > Recent Changes)to counter that? Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Well no, I didn't. Why is an option for watchlist customisation in the recent changes tab rather than the watchlist tab, and why is its default setting the opposite of what would be implied by the existing watchlist toggle "Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent"? Questions and anecdote for the UX team. I might give it a try with that enabled. CMD (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Great questions, alas I don't have the answers for you, but I do hope that function improves things for you if you try it out, thanks again for your thoughts. Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

My watchlist is ok on desktop, where the multiple changes to a Wikidata item are rolled up under a clickable right-pointing triangle, but I know what you mean on my phone/Minerva, where I spend more time these days and where the watchlist can be an unsummarised mass of property value and reference changes to a single item. That's where I look forward to discussing th euser experience... AllyD (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I have this disabled because I don't edit Wikidata anyway, but also because it is mostly useless (as in, you know something has changed, but that's the end of the useful information). If I would get instead of "(diff | hist) . . Dm Michael Buxton (Q133464990); 03:08 . . AntiCompositeNumber (talk | contribs) (‎Created claim: Property:P106: Q1642960)" the actual values of the P and Q numbers, I might have an idea whether I should check if I were so inclined. And then there are pure errors, like this appearing twice in my watchlist. It's also confusing that "(diff | hist) . . Dm Wikipedia:Authority control (Q76); 14:03 . . Prototyperspective (talk | contribs) (‎Created claim: Property:P12361: barackobama.bsky.social)" is given as a change to Authority Control, when it is a change to Barack Obama (yes, Obama = Q76, but that's not really something I know for every article on my watchlist).

I thought this option was restricted so only changes which impact enwiki were shown (say, things which would appear in an infobox), but this is no longer the case?

I have no idea what the line "(diff | hist) . . Dm User:Andrawaag (Q31); 18:28 . . RVA2869 (talk | contribs) (‎Set [nl] aliases: Koninkrijk België, Belgie, BE, BEL, 🇧🇪, be)" does in my watchlist: the diff goes to [17]. Similarly, I get 6 changes like "(diff | hist) . . Dm User:Saarik (Q95592946); 08:06 . . Saarik (talk | contribs) (‎Removed claim: Property:P8687: 45)" which are changes to a Wikidata article, not a Wikidata user page([18])

I get "(diff | hist) . . Dm Help:Authority control (Q414110); 09:28 . . Ham II (talk | contribs) (‎Changed [cy] label, description and aliases: Akademie der Künste Berlin, amgueddfa yn yr Almaen, Academi Celfyddydau Berlin, Academi y Celfyddydau, Berlin, Academi Celfyddydau, Berlin)" which is not a change to Help:Authority control but this.

So I stopped looking for further issues and now know again why I disabled this years ago already. Fram (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh wow, thank you for all the feedback and examples, this is very helpful. Addressing the techno-babble and jargon to those unfamiliar with Wikidata terminology is something we would like to improve. Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Liverpool FC.svg

Hi ,why this user publicated this logo (File:Liverpool FC.svg) for 2 articles, regarding the Wikipedia:Non-free content ,for logos used for 1 article but why the user publicated this logo for 2 articles?? (Google translator) AbchyZa22 (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

More than 29,000 accounts compromised

WMF and User:AntiCompositeNumber has discovered and locked more than 29,000 compromised accounts. See m:Special:Log/WMFOffice. GZWDer (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Additional information? How were they compromised? What kind of damage was done? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:08, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, please. A simple statement like "accounts using 2FA were not affected" would be helpful. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi all. Yes, this is something we (WMF) are aware of and responding to. You can find more information on the Meta-wiki page m:Wikimedia Foundation/March 2025 discovery of account compromises; please add any questions on the talkpage there, keeping in mind that we cannot share some details for wp:beans/security/etc reasons. Also yes, confirming Bri is correct that accounts with 2fa were not affected. Thanks, Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Welcome templates

I love all of them V1kor0to (talk) 05:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Awesome job on the front page today

I really enjoyed the front page today. It's hard to get wordplay like that, and to have pretty much all the topics be so silly really made my day. Thanks to the folks who worked it, y'all knocked it outta the park. Wackogamer123 (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

It's just the DYK section on the front page that's April Fool's, right? Yeah, I see a couple funny ones in there :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

CAPTCHA

Somebody needs to shout this out loud.

MOST ASSISTIVE READERS CANNOT PASS THE NEW CAPTCHA TEST, BLOCKING ALL SUCH EDITORS FROM THEIR ACCOUNTS. PERSISTENT RANGEBLOCKS COVERING THINGS LIKE THE VODAFONE GATEWAY PREVENT EVEN IP ACCESS FOR MANY.

In protest, I am totally off-wiki from this moment on, unless and until this abuse of the disadvantaged ends. So no point in your replying to me personally. (Though I have passed a suggestion for a workable captcha to phabricator).

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the details of the new captcha test, the affected screen readers, and the phab ticket. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Presumably the appropriate Phab link is phab:T6845#10686296, which is a new comment on a very old ticket. Anomie⚔ 13:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Per phab:T6845#10686370, sounds like they're about to turn it off. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey @ScottishFinnishRadish, I wanted to clarify that this particular change wasn't related with the tests. It was a separate decision, more like a one-off, that's also why we didn't check all accessibility consequences and rolled back that easily. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I think that this should serve as a reminder to many people (including me) that accessibility is not a "nice-to-have" afterthought, but that systems are unusable to many people when it is not designed in from the start. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey everyone, thanks for the comments above. We implemented CAPTCHA as a quick security measure: T390197 IPReputation: Support showing a CAPTCHA on Special:UserLogin and T379178 Support captcha as part of login flow (not just on "badlogin"). Given that it has an accessibility tradeoff, we did decide to roll it back. We will try to figure out a better way of securing logins keeping accessibility in mind. Thank you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt rollback. As something to work towards, may I suggest offering the alternative of 2FA by sending a confirmation code to the account's registered email address. Not perfect, as email is nowadays frowned on as less secure than phone nonsense, and some editors may not have registered, but better than what we have at the moment. Even more basic but a key part of the UX should be to add an accompanying caption stating that it is only a temporary measure; this would help inform those few who are locked out, meaning they will take it with far better grace than, say, I did. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

As it happens, we're working on that now and hope to have it deployed in some form soon, hopefully later this week T390437: Deploy Extension:EmailAuth. :)

I'm sorry for the issues we caused with deploying the CAPTCHA in this way, and thank you for speaking up about it. KHarlan (WMF) (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Somebody needs to shout this out loud. Yeah, but it violates WP:SHOUT. Removing your bolding. Leaving the all-caps since I lack the energy to convert it. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

With due respect, WP:SHOUT says "seldom" not "never". I made that judgement call and I stand by it. The subsequent conversation shows I had a point. No violation there. FYI, I'm taking this off my watchlist now it's descended to trivia. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

You stand by it, yet you haven't restored your bolding. So the point of your comment was? Dude, if you feel that strongly about this, by all means shout to high heaven. I didn't mean to offend your sensitivities. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

What if it all just ended…

Imagine if, one day, this encyclopedia were to go dark, if the Wikimedia project came to an end permanently. All the articles, all the discussions, the debates, the conflicts, the memories buried within its page all of it, gone forever.

How would you feel, after dedicating hours, months, even years of your life to it? After sharing so much knowledge, debating countless topics, forging connections with contributors from all over the world, what would remain, if Wikipedia suddenly vanished without a trace? Would it be sadness, nostalgia, or perhaps a quiet, lingering emptiness?

Riad Salih (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure that, in the long term at least, those who only read would find something else to read, and the editors would find something else to do with their time. There would still be a need for some sort of online encyclopedia, but it would probably be very different. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

As part of the open source movement, if Wikipedia were to disappear, someone would surely fork it quickly using meta:Data dumps, and then folks would head over there. The work we've done is likely quite resilient to any kind of disappearance, attack, etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure there would be copies around from the regular data dumps. What would be hard to rebuild is the financial, infrastructure, and technical support supplied by the Foundation. There would also be the problem of making the public aware that a new clone was a legitimate successor to WP (depending on what might happen to the Foundation, the name "Wikipedia" might not be available for use). Donald Albury 15:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I've worried about this recently, in light of the current abandonment of the rule of law in the US and the purge of everything and everyone contrary to the Administration's views. I hope that if they don't already replicate the site and its database to servers outside the US, say in Ireland or Denmark or Spain, that they're now arranging to do that. Largoplazo (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

The Foundation has several data centers around the world, although the ones outside the US are used for edge caching. Donald Albury 15:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC) Edited 15:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

The Federal government can enact legislation that in-effect makes life very difficult under the guise of combating piracy, pornography, anti-American propaganda. If the WMF is not already looking at moving the organization to Canada, Netherlands, etc.. they should be laying the foundation. The regime is cleaning house with a long wishlist of liberal crown jewels to dismantle. -- GreenC 04:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I had actually thought about this two days ago when the site was having technical difficulties. Honest answer to your question? I would feel indifferent. As Phil Bridger said, people would find something else to read and something else do with their time. I know I would. I wonder how the wiki-addicts will cope though, but I'm sure they'll eventually get over it. Some1 (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia's intended purpose, to serve as an informational ready reference for most of the world, is beside the point? The damage would be measured only by its value as a leisure pursuit for the people who contribute to it and keep it running? Largoplazo (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Some sadness, I love reading it as well as editing. The upside would be my new hobby which I'm rubbish at might improve. I've gone from putting out fires to creating them.

As long as YouTube survived? I've no idea how to fix things unless I can look it up on the toob. Knitsey (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

@Riad Salih For which reasons do you think this encyclopedia can cease to exist ?

If it does happens when I'm alive. I don't think I can predict how I will feel. Anatole-berthe (talk) 03:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

@Anatole-berthe just crossed my mind. But yeah, it can always happen. Just as an example, if Google somehow stops showing the encyclopedia in the top search results, it could seriously reduce the number of page views. It's a subtle way to kill something. Riad Salih (talk) 05:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

@Riad Salih I was thinking to the fact "Myspace" lost songs because of a faulty server migration.

There are many articles about this story.

An article among others.

It was wrote by "Matthew Robinson" published in "MARCH/18/2019" on the website of "CNN" : https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/18/us/myspace-lost-12-years-music-uploads-apology-intl-scli/index.html

Your example about "Google search" seemed to me interesting.

In a hypothetical case like this that seem unlikely to me for the decade "2020s".

Maybe , a "Streisand effect" could save the encyclopedia instead of kill it. Anatole-berthe (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

The encyclopedia might become read-only (for what reason I won't hazard a guess), but I doubt it would disappear. If it disappears, read on. I poured my heart into software development for twenty years. A lot of it was really good software. I feel a sense of loss that none of it is likely to still be in use by mid-century, but such is life. I also miss music like what was being created in the 60s and 70s—a lot. I miss a lot of things. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

It's natural to miss and be personally affected with something one had dedicated time and efforts to. Many great projects had to become obsolete and be replaced with because they had over-grown and could no longer muster resources to go over the migration or just maintain themselves Nisingh.8 (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

No more charts in articles?

I think charts / datagraphics are some of the most useful in articles. Now it looks like some editors want top keep them out or remove them for being unreadable without clicking on them (don't know if this even applies on mobile where the images are displayed larger).

See Talk:Innovation#Image "too small to read"?.
I think datagraphics often contain very valuable information and should not be kept out by a few editors.
Prototyperspective (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion is about one chart in one article, not "No more charts in articles". Phil Bridger (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

What they say there extends to many and possibly most other datagraphics however. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

It's possible to have charts and datagraphics that work at the display size. The one at Innovation does not appear to do so however. CMD (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Many or most charts need to be clicked on desktop or viewed on mobile (there it doesn't even need to be tapped but having to is not a problem if it's really informative). This is one of those many datagraphics in Wikipedia. If it was just one chart, then it would only show the adoption of one particular technology which wouldn't be (nearly as) useful or insightful. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

An improved dashboard for the Content Translation tool

Hello Wikipedians,

The Language and Product Localization team has improved the Content Translation dashboard to create a consistent experience for all contributors using mobile and desktop devices. Below is a breakdown of important information about the improvement.

What are the improvements?
The improved translation dashboard allows all logged-in users of the tool to enjoy a consistent experience regardless of their type of device. With a harmonized experience, logged-in desktop users can now access the capabilities shown in the image below.

Notice that in this screenshot, the new dashboard allows: Users to adjust suggestions with the "For you" and "...More" buttons to select general topics or community-created collections (like the example of Climate topic).  Also, users can use translation to create new articles (as before) and expand existing articles section by section. You can see how suggestions are provided in the new dashboard  in two groups ("Create new pages" and "Expand with new sections")-one for each activity.

In the current dashboard, you will notice that you can't adjust suggestions to select topics or community-created collections. Also, you can't expand on existing articles by translating new sections.

Does this improvement change the current accessibility of this tool in this Wikipedia?
The Content translation tool will remain in beta; therefore, only logged-in users who activated the tool from the beta features will continue to have access to the content translation tool. Also, if the tool is only available to a specific user group, it will remain that way.

When do we plan to implement this improvement?
We will implement it on your Wikipedia and others by 24th, March 2025.

What happens to the former dashboard after we implement the improvement?
You can still access it in the tool for some time. We will remove it from all Wikipedias by May 2025, as maintaining it will no longer be productive.

Where can I test this improvement and report any issues before it is implemented in this Wiki?
You can try the improved capabilities in the test wiki using this link: https://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ContentTranslation&campaign=contributionsmenu&to=es&filter-type=automatic&filter-id=previous-edits&active-list=suggestions&from=en#/

If you notice an issue related to the improved dashboard in the test wiki, please let us know in this thread and ping me, or report it in Phabricator, adding these tags: BUG REPORT and ContentTranslation.    

Please ask us any questions regarding this improvement. Thank you!

On behalf of the Language and Product Localization team. UOzurumba (WMF) (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

This isn’t related to the improvement, but about the content translation dashboard, do you know if there’s any way to get it to stop autofilling new paragraphs with the foreign-language text? Currently when I click “add paragraph” it automatically copies the French text, presumably as an alternative to machine translation, which I must then delete. It would be useful to be able to disable this, as en WP has disabled machine translation, and obviously having French in the final En article is not helpful. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

@Mrfoogles, there is a feedback button in Special:ContentTranslation. You might try using that.

Alternatively, perhaps some system could be set up to allow trusted users access to machine translation, which would help with (e.g.,) links. Send me an e-mail message if you'd like to know how to get machine translation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I asked free ChatGPT "How, as a Wikipedia editor, would you respond to the person who wrote the original post in the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#I_boldly_put_LLM-generated_summary_suggestions_on_the_talk_pages_of_the_68_most_popular_articles_with_Technical_templates". After it replied, I asked it to reformat its reply as wikicode to be pasted here. Here it is, for what it's worth:

== Response to LLM-generated summary suggestions ==

As a fellow Wikipedia editor, I appreciate your initiative in exploring the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate summary suggestions for the talk pages of high-traffic articles. Integrating advanced technologies like LLMs can potentially enhance our collaborative editing process. However, it's crucial to approach this integration thoughtfully, considering both the benefits and the challenges.

=== Key Considerations ===

1. Accuracy and Reliability: LLMs, while powerful, can produce content that appears factual but may contain inaccuracies or fabrications. Relying solely on LLM-generated summaries without thorough verification could lead to the dissemination of incorrect information. (Source)

2. Attribution and Transparency: When incorporating LLM-generated content, it's essential to clearly indicate its origin. This transparency allows other editors to critically assess the content's validity and ensures adherence to Wikipedia's commitment to verifiability. (Source)

3. Community Guidelines: The Wikipedia community is actively discussing the role of AI-generated content. Current guidelines advise against publishing content solely produced by LLMs without substantial human oversight and caution against using LLMs to create original content or references. (Source)

=== Recommendations ===

• Collaborative Review: Encourage fellow editors to review and refine LLM-generated summaries. This collaborative approach leverages human expertise to validate and improve AI-generated content.
• Ongoing Discussion: Engage in community forums to share experiences and gather feedback on using LLMs in the editing process. Collective insights can guide the development of best practices and policies.
• Adherence to Policies: Stay updated with evolving guidelines regarding AI-generated content to ensure compliance and maintain the integrity of Wikipedia's information.

Your proactive efforts highlight the potential of integrating AI tools into our editing workflows. By proceeding with caution and fostering open dialogue, we can harness these technologies to enrich Wikipedia while upholding its standards of accuracy and reliability.

== Related Reading ==

• Wikipedia is facing an existential crisis. Can Gen Z save it?

Largoplazo (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Edit count of users blocked as LLMs increasing 10x per year

English Wikipedia non-IP Accounts Blocked as LLMs

Please see this WT:LLM discussion.

Cramulator (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Can I get credit for predicting this at Wikipedia:Eleventy-billion pool#2038 with my predictions for January 19?-Gadfium (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Half credit. Cramulator (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Final proposed modifications to the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines and U4C Charter now posted

The proposed modifications to the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines and the U4C Charter are now on Meta-wiki for community notice in advance of the voting period. This final draft was developed from the previous two rounds of community review. Community members will be able to vote on these modifications starting on 17 April 2025. The vote will close on 1 May 2025, and results will be announced no later than 12 May 2025. The U4C election period, starting with a call for candidates, will open immediately following the announcement of the review results. More information will be posted on the wiki page for the election soon.

Please be advised that this process will require more messages to be sent here over the next two months.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. This annual review was planned and implemented by the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, you may review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I boldly put LLM-generated summary suggestions on the talk pages of the 68 most popular articles with Technical templates

I have to start work very shortly, but I've been repeatedly urged to start a discussion here, so please pardon my brevity.

This morning, I posted summaries from the 68 most popular articles or their sections with the {{Technical}} template to their talk pages. So far I have about two positive, two neutral, and four negative comments. My major error was asking for fifth grade reading level summaries (because I had a vague recollection that was the target for the World Book Encyclopedia reading level) but I have since learned that STEM articles on Wikipedia are preferably written at the ninth grade reading level, when e.g. WP:ONEDOWN or the other conditions at WP:JARGON don't apply.

I did carefully read WP:LLM, which says, among many other pertinent things, that "LLMs can be used to copyedit or expand existing text and to generate ideas for new or existing articles." And generally, other pages such as Wikipedia:Using neural network language models on Wikipedia and this discussion seem even more positive on this use case. However, I agree that the summary should be sourced to the sources for the statements being summarized, and I don't know what I should do about that. I also read all of the 68 articles I generated summaries for and the summaries themselves. Anyway, here are the fifth grade and ninth grade level summaries, and I've released the source code into the public domain.

Please share your opinions! Cramulator (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I think this was a reasonable idea. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. As is evident below, the vast majority of editors disagree, so I am immediately halting all non-userspace work on this project. I will post a short retraction of the suggestions to the 68 talk page sections in a day or two, barring any objections to doing that. In a week or two, I will write a postmortem report in my userspace in an attempt to summarize all of the comments received here, on the talk page sections, and on my user talk page, and link to it from the examples on WP:LLM and the other AI use guidance pages as a cautionary tale. Of course I will also post a link to that postmortem here.

I would like to thank everyone, especially those whose sensibilities I offended, for your frank and forthright criticism, and the words of support from the handful in the minority. There is so much I want to say about specific objections, some of which may never be able to be addressed adequately, some of which might be with varying degrees of difficulty, and some of which were probably based on misconceptions about my aspirations, the language I used when posting the 68 suggestions, the process used, what LLMs can and can not do, and other assumptions. That can wait. But no matter how much progress I can make improving the quality, style, appropriateness, presentation, and referencing of these suggestions, I will not be proposing to continue this project. Perhaps if I can show enough progress, someone else in coming years might.

I will say this in my defense: While I fully admit I have inadvertently caused disruption and anger far beyond what I expected, nevertheless, after just over half a day there are now five of the 68 articles which had been tagged as overly technical, all viewed by 500 to 2,500 readers per day, that have had their prose improved and their years-old cleanup tags removed. I will take some consolation that I may have spurred some help for those roughly half a million readers annually, from humans, not machines. Cramulator (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, bullshit-bot-generated text should be deleted from Wikipedia (articles, talk pages, everywhere) on sight. If a contributor can't communicate in their own words, they should leave such matters to people who can. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Please don't do this. It hurts to read these. I checked this ("A rainbow table is like a special cheat sheet that helps bad people guess passwords."), this and this ("If the minimum wage is already high, raising it more could make fewer people want to work"?). Fram (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to comment on the Minimum wage#Welfare and labor market participation section summary. It is a poor summary of the final sentence, and a wholly inaccurate summary of the final paragraph, of the tagged section added by User:Mersenne56 in 2019, sourced to this book. I am unable to verify that the source actually supports the final sentence of that section. The plain language said to follow from the mathematics does not appear to me to follow at all. If prevailing wages are greater than those attainable by bargaining, an increase in the minimum wage should still increase labor force participation. I suggest the final paragraph is in error, and that the surprising statement was called out by the LLM because it is so counter-intuitive. I am not trying to make excuses for it; just understand why it happened. Cramulator (talk) 07:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

The statements I included are on p. 797-798 of the cited textbook. If the authors are wrong, so be it; however, I make no apologies for including material from a highly-cited textbook on labor economics. Mersenne56 (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure that pages 797 and 798 support the final sentence of the section in question. Do you believe that they do? Cramulator (talk) 10:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@Mersenne56: regarding this excerpt:

On the other hand, if w ≥ w*, any increase in the minimum wage entails a decline in labor market participation (because V_u decreases) and an increase in unemployment, which necessarily leads to a fall in employment.

What do you believe V_u represents? Cramulator (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I fear imputing motive and awareness to that LLM, as in called out by the LLM because it is so counter-intuitive, might be an anthropomorphism that doesn't help us understand why it happened or generally use the LLM well. NebY (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

The LLM did not catch the problem, and neither did I. Fram did. Cramulator (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clear demonstration that it's thoroughly inappropriate to generate summarires like that for Wikipedia. From your ninth-grade file:

to begin 5.56×45mm NATO#Cartridge dimensions: "The 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge has specific measurements and its case can hold 1.85 mL of volume."

to begin DisplayPort: "DisplayPort (DP) is a digital connection primarily used to link video sources, like computers, to display devices, such as monitors."

to begin Avicenna#Metaphysical doctrine: "Avicenna, an important Islamic philosopher, explored deep questions about reality, known as metaphysics."

Did you prompt it to write like a struggling ninth-grader? NebY (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I looked through a few and found some striking issues. The whole of the summary on the Whore-Madonna complex I think would be unusable. It seems that the time spent making all these questions and discussing them could instead have been used to just read and summarize the articles. Sock-the-guy (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

As usual for LLM on Wikipedia, this appears to be creating more work than it is saving. Please discontinue. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia content is required to be verifiable from reliable sources. If an editor pastes AI-generated content here, and they don't know where the LLM got the information from, they aren't in a position to vouch for it. If the LLM is asked to supply sources, there's still the matter of responsibility for vetting those sources and knowing whether the content the LLM attributes to those sources is actually in those sources and assessing whether the LLM has indulged in unpermitted synthesis. Ultimately, earnest Wikipedia editors out to be able to justify their contributions. The burden of doing so when the contributor didn't create the content seems pretty high. Largoplazo (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

There are ways to force it to use provided sources, and while there is still significant effort in double checking everything and doing some tidying it isn't too onerous. You can't just ask an LLM to do it, there's a process involved. Garbage in, garbage out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

My opinion is the same as Andy's. There is zero value to any of this crap. Delete on sight. And make it absolute policy that LLM-generated text is not allowed on Wikipedia at all. And if someone spams that crap, they should be indeffed after one warning. oknazevad (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Shit flow diagram is mostly LLM generated. I used chatgpt 4.5 with project mode and with the LLM only able to draw from specific sources as an experiment to see if there was any use cases. There were some things that required cleanup but it didn't do a bad job. It requires a fair amount of setup and guidance and obviously verifying everything, but it did a good job at accurately summarizing and citing the sources I provided. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't give a damn. You managed to corral the bot, and did work needed to fix it up.Probably would have been easier just to write it from scratch. It's still starting with a fundamentally flawed source. I'd rather not have an article that have one that's unverifiable, unoriginal, and unneeded. oknazevad (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

It was much easier to produce the article with the LLM, although it still involved a decent amount of work. The article is verifiable, I'm not sure what "unoriginal" means in this context, and unneeded is subjective. I will say that public sanitation is an enormous and challenging issue for more than half the population of the planet, so it seems like a topic that deserves coverage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

"Unoriginal" as in "not originally composed text" as in "LLMs pay little attention to whether or not they have copied exact phrasing, and therefore plagiarize and even creep into copyvio territory". Even if you looked through the sources and didn't see any specific plagiarism in this case, doesn't mean it isn't plagiarized form other sources that it doesn't link to. I see little reason to trust these programs. oknazevad (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• It reads very polished, though not being expert on the subject it's incredibly difficult to know. I once read an AI generated article that I thought was really good and let it be. Then on a whim I dug into sources, and discovered it was riddled with subtle but significant problems. It took another week to unpack and rewrite. The whole thing was generated in about 30 seconds by a newbie who did not speak English. They even used AI to have conversations on the talk page. This is how they contributed to Enwiki without learning English. They said in their own language wiki, they lacked freedom of speech. -- GreenC 16:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not a shit flow diagram expert, but I researched and wrote the original article, and I found and read all of the sources used in the article. Nothing stands out to me as incorrect, subtly or otherwise, but I'm pretty sure every article has some mistakes. The method I used to significantly longer than 30 seconds, but I think that attention is a good thing when dealing with an LLM in this way. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

These LLMs sound a lot like they know what they're on about... until they're on something you know about. And that's their biggest problem, even when used by well-informed editors. Less time spent writing content sounds great until you have to instead spend that time scrutinizing its output. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 06:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for trying and thank you for accepting the judgement of your peers. Constant314 (talk) 03:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Although I'm not completely against use of AI to assist a well informed editor in writing, we should not be suggesting it's widespread use by the average editor with only a superficial understanding of a topic. I've used AI to help write professional material off-wiki in areas of my expertise. But like much technology, use by those without expertise risks serious errors. Wikipedia already fights an uphill battle with editors who have little understanding of topics they write about. AI can make writing appear impressive and give the writer a false sense of confidence, but if you look at professional reviews of its use it's scary. Sundayclose (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I made similar points at Talk:Waste management where AI assumes that waste = trash. It doesn't.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

LLM-generated texts often violate Wikipedia guidelines. For example, both your 5th-grade and 9th-grade AI summaries of Existentialism#Facticity violate MOS:YOU. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to hop in here, as it's related, to further publicize that I used ChatGPT 4.5 in project mode with sources uploaded directly for an experimental rewrite of Shit flow diagram. While converting all of the references to {{sfn}} I checked sources, verified content and rewrote some parts that had issues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• These summaries are all really bad. LLMs are notoriously bad in particular at summarizing mathematical content. Tito Omburo (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'd have to suggest that rather than being 'notoriously bad' regarding maths, the bullshit bots are similarly bad at summarising anything else one has an actual understanding of. They merely give a superficial appearance of being competent in regards to stuff one doesn't have said expertise in. Observer bias... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  That's fair and certainly keeping in my own experience. I didn't want to step out of my lane though. Tito Omburo (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that we shouldn't use these, but I thank @Cramulator for trying. AI is not going away, and it will only get better. Continuing to experiment with the technology is the best was to understand it and doing so on talk pages and asking for comments here was a responsible way to do that. RoySmith (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  True, but even then I'm not sure "better bullshit" will automatically translate into a net positive for the encyclopedia. Tito Omburo (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  We aren't trying to improve the quality of bullshit, we're putting the LTA vandals' ideas into a big wood chipper, and spreading the detritus on the side of the house, because we believe doing so can improve the mean quality of articles. Cramulator (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I've tried to improve the prompt to source the suggestions. The output is at User:Cramulator/Summaries9a.json. Cramulator (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I am really unsure what is being achieved here. The proposed summary for Waste management is almost identical to the existing first four paragraphs of the summary. What differences there are could be considered to be cosmetic. It is certainly true that the later paragraphs in the summary should probably be moived in shortened form to the body of the article as this summary has gradually becoming more bloated over the years, but the key paragaphs are so similar that I suspect that the LLM has simply read the original summary and thought "That will do nicely". I cannot see any value added benefit arising from this approach.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

You're clearly correct. So now my inclination is to take the reading grade level down from 9 to 7:User:Cramulator/Summaries7a.json. Cramulator (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

This is outright disruptive. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. oknazevad (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cramulator: Forget reading levels. The important issue, and the general consensus in this discussion, is that LLM has no benefit for Wikipedia and poses serious problems if used, especially if used by someone who has superficial knowledge of the subject. People who do have the prerequisite knowledge can write better than LLM, so it's pointless for them to use LLM. It's time to drop the stick and move on to more important matters. Sundayclose (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Fully agreed. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 02:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• Just another one wanting to thank Cramulator for their work here. Whatever one thinks of LLMs, the way we really get to know what we're talking about is by thorough work like this. Using the talk: pages also meant that none of this was in any way disruptive. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

It is a serious matter

I am a simple article writer on the Persian Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Wikipedia administrators. Those who are senior. Most of them have leftist or Islamist beliefs and hide this. And they do not allow us, neutral article writers, freedom of expression. I wish something could be done. Rashidi8080 (talk) 08:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

We cannot help you with issues on the Persian Wikipedia, which is a separate project from the English Wikipedia. You will need to discuss your concerns there, using whatever forum that they have to do so. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

It may be a serious matter, but, as 331dot says, it is not one that we can deal with at the English Wikipedia. If you have a very strong case, and it is not listened to at the Persian Wikipedia, it is possible that you may get some redress at Meta:. But I think that is unlikely at a Wikipedia as large as the Persian. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

In former times you could appeal to the founder at User talk:Jimbo Wales but I'm not sure that that is useful anymore. Might be. Couldn't hurt I guess. Herostratus (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

External links modified

Is it permitted to remove the "External links modified" sections from Talk pages? Hej Simon (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay! Hej Simon (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Nation names

It is English language Wikipedia policy, largely defined, to use English language word for some nations, even if they've requested otherwise. The most obvious example is Côte d'Ivoire, the name used by FIFA, still known as [[Ivory Coast]]. The argument is that usage dictates policy, and I don't know how much usage changes that policy. A recent example is Czechia, which is stil [[Czech Republic]] (though an article such as this year's Berlin Film Festival uses Czechia and this hasn't been edited, interestingly). I think we all know the talk page of the Turkey article is now a daily request bonanza of editors asking it to be renamed Türkiye.

Is there any chance of the policy being reexamined? I notice, obviously, that Eswatini was changed from Swaziland. There is inconsistency and I wonder if that inconsistency will ever be resolved doktorb _words^deeds 13:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

The policy is WP:COMMONNAME (part of Wikipedia:Article titles), there is no specific policy about the names of nations. As someone who has followed relevant move requests for a few years, I don't think there is inconsistency, and I have not seen any real enthusiasm to either ditch the article title policy, or create specific carve-outs. CMD (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Chipmunkdavis I think Turkey vs Eswatini shows there is some inconsistency. But obviously I know that editors tend to be cautious about policy changes like this. I'm just curious (and with Czechia being used in some articles unedited I wonder if these things will change organically.). doktorb _words^deeds 13:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Swaziland was moved to eSwatini in 2018, in an RM that included a survey of RS that found that the common name had changed to reflect the name change. Further discussion later moved it to Eswatini. RMs for Turkey have included surveys of RS that have found that the common name has not significantly shifted. The inconsistency here reflects real-world inconsistency, it is not an en.wiki creation. It also is not restricted to country names, take Indian cities. Mumbai appears to have been the main article since before article history was fully worked out, which was only about half a decade after renaming. On the other hand, Bengaluru was only moved late last year, a decade and a half after its official renaming. Pondicherry has not been renamed Puducherry, although this may be partially disambiguation. Why was Swaziland changed much faster than Turkey? Hard to say, but English is an official language in Swaziland so perhaps its writers had more cultural pull. Do these change organically? Yes, Timor-Leste was only recently moved, and its RM cited a spike in 2024 in the use of "Timor-Leste", which, as far as anyone has theorised, was due to the pope travelling there late that year. CMD (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Our consistency lies, rightly, in applying WP:COMMONNAME. That Eswatini has become the common name fairly fast may indicate that "Swaziland" was not mentioned often or embedded in global-north consciousness to the extent of "Czech Republic" and "Turkey". NebY (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes there are a few that are actively debated and there is no one answer that will satisfy everyone. A few. One thing we want to watch out for is nationist special pleading. I'm not saying that that is a major problem. But sometimes. It isn't a mjor problem regarding Türkiye, for instance, but still I would expect that naming to be favored by Turks, who would likely be somewhat nationalistic, not in a bad or toxic way, but in understandably wanting to not use a foreign name for their country. But we really don't care what a native Turkish speaker prefers much more than what a native Humgarian speaker prefers, or shouldn't, and we care more about what native English speakers prefer, or should. We are supposed to be ice-cold neutral about these things. Granted that there will always be political feelings around these things, that is normal, but not a feature.

IMO diacritics are a complication (not all agree). I have no idea how that ü is pronounced, nor ı, and can't be bothered to learn and for good or ill that applies to most readers, who pronounce "straße" as "strabe" and "kanał" as "canal" and just blip over others. Granted the camps for "use diacritics generously" and "use diacritics sparingly" are divided about 50/50 last I knew. Herostratus (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Non-free licenses for PD-USonly works

I've got a file that's {{PD-USonly}} but also available under a non-free Creative Commons license. I'm sure there are readers outside the United States who'd benefit from knowing that reuse is allowed, albeit with restrictions. Unfortunately, the only relevant licensing tags I can find are {{Non-free with NC and ND}} and {{Non-free file with no derivative works license}}, which assume the file has a non-free license tag.

Is there any good way to tag files with these licenses without putting them in Category:Wikipedia non-free files? Should we modify these templates so they can be used with PD-US files, or maybe create alternate versions of them? hinnk (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

How about just stating the licence without using a template? If there are several of them, then it could be worth having a teplate set up. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it's gonna end up being more. A lot of material archived by the National Library of Norway (and still under copyright there) is available as CC-BY-NC, so anything pre-1930 may end up falling into this category. hinnk (talk) 22:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

How ridiculous

The featured article for today is about a single planned edition of an annual competition that never happened. Am I the only one who finds this absurd? 2601:644:8184:F2F0:A15D:AF8E:82A5:35DA (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

It's part of a historical event that was postponed by a historical event: it's notable for being a long-running tradition that couldn't be allowed, with tonnes of evidence and context to justify its importance. Sometimes what doesn't happen is as important as what does. doktorb _words^deeds 02:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

For the lazy, The Boat Race 2020. It's not compulsory to read it. Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

It is an unwritten law of Wikipedia that The Boat Race must receive maximum exposure on the main page, even when it does not happen. Cullen328 (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:UPSD Update

Following Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_201#URLs_with_utm_source=chatgpt.com_codes, I have added detection for possible AI-generated slop to my script.

Possible AI-slop sources will be flagged in orange, thought I'm open to changing that color in the future if it causes issues. If you have the script, you can see it in action on those articles.

For now the list of AI sources is limited to ChatGPT (utm_source=chatgpt.com), but if you know of other chatGPT-like domains, let me know!

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

@Riad Salih: this may be of interest to you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Headbomb, do you also want to update User:Headbomb/unreliable/testcases to show this? --rchard2scout (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, added. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Globally locked

See Wikipedia talk:Courtesy vanishing#Globally locked. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month 2025: Invitation

Please help translate to other languages.

Hello, dear Wikipedians!

Wikimedia Ukraine, in cooperation with the MFA of Ukraine and Ukrainian Institute, has launched the fifth edition of writing challenge "Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month", which lasts from 14th April until 16th May 2025. The campaign is dedicated to famous Ukrainian artists of cinema, music, literature, architecture, design, and cultural phenomena of Ukraine that are now part of world heritage. We accept contributions in every language!

The most active contesters will receive prizes.

If you are interested in coordinating long-term community engagement for the campaign and becoming a local ambassador, we would love to hear from you! Please let us know your interest.

We invite you to take part and help us improve the coverage of Ukrainian culture on Wikipedia in your language! Also, we plan to set up a banner to notify users of the possibility to participate in such a challenge! OlesiaLukaniuk (WMUA) (talk)

16:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

"Aftermath" sections

aftermath noun the period that follows an unpleasant event or accident, and the effects that it causes

I'm not sure if it's limited to specific domains on Wikipedia, but I often see subsequent events and news under a page section titled "Aftermath", even if the page is not about a disaster, accident, etc. For example, 2020 United States presidential election § Aftermath and 2024 United States presidential election § Aftermath. Is there an alternative meaning of aftermath that is not necessarily preceded by negative circumstances? Or is this a case of Wikipedia misuse that could end up speaking it into existence? —Bagumba (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Collins says "an important event, especially a harmful one", and gives an example where the "event" is "the Soviet era", so it is not necessarily preceded by negative circumstances (opinions on the Soviet era may vary). That said, your examples seem to indicate a use here as more of a synonym of "impact"/"effects"/"legacy", which is definitely out of proportion to the dictionaries defining it as predominantly linked to negative events. CMD (talk) 07:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

"Legacy" or "retrospective" is often more appropriate describing second-order analysis and long-term effects, but I ruminated and flipped around thesauruses and there would seem to be no formal English word that has a similar sense when it comes to summarizing the short-term ramifications of an event. Remsense ‥ 论 07:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Sports championship pages sometime use "Aftermath" to document how the winner and loser fared afterwards e.g. 2019 NBA Finals § Aftermath. Sometimes I wonder if it's just a WP:COATRACK, but it's rarely about the "Legacy" or a "retrospective" of the event itself. —Bagumba (talk) 10:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

For the 2019 NBA Finals#Aftermath example, I would probably use "Post-series developments" instead of "Aftermath". Some1 (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree that it is probably the most appropriate word for short- or medium-term effects of events, including battles, disasters, accidents, and I often use it in that way myself. In my experience "Legacy" is more often used for bios to cover longer-term impact of a person's life and work, I'm not sure how often it is used for events, I certainly haven't seen it used much for war-related events. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Great Tea Race of 1866 uses "Afterwards" to head the section that says what happened to the ships mentioned (and some captains) after the race. "Aftermath" seems to me to be entirely inappropriate in that situation. Whatever such a section is called, it really counterbalances any "Historical background" (or similar section). ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 11:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Section names should normally be a noun or noun phrase, but Afterwards is an adverb. —Bagumba (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Desperate times call for desperately taking measures? Remsense ‥ 论 12:00, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

"Normally" gives some latitude, surely. Given the struggle here to find the right word, is that latitude needed? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 19:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Afterward or Afterword seem distinctly plausible, especially in the singular. Maybe Postface? The first two are potentially a hair over-narrative-y, the latter potentially not enough so?

(Maybe it's a bit of a generational distinction, perhaps even one mediated by younger people having grown up reading Aftermath sections on Wikipedia?) Remsense ‥ 论 11:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I was going to suggest sequelae, but that seems to have been hijacked by the medical profession and since nobody learns Latin now, the specialised meaning is fixed as the sole one. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 14:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd love a better word to describe relevents as a result of the big thing implied by the topic. Eg in various SCOTUS cases, events that occurred after the decision. Wording like Legacy or Impact doesn't seem to make sense when we are discussing events after the fact. Masem (t) 14:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

"Impact" would be more encyclopedic, but imagine they often are reduced to WP:EXAMPLEFARMs instead of a summary of consequences. —Bagumba (talk) 07:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

An impact is what a rock produces when it encounters the side of your head. An effect is something that is caused by (e.g.,) a court ruling. Results or consequences might also work, but all of these imply causation, which is not necessarily appropriate. Sometimes a direct reference to time might work, e.g., Post-election or Afterwards.

I don't agree that aftermath is negative. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aftermath gives "consequence, result" as the first relevant definition. Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English says it's "usually" used for negative events or negative outcomes, but that this is not absolute. It is probably appropriate for us to keep an eye out for truly incongruous uses ("In the aftermath of the wedding, Cinderella and the prince lived happily ever after"), but I don't think we should be overly concerned about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

... it's "usually" used for negative events or negative outcomes, but that this is not absolute ...: If, at best, it's ambiguous to a reader if the non-negative meaning is intended, it seems we should seek an alternative to aftermath when a POV interpretation is not intended. —Bagumba (talk) 05:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I think "Aftereffects" or "Consequences" would be more suitable for subsequent events that were directly attributable to the occurrence of the event. In the case of sporting events where the section is used to describe the next time the teams made the playoffs, I think that content should be removed, as it is not a direct consequence of the event, and is better covered in the team's article (or a spinout article on the team's history). isaacl (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

"What happened next" may be essential for completeness, but not "after effects" or "consequences" of the article subject.
For example, suppose there was an article on Emigration from Scotland, 1750-1930 (there is a reasonable case for such an article – it covers the demographics of when people left in large numbers and, in total, matches the dates used by sources, the end date being the economic depression in the USA). A closing "what happened next" paragraph would not be a result of the events in the article – covering, among other things, post WW2 emigration and present day events. But without some brief summary mention of emigration after the period, it leaves the subject in a contextual vacuum, making it difficult to understand the significance of this huge outflow. As already suggested above, this would be mirrored by a "historical background" section which covers the "beforehand". The "after" is equally essential for an understanding of the subject. Clearly if the "after" is a big enough subject for its own article, that is a different situation.
(I am aware of Scottish diaspora but that covers a different aspect of the same story.) ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, whether or not such a section should exist is subject to editorial judgement on what best serves coverage of the event in question. isaacl (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

If there is a better word I have not found it. Legacy is good for long-term consequences, but that is not aftermath, which is shorter term. Consequences or after effects is along the lines of legacy, and is also not quite the same, as something can happen in the aftermath that is relevant but not necessarily a consequence. Afterward/Afterwards seems inappropriate for a section heading. Aftermath does have a connotation of a negative event, but not exclusively as shown by the Soviet example. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Aftermath does have a connotation of a negative event, but not exclusively as shown by the Soviet example.: I'd argue that aftermath there was meant to imply a negative, as the Soviet Union is often portrayed negatively by Western media. —Bagumba (talk) 03:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

If there is more events to cover after the main subject of the article, then I feel a topic-specific heading should be used, rather than a generic one. isaacl (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Current example 2025 Ecuadorian general election, currently linked on Main Page under In the News, has an "Aftermath" section.—Bagumba (talk) 06:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Seven million articles

Seeing as we are probably about less than two months away from reaching 7,000,000 articles, I created Wikipedia:Seven million articles, based off of Wikipedia:Six million articles, and updated what I could. If anyone else thinks there are enhancements to the page, please feel free to add to it! Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Many editors think that stubs should be merged to other articles. As one of the dwindling number of editors that remembers paper encyclopedias, where most articles consisted of one or two sentences, if that, I happen to disagree, but I seem to be in a minority. Please be aware that such people do not regard large numbers of articles as something to celebrate. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "many" editors think stubs should be merged. I think it's mostly a handful of editors who are very vocal about their beliefs. (And in at least two cases, I think they'd rather see many stubs deleted instead of being merged.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it is a good thing than you did prepared this text for this article that was not published yet.

Maybe it was not wrote yet.

My point of view is the next. This page is acceptable.

I saw only a minor problem.

It's wrote : "* Wikipedia in more than 350 language editions with over 64 million articles in total."

There are 341 active editions when I'm writing this message. I don't know if it's better to take into accounts only the active Wikipedias. Anatole-berthe (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Random drive-by talk page posts by IPs

Talk pages of articles get a large number of random drive-by talk page posts by IPs, consisting of single words, nonsense or complete gibberish, which may normally be presumed to be test edits. But some pages seem to attract disproportionately more than others. Can anybody suggest why Talk:XXX and Talk:XXXX get so many of these? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Redrose64, a bunch of Xs is associated with porn and forbidden topics. That's catnip to people with certain immature and disruptive personality traits. Cullen328 (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

We should probably SEMI those pages, even though we wouldn't normally. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing:  Already done by Pppery (talk · contribs), see logs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia

Hello, I'd like to revive a topic that has been mentioned here a long time ago: the problem that existed, and still exists, on Spanish Wikipedia. Reverters and patrollers are abusive toward ordinary users, especially anonymous users, reverting legitimate edits without reason. Administrators (librarians) do the same, reverting users who protest and, in extreme cases, blocking them. It's a kind of "dictatorship" on Spanish Wikipedia. I'll mention a few: UA31 (admin, abuses the automatic revert button and blocks users without reason); Rafstr (admin, deletes protests); Luicheto (reverter, abuses reverts, persecutes anonymous users); and there are others who do the same or similar things. If there's a victim of this persecution on Spanish Wikipedia here, feel free to share your experience here so we can all be heard. 181.20.199.64 (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

We cannot help you with issues on the Spanish Wikipedia, nor is this the forum to air grievances with the Spanish Wikipedia or its administrators. If administrators there are behaving badly, you need to take that up with the WMF. 331dot (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Actually, the U4C would be the right place. RoySmith (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Anyway the English Wikpedia is certainly the wrong place. It has no more power over the Spanish Wikipedia than the Spanish Wikipedia has over the English. I don't understand why people persist in thinking that the English Wikipedia has any influence over other language editions, unless it's some sort of cultural cringe. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The fact that each language wikipedia is a distinct project with its own governance may seem obvious to those of us who work here, but to most of our users, it really is inside baseball. RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Vote now on the revised UCoC Enforcement Guidelines and U4C Charter

The voting period for the revisions to the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines ("UCoC EG") and the UCoC's Coordinating Committee Charter is open now through the end of 1 May (UTC) (find in your time zone). Read the information on how to participate and read over the proposal before voting on the UCoC page on Meta-wiki.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. This annual review of the EG and Charter was planned and implemented by the U4C. Further information will be provided in the coming months about the review of the UCoC itself. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, you may review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

In cooperation with the U4C -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)