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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

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

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)

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)#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)

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)

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)

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? [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 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)

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)

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)