Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for a week.

« Archives, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Are these possible to use on English Wikipedia?

Are these possible to use on English Wikipedia? [1] [2] [3] - Maybe something under fair use?

And maybe this depiction of Jahan Khan? [4] - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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: [5] Noorullah (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]