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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

How to handle AI generated content

These two contributions are likely to be AI generated (also containing "invented" sources): [1], [2]. 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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,[3][4][5] so maybe that is where it should be addressed, although I am not active there. --wooden superman 14:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This website shows what they should look like. --wooden superman 14:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also here and here --wooden superman 15:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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![6] --wooden superman 10:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]