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

AI-generated comments?

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Succession boxes

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

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

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

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

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

New essay on recentism

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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][reply]

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

Help

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Regarding of name

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

SEO impact of wikipedia citations

Hello,

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

What are your thoughts on the relationship between SEO and Wikipedia citations?
Does secretly adding a website as a reference in Wikipedia articles have any positive SEO impact on that website?
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Interested in participating in an interview study regarding LLMs?

Dear Wikipedia editors,

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

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

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

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

Thank you so much for your time and consideration!

All the best, LLMs and knowledge production Research Team

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

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

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)[reply]

Feminism and Folklore 2025 starts soon

Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wiki Community,

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

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

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

Create a page for the contest on the local wiki.
Set up a campaign on CampWiz tool.
Create the local list and mention the timeline and local and international prizes.
Request local admins for site notice.
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)[reply]

Wiki Loves Folklore is back!

Please help translate to other languages.

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

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

Smithsonian has made millions of images available under Creative Commons Zero

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

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