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, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79

How do you determine the "size" of a list (or merging / splitting purposes)?

Ok, this may be a silly and redundant question. So, WP:SIZERULE gives good guidelines for when articles should be trimmed or merged. However, WP:SIZE states that readable prose size only includes "the amount of viewable text in the main sections of the article, not including tables, lists, or footer sections." For the purpose of merging lists, and with the removal of the kb limits (which I had previously used to judge list size) on WP:SIZE how do you determine the size of a list (as related to existing guidelines stated on WP:SIZERULE) if you wish to merge or split a page? Historyday01 (talk) 13:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The kb limits on WP:SIZE also applied only to readable prose, nothing has changed in that respect. List splits likely come down to editorial judgement, what best helps a reader. Some lists do still end up breaking other limits like WP:PEIS, but that's not common. CMD (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, ok. I suppose that somewhat answers my question. What about list mergers? That also comes down to editorial judgment as well? Historyday01 (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does, keeping in mind WP:NLIST. CMD (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'll definitely keep WP:NLIST in mind. I will say that I referred this discussion to another user on here as well in reference to a possible split of the List of black animated characters page. Historyday01 (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We've talked a bit about this at List of common misconceptions, where I have proposed a split.

The Wikipedia:Prosesize gadget can't count words in bulleted lists, so I found that the most effective way to count the words was to copy/paste the contents to a tool (e.g., the word count tool in your favorite word processor). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

making plans to edit articles again

Hey, everyone...

so, uh, I've been making random edits here and there when I see something that bugs me, but haven't edited Wikipedia *in earnest*, regularly, since, ah, ... *checks* idk, it trails off gradually, but since early 2007 or so? and really my heyday was before that. my user page is old enough to drink now.

... Anyway, I find myself interested in coming back and doing some Editing — by this I mean specifically working to improve the intelligibility of the information that is already present in some articles. Are there any good Wikiprojects that I should be looking at which might be a good match for this goal?

— maddie (same old account, new display name) 17:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(better known as fennec) (one-time arbcom member, officially a missing wikipedian, hehe)

You may find some good places to start in Wikipedia:Articles for improvement. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I remember you! Or at least I remember the user name. Welcome back! RoySmith (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say look at Category:Active WikiProjects and find topics you care about and watch the relevant WP:AALERTS. For example, if you care about dance, look at WP:DANCE and watch WP:DANCE/AALERTS. You can check out Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-07-17/Tips and tricks for more information on Wikiproject-level tools.

I'll also take the opportunity to promote one of my scripts, WP:UPSD, which is very useful in finding shit sources in articles. Or warns you against using bad sources that you weren't aware of. You can check Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-08-01/Tips_and_tricks for more information on citation-related scripts. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The guild of copy-editors or WP:WikiProject Wikify might both be of interest. Cremastra (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fennec, do you have any favorite subject areas? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OKA: paid editors and poor translations

So the Open Knowledge Association pays people to write on Wikipedia [1]. On their Meta wiki page they encourage/explain how their paid editors should translate articles: by using AI and letting unpaid volunteers clean up the rest of the work: [2].

I've seen OKA articles pass AfC with completely untranslated sentences, references that have been translated/untranslated causing them to be incorrect, non-English article titles, and non-English section titles.

Ultimately people are being paid to mass produce low quality translations and volunteers are being forced to clean up after it. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was just a big discussion about this, now archived at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 195#Unnecessary delay in publishing articles translated for $$ by an NGO. You even commented in it. What are you hoping to have happen by restarting it here? Anomie ⚔ 22:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To have something change this time. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What change would you like to see? From what you wrote, one thing may be to have AFC reviewers do a better job to not approve submissions with untranslated sentences and such, but that might be better discussed at WT:AFC rather than here since the reviewers are more likely to be over there. Anomie ⚔ 22:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think making AfC reviewers spend more time reviewing an article than someone spent 'creating' an article is fair and would just create bigger issues with a backlog. The problem is how quickly one can create these translations versus how long it takes to review them. I had to rewrite an entire article translated by OKA due to issues and I would've just been better off creating a brand new article. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our policy is quite conservative. "Unedited" WP:MACHINETRANSLATION is not acceptable, but there is no consensus on what it takes to be considered edited. If there are a lot of issues from a single editor this is more likely to result in action, but that won't change the general policy. You could argue WP:TNT for a new article at AfD, but I'm not sure how successful that is for prose issues. CMD (talk) 02:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be a valid deletion rationale in an AfD? I could also report the editor in question but it isn't limited to just his work and I imagine plenty of other people would be willing to do the exact same thing. The problem is that people are financially incentivised to produce these quick translations and rarely stick around to fix it once it's passed AfC. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It can be a valid rationale, but it's one of those rationales where you very much have to make the case and convince others. If they're not up to a standard you'd consider 'edited', that would likely help the argument. CMD (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there are plenty of unpaid editors who create poor articles and do not stick around to fix them. One might even say it is part of the culture. (Sigh!) Donald Albury 12:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ngrams updated

FYI: Google has recently updated their ngrams to include data up to 2022 (previously 2019, before that 2012). This is great for determining the common names of more recent subjects, among other uses. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sign up for the language community meeting on August 30th, 15:00 UTC

Hi all,

The next language community meeting is scheduled in a few weeks—on August 30th at 15:00 UTC. If you're interested in joining, you can sign up on this wiki page.

This participant-driven meeting will focus on sharing language-specific updates related to various projects, discussing technical issues related to language wikis, and working together to find possible solutions. For example, in the last meeting, topics included the Language Converter, the state of language research, updates on the Incubator conversations, and technical challenges around external links not working with special characters on Bengali sites.

Do you have any ideas for topics to share technical updates or discuss challenges? Please add agenda items to the document here and reach out to ssethi(__AT__)wikimedia.org. We look forward to your participation!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: discussions on WMDE sub-reference project in progress at Meta

The WikiMedia sub-referencing project (parent project: Reusing references) is having multiple discussions about the development of a sub-referencing feature by WikiMedia Deutschland Engineering. Your feedback would be welcome at any of the discussons at m:Talk:WMDE Technical Wishes/Sub-referencing. Mathglot (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that there is also a discussion about this at VPT: WP:VPT#Coming soon: A new sub-referencing feature – try it!. Mathglot (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is another at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Sub-referencing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phobias navbox

I wanted to make a navbox for the different articles about phobias (such as fear of bees). Normally I'd just make it, but Template:Phobias was deleted at Templates for Discussion in 2007 and 2009. I can't imagine it will be an issue to create it since it would be the same as any other navbox, but for the sake of procedure I'm asking the community first, especially since I'd be adding it to roughly 100 articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to do this?

Are you trying to make a navbox with "things called -phobia", in which case Photophobia (which is not a specific phobia) would be included but Fear of needles (which was officially recognized in the DSM as a specific phobia 30 years ago) would be excluded? Or are you trying to make a List of specific phobias in navbox form? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments from the AfDs are still good. PamD 04:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Less images being uploaded

Why are less images being uploaded today? It wasn't like that from 2006 to 2009, many images were uploaded at that time period. Is there a reason why the image uploads declined after that period of time? MJGTMKME123 (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly because images to suit many purposes have already been uploaded, making new ones unnecessary? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but, why can't we upload new images that replace the old ones? MJGTMKME123 (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing preventing appropriate and policy-compliant images from being uploaded. As to when it is appropriate to replace an existing image with a new one, that will depend on the specifics: newer isn't necessarily better. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the criteria that determines if an existing image should be replaced with a newer and less outdated version? MJGTMKME123 (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If someone finds it worth uploading in each particular instance? I have very little clue what sort of general rule you'd expect there to be. Remsense ‥ 论 22:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. But how can contributors decide if a new image is worth uploading for a specific article? MJGTMKME123 (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no general answer to this line of questioning. Improved media are uploaded if editors discover or create them; what constitutes an improvement depends entirely on the media in question. Remsense ‥ 论 22:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MJGTMKME123, what do you mean by "less images being uploaded today"?

Do you mean specifically what's being uploaded today, as in Sunday, the 25th of August? (If so, please go to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) and sound the alarm, because a sudden downturn is probably technical in nature.) Or do you mean "in recent years"?

How much less? Is this like a long-term leveling off? Are you talking about uploads directly to the English Wikipedia, or at Commons? How are you counting the number of uploads? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "in recent years". MJGTMKME123 (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have made efforts to direct uploaders Wikimedia Commons whenever appropriate, so having less uploads here could be a good thing. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about image uploads on Wikimedia Commons. MJGTMKME123 (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking about any images in particular? Again, we can't really answer your question because it's way too broad. Remsense ‥ 论 22:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just asking about the trend of fewer image uploads in the recent years, but I understand if it's too broad. I was wondering if there are any topics where image uploads have noticeably declined. MJGTMKME123 (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that there are fewer uploads? What page or tool are you using to determine the number of uploads? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually use a tool. I just noticed that most images were made around that time period by just analyzing the date of random images. MJGTMKME123 (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MJGTMKME123, I suggest looking at c:Commons:Statistics of uploads vs deletions, which gives the number of annual uploads from 2003 through 2022, and which does not support your hypothesis that there has been a multi-year decline in uploads.

If you know anything about SQL, you can run queries like this and get whatever numbers you want. I use the "check 10 pages in Special:Random" method a lot, but you've got to remember that it's really quite a crude estimate, and if your random images weren't actually random (e.g., they were images used in Wikipedia articles), then you'd be looking at a crude estimate of a biased sample, which is basically worthless. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks, I just realized that there are actually more uploads on the recent years then I expected. MJGTMKME123 (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's way more useful data than what I found just below. So uploads to Commons have risen steadily if non-monotonically, and there is no year for which the number of files uploaded was less than any of the three previous years. Folly Mox (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As one potentially interesting pair of datapoints, I see that c:Commons:Database reports/Page count by namespace (current as of June 2014, almost exactly a decade ago) shows 22,097,492 pages in the File: namespace, of which fewer than 2% were redirects. Executing the Magic word {{NUMBEROFFILES}} on Commons today returns 107,994,945. So there have been some uploads. Folly Mox (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Folly Mox Thanks for sharing that data, that means I might have underestimated the number of uploads. MJGTMKME123 (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]