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.

For questions about a wiki that is not the English Wikipedia, please post at m:Wikimedia Forum instead.

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for 8 days.

« Archives, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82

General help on Accelerationism article

I've been overhauling the accelerationism article over the past few months to include ideas under its original definition which, while summarized in the intro paragraph, were otherwise pretty sparse for most of the article's existence as far as I can tell. I've been mostly alone in that, and now I want to get some general help from others on it, preferably from people with access to Wikipedia Library since public sources tend to be pretty sparse on specific info. Previously lacking Wikipedia Library access, I used some primaries which I think is justified by secondaries naming those authors/works as significant in the movement (considering the rules on WP:PRIMARY), but I nonetheless feel like I may be falling into just summarizing specific source texts in sequence rather than talking about the ideas/concepts more generally while referencing source texts. Plus, it takes time and energy to comb through papers for info I can use. The article could be improved a lot further with other people for second opinions on editing and for reading through papers. Shredlordsupreme (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shredlordsupreme If you need access to paywalled or offline sources, ask at WP:RX! Wikipedia Library sources are usually sent pretty quickly there. Toadspike [Talk] 09:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on this article a bit in 2021. Glad to see the lead has improved. Have you tried posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy? The talk page looks a bit dead, but WikiProject talk pages can help connect subject matter experts better than general noticeboards sometimes. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Metawiki RFC notification

Hi, there's an open RFC about an AFC submission by User:Марат Джаныбекович Артыкбаев. Feel free to comment there. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 20:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the same AI as Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 202#Policy Proposal: Copyright as Primary Proof of Authorship and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 202#Rethinking Verifiability Standards for Inventor-Submitted AI Contributions. Anomie ⚔ 23:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closed —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 09:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siteviews

We had a medium-sized spike in unique devices views this past month [1], but it's really noticeable on other projects unique devices, pageviews. This has to be some weird statistical artifact (I don't seriously believe Wikibooks has set a record high in readership), but what is going on? Cremastra (u — c) 01:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. In a few days, the Foundation should be publishing its monthly "Movement Metrics" report for May, which might shed further light on this (WMF analysts have access to internal data which can be helpful in assessing e.g. whether something might be bot traffic misclassified as coming from humans). For what's it's worth, the preceding April 2025 report, in contrast, reported that User pageviews declined by 3.9% year over year that month. (And also that "Automated pageviews" were down 41.4% YoY, somewhat in contrast to other narratives WMF pushed at the time.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A decline in (small) article page views plus a rise in downloads of images and videos = still a problem for server traffic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found this spike in a very unusual way: when running through the most viewed pages without the short description template, the views for last month have been unusually high. So even niche pages are getting viewed more now. You can find my initial comments here: [2] Cheers. LR.127 (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A muffin by any other name would taste as good

Please join Talk:Muffin#RFC: What is the scope of this article? and tell us what you think should be found under the title Muffin. This is one of those rare RFCs in which your personal opinion is really wanted. Any clear decision will make me happy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WikiData Orphan Articles

Hi everyone,

I am conducting research (for my Masters) on content-gaps related to orphan articles. I am doing my best with Wikidata, but I cannot seem to find the appropriate attribute or combination of attributes that would let me extract orphan articles.

For context: An orphan article is one that has no other articles referencing to it. (Wikipedia:Orphan)

Does anyone have any pointers?

So far, I am using following two lines of SPARQL to narrow down orphan articles, but when I check the resulting list of articles, any given article does have links when I look under What Links Here.

?article schema:about ?item .

?item wikibase:sitelinks ?linkcount .

FILTER (?linkcount = 0) MNSanchez (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is either Category:All_orphaned_articles or randomincategory.toolforge.org/All_orphaned_articles?site=en.wikipedia.org helpful to you? Peaceray (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hey I have a question, https://www.slashfilm.com (/Film), part of Static Media, is a reliable source? Franar8 (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This question really belongs at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (RS/N). Looking at references there to, it looks like it depends on what content from slashfilm you want to use and what you want to use it for. The determination of reliability for any source always depends on context, but it looks like slashfilm is in a particularly hazy zone that requires extra scrutiny when assessing reliability. So, ask at RS/N, linking what you want to use from slashfilm and where you want to use it. Donald Albury 18:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Franar8, some previous discussions:

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine. It appears to be a news website that has employees and writes decent quality articles. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much to both of you. --Franar8 (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wrangling the world's worst URLs (azureedge.net)

I've run across what appears to be overexposure of a CDN's internal workings. There's a perfectly reasonable web page that describes California's state forests: https://www.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/natural-resource-management/demonstration-state-forests .

But the actual content I want to cite is in a PDF it links to, "State Forest Overview Map", and its URL is:

https://34c031f8-c9fd-4018-8c5a-4159cdff6b0d-cdn-endpoint.azureedge.net/-/media/calfire-website/what-we-do/natural-resource-management/demostration-forests/files/resource-management---demonstration-state-forests.pdf?rev=147bfb62fb5d4e5dacd06b3818bc185c&hash=F0E97059CD9D40A8BCBE3E32CB624F4B

This seems suboptimal (not even counting the "demostration" misspelling). I'm concerned that if I use it as is, either it's subverting the CDN functionality (I know, not my problem), or it's going to break at the drop of a hat.

Any thoughts here? I'm really not sure if there's any other possible answer than "just use it and move on", but I wanted to see if anyone else has some clever ideas here. NapoliRoma (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think all citations added to Wikipedia get archived by archive.org automatically after a couple hours/days. So if it does break it should be easy to add an archive link. Once the reference is archived, you can use a tool such as User:InternetArchiveBot to get the archive URL added to the citation (click "Run InternetArchiveBot on a specific Wikipedia article"). –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, thanks. NapoliRoma (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An additional problem is that the link from https://www.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/natural-resource-management/demonstration-state-forests to the PDF is what makes the PDF a reliable source. How should that be expressed in the citation(s)? Jruderman (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't really thought about a URL being part of the seal of legitimacy of a source, but I see how it could be considered in that light. For now, I've just used the standard {{cite web}} template, describing the web site as being the same California agency as for the page it's linked from. NapoliRoma (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Palestine articles have a sourcing problem

I feel like I/P articles have a very big issue of an excessive use of problematic sources, especially on less popular I/P articles. Usually these articles are either minor incidents from the ongoing Gaza war where the only reporting that is readily available is from problematic sources. The most common problematic sources are Al Jazeera English which is listen the Perennial sources page as biased on I/P and Middle East Eye which is 75% owned by the "former director for the Hamas-controlled Al-Quds TV" according to its Wikipedia Page. I could go ahead and try to change on of these articles but theres too many for me to get through, I feel like something more systematic and top down is needed. Denninithan (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably get consensus before mass removing a generally reliable source. Perhaps others may disagree that the use of this source is a problem. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where would I even go to get consensus on something like that, I haven't really spent much time on the policies side of wikipedia usually I just write stuff. Denninithan (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it is about a particular use of a source, the article talk page is the place. If it is about then general use of a source, it is WP:RSN. However, before you start a section on a source at RSN you should read the previous discussions about those sources at RSN and also look at their entry in WP:RSP. If you don't have more to offer than was already discussed, you might consider whether restarting the same discussion again with the same evidence has a chance of a different outcome. Zero^talk 03:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]