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

File:Old logo American Eagle (airline brand) 2002.png

Hi ,I answer why this user Minorax removed the tag {{Trademark}} in this logo (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Old_logo_American_Eagle_(airline_brand)_2002.png&diff=prev&oldid=1292332449 ) ,i see the symbol trademark in the right side? (google translator) AbchyZa22 (talk) 05:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AbchyZa22 It would have been better to ask @Minorax this question directly on their user talk page, as they are best placed to answer it.

Trademarks generally require you to use the registered mark, otherwise the trademark is rights are lost, e.g. in the US if you haven't used a trademark for 3 years it is removed, see Trademark#Maintaining registration. A logo from 2002 which is not in current use shouldn't have any remaining trademark rights. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{Trademarked}} is generally used for files that are in the public domain or ineligible for copyright as logos are still subject to trademark protection despite not being copyrightable. {{Non-free logo}} already covers that. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 02:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. AbchyZa22 (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Importing from everybodywiki?

I was going to write an article on Henry Benvenuti when I discovered Everybody Wiki has its own "Henry Banger Benvenuti" article which looks like a perfectly reasonable one to just import. We used to have our own Henry Banger Benvenuti, long since deleted for copyvio, but the Everybody Wiki version doesn't look like it's based on that. Everybody Wiki is CC BY-SA 3.0 so as far as I can tell there's no problem with copying it. The only issue I can think of is that we're CC SA-BY 4.0; is that close enough to satisfy the "Share Alike" constraint?

And, sigh, it looks like I'm not allowed to link to Everybody Wiki because it's on the blacklist, which will make it annoying to provide proper attribution. RoySmith (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK CC BY-SA 3 may be republished under CC-BY SA 4. That remote article does not appear to have any licensing for their image. It doesn't look like that site has Special:Export configured, so we can't just to a transwiki (if you know more about exporting from that site let me know). — xaosflux ^Talk 16:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the image has to stay behind. I was figuring I'd just copy-paste the wiki text. RoySmith (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although, I've started to discover that the article's author may have been drummed out of enwiki due to UPE and socking, so possibly this isn't a great idea to begin with. RoySmith (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why they disabled Special:Export, but it is possible to export via the API:

https://en.everybodywiki.com/Special:ApiSandbox#action=query&format=json&export=1&exportnowrap=1&titles=Henry%20Banger%20Benvenuti&formatversion=2

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]