Examine individual changes

'<noinclude>{{short description|Central discussion page of Wikipedia for general topics not covered by the specific topic pages}}{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}}{{Village pump page header|Miscellaneous|alpha=yes|The '''miscellaneous''' section of the [[Wikipedia:Village pump|village pump]] is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)|policy]], [[Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)|technical]], or [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)|proposals]] sections when appropriate, or at the [[Wikipedia:Help desk|help desk]] for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the [[WP:RD|reference desk]]. Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for a week.|WP:VPM|WP:VPMISC}} <!-- -->__NEWSECTIONLINK__<!-- {{User:MiszaBot/config |archiveheader = {{Wikipedia:Village pump/Archive header}} |maxarchivesize = 250K |counter = 44 |algo = old(7d) |archive = Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive %(counter)d }}-->{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |header={{Wikipedia:Village pump/Archive header}} |archiveprefix=Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive |format= %%i |age=192 |numberstart=44 |minkeepthreads= 5 |maxarchsize= 250000 }} [[th:วิกิพีเดีย:สภากาแฟ (จิปาถะ)]] <!-- -->{{centralized discussion|compact=yes}}__TOC__<div style="clear:both;" id="below_toc"></div> [[Category:Wikipedia village pump]] [[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]] [[Category:Pages automatically checked for incorrect links]]</noinclude> == BLPs tagged unreferenced and unclear notability == Per [[Petscan:24767247]], there are currently 97 articles that are tagged as both having unclear notability and being unreferenced BLPs. If it was just a few, I would simply nominate for deletion, but that feels inappropriate for this many articles. Would a mass deletion or mass PROD be appropriate here? Given the sensitive nature of BLP articles, I think that addressing BLPs which are both unreferenced and non-notable should be high priority. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: darkgreen">''Thebiguglyalien''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: sienna">talk</span>]])</small> 19:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC) :Of course it should, but we need to ensure that the tags are correct - anyone can put a tag on an article just as anyone can create one. I am actually surprised that the number is so low, low enough that existing deletion processes can take care of things without any panic about a "mass" anything. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 19:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC) ::I'm sure there are many, many more unreferenced non-notable BLP articles that simply aren't tagged. I've AfD'd and BLPPRODed several such articles over the last few weeks. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: darkgreen">''Thebiguglyalien''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: sienna">talk</span>]])</small> 19:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC) :I checked 3 of them at random; and all of the ones I checked, while they don't have inline citations to RSs, are ineligible for BLP prod due to the presence of sources in other forms (such as external links). At least one of them has been around since 2005. They seem to be mostly complex, edge cases that don't fit neatly into the "easy to dispose of or fix" boxes.~ ''[[User:ONUnicorn|<span style="color:#0cc">ONUnicorn</span>]]''^{([[User talk:ONUnicorn|Talk]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/ONUnicorn|Contribs]])}<small>[[WP:P&amp;S|problem solving]]</small> 17:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC) ::The complexity is why I made a post here instead of just dealing with it myself. There are [[:Category:All unreferenced BLPs|plenty]] that I'm still trying to figure out what to do with. I felt these ones leaned toward the "easy to dispose of" end of the spectrum because they've been tagged for notability. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: darkgreen">''Thebiguglyalien''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: sienna">talk</span>]])</small> 18:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC) :::I don't have the same faith as you in notability taggers as opposed to article creators. One may be wrong as much as the other. Taking ONUnicorn's lead I too checked three at random (asking random.org to give me three numbers from 1 to 96) and found one that was already at AfD and two that, if I had a bit more time today, I would take to AfD. That is just using existing procedures, rather than asking for mass deletion. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 18:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC) ::::My faith in article creators that create entirely uncited articles is approximately zero. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: darkgreen">''Thebiguglyalien''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: sienna">talk</span>]])</small> 18:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC) :::::I checked one on the list, it was created 17 years ago...expectations were a bit looser back then. I found two reliable sources and one [[WP:ABOUTSELF]] so added them. I still nom'd to AFD for lack of notability, but that I was able to find a few sources tells me that the lack of sources on any on that list might just be for lack of looking. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 19:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC) :::::Why, then, is your faith in notability taggers close to 100%, which it must be for you to propose this? They are the same people. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 19:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC) ::::::Because unsourced content is at best an acceptable loss and at worst actively harmful. I'd like to delete [[:Category:All unreferenced BLPs|all unreferenced BLPs]], but that's not as plausible as simply deleting the ones that have been tagged for notability for several years. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: darkgreen">''Thebiguglyalien''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: sienna">talk</span>]])</small> 19:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC) :::::::We had that debate many years ago, and the result was the [[WP:BLPPROD]] procedure which already allows all unreferenced BLPs to be deleted. What is so wrong with that procedure that you need extra powers? [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC) ::::::::The fact that there are still over a thousand unreferenced articles about living people that are ineligible for BLPPROD, many of which are about non-notable people. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: darkgreen">''Thebiguglyalien''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: sienna">talk</span>]])</small> 20:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC) :Support. I just came across [[Alan Kay]], and found that Kay himself raised numerous factual errors on the talk page in 2019, most of which are still in the article today. If that's true for ''Kay'', bet it's true for these others. It's negligent; and I hope that one day, [[WP:BLP]] will require all uncited BLP material to be removed on sight; risk of harm & citogenesis is far too high. [[User:DFlhb|DFlhb]] ([[User talk:DFlhb|talk]]) 23:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC) ::I would support ''much'' stricter measures on BLP articles. Beyond the nearly two thousand articles in [[:Category:Unreferenced BLPs]], there are '''nearly 95,000''' in [[:Category:BLP articles lacking sources]]. I'm trying to revive [[WP:Unreferenced BLP rescue]], but there seems to be little interest. The only way this is going to see any sort of resolution is with drastic action. And special attention needs to go to sports bios in particular; working on unreferenced BLPs has given me serious doubts about the ability of editors of sports topics to manage sourcing in that area. I've seen multiple well established sports editors slap a single citation (sometimes a bare link or a general ref) onto an article and call it sourced. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: darkgreen">''Thebiguglyalien''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: sienna">talk</span>]])</small> 23:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC) :::Saw the thread on [[User_talk:Levivich/Archive_4#1815_unreferenced_BLPs|Lev's talk page]], and [[Wikipedia_talk:Unreferenced_BLP_Rescue#7_years_later...|this thread]]. 95k is crazy; the idea of adding unsourced stuff, and relying on other editors to add cites (who could just as well add the material from scratch with sources) is silly. Not familiar with sports bios, but I bet it's caused by mass creation sourced to a database, so ineligible for BLPPROD; yuck. :::Fixing would be hard. IMO: change BLP so content not cited inline must be removed; and expand BLPPROD to match the GNG (must be met inline, not "presumed"). That'd be the most minimal way to clear the backlog. Then to reduce the inflow: if you create a BLP, you must bring it to B-class before you create another. Though these ideas would probably land me in the same place as [https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0681165/ this guy]. [[User:DFlhb|DFlhb]] ([[User talk:DFlhb|talk]]) 01:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC) ::::I completely forgot to mention, there are [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?cirrusUserTesting=glent_m0&search=incategory%3A%22All+articles+needing+additional+references%22+incategory%3A%22Living+people%22&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1 another 26k BLPs] that are tagged with the regular "needs more sources" template instead of the BLP variant. And those are just the ones that were tagged at all. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: darkgreen">''Thebiguglyalien''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: sienna">talk</span>]])</small> 01:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC) :::::Most of those were tagged by bot. Specifically, we had two bots identify articles without little blue clicky numbers, and then another bot go back through to remove the ones that editors had since added little blue clicky numbers to. But the bot changed the now-sourced articles from "unref" to "needs more sources" (there's always room for more sources, right?), so now we have thousands of tagged articles that no human ever thought to complain about. :::::Consider the 26k BLPs you found in the search results. The first is [[Sachin Tendulkar]], which has 472 refs. That is not a typo. It already has ''four hundred seventy-two'' sources, and it's still in [[:Category:All articles needing additional references]]. Presumably you are not thinking of this kind of article as unsourced. Why's it in the cat? The cat is added automatically by some templates, and is not a comment on any human's judgment of the overall situation for an article. :::::The second is [[Jack Black]], with 101 inline citations. Why's it in the list? Well, almost a decade ago, someone tagged a single sub-section. That section now contains 10 little blue clicky numbers. Will any editor ever remove that outdated tag? Maybe, maybe not. After all, the reason we sent that bot around to clean up the unref cats is that even in the most obvious cases, most editors won't remove outdated tags. :::::The third is [[Lionel Richie]], which has 49 inline citations. It was [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Lionel_Richie&diff=prev&oldid=942866934 tagged three years ago], when it had 39 citations. The median number of inline citations in a Wikipedia article is a small single-digit number, so why are we tagging something with dozens of refs? I dunno. It wasn't the only tag added, so I'd guess that this really wasn't the primary concern. :::::All of which is to say: Don't trust those tags, and don't overinterpret those category names. The situation is not as bad as it sounds. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC) ::::::{{u|WhatamIdoing}} I don't think looking at the ''number'' of sources is the correct approach. Having a lot of sources is not the same as having sufficient sourcing. Take Lionel Richie, for example. Those 49 citations aren't doing a lot of good if there are still ''nine'' paragraphs that don't have a single inline citation on this BLP. I'm starting with [[:Category:All unreferenced BLPs]] because it's the most straightforward and its backlog is relatively manageable at "only" ~2,000. But the fact that a BLP has a handful of inline citations doesn't mean it's sufficient. There should not be unreferenced statements in BLPs at all. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: darkgreen">''Thebiguglyalien''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: sienna">talk</span>]])</small> 18:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC) :::::::@[[User:Thebiguglyalien|Thebiguglyalien]], there is no policy or other agreement that "There should not be unreferenced statements in BLPs at all". The last time I checked, the policy said there should not be any "contentious material" that is unreferenced or poorly referenced. It is therefore still "legal" to have non-contentious material about BLPs included in articles without an inline citation. :::::::The most recent past BLP at TFA and the next BLP in the list ([[Angel Locsin]] and [[Judy Ann Santos]]) both begin with three unreferenced paragraphs and later include several individual sentences within paragraphs that don't have ref tags at the end. I doubt that there are many BLPs of significant length that meet your personal goal of not having any unreferenced statements at all. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC) ::::::::Since [[WP:V|verifiability]] {{tq| means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source}}, uncited content is inherently a problem to be fixed, not something we tolerate long-term. We were super cavalier with citations in the early Wild West Wikipedia, but we've inexorably moved further and further away from that, and it's inevitable that we'll eventually move to "must be verified" rather than "must be verifiable". BLPs are the best place to start, due to the risk of real-world harm and citogenesis. The most practical way to start is to require all ''new'' additions to BLPs to be cited or reverted on sight; and then figure out what to do with the old uncited crap that's doubtlessly filled with self-promotion, defamation, inaccuracies and the like. ::::::::Thebiguglyalien, I first refrained from posting this since I didn't want the conversation to veer away from your initial query; but really, there's no point to try to address this when the inflow valve is still wide open. We should first close the industrial-strength sewage pipe before we try to scoop out bits of poop with a spoon; systemic problems require systemic solutions — [[User:DFlhb|DFlhb]] ([[User talk:DFlhb|talk]]) 02:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC) :::::::::I would very much like for this to veer away from my original query if it means actual progress on this issue. You've pretty much summed up my thoughts on the matter here. [[WP:BLPPROD]] was a step in the right direction in preventing new 100% uncited BLPs from being created, but it's still wildly insufficient. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: darkgreen">''Thebiguglyalien''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: sienna">talk</span>]])</small> 03:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC) ::::::::::Cool; here are two practical incremental proposals: (1) strengthen BLPPROD to require one reliable source that is secondary and independent of the subject and provides significant coverage, not just a homepage or database, and (2) enforce that through NPP. Although it should also be enforced for those with the autopatrolled bit, but I'm not sure how that could be done. [[User:DFlhb|DFlhb]] ([[User talk:DFlhb|talk]]) 04:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC) :::::::::::While I have a lot of sympathy for this goal, and despite my belief that a [[Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing]], (1) means "repeal [[WP:NPROF]] and delete most of the articles about academics", which may not be practical. :::::::::::You'll also run into problems with editors having incompatible ideas about what constitutes a secondary source. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?oldid=451008806#Secondary_sources_for_notability See old rant here].) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC) ::::::::::::Any other ideas? The intent behind mine, was that we should strive to minimise the amount of BLPs in a "neither easy to dispose of, nor to fix" state (reusing ONUnicorn's term) [[User:DFlhb|DFlhb]] ([[User talk:DFlhb|talk]]) 13:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC) :::::::::::::Why should only easy articles be wanted? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC) :::::::::[[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source", but notice the absence of any words that sound like "through the sole and exact method of looking at the little blue clicky numbers at the end of that sentence." :::::::::WP:V, if some "other people" can find a reliable source that says the same thing as the Wikipedia article, even if they have to use a web search engine or visit a library to do so, then that uncited material is still verifiable. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC) :I've been doing a bit of BLP cleanup recently, @[[User:Thebiguglyalien|Thebiguglyalien]] I've also marked [[Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue]] as active since there seems to be more activity here. :Here's what I've noticed going through a number of articles. :1) Tags are not always correct, I've run over a number of articles with references, that the unsourced tag does not reflect. Perhaps a bot run to update these tags would be best before discussing mass-prod? :2) There was a mass-prod run many many years ago, we should look at what led to that and the parameters used. :3) We need stricter notability requirements for sports people. There's amass of minor sports players that are added, I don't see the encyclopedic value (my own opinion) in maintaining a database per [[WP:NOTDATABASE]]. I do wonder if these are added by the players themselves, as a bunch of the creators had very little edits. :4) BLPPROD should be updated, if there are no references to point to notability, then we should be able to deleted. There's so many minor folks that have no notable coverage that do not meet BLPPROD because theres an external link to a mass collection database [[User:Mr.weedle|Mr.weedle]] ([[User talk:Mr.weedle|talk]]) 16:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC) ::I don't know what the best solution is. I'm just trying to get any sort of progress. But after working with these articles for the last month, I've come to the conclusion that sports articles are by far the biggest issue here, and it seems that the sports section of Wikipedia has been operating with very little sitewide accountability for at least a decade. And this is clearly still a problem, because [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC on draftifying a subset of mass-created Olympian microstubs|a recent attempt to create even the tiniest shred of accountability]] (a proposal to draftify 960 minimally sourced microstubs of questionable notability that were mass-created by a single banned contributor) proved very controversial. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: darkgreen">''Thebiguglyalien''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: sienna">talk</span>]])</small> 16:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC) :::@[[User:Mr.weedle|Mr.weedle]], you referred to NOTDATABASE, in reference to a page that ''cites'' a database but that isn't, itself, a database entry. Do you think that NOTDATABASE means that we're not supposed to cite databases? I know that [[Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions]], and people often guess the meaning just from the [[WP:UPPERCASE]] label. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC) ::::A good portion of these sports articles are just statistics and tables. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: darkgreen">''Thebiguglyalien''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: sienna">talk</span>]])</small> 17:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC) :::::Which is apparently what we think a Wikipedia article about sports should look like. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC) ::::::Who is "we"? The small handful of editors that mass created these bios in the thousands and then forgot about them? Based on the policy at [[WP:MASSCREATION]], it seems the community has decided that this is ''not'' how these articles should be, but now we're stuck with the mess from when editors got away with it.{{pb}}I feel like there's some sort of miscommunication here, because we're basically saying "we should encourage thorough referencing in BLPs". The current state of referencing in BLPs, while often in compliance with policy, is still abysmal. You can't look at the articles for [[Antoine Grauss]] or [[Bill Hogaboam]] and tell me that we should be satisfied with them or the thousands of other articles that look just like them. There is room for improvement, and I am seeking that improvement. For articles where such improvement is not possible due to a lack of [[WP:SIGCOV]], then deletion is the appropriate remedy. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: darkgreen">''Thebiguglyalien''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: sienna">talk</span>]])</small> 18:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC) :::::::Any way to run Earwig en masse? The Petscan you linked in the OP included [[John Rose (organist)]], which seemed to have been wholly copyvio. Would like to be able to run Earwig on all unsourced or mostly unsourced BLPs, which should at least clear out a few — [[User:DFlhb|DFlhb]] ([[User talk:DFlhb|talk]]) 06:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC) ::::::::Earwig's tool is pretty intensive when doing a full check. As it says on the tool page, it can take up to a minute to run a full check of the Internet for one WP article, and may time out under a heavy load. A batch mode for Earwig's tool may not be a good idea. [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 13:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC) ::::I think the broader issue is the lack of notability along with the lack of sourcing. For example, not everyone gets a wikipedia entry just because they were in a couple of regional tennis tournaments. Mass creation of articles is a waste of the communities time. There are real articles that lack sources that are well worth community effort, but it's -exhausting- to have to wade through a bunch of non-notable items to find and improve them. Can you imagine if every song had it's own entry? It would be chaos. [[User:Mr.weedle|Mr.weedle]] ([[User talk:Mr.weedle|talk]]) 22:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC) * I just picked one at random from the noted category (thanks for the referral to random.org, by the way), [[Herma Auguste Wittstock]] and find that it's pretty much a port of [[w:de:Herma Auguste Wittstock|the German article]], which I think is how a substantial number of these articles get created. As for why the German article has not been tagged for removal ... differences in retention policies? --User:Ceyockey (<small>''[[User talk:Ceyockey|talk to me]]''</small>) 14:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC) *:It's definitely possible that it's policy difference. But working on these, I'm seeing lots of them that should probably be deleted. Far more than I'm willing to AfD/PROD at once. That particular article has been around since January 2006, meaning it took us over 17 years to tag it for removal. So a big factor is just ''finding'' the articles that need to be removed. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: darkgreen">''Thebiguglyalien''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: sienna">talk</span>]])</small> 16:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC) *::I added a talk-page comment related to the article's being de-proded by nominator > [[Talk:Herma Auguste Wittstock#Fate of article?]] --User:Ceyockey (<small>''[[User talk:Ceyockey|talk to me]]''</small>) 23:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC) *:::oh - and I was able to delete one of the unsource-BLP tracking categories! Progress. --User:Ceyockey (<small>''[[User talk:Ceyockey|talk to me]]''</small>) 23:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC) == Which cite template to use for 1931 census scanned e-book == From https://www.indianculture.gov.in/ebooks/census-india-punjab-part-ii-tables-vol-xvii-1931 (page 283), some information was added to [[Arain]] at [[Special:Diff/1151544874]]. The e-book is actually a scanned copy of the original printed material accessed by [[Archaeological Survey of India]]. Thus, I'm not sure what cite template should be used here. So, I need some help. Thanks! <span class="nowrap">&#8212;'''[[User:CX Zoom|CX Zoom]]'''[he/him]</span> <sup class="nowrap">([[User talk:CX Zoom|let's talk]] • {[[Special:Contributions/CX Zoom|C]]•[[User:CX Zoom/X|X]]})</sup> 18:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC) :If it's content within the book that you're citing then {{tl|cite book}} seems to be the template to use. But I would be very wary of using pre-1947 sources for anything to do with castes or tribes in India. They are mostly tainted by [[scientific racism]], which was part of India's rulers' divide-and-rule strategy. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 19:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC) ::Frankly, afaik census and other government data from British period were mostly reliable. After all that is the data government officials relied on, the reason they started conducting census of this large a country at so much of an expense. I would like to invite more discussion on this if I'm wrong. <span class="nowrap">&#8212;'''[[User:CX Zoom|CX Zoom]]'''[he/him]</span> <sup class="nowrap">([[User talk:CX Zoom|let's talk]] • {[[Special:Contributions/CX Zoom|C]]•[[User:CX Zoom/X|X]]})</sup> 21:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC) :::I think it's a case of "all sources are reliable for something". Whether they're reliable depends on exactly what the claim is. "The 1931 British census said <whatever it said>" is okay. "The following is the sole, complete, and indisputable truth about India in 1931" ...not so much. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC) ::Agreed that cite-book would be the one to use. However, I'm concerned about this being a [[WP:PRIMARYSOURCE]] though. Am I wrong in making that assertion? --User:Ceyockey (<small>''[[User talk:Ceyockey|talk to me]]''</small>) 23:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC) :::To me, it is more a kind of research journal? Because the numbers of people are facts, and authorities use surveys and statistical methods to find that number, just like one might use statistical methods to find the number of molecules in a given chemical sample. <span class="nowrap">&#8212;'''[[User:CX Zoom|CX Zoom]]'''[he/him]</span> <sup class="nowrap">([[User talk:CX Zoom|let's talk]] • {[[Special:Contributions/CX Zoom|C]]•[[User:CX Zoom/X|X]]})</sup> 07:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC) == I wonder == What encyclopedias do serious people use? Don't they need any? Once you start editing on wikipedia a bit and go even a little deep on any topic, wikipedia itself becomes useless. The articles are all vague, do not contain much systematic information that can be used to look up information. There are so many articles that are essentially unchanged for 10 years, that anyone with moderate search engine skill can beef up in a few days without even having any topic-relevant professional background. One cannot shake the feeling that there must be thousands of people more qualified who were in a position to do X in the last decade and they just didn't do it. Wikipedia is being ignored by the very people who could make it good. Why is that? Do serious people have no use for an encyclopedia? [[User:Nowakki|Nowakki]] ([[User talk:Nowakki|talk]]) 01:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC) :I don't know what encyclopedias they use, but I do know that serious people use capital letters. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 08:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC) ::Maybe you know somebody who knows more about this. [[User:Nowakki|Nowakki]] ([[User talk:Nowakki|talk]]) 12:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC) :::I don't know why you say Wikipedia is useless. Of course, Wikipedia is not reliable. Its coverage, although very much broader than any other encyclopedia, is incomplete, and often contains errors. It is, nevertheless, useful as a starting point for exploring a subject, as many important articles cite useful sources. It is usually the first place I look when I want to find out more about something. As for your question on why experts (I assume that is who you are talking about) don't edit Wikipedia, some do, but the pseudo-anonymity under which WP operates makes it hard to see who the experts are. Others of us (if I may say so) become fairly knowledgable about certain subjects after years of researching those subjects in order to improve WP articles. There have been discussions over the years on why more experts don't contribute to WP, and how we can encourage them to do so, but no concrete results have followed from those discussions. And, no matter how unreliable WP is, it is far more reliable than more than 95% of what is available on the Internet. [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 17:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC) *I think the OP is engaging in a bit of a [[false dichotomy]], whereby "less than perfection" is somehow "useless". What is Wikipedia good for? For a quick check of uncontroversial information about well known subjects, it's a fine resource. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 18:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC) *:Yes. No encyclopedia for a couple of centuries has contained everything that is known about the topics it covers. That is not the job of an encyclopedia. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 18:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC) *:compare [[Star Trek: The Next Generation (season 6)]] to [[Homestead Steel Works]]. *:one is a single season of a television series. the other is a large steel plant that lasted for 100 years. *:i can easily find out who guest-starred on TNG season 6 and on what day an episode aired. *:can you tell me in the span of 2 minutes how many blast furnaces were ever built in the steel mill and on what dates they were built? *:useful and comprehensive vs. useless and vague. [[User:Nowakki|Nowakki]] ([[User talk:Nowakki|talk]]) 19:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC) *::If you think that an article does not provide sufficent coverage of a subject, you are always welcome to add [[WP:RS|reliably sourced]], [[WP:NPOV|neutral]] information to it. My personal list of articles I want to work on has been growing faster than my output since I started editing more than 17 years ago. [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 20:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC) *::There would only be a problem if Wikipedia claimed to be complete. It does not, although it probably contains more information than any other encyclopedia ever has. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC) *:::my question is: why do i even have to ask the question. the steel industry is over a hundred years old, has employed millions of people (there are now millions of descendants of employees alive, the topic is taught each year in a large number of schools and universities). and nobody is interested in producing an encyclopedia about it that satisfies some criteria for greatness? [[User:Nowakki|Nowakki]] ([[User talk:Nowakki|talk]]) 20:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC) *::::Why did somebody not do the work that you don't want to do yourself? Hmm.... Why do you think the reasons you have are different from the reasons they have? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC) *::The content currently at [[Homestead Steel Works]] strikes me as being significantly more appropriate for a general encyclopedia entry about the subject, focusing on its history and broader significance, as opposed to comprehensive minutiae of its throughput. A full list of blast furnaces built by the mill would be material for an industry publication or an in-depth research paper, but is of little interest to the casual reader. _signed,[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] ^{[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]} 20:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC) *:::the list of guest stars or the air date of episodes of Star Trek TNG is of actual interest to the reader? [[User:Nowakki|Nowakki]] ([[User talk:Nowakki|talk]]) 20:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC) *::::Well, they obviously have been of interest to one or more of our editors. If you feel that certain content in an article is too trivial for inclusion, you can always raise the issue on the talk page of the article. Unsourced content is always subject to being removed from Wikipedia, although how it is removed may create problems. Content that is sourced to reliable sources may also be removed, but only if there are strong policy reasons or there is a consensus to do so. [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 23:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC) *:::::nothing wrong with the page. *:::::i said: not all information on a page needs to be suitable for a casual reader. [[User:Nowakki|Nowakki]] ([[User talk:Nowakki|talk]]) 23:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC) *::::::Just for the record, I checked what ''[[Britannica]]'', the canonical old-school "serious" encyclopedia, has to say about Homestead Steel Works. [https://www.britannica.com/place/Homestead-Steel-Works I'd venture that we're currently doing a better job at covering it than they are]. _signed,[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] ^{[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]} 18:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC) *:::::::and yet, if you start reading contemporary material you will quickly find that the page is not helpful. if you read in a journal that Homestead has just added a new rolling mill, you'd want to (1) see that the conensus of sources on wikipedia confirm it and (2) get a quick overview of the history of development of the plant. *:::::::pick any A-rated wikipedia article and compare it to Homestead and you will see that "better than Britannica" does not mean much. It's the 21st century. People are much more sophisticated and emancipated than Britannica old school folks. By the new standards, Homestead is barely milktoast. [[User:Nowakki|Nowakki]] ([[User talk:Nowakki|talk]]) 20:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC) *::::::::I don't think there is a single existing encyclopedia that will meet your standards as you've described them in this discussion. So, feel free to rant about Wikipedia's inadequacies (or better yet, fix them), but the point remains that there is no more "serious" project for assembling all encyclopedic knowledge than the one on this website. It's like you showed up to the work camp for the [[Tower of Babel]] to complain that there isn't already an elevator installed. _signed,[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] ^{[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]} 19:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC) *:{{re|Jayron32}} i don't agree. *:if you want information about star trek, you go to memory alpha. excellent wiki. if you can't stand all the popups, you go to the star trek section on wikipedia. also pretty good. *:look at steelmaking on wikipedia: it's not pretty. *:and then all you get is half a dozen middle management people who find ways to make it sound like this failure is in fact intentional. *:of course i am not blaming the free participation encyclopedia for lack of participation. but it strikes me as odd, that there seems to be no need for an encyclopedia of the topic. the only conclusion that makes sense to me is that billion dollar steel corporations have their own intelligence departments and have built their own encyclopedias and they are all proprietary. but i do not know. that's why i ask. [[User:Nowakki|Nowakki]] ([[User talk:Nowakki|talk]]) 08:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC) *::I never asked you to agree. You go on believing that giant steel corporations have a conspiracy to keep information from you. I lack the energy to even attempt to convince you out of such things. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 10:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC) *:::having proprietary information of any kind is not a conspiracy. [[User:Nowakki|Nowakki]] ([[User talk:Nowakki|talk]]) 11:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC) *::::There's no need to have an outlandish theory (conspiracy or not) about this when the truth is much more prosaic. It's that no Wikipedia editor has shown enough interest in steel to write much about it, but lots of Wikipedia editors are interested in Star Trek. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 17:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC) *:::::Qapla'! [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 08:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC) *::::::Lots of Wikipedia editors may be interested in Star Trek, but they don't include me, so it took me quite some time even to work out what language that was. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 09:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC) *:::::::[[Shakespeare_and_Star_Trek|It has been noted]] that [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8205kJSig4A you've not experienced Shakespeare until you've read him in the original Klingon]. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 13:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC) I think the OP, who seems to have put in a fair bit of work on our coverage of steel companies, is being bagged on a bit unfairly (I'm pretty sure the "only conclusion" is tongue-in-cheek shitposting). My theory of the case: traditional encyclopedias produce (fewer) articles by employing disinterested subject-matter experts to write them. In a crowd-sourced encyclopedia, we cannot guarantee that editors are experts, or are acting in good faith, and many of our core policies aim to check the damage that could result from this. As these policies are applied mechanistically and rigorously, productive content contributors become tired of being treated like malicious idiots, and walk away; but not all subject matter is affected to the same extent. Subjects where articles can be built up by mechanically piling small factoids from easily-available online sources are less affected. Our policies on notability, sourcing, etc. are absolutely load-bearing and have some useful side effects (a well-written article is functionally equivalent to a literature review), but they also make it significantly more difficult for a person who does have expertise on a subject to share it, and this is usually obscured by vapid rah-rahing about how great our practices are. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Choess|Choess]] ([[User talk:Choess#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Choess|contribs]]) </small> 03:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC) == Artificial Intelligence == Has there been a discussion about the use of AI in generating or modifying Wikipedia articles?[[User:Kdammers|Kdammers]] ([[User talk:Kdammers|talk]]) 20:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC) :yes. about how to spot generated articles and delete them. happens regularly. :as a means to generate something which can serve as inspiration for further research and confirmation... not sure. whatever helps, but you'd be expected to verify everything about the generated text yourself and not let any "AI hearsay" slip through. nobody can prevent you from browsing online forums where people have opinions either, but those opinions carry little weight. [[User:Nowakki|Nowakki]] ([[User talk:Nowakki|talk]]) 20:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC) :@[[User:Kdammers|Kdammers]], see [[Wikipedia:Large language models]] and the talkpage. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 20:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC) :Also: [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#WP:MASSCREATE and WP:MEATBOT]]; [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#CSD for AI generated content]]; [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#AI/chatbot/large language models]]; [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1125#Suspected hoax content and LLM use by User:Gyan.Know]]. I think that there have been several more. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] &#x1f339; ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 21:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC) * FYI, apparently [https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7bdba/ai-is-tearing-wikipedia-apart AI Is Tearing Wikipedia Apart]. Oh no. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 21:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC) *:Interesting. You'd think we would've noticed. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: darkgreen">''Thebiguglyalien''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: sienna">talk</span>]])</small> 02:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC) *::Well, I guess we're cooked. No more Wikipedia. Does that mean the WMF donation banners will stop for good? '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper</span> ]]'''-''<small>([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])</small>'' 16:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC) *:::Well, you know [[WP:HEADLINES]]. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 20:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC) == Online Wikipedia editing camp == International peace association [[Service Civil International]] is offering an online Wikipedia editing camp on peace topics from May 8th to June 7th, with online meetups and trainings. More information can be found on the organization's [https://workcamps.sci.ngo/icamps/camp-details/15683.html website] or on the [[:meta:Wikipedia for Peace/No More War 2023|project page on meta]]. [[User:Flor WMCH|Flor WMCH]] ([[User talk:Flor WMCH|talk]]) 15:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC) == How to delete image files on En:WP which have already been transferred to Commons? == Files, such as [[:File:Ayodhya_Nagri.jpg]] have already been transferred to Commons. How does one delete the image file on English Wikipedia? Or is there a policy to retain them? [[User:AshLin|Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin)]] ([[User_talk:AshLin|talk]]) 04:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC) :As long as there's no {{tl|KeepLocal}} or {{tl|notforcommons}} on it, just put {{tl|NowCommons}} on it. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' ^{([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])}_{Has about 8.3% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]]. Currently celebrating his [[:File:Elliott & Fry - photograph W. S. Gilbert.jpg|600^th FP]]!}</span> 06:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC) ::Thank you very much. [[User:AshLin|Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin)]] ([[User_talk:AshLin|talk]]) 07:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC) :::Don't mention it! <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' ^{([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])}_{Has about 8.3% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]]. Currently celebrating his [[:File:Elliott & Fry - photograph W. S. Gilbert.jpg|600^th FP]]!}</span> 08:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC) == Sandbox == Hello, I'd like to know if you can use sandboxes as a place where you can do page drafts. I was thinking of doing a page but I feel it would take too long to type up and I'd like to know if other users use sandboxes for this purpose. It feels like a really silly question I know but I just wanted to know if anyone uses them often or not so often as I've never used it before. Thank you, [[User:SarahTHunter|SarahTHunter]] ([[User talk:SarahTHunter|talk]]) 11:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC) :You can use your own sandbox or a specially created subpage under your user page (if you have registered an account), or the [[Wikipedia:Drafts|draft space]]. [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 13:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC) ::Yes, you can definitely use a sandbox as a place to draft pages or documents. In fact, this is a common use case for sandboxes, especially in collaborative environments where multiple users may be working on the same document or page. ::A sandbox provides a [https://pickleballopinion.com/ secure] and isolated environment where you can work on your draft without affecting the live system or other users. You can experiment with different layouts, formatting, and content without any consequences. Once you're satisfied with your draft, you can then transfer it to the live system or share it with other users for feedback. ::In summary, sandboxes are a great tool for drafting pages or documents, and many users use them for this purpose. So it's not a silly question at all! If you haven't used a sandbox before, it's worth trying it out and seeing how it can help you with your work. [[User:PO1983|PO1983]] ([[User talk:PO1983|talk]]) 19:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC) :As above, sure, use your sandbox. However, many of us save our sandbox for short tests. If you move your sandbox to main space, all the old sandbox history will be in the article history. It would be better to make a user subpage like [[User:SarahTHunter/Draft]] so the history holds only edits related to the article you are developing. You can replace "Draft" with any text. If you forget the name, visit your user page then click 'Page information' in the sidebar, then click 'Number of subpages of this page' for a list. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 00:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC) ::I create a new user subpage for each article I start [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex?prefix=User%3ARoySmith%2Fdrafts/&namespace=0]. Many (most?) of them never get past the "vague idea" stage, and some languish for years before I finally finish them. By using a new page for each one, if I ever do move them into mainspace, the history will be intact. -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 15:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC) == Guideline on what articles can be linked on the main page == Is there a guideline that describes or limits what sort of articles can be linked on the main page? [[WP:DYK]], [[WP:ITN]], and [[WP:OTD]] all have their own rules for what can be posted, but how much of this is based on sitewide consensus and how much is [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]]? [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: darkgreen">''Thebiguglyalien''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: sienna">talk</span>]])</small> 03:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC) :Each section has its own standards; what makes an article qualify for, say the "Today's Featured Article" section is different than what makes an article qualify for the "Did You Know" section. There are no universal standards, obviously. Featured status is appropriate for Today's Featured Article, but then to apply that standard to all of the other sections would be unreasonable. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 14:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC) ::Does that mean that ''all'' of the criteria and processes for each of these corners of Wikipedia are based on [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]]? There's got to be some sort of sitewide consensus that at least sets out the basics of the main page. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: darkgreen">''Thebiguglyalien''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: sienna">talk</span>]])</small> 17:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC) :::As far as I know; while the criteria for each section are decided indeptendently, there seems to be a broad, unwritten consensus that articles are not appropriate for main page display while they are at [[WP:AFD|AFD]], or if they have orange-level maintenance tags. Those two seem to generally hold regardless of which section they are appearing on. ~ ''[[User:ONUnicorn|<span style="color:#0cc">ONUnicorn</span>]]''^{([[User talk:ONUnicorn|Talk]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/ONUnicorn|Contribs]])}<small>[[WP:P&amp;S|problem solving]]</small> 17:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC) == en.m.wikipedia.org == BRazil ~~~~'