Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:14, 28 December 2023

Table of contents
First discussion
End of page
New post

Shortcuts

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

Spam: Frequent mention of Guiness Book of World Records?

Over the past couple of years I've noticed an increasing appearance of links to Guinness World Record. These often appear prominently in articles. I just saw another one this morning when reading a "Did you know" article and came upon Japanese idol which has a link to "Guinness World Record" very prominently at the top right.

It looks like about 6,000 to 12,000 articles link to it, I think.

I suppose Guinness is a valid source, but it is a private company, and is advertising a commercial product. Does this bother anyone else? Has anyone in WP proposed a guideline where articles should simply say "... holds the world record ..." and the word "Guinness" is put into a citation/footnote? Noleander (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a variation on Wikipedia:We don't care what happens to your website. Who cares if it's a private company? We're saying it because it's true, and we're being specific because there are other groups that track world records (especially in sports). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is spamming references and links to Guinness World Records, then that world be a problem. Otherwise I agree with WhatamIdoing, we shouldn't care if it helps or hinders them neither are the reason for editing the encyclopedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As WAID and ActivelyDisinterested note, we're agnostic to whether or not a source is commercial or not—but perhaps that's the wrong question to be asking about all these links.

It may be worth examining whether all of those links and references are sufficiently relevant and noteworthy of mention. Are all these Guinness references running into issues with WP:INDISCRIMINATE? In places where they are relevant, are they duplicative of other, better sources? (Or should they be flagged for replacement with better sources?) In a related vein, it's worth noting that Guinness does a fair bit of promotional partnership these days. A growing segment of their revenue comes from the recordholders (and would-be recordholders) themselves, who want to have the gloss of a world record, and pay handsomely for Guinness to provide adjudicators and consultants...and promotion.

Looking at the first few (non-list) entries at Special:WhatLinksHere/Guinness_World_Records,

Agatha Christie, cited for best-selling fiction author of all time. Probably all right, though we might find better sources for sales.
Arabs, cited to describe the University of Al Quaraouiyine as the oldest continuously-operating degree-granting institution in the world. Also footnoted with UNESCO, a better source.
Andhra Pradesh (the state in India), cited to support the claim that D. Ramanaidu has produced more films than any other person. Seems a bit of minutiae, at best, given this article is about the entire history of a region with 50 million people.
André the Giant, cited as being the world's highest-paid wrestler (ever) in 1974. Probably relevant and appropriate.
Adam Carolla, cited for most downloaded podcast in 2011. Probably okay.
Atari 2600, used as a footnote for (presumably-record-shattering) sales figures. Not actually used for a named record. Sales figures might better be sourced to trade publications of the era, or even mainstream news coverage.
Amr Diab, cited for winning the Best Selling Middle Eastern Artist category of the World Music Awards more often than any other artist. Does this need to cite Guinness at all? Presumably this factoid could be pulled from a music publication, or even from the World Music Awards themselves.

...and so on. That said, it would be a mammoth undertaking to review and revise so many links. As Noleander notes, there's around ten thousand of these things. (minor edits for typos) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RSP might be relevant: There is consensus that world records verified by Guinness World Records should not be used to establish notability. Editors have expressed concern that post-2008 records include paid coverage.— Frostly (talk) 01:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to nowhere

I have penned a new essay/public complaint. See Wikipedia:Redirects to nowhere. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you left out the last step, in which the redirect is deleted because the merged-in and later removed subject matter isn't mentioned by name in the current version of the article. Thus instead of indicating that Alice Actor (probably) had something to do with this television show, we give readers nothing at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right, but of course, once your "last step" occurs —and I don't know how frequently it does— even information in the history becomes invisible to ordinary users. So that means absent special privileges, you and I can't prove there ever was a there there. So I can't focus on that. What I can focus on is that even the supposed "merge" that comes earlier often isn't one, because in actuality, those who decide to "resolve" a request for sabotage (that's what it is) by "merging" frequently simply turn the victim article into a redirect and merge absolutely none of its content into the target article. It ought to be possible to report those who do that as acting in bad faith, but I would not know where. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unless they're trying to hurt Wikipedia (as their actual goal, not just the result), then it's not "bad faith". It could be a Competence problem, but sometimes I wonder whether the disconnect is with values. The Wikipedia:Editing policy says Wikipedia summarizes accepted knowledge. As a rule, the more accepted knowledge it contains, the better. I wonder sometimes whether there are editors who disagree in principle with this statement. For example, perhaps they believe that Wikipedia is best off when it contains only knowledge about "serious" subjects, or only knowledge that is on track for being developed into an impressive-looking article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position, but I find the invocation of "genocide" - in the very first sentence! - a tad distracting and off-putting in an essay about incautious merging of Wikipedia articles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review Article

Hi, can anyone who may be interested in railways articles, and has some background knowledge of technical terms, help me clean up this draft article if possible? Thank you. Riad Salih (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted your request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains, where you may find someone who can help. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A major issue that I am trying to fix. (Also break notice)

Hey. I just wanna say this.

If you have looked at my edit history, I have been trying to remove a major issue I found on a lot of articles while also losing my OCD sanity.

That is, linking human anatomy on general anatomy articles. (and also trying my best to generalize general anatomy articles that almost exclusively talks about human anatomy) I find it scandalous that SO MANY articles that talk about general anatomy, not just human anatomy, almost always link to human anatomy if that anatomy part has a seperate human anatomy article. For example, almost EVERY single eye and leg related article, many of which are in fact general articles that are human exclusive, link to "human eye" and "human leg" respectively, including 90% of individual eye and leg anatomy part articles, despite many of them being present in almost every animal ever. It is ridiculous that these articles of anatomy parts NOT found only in humans link to human anatomy. To me, doing that makes you feel like these parts are ONLY found in humans and in no other animals (looking at you "wakefulness". Prior to my edit this article claims it is a HUMAN BRAIN only state but if that were the case all animals would be sleeping for eternity lol), which is not ok, as it feels like people are treating animals like they are nothing, and I hate that as an animal rights advocate. This is why I've been trying to change these whenever I could find any and it has turned into an OCD ritual that's draining my sanity with every edit.

I've also attempted to tweak a bit from pages like "face" and "body fluid" as these general anatomy pages lack anything on other animals and have had discussions related to this at one point but have yet to be generalized as of writing this.

I also just requested someone write an "in other animals" section on "puberty" and gave sources I could find about animal puberty (there is a LOT of them these are just ones that I think are the most reliable) as I want more people to know that puberty is not a human only thing and it happens in a lot of animals as well.

Well, I think its time to take a break. I need to stop my OCD ritual of madly fixing links like a madman and losing my soul and sanity in progress because its impacting my mental health (if I could think of an anatomy word I rush to that word's article to edit it and I will get irritated if I don't and its killing me right now). I'll probably leave Wikipedia for some time to restrain my sanity and find a new hobby before I start editing again.

Meanwhile if anyone wants to help me generalize articles just do it. It helps make me happy that more articles have content on animals, and it helps everyone reading those articles too.

Thanks. 2001:FB1:97:D678:3524:F23B:4AF8:4072 (talk) 13:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP editor: You say "If you have looked at my edit history", but because you are on an IP address which appears to change, there are only two edits in your edit history, one being this. If, when you return, you want to be able to show your work, discuss things with other editors on your talk page, etc, please register as a named editor. You, presuambly, made 11 edits using the IP address used in the section further up this page. We can't see what other edits you have made. PamD 16:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2001:FB1, it would be a good idea for you to read Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. If the content of the paragraph is meant to be human-specific, the links to human-specific words should be kept. This is because there's a chance that in the future that Lung would become more general, and a separate, human-specific article would be re-created at Human lung. Right now, that redirected link sends people to the general article, but if, in the future, a separate article for human lungs gets split off, then we would want the links to still point to the desired target. Similarly, if the content is not human-specific, it would ideally point to the general subject (or the most relevant one, e.g., Hip dysplasia (canine) rather than Hip dysplasia) even if a link to the human-specific redirect ends up taking the reader to the right place at the moment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steamboat Willie POTD discussion

The POTD talk page doesn't have nearly as many watchers as the VP, so posting here about a discussion about whether to make Steamboat Willie the POTD on January 1st (when it enters the public domain) and the logistics involved.

Wikipedia_talk:Picture_of_the_day#Steamboat_Willie

— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Colleagues, I invite you to take part in the discussion on Meta about the admissibility of nominating the article Putin khuylo! to good status and placing it on the main page of the Wikipedia. Asorev (talk) 10:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a dispute on ruwiki. Enwiki and meta are unable to assist. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Putting a Russian version of Putin khuylo! ("Putin is a dickhead!") on the main page of the Russian Wikipedia would lead to more than a dispute. The internet is available for anonymous people to poke bears but those running ruwiki should not be exposed to that kind of idiocy. Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spousal privilege in events of Wikipedia

Hi, I am contributor in local language and I want to go to attend a Wikipedia event with my girlfriend, who is contributing too from a long time. Wikipedia is one of the reasons that We are together. But can we stay in one room? Is there any policy regarding this? Sorry for anonymous message. 2402:A00:404:2152:476:5C25:1F04:57EE (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a lot depends on the situation. For WikiConference North America, for example, scholarship recipients could mutually request each other as a roommate. Many people arranged their own accommodations, so they were on their own for that.

Perhaps others can weigh in with a more global point of view. Peaceray (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume your girlfriend is the more experienced editor since you don't have an account yet? I think your girlfriend should probably ask the event coordinators or the scholarship coordinator for the specific event you plan to attend. Your post is a bit too vague to answer here, in my opinion. Anything we say would just be guessing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

badge privilege

I see the following on my page heading:

Congratulations! You are now eligible for The Wikipedia Library.

Click here to browse a wide collection of free reliable sources.

But when I 'click here' I see a button to login, but then get a error message:

Sorry, your Wikipedia account doesn’t currently qualify to access The Wikipedia Library.

Help!

John Wheater (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]