Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Please sign my guestbook (talk | contribs) at 19:58, 12 November 2021 (→‎Pictures of your kids?: Obvious answer is obvious.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
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

English fundraising banners to start at the end of November

Dear all,

Next month, on the 30th of November, the Wikimedia Foundation will be launching its annual fundraising banner campaign on English Wikipedia in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The campaign will run throughout December. I will be in touch again closer to the time with more details. In the meanwhile we are still running banner tests so you might already see banners around if you are not logged in.

We are always looking for ways to improve our campaigns and appreciate your feedback regarding banner messages and design.

  • If you have specific ideas to share, please feel invited to add them to the fundraising meta talk page.
  • If you need to report a bug or technical issue, please create a phabricator ticket.
  • If you see a donor on a talk page, VRT or social media having difficulties in donating, please refer them to donate(at)wikimedia.org

Additionally, this year we are testing a new message for a subset of recurring donors to let them know that they can create a Wikipedia account (and get involved in editing if they are interested). After creating their account, they will get directed to Growth features, which are a new onboarding experience for new editors that have been in trial here in English Wikipedia. We also tell them that by creating this account and staying logged in, they will avoid seeing fundraising banners during the campaign in December. This option will not be sent to a large set of donor emails but you might see some new faces around trying out the Growth features.

If you have any questions, please contact me.

Best wishes,

JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nosebagbear
Based on signup statistics from a similar email campaign recently undertaken in Latin American countries for the Spanish Wikipedia, we expect that this email will result in <600 new accounts, and only a portion of those will begin to edit, over the course of about two weeks since the email is sent. This is statistically insignificant in the context of the ‘organic’ account creation rate on English Wikipedia and therefore we don’t believe this will cause any identifiable impact on existing content patrollers’ workflows. JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JBrungs (WMF): hi there. It wasn't out of concern we'd find it disruptive! I've no issue with the plan, I was just interested to know how you made the Growth platform to allocate them into the "growth tools on" portion of new editors rather than just 25% of them Nosebagbear (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nosebagbear,
Just a quick follow up on this. The people who receive the email and are suggested to sign up will get a dedicated link (you can see it here) which will force direct them to the Growth features. I hope this helps. Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 08:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, this year we are testing a new message for a subset of recurring donors to let them know that they can create a Wikipedia account (and get involved in editing if they are interested). – Such a message should be the entirety of the fundraising banner. On the English Wikipedia, it doesn't affect us whether the fundraising banner income is raised or not. It does affect us that we have been haemorraging volunteers for the last 10 years. Everybody I speak to in real life about the issue feels guilty, or like they are doing their bit, based on whether they are donating money to Wikipedia—they have no idea that what Wikipedians actually want is their labour (not necessarily tons of it, just a little help here and there goes a long way). Nor, of course, do any of them understand what the money is put towards, because of the deliberately melodramatic fundraising lies about "paying for server space". — Bilorv (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bilorv, here's a link to monthly active editor counts for the last 10 years. I think you might be surprised by the shape of that curve. If we are losing any group, it's the newbies, not the folks who make enough edits that we can recognize their names. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This information isn't central to the point I made, Whatamidoing (WMF), so though I dispute that your data is accurately interpreted here and I'm not surprised by a graph I've seen before, I won't go into that as I don't feel it is a counterargument to "we need new people to join Wikipedia at a higher rate". If I understand correctly that your point is that we need to retain (i.e. stop biting) newbies at a much higher rate then I completely agree, but that's additional, not a substitute. If you're trying to suggest we need money more than volunteers then I couldn't disagree more. — Bilorv (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that the English Wikipedia no longer has a problem with declining editor counts. We did have that problem for about four years, starting in 2007 (aligning with the creation of first high-volume anti-vandalism bots – there was suddenly much less work for a large group of editors), but we do not have that problem any longer. The story about editor loss may never die, and certainly I miss some individual editors, but the number of active editors at this wiki has been roughly stable since shortly before you created your account. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for these helpful statistics. I had a vague idea in the back of my head that Wikipedia was losing active editors, and I’m glad to hear that I’m mistaken. Now we just need to stabilize our number of admins... but that’s a question for a different page. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 03:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very big pages

Some time ago, I raised the issue of pages with too much content, or markup. I worked to reduce the worst excesses. Some editors wiki-lawyered over the meaning of WP:TOOBIG, or argued that their pet pages wore somehow special exemptions.

I have just checked Special:LongPages again, and we now have 93 pages with over 400,000 bytes of markup, and 1756 with over 350,000 bytes.

For example, even my pretty punchy Dell XPS laptop is struggling to render 2021 in mammal paleontology, which has 290,852 bytes. Goodness knows how readers on mobile cope. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, that page loads in about a second on my iPhone SE. Vexations (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yup… no delay on my mobile. Blueboar (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TOOBIG is just an informal guideline, not a policy or hard rule, so "special exemptions" are not needed to not apply it to a particular article. RudolfRed (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
QED. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, it's been a long time since I last time talked to a dev about this problem, but if memory serves, I think the size of the page, as rendered, was a bigger problem than the size of the wikitext as stored in the database. A heavily formatted page of 100,000 bytes (e.g., with many links and citations) is bigger than 100,000 bytes of plain text. One website that I checked said that 2021 in mammal paleontology loads about 600 KB. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do we think that pages that render as 600Kb are acceptable? Do we have a page, equivalent to Special:LongPages, that lists the largest pages as rendered? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Iridescent pointed out this site which tries to estimate how "expensive" [in terms of how much money it costs to produce a page on mobile] a given page is. I don't think it can be used for a mass check, though.

Regarding rendered size, the only thing that comes to mind is Category:Pages where post-expand include size is exceeded but I am not sure that "rendered size"="post-expand include size" (Whatamidoing (WMF)) and of course it has a high threshold. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that setting a threshold would require making decisions about human values, rather than objective facts. The higher the limit, the worse for some purposes. The lower the limit, the more pages you have to load to have access to the same information.
But for comparison purposes, Wedding dress (which has a lot of pictures) is around 900 KB, and User:Pigsonthewing is about 540 KB. If those feel reasonable, then – from the sole metric of loading size, and excluding all other considerations – 2021 in mammal paleontology is probably reasonable, too. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 05:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have noticed that wiki pages are sent (by wikipedia web servers) in compressed format, so a 300kB wiki source may be sent as a 60..70kB compressed content whose compressed HTML size could be around 180kB and uncompressed HTML code could be more than 1MB and this without counting all scripts, style sheets and images related to that page.
I guess that the occasional small delay might be due to many factors, i.e.:
- the establishment of a new encrypted connection when web traffic is very high;
and/or
- retrieval of wiki/HTML content from a DB (database) by a web application behind web servers;
and/or
- the compression being made by some web application after last edit of wiki source page;
and/or
- the decompression of HTML code by browser (i.e. from 180kB to 1100kB).
First time I retrieved the above mentioned page "2021 in mammals paleonthology" (I was logged in), it took almost 5 seconds to see the first visual rendering, subsequent complete retrievals of the page (i.e. by pressing CTRL-F5 in browser page), took less than 1 second to show the page and 1.6 seconds to finish the download of all page objects (such as scripts, style sheets, images, etc.), these results were obtained using a 7Mbit Internet line (which nowadays is considered very slow) and a medium speed PC (single CPU, etc.).
Much worst was the retrieval of "2019 in mammals paleonthology" (for the first time) which took more than 6 seconds between the sending of the request and the complete download and render of that page; of course the second time I retrieved the whole page + all of its related objects (scripts, images, etc.) it took much less time, around 2 seconds.
In practice it is clear that if sometimes it takes much more than 1 second to see a big page then it depends on Internet, wikipedia web servers / web applications / web cache / DB retrieval / compression of the content (I am just guessing), etc.
Talking about the impact of slow response in user (web) interfaces, see also wiki article about responsiveness.
I also suspect that web caching of wiki pages and some other objects could be improved noticeably, althought it does not look like to be too bad right now (it looks like that some efforts have been done); anyway caching matters a lot when your website has to manage millions of users because without proper caching policies your website will never scale up enough to avoid these kind of delays (also due to a lot of traffic load).
Besides what has already been suggested by other commenters, here are my hints:
- verify the cacheability level of wiki pages, their scripts and style sheets (technical thing for software engineers and webmasters);
- when a user is logged in (and maybe is trying to edit a wiki page), add an automatic warning message (about page too big) on top of wiki pages whose wiki source (or resulting HTML code) is bigger than a certain threshold, let's say 400kB .. 450kB for wiki source and 1.4MB .. 1.6MB for HTML code;
- if possible add a link to edit only the summary of each wiki page (top of page before first section) so that edits of entire articles are decreased.
In conclusion, I don't think that big wiki pages may slow down the visual rendering of pages because their HTML structure is usually simple enough to not make things too complicated for browsers; instead there might be some other technical issues about caching of wiki pages and heavy load conditions of wiki servers where most big content cannot be retrieved fastly unless it is already in some cache.
Last but not least, often, big wiki pages are big not only because of too much text content (explanations about the topic) but also because of hundreds or thousands of link references shown in section "References" at the end of the page. Maybe something should be done about this too. Ade56facc 17:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the problem is "too big" for the users device to handle (for whatever reason) and "too big" to (easily) edit (for whatever reason), then the solution may be in how we present and handle the data. Our present policy would dictate A parent-daughter article construction to deal with and reduce large articles but each daughter must be a stand-alone article. Obviously this isn't working for Special:LongPages articles. I observe that many of theses are lists or list-like. A solution that occurs to me might lie in how we deliver information in large articles. Rather than all at once, it is delivered as a skeleton structure, fleshed-out "on demand". I have more thoughts on how this might be done but I will leave it at that for now. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've come to notice that some articles that I've created, or worked on, at times very noticeably spike in numbers of daily viewers. I assume this is because a link to the page was posted in some highly frequented site, such as a forum, social media or maybe a youtube video. I'm curious to know if it's possible to know where viewers are arriving from, and not, if it's possible to implement such a functionality. I think it would be interesting.Wareno (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recently spotted an enormous spike to an article I'd written on an obscure topic, Cairngorm Plateau disaster.[1] I did a Google search for the title and immediately found a rather good new Youtube video.[2] Turning somewhat to your question, I know when an external client makes an html request, the receiving web server software can log the client address. But I suppose the record would be kept confidential on privacy grounds. Thincat (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wareno: User:HostBot/Social media traffic report is probably the closest thing to what you're asking. It tracks 150 or so of the articles with the most traffic from social media. Unfortunately, it's officially unmaintained, but at the moment it's still working. Vahurzpu (talk) 07:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's interesting and I did not know about that functionality, though I was thinking more along the lines of a pie-chart that allowed us to see if the most recent users had arrived via another wikipedia page, browser search or via links in some site.Wareno (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gamers notability

Hi, does English wikipedia have relevance criteria/notability criteria for professional gamers and internet personalities like tiktokers and youtubers? And can i get a link if so? --JOestby (talk) 11:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know there are no separate criteria for such people, just the general notability guideline, the notability guideline for people and, if applicable, our policy on biographies of living people. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, speaking for the video game project, while we do outline sources that we consider reliable for such content at WP:VG/S, we don't have special notability factors for gamers; they have to meet the GNG or an appropriate NBIO criteria. --Masem (t) 15:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for something

I found a major issue with a particular article, but it’s talk page was so dead the last discussion wrapped up in 2007. I also noticed that people have tried to fix this major issue already but have been stopped by bots for changing the article too much. I wanted to know if there was a place to discuss cases like these, where you won’t attract anything by posting on the talk page but if you post it in this theoretical place their attention would be directed towards that lonely article for a hot minute. Givemesomesteviewonder (talk) 11:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page of the article would be the correct place to raise this issue, regardless of how "dead" it is. Although, since you already made a post, discussing your issue here would be fine as well. SkyWarrior 20:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to Chynna Phillips then I hardly think that any update is "urgent". If you have a reliable source for what you want to say then you can update it yourself, and if not then you are relying on someone else to find a reliable source, which could take many years. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A random question

In cleaning out a bunch of unused templates, I've found a lot of new articles accidentally created in the Template namespace. I have no idea how this happens, since WP:CREATE handles a lot of the nitty gritty of article creation. Anyone have any theories? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the creator or somebody else got the link syntax wrong and first made a red link with {{Wanted title}} instead of [[Wanted title]]. PrimeHunter3 (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin the Carrot

The UK arm of retailer Aldi is running online ads featuring mocked-up images of a Wikipedia article about their advertising mascot Kevin the Carrot. (imgur mirror). I think it's part of a lengthy Christmas advertising campaign (because apparently it's Christmas here in Britain...) It's perhaps a good idea if a few people watchlist that (red) article. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 00:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radical changes

Hello, all. Hundreds of editors have been using the [reply] button from the Wikipedia:Talk pages project. You can try it now, on this page, by clicking this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)?dtenable=1 That link will give you several fun new tools, including a [subscribe] button. Go ahead; click it, and then subscribe here. You can even change the section heading, and it will still remember that you want to get Special:Notifications for every new comment that gets posted to this section. (It won't bother you about typo fixes or that sort of thing; for those, check your watchlist.)

If you click that link, or if visit Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures and turn on "Discussion tools", you'll see a new little [reply] button after each comment. When you click that, you get a little box to type your message in. It automatically signs your comments and counts all the ::::colons for you. You can choose between visual and wikitext source modes; the source mode comes with a live preview of your message. Both versions let you type @ and get a list of editors who previously commented in this section, just in case you want to ping anyone.

During the last month, the [reply] tool has been used about 10,000 times here at the English Wikipedia. It's been used almost half a million times total, across all wikis since the beginning. The mw:Editing team is almost ready to offer this tool by default for all editors at the English Wikipedia. But I wanted to stop by and ask again:

NB that if you turn on the Beta Feature, you get [reply] plus the New Discussion tool plus [subscribe] plus (soon) some other things. Only the little [reply] tool is ready to be deployed to everyone. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 05:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I like it (the beta feature) a lot, including the easier pings. As an added bonus, it seems to bypass edit conflicts as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it automatically resolves most edit conflicts. This is a very good thing on busy pages. I see occasional complaints about this. Sometimes, if two editors reply at the same time, and they say approximately the same thing, then the second editor feels embarrassed. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This all seems rather wonderful and I enjoyed my play with it, thank you Whatamidoing (WMF). I did have a slight problem in that it appeared to lose One Click Archiver, which I have also come to like. I am rubbish at all this stuff so I may have messed something up, plus this may be the wrong place to comment ... so, apologies if I am out of line and/or being stupid but ... can you please advise on this? Cheers DBaK (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not meant to interfere with any script or gadget, including the One-Click Archiver. I did hear of someone saying that if you use the [subscribe] button, then using the One-Click Archiver seems to generate duplicate notifications (you get notified about a new comment once when someone posts the comments, plus a second time when the thread is archived later). I wonder if anyone else is having this problem? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Whatamidoing (WMF) – I must have another look, as I may just be doing something stupid/wrong. That would be unsurprising. If I do need to discuss it further, is this the right place or would you rather I came to you more directly or took it to some other page, or what? Just whatever works best for people, would be nice to know. Cheers DBaK (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK well I have now, emboldened by the above, turned it all back on and yes it all works like a charm! Thank you. So either I was just deluded (>99%) or there was something really wrong which is now better (<1%). Either way, I am happy with it again. Thanks @Whatamidoing (WMF) et al. Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I remember this: @Tkarcher at the German-language Wikipedia posted a code you can add to Special:MyPage/common.js if you want to replace the "reply" label with something else:
// compact "Reply" links
$( ".ext-discussiontools-init-replylink-reply" ).text('💬');
This will replace the default [reply] with [💬] You can put whatever text or emoji you want where the 💬 is in the second line. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatamidoing (WMF) The button should not be there next to comments that are archived using Template:Archive top and similar. Second thing: some talk pages are factored in a novel way or the discussion is justifiably split in different sections, some being for replies and some not, i.e. there are scenarios where the reply button would appear, but it really wouldn't be the proper place to reply -- instead the proper place would have been somewhere else, or possibly nowhere (Arbitration talk pages). An administrator should be able to decide to switch off the reply button on a specific talk page. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Botsdeny?

I'm sure I didn't dream it... I could swear there used to be a template telling specific bots to stay away. Qwerfjkl (bot) has just trampled over the article Ordinal indicator because it is unaware of the use-mention distinction in the article. It is necessary to write 1<sup>st</sup> to write about that style of ordinal indicator; 1st is a different style. I have reverted but no doubt it will be back. So how do I fend it off? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{bots}}
—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rats, I almost had it. (bots|deny=). Thank you. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@John Maynard Friedman: lets follow up at User talk:Qwerfjkl seems like something is still wrong. — xaosflux Talk 18:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hourly page view statistics?

Anyone got anything on how page views vary per hour? I'd be happy with something showing the sum of page views for all pages on a 24-hour cycle, so I could distribute the daily page views using the same pattern. I'm looking to see how many people viewed various pages during specific intervals of minutes/hours as part of User:Enterprisey/AIV analysis - I'm looking to answer "how many people viewed these pages while they were being vandalized at high speed". Enterprisey (talk!) 07:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That data would make it to easy to identify behaviour of specific users on low visit count of pages. If you have specific ideas, try approaching the analytics they have access to a lot more data than is publicly available. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointer! Will try. Enterprisey (talk!) 09:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Series overview

In the “Series overview”, “Originally aired” is divided into “First aired” and “Last aired”. Is it possible to combine several “info” into a similar cell in the header of the template? Jolf Staler (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is best discussed in the talk page of the template or perhaps in the templates section of the Television WikiProject — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 19:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jolf Staler, what's an example of two cells that you want to combine? Enterprisey (talk!) 23:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Enterprisey, Region 1, Region 2, Region 4 in "DVD release dates" — Jolf Staler (talk) 08:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Low views - recent record

I notice that the overall daily pageviews have not exceeded the 250 million mark since 12 September. This is by far the longest period below that mark since the current stats began in 2015. They are still falling - 222 M for the 10th. Johnbod (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Increased indoor activity likely predicts increased online activity. It seems to roughly peak and trough based on weather temps in the northern hemisphere. Reaching a low around now. This year has been unusually warm on average. As it will go nearly every year, winter/fall/spring are getting shorter from global warming. -- GreenC 04:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of your kids?

Is it OK to put portraits of one's minor children on one's userpage? Keeping in mind that you can't prove it's really your kid. Of course, that's true of all portraits. But these are minors... might be that a proof ticket should be required? Asking. And I mean, even if you took the photo (and have the copyright), the subject didn't consent to be published because they can't... but guardian's rights probably allow it?

I couldn't find anything saying its not OK, not at Wikipedia:User pages or Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy which would be the place I think. That page says children themselves should not post their "date of birth, first and last name, current age, relative or family information, the location (including the country, state, province, city, county, or district) in which they currently live or have previously lived, their current school and grade level, email address, phone number, home address, or the address of a location they attend or visit regularly", but:

  • It doesn't mention pictures, and
  • It doesn't say your guardian shouldn't do these things.

So... good to go? Maybe I'm overthinking this? Herostratus (talk) 08:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't given the amount of data harvesting that third party sites do from here and also of how powerful image recognition software is these days. Your kids, your choice. - X201 (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
^ concur Enterprisey (talk!) 09:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The question is why would you want to? Why give vandals and tendentious editors an outlet to engage in further harassment?--WaltCip-(talk) 17:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely would avoid clear, identifable pictures of non-public figure minors for reasons above. On the other hand, a far-away shot of kids playing in a public area such as on a playground (eg File:Perivoj_Zrinskih,_Čakovec_-_tobogani_na_dječjem_igralištu.jpg would be fine (consent is not required for public shots like that), and if you're wanting to utilize your kids to help provide that type of free content to show children's activities, that would be reasonable. But again, you want to avoid clear identifable images. --Masem (t) 17:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Herostratus Do you have a concern about a particular user or a particular image on a user page? Or is this a question about something that hasn't happened but that you imagine might one day happen? If it is the former, talk to the user. If you have done that and still have concerns, contact WMF Trust & Safety. If it is the latter, the answer is that users are free to put images on their user page within the guidelines of WP:USER. That includes images of their minor children. Please sign my guestbook (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&oldid=1054922505"