Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Access dates for bot filled references

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1749282825}}

{{CSS image crop

|Image = Porto (45829468064).gif

|bSize = 900

|cWidth = 900

|cHeight = 200

|oTop = 100

|oLeft = 0

}}

At this writing, there were {{formatnum:{{1x|{{formatnum:6,991,903|R}}}}}} articles in the encyclopedia, and as you are reading, there are now {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}. There are {{#expr: 7000000 - {{formatnum:{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}|R}} }} left to go to hit the big 7M! We did it! Who will be the lucky one to make the seven millionth edit article?? Mathglot (talk) 07:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)   {{tooltip|File:Toicon-icon-stone-pin.svg|Pinned until 7 June.}}

: P.S. If you are sitting here hitting reload to see the number change, you might need to {{purge}} the page instead. While you do that, you can [http://listen.hatnote.com/ listen to the calming sound] of Wikipedia being edited. Mathglot (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Surely we've hit our 7th million edit! I have a list of notable article topics and I might get to some of them, so I'll try and chip away at a quarter of a percent. CMD (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, we're up into the region of 1.2 thousand million edits now (specifically, {{NUMBEROFEDITS}}). I suspect that Mathglot meant "seven millionth article" when they wrote "seven millionth edit". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::: Big 'oops!' on my part. Of course I meant article, thanks for the correction. Someone trout me! Mathglot (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::100px CMD (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::: Gawrsh, thanks; I needed that!   [wipes trout juice and a few silvery scales off chin...]   Mathglot (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:I wonder what % of those articles don't meet the WP:Notability guidelines... Some1 (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::Probably a smaller number than the number of articles that could meet the notability guidelines that don't yet exist, so it should all balance out in some way. CMD (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:What is the seventh million article ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 09:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::That's being figured out at Wikipedia talk:Seven million articles. CMD (talk) 09:59, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks ! Anatole-berthe (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Candy corn in a jar.png

Anyone want to take a guess at when it will happen? You'll probably at least qualify for the Barnstar of Arbitrary Achievement, and bragging rights (at least, until we get to 8 million). Cast your bets... Mathglot (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• I'll start. 12:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC) {{snd}} that's my guess! Mathglot (talk) 04:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Put me down for May 18th, 2025. Cremastra (u — c) 17:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Place my bet for May 26. -- GreenC 17:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• It will be in Spring 2026 earliest and we will be hitting 7 mil by Autumun 2026.--85.99.19.82 (talk) 06:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• Just for fun: https://chatgpt.com/share/68259512-662c-8005-bf31-eacdc0261058 RoySmith (talk) 07:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• : That is fun, and just recording it here (in case CGPT links go stale at some point; do they?):
• :: "{{xt|Wikipedia is projected to reach 7 million articles in approximately 12 to 13 days, around May 27–28, 2025.}}" ^{(emphasis added)}
• : Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :: Looks like you won the prediction contest, Roy, but given that you had an assist from AI, maybe we should split the prize between you and {{u|GreenC}}? {{wink}} Mathglot (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::I had a good estimate on this because I wrote the program that generates Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by article count which every month creates this Special:Diff/1283573529/1288390779 which has been consistent in number of new articles. The unknown was AfD and time of day. The nearly accurate guess suggests my program is working as it should which is a fine prize. -- GreenC 04:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::I, for one, welcome our new AI overlords. RoySmith (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• Having carried out zero further research or looked at numbers, putting my bet on 8 June, World Oceans Day, which celebrates another international commons. CMD (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Before May 31, 2025 There’s only like 600 to go so it’ll happen soon 2001:8003:B15F:8000:9D9F:CA90:2C03:989C (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Let me plug Wikipedia:Pools. 7 million and it's corresponding topic are Closed but plenty of future ones to add your predictions to. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[ᴛ]

What are we going to do for that. A party maybe or something else.

Therealbubb1e (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think that wait is the best. The count itself isn't essential.

:The seventh million article will be there one day. But the count doesn't matter.
Anatole-berthe (talk) 05:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Do we have a special globe logo ready for the occassion? Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Some discussion over what happens to the main page over at Talk:Main Page. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

…but that will take a while.

Current number of registered users: {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} (last time I looked at the stats to see how close we are to 7000000 pages, this was at around 41–42 million) 2001:8003:B15F:8000:14DF:43D6:D80B:3FF0 (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:I checked it a few minutes ago — must be a few million off of my estimate (nearly 49.2 million now) 2001:8003:B15F:8000:14DF:43D6:D80B:3FF0 (talk) 10:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::A few minutes before posting [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#c-2001:8003:B15F:8000:14DF:43D6:D80B:3FF0-20250527104000-Next_is_most_likely_50_million_registered_users…] I mean… 2001:8003:B15F:8000:9D9F:CA90:2C03:989C (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Among these accounts. How many of these were used in the year 2025 ?

:::I suppose that approximately 95-99,99% weren't used in the year 2025. Anatole-berthe (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

According to the counter on the Main Page, we've hit 7 million articles. Woohoo. Go us :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

: Yes, we have, cue the fireworks! Mathglot (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::02:26 UTC on May 28, 2025. Just a random Wikipedian^(talk) 03:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:Anyone know what the 7th million article was (and who created it)? –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:: I was wondering the same thing. They should get some kind of acknowledgement on their Talk page. What happened at the six millionth edit, what did they do then? Mathglot (talk) 04:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:: {{u|Coffee}}, do you recall how it was determined that {{u|Rosiestep}} had created Maria Elise Turner Lauder, the 6 millionth article, according to this discussion? There is also: Wikipedia:Six million articles. Watch Wikipedia talk:Seven million articles#Hashing out the 7 millionth article. Mathglot (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Doing it quick and dirty (i.e. just counting backwards 116, which is at what it is at now), I think it may be Drazhnawski rural council created by {{u|Altenmann}}, plus or minus a couple (which are also similar articles created by Altenmann). This count is not entirely accurate of course, so take that with a grain of salt, but it was definitely in that sequence of article creations. Another possibility is Nikolay Alyokhin by {{u|BeanieFan11}}, which is within the margin-of-error (the margin-of-error being that the article count in Special:Statistics has a delay). Curbon7 (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::What's up with the Belarus theme? Cremastra (u — c) 12:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Perhaps rather than one article, the real winner should be our coverage of Belarus. CMD (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::See the discussion over at the talk page of WP:7M. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 04:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Million article milestones navbox}}

[https://officechai.com/ai/chatgpt-only-website-among-top-10-most-visited-to-see-increase-in-users-all-others-decline/ Recent news reports say that] traffic to AI website ChatGPT has surpassed Wikipedia.org. I used to derive pleasure from providing information to the whole world ... I had no qualms about donating hundreds, even thousands of hours of my time: I did it proudly. It seemed noble.

But now Wikipedia is one of the primary sources of raw data for the AI models. In a couple of years, almost all people will directly ask an AI tool (which will rely heavily on Wikipedia articles) and bypass Wikipedia altogether. It is inevitable; can't stop progress. Granted, the work of WP editors is still (indirectly) helping millions of people around the globe ... even when people go through AI to get the information.

But what bothers me is: the owners/C-suite executives of the AI companies are getting exceedingly wealthy, off the back of free labor from Wikipedia editors. What was once noble, now feels like exploitation. Noleander (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:That is the nature of all such projects. Surely you're not surprised people are actually taking us up on the "even commercially" clause of the CC-BY-SA license we use? RoySmith (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::You don't actually have to be "surprised" to decide that something feels icky to you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::@RoySmith No, I'm not surprised, just saddened. Sure, WP was always copied & used freely, even by commercial ventures. But the AI companies are massively profitable (Google, Microsoft, Facebook, etc) ... in the past, companies that copied WP for profit seemed marginal, and not exploitive.

::Another thing that is changing is that people used to visit the WP web site(s) a lot; but that seems to be declining due to AI (so says the recent internet stats) ... one can image - 5 years in the future - that users never visit the WP web sites, and instead get all of that same info from AI portals. In that scenario: WP is simply raw data for AI, and WP editors are exploited drones.

::Much of the pride of being a WP editor will disappear in that scenario, at least for me. Noleander (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Hard to say if AI summaries will steal 20% of our traffic or 50% or whatever. Or it could be a big nothing burger. Microsoft used to think that tablets would replace most desktop computers too (think Windows 8). Sometimes hype cycles (new technologies) flop pretty spectacularly after the initial hype. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Novem Linguae You're right about the hype possibility: Hard to predict what the digital world will be like 10 or 20 years from now.

::::I enjoy editing WP, it is a hobby. I'm not suggesting that editors should be paid by massively profitable AI companies ... But wouldn't it be nice if the AI companies made some donations to Wikimedia Foundation in recognition of the value of the WP raw data? Noleander (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I do not think it can just be called hype. Since I'm in college, I can confidently say that no one around me does their assignments the traditional way now. Everyone uses ChatGPT or whatever, even if it is known to hallucinate or spit rubbish sometimes. If this is the confidence with which people are using AI now, and such is their dependency on it, it is extremely difficult to revert back to when there was no AI. And all those tech giants pushing AI summaries over anything else doesn't help either. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 01:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Anecdotally, I stopped visiting Wikipedia for general reference when the default layout redesign was launched. I find it harder to read and navigate, but I don't care to create an account just for that. I think the change coincided with the rise in popularity of LLMs, so if I'm in any way representative, that might be a significant factor too. I doubt most people care about it as much as I do and most people are probably used to it by now, but maybe it had some effect. 207.11.240.2 (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Bloggers and commercial sites (some, not all) have been copying from us without attribution for years. What seems to have changed is that search engines now prioritize their own LLMs over WP. Running LLMs is quite expensive, however. [https://www.gzeromedia.com/gzero-ai/will-ai-companies-ever-be-profitable This article] is six months old, but I suspect the companies pushing LLMs haven't seen a profit yet. Whether they will in the foreseeable future is a question I can't answer. Donald Albury 22:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Donald Albury - Isn't it true that the biggest AI companies are Google, Microsoft, Musk, and Facebook? (OpenAI/ChatGPT is partially owned by Microsoft, I believe). Those are huge, profitable companies, and their executives make big $$$$$. Sure, they may stick their AI work into subsidiaries that lose money on paper, but the parent companies continue to be profitable. And the loss-leader AI subsidiaries drive customers to the parent apps/websites, which have ads, etc.

::Example: in the future, most questions that people type into Google web site will be run thru Google's AI. I foresee Google's AI using WP as a primary source. So WP editors are working - unpaid - for Google. It is bothersome that most Google employee get paid, but WP editors would not. Noleander (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::But, will they continue to pump money into running LLMs if they do not become profitable? Big companies will pour money into developing products, but if the products do not become profitable within some period, they will cut their losses. So the questions are, when or if will LLMs become profitable to operate, and if they do not become profitable, will one or more companies continue to subsidize them because of other perceived benefits? Donald Albury 02:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Google (and much of the rest of the word) runs on Linux. Does it bother you that Linux developers don't get paid? If you don't want people to make money off your volunteer efforts, find projects to contribute to which don't allow commercial use. RoySmith (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::You're right: there are many examples of billionaires profiting from the free labor of volunteers. But that doesn't make it fair or ethical. The 1% oligarchs shouldn't be able to hoard 99% of the planet's wealth .... Nothing wrong with pointing that profiteering off free labor is happening here in the context of Wikipedia.

::::Volunteer scientists around the world for centuries have built-up useful, global knowledge without pay. But were oligarchs routinely profiting from that? Yeah, probably sometimes, but not it was not common.

::::In addition to the issue of "should AI companies pay WP for its content" is a related issue of ''"It's kinda sad that visits to WP articles are gradually diminishing as people shift to AI portals".

::::The same thing happening to WP is also happening with Stack Exchange ... for the past decade a very popular online resource (built by volunteers) for engineers ... but now its web traffic is dropping because its user base is shifting to AI portals. Noleander (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|But now Wikipedia is one of the primary sources of raw data for the AI models.}} Is it? I mean, that would be a scandal for anyone trying to push such AI as reliable because even Wikipedia says Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. So I'm both surprised and a bit suspicious about that claim. At any rate, it would make more sense for AI to be told to follow all the references cited on Wikipedia and glean from them. Largoplazo (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Largoplazo I hope you're right. But I am pretty sure that AI _is_ using WP as a primary source of its data. For the past 2 months I've tried using AI a couple dozen times to find new sources for research I'm working on, and at least 80% of the results are facts (generally correct) that include a "source link" (a kind of AI footnote) pointing to a WP article (often the article I'm working on :-) Noleander (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:The open source movement in general has pros and cons. People we don't want to use our open source work using our open source work is certainly one of the cons. Won't stop me from editing though. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Just as an interesting aside, of the court cases challenging whether using copyrighted materials consistitutes fair use, the courts seem to be siding for creators. If this holds, then arguably any AI that has used WP content needs to follow up by including necessary attribution licenses per CC-By, or otherwise seek an exemption license from WMF. Nothings final yet though. Masem (t) 00:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, I've been following that legal issue closely. That is a battle between titans: on the one hand Google/Microsoft/Facebook: on the other hand: Hollywood/Music/authors. The "fair use" exception is so broad, who knows how SCOTUS will ultimately rule. I was happy to see a court decision in Australia about 2 years ago where they forced search engines (Google, etc) to pay $$$ to news sources, when the search app was earning massive revenue for merely listing the news articles, and paying nothing for the content.... that at time when newspapers are dying at an alarming rate. Noleander (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:It doesn't have any effect on my ability to write Wikipedia articles or other people's ability to read them, so I don't see why it should make any difference to me. User:Thebiguglyalien/Wikipedia is not about page views. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::Most of us who edit Wikipedia were sucked into it while we used to read it. A generation that never visits Wikipedia to read it would not feel the urge or need to edit contents here. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 02:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Ever since AI exploded, I've started to understand how the editors of Encyclopedia Britannica (hardcopy) must have felt in the 1980s ... wondering if your entire medium will become irrelevant.

:::I wonder if AI will continue to make lots of mistakes, leading to increased attention to the quality of the raw data (especially WP articles) ... if so, WP will become more important, not to say more often viewed. Noleander (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::On the other hand, the Wikipedia screenshot as a questionable source has been dethroned by llm screenshots, so we've got no longer being the generic lowest common denominator going for us. CMD (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::-) Donald Albury 15:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I read an article in The Guardian a few weeks ago that said that AI hallucinations are not going to go away as time goes on, and might even get worse. I'll see if I can find the page. Cremastra (u — c) 12:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::And the hits keep coming: from [https://www.npr.org/2025/05/20/nx-s1-5405022/fake-summer-reading-list-ai the summer reading booklist.] Donald Albury 16:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Ah yes, that was a good one. I didn't find the Guardian article but there are [https://www.newscientist.com/article/2479545-ai-hallucinations-are-getting-worse-and-theyre-here-to-stay/ New Scientist] and other articles with the same premise. Cremastra (u — c) 22:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Since I discovered that it is possible to get paid (to the tune of a 5 figure sum in a matter of a few months), for stumping frontier LLMs on a platform that I won't name (but whose clients undoubtedly include OpenAI, Google, Meta etc.) my editing on wikipedia has all but ceased. The latest LLMs are data hungry, they have pretty much exhausted all open sources of information. Polyamorph (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think the remarkable aspect isn't that businesses take advantage of free work (they've been doing that forever), but that so many people have been willing to contribute their work for anyone to freely use (which I wouldn't have predicted at Wikipedia's genesis). For Linux, there's a huge network effect that makes it beneficial to its contributors, but there's nothing equivalent for Wikipedia at the scale of its volunteer base. This probably makes Wikipedia vulnerable to disenchantment, and as others have said, losing readers through less prominent positioning in search results affects recruitment of new editors. isaacl (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::[https://artsci.washington.edu/news/2025-05/challenge-peer-produced-websites This article about peer-produced websites] (posted by Jmabel below) might interest some of you. It says that @Benjamin Mako Hill "is also noticing new challenges on the horizon, most notably the trend of AI content being listed first in web search results, ahead of Wikipedia — a particularly galling development given that generative AI is built using sites like Wikipedia that provide freely available content." WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think this is a major concern. Obviously, the foundational model companies and governments will all get together to organize a substantial universal basic income for everyone based on the radical abundance that is just a few years away now. You can probably see early signs of the likelihood of success for these happy days of abundance, benevolence, and good governance, the communist hi-tech work-free utopia I was promised as a child, in the way the One Big Beautiful Bill Act tries to optimize for equity... I don't mind Wikipedia data being part of the training sets, or part of the retrieval augmented responses, but it's especially galling when LLMs provide an A/B test as a response - do you like this answer or the other answer? - I mean, come on, why is the model asking me, I'm an idiot, which it should already know from some of the stupid questions I've asked. Anyway, synthetic data probably dwarfs the Wikipedia data by now. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

The "Did You Know..." section has had something like 3 or 4 Jilly Cooper related posts over the last couple of weeks. Do we really need that many centered around one author? It seems like after one, the space could be used for a fresh topic. 130.156.51.193 (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Briefly looking at the archive for May, Jilly Cooper or her novels were mentioned in the "Did You Know..." section on May 21st, May 20th, May 17th, May 15th, and May 7th. This does seem excessive Spritestraw (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Wikipedia's Did You Know section's content is determined by what topics people write about. If one prolific worker writes 5 articles about Jilly Cooper that meet the DYK criteria, then they will all get shown in recognition of that work. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That's the problem with the DYK section. It seems to exist for the purpose of giving recognition to editors rather than for the benefit of readers. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::You would think that editors would have the sense not to nominate every article just because they can, but to only nominate those articles with the best hooks. Or to hold articles in draft space and release them in a more staggered fashion. But I guess the virtual shiny sticker for having a DYK is just too splendiferously magnificent to pass up. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It is a very common way of working for content creators. Having obtained the sources for one topic, it becomes straightforward to update more, related articles. DYK is a showcase of what the community is working on, so no problem. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Very true. DYK does try to space things out so May 20 and May 21 are likely a mistake, but it takes a lot of work to create these lists and manpower is short. If anyone thinks things could be improved and wants to try their hand at curating a DYK set, they should give it a go. CMD (talk) 02:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::Also, a more appropriate venue would be WT:DYK. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Note — I am not complaining about this situation! I mention names only to give some context.

In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1291779126#Request_to_Create_Draft%3ABinod_Tamu_Ballu this section], an IP asked for help with the title blacklist, and User:Liz replied with "can you try creating a version in your User space? I'm not sure if that's okay for IP accounts but I'd try that". Is that okay for IP accounts? Should we be suggesting this? From a technical perspective I don't expect any problems. I just don't remember ever seeing IPs creating userspace or usertalkspace pages, and I have no idea if it's a good idea. I think I've once or twice seen user talk archives for stable IPs with long-term histories, but I can't bring up any examples, so I have no idea whether these were created by their "owners" or by other people. Note that my point is pages in IP userspace, not IPs creating pages in userspace; if it's okay to have these pages, I assume it's okay for IPs to create or edit them. Nyttend (talk) 10:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:I can't see anything wrong per-se with IPs creating userspace subpages, but I should point out that temporary accounts are coming so whatever advice is given here will be largely moot when that happens. The timing has not yet been nailed down; as far as I can tell, TA is supposed to get rolled out on enwiki around the end of this year. RoySmith (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I remember stumbling upon a Wikipedia essay about users coming back after long-ago blocks. There were several examples of users who had been blocked as children for vandalism and returned years later as adults, and their blocks were lifted because this was obviously reasonable. I remember there was one case study where a user got blocked for block evasion because they somehow identified themselves as a new account of a blocked user, but the old account had been blocked when they were 9 or something like that, and everyone agreed that lifting the block was reasonable. I think the essay was about users coming back unannounced, keeping their heads down, and avoiding problematic behaviour. I've tried searching but can't find it - does anyone know what I'm referring to? Thanks! Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 21:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:Maybe Wikipedia:Standard offer -- GreenC 21:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::Sounds more like Wikipedia:Clean start. —Cryptic 22:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:Wikipedia:Quiet return addresses this topic. I'm sure I've seen another one somewhere. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::Probably this one: User:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you! It was the two you linked to (User:Worm That Turned/Quiet return and User:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock). No wonder I couldn't find them, because they were in userspace. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 06:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I often try to trim the backlog on :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting and have noticed that recently (past 6+ months) a lot more draft articles have been added with references sections like as can be seen here. As these articles tend to be written by new editors, my impression is that there's a tutorial somewhere instructing editors to do this (or maybe a feature of the visual editor, though that feels unlikely). I haven't started looking through tutorials yet, but I'm curious if anyone here knows about this.

Thanks!
Daℤyzzos (✉️ • 📤) 23:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:Drafts made with LLMs sometimes add the references like that. Current Examples of Drafts clearly written with LLMs: Lambadi language, Josef von Rickenbach, Caligomos Art. Nobody (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::Nice catch. I went ahead and tagged all those drafts {{t|LLM}}, and I added this tell to WP:AITELLS. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

: {{Thank you}} to both of the above!{{snd}}Daℤyzzos (✉️ • 📤) 21:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Country and ethnic flags are commonly used to represent languages (including here, with examples including the {{tlx|Wikipedias in Germanic languages}} and {{tlx|Wikipedias in Romance languages}} navboxes), with common examples including [later edit] using the flag of the US or the UK to represent English, the flag of Japan for Japanese [end of later edit. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 00:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)], and so on.

However, country and ethnic flags do not represent languages. As the name suggests, they represent countries, which is particularly problematic in many circumstances:

• For languages which are spoken in many countries (such as English, Spanish or French), that means a specific country or countries are seen subjectively as "more representative" of the language than others. Spanish, for example, is usually represented with the flag of Spain, despite the fact that three other countries have more Spanish speakers than Spain and, within Spain itself, many other languages are commonly spoken besides Castilian.
• For countries where many languages are widely spoken only there (such as South Africa or India), country flags become even more problematic as they can be associated with nationalistic assimilation (such as using the Indian flag to represent Hindi) or simply using country flags for less commonly spoken languages within those countries (such as using the South African flag for Afrikaans).
• For languages spoken in countries with uniquely marked national identities (such as Serbo-Croatian), using any country's flag can be also misconstrued as endorsement for either one or other form of nationalism.
• For countries which are uniquely controversial in the international stage (such as China, Israel or Russia), using their national flags to represent the languages they speak may be misconstrued as endorsing those countries' political stances or actions, particularly by people personally affected by those countries' actions (such as the Taiwanese, Palestinians, Ukrainians, etc.)
• For lingua francas with no native speakers (such as MSA), using the flag of any country to represent them is inappropriate as no country actually speaks that language as a national tongue.
• For countries where a language used to be commonly spoken but not anymore (such as using the Colombian flag for Muysccubun), using said country's flag is not appropriate either, as that language is not representative of its country's modern population, and usually the modern country is not representative of the people whose language went extinct.
• For languages spoken by groups which do not have any unique official symbology (such as Yiddish, Pennsylvania Dutch or Alemannic German), using any flag to represent them in the encyclopedia is original research (tho, to be honest, I think WP:OR applies to using flags for languages in general).

The only case where I can see using flags to represent languages as acceptable is when a flag has been chosen specifically to represent a language, such as the Verda Stelo for Esperanto.

And so, I come here to discuss the use of non-official flags to represent languages, which I believe should not be done in Wikipedia as it constitutes original research, plus the reasons enlisted above. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 00:23, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:These are all good observations. There is a long section at MOS:FLAG.It says they should only be used when the subject is a nation. And says don't use a flag when it might be ambiguous or controversial or not clear. Both these are a problem for languages. Perhaps add something in the "Inappropriate use" section, -- GreenC 01:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:Per MOS:ICONDECORATION: {{tq|Icons should serve an encyclopedic purpose and not merely be decorative. They should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation.}} On first use, they must indicate the country associated with the flag (MOS:WORDPRECEDENCE). If they are not being used where words alone would convey the same information, then they are redundant and primarily decorative. Per MOS:FLAGS, with some exceptions, they should not be used in infoboxes (per MOS:FLAGS). Flags can serve a useful purpose if they act as a "key" or "shorthand" for information in different sections of a table or infobox. MOS:MILFLAGS gives clarification on this, which also has some degree of general applicability. Apart from the issues identified by the OP as to why the use of flags in an infobox for a language would be problematic, the prevailing P&G does not support their use in such an infobox. Furthermore, it would not support their use elsewhere in the article if the use was redundant (being presented with text) and therefore primarily decorative. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think that MOS:FLAG sometimes gets invoked a bit overenthusiastically to remove country flags, but this feels a pretty open-and-shut example of where we generally agree they should be avoided. I think you can just go ahead and remove them.

:Having said that I'm also not sure if it's a widespread problem - these two templates seem to have had them added by the same user relatively recently, and I don't recall seeing them very commonly elsewhere, so maybe this is an unusual case. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::Looking at :Muscogean languages, I see that :Choctaw language and :Muscogee language each have both the US and their respective tribal flags in the infobox under official languages. No idea how many other language articles have flags in their infoboxes Donald Albury 14:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Very few do… and likely none should. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::: It seems to be common practice for flags to be used in the {{para|nation}} and {{para|minority}} fields of {{tl|Infobox language}}. Back in 2015 when that infobox was added to AnomieBOT's FlagIconRemover task, those two fields were called out as exceptions to the bot-removal of flags. OTOH, :Choctaw language and :Muscogee language may be misusing the {{para|nation}} field to indicate sub-national regions; that'd be a question for someone more familiar with the infobox. Anomie⚔ 15:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::: Pinging User:Kwamikagami to this discussion as the one who made the bot request back in the day, since they're still active. Anomie⚔ 15:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::the point of the flag is not to id the language, but as a visual aid to id the country. language flags like the esperanto one would be added as an illustration of the language, not as an id in the country or region list.

::::::afaik we haven't used flags for official countries in years, mainly because ppl keep abusing them and arguing over trivia that is merely meant to be a visual aid. i don't know where the discussion is where we decided to stop.

::::::i wouldn't be opposed to re-instituting flags, but we'd need clear and precise criteria. there is general agreement across wp that flags should only be used for de jure and de facto official usage. so e.g. for cherokee, we might have the flags of the various tribal jurisdictions of the cherokee nation, but not of the u.s.a., which doesn't use cherokee in an official capacity. and then those flags would probably only be acceptable in the 'official language' section, not in the region or country sections. and then we'd be back to chronic edit wars with ppl who don't like the criteria, or who insist that the language is official where it isn't — kwami (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::: {{tq|q=y|afaik we haven't used flags for official countries in years}} FYI, there are 223 articles that are likely to still have flags for official countries (i.e. articles where AnomieBOT's FlagIconRemover task has logged "nothing to do" for an article with "language" in its title). If we don't want to allow flags in {{tl|Infobox language}} {{para|nation}} and {{para|minority}} anymore, I can update the bot to let it clean those up. Anomie⚔ 21:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::i don't remember where the discussion was, and there may have been a more recent consensus. we should probably start a discussion at the wiki project if we want to make a permanent decision — kwami (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::: Sounds like a good plan to me. Anomie⚔ 22:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::i added a notice there linking back here — kwami (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I know I am not that active editing here but I'm a sysop in two other sites, one is relatively big. I think since the English Wikipedia is the biggest I figure some of you maybe able to respond. I'm looking for an input and views how to handle my decreased motivation and general repulsion, disgust to Wikipedia and its sister projects. Because I think I was abused? maltreated? I still don't understand, treated like that by a chapter, volunteer committees, and WMF. I feel like, I can't justify my 14 years being a moron, like being duped, and making contribution anymore. Since this is not about articles or local policies, I'm posting this here. I'm sorry if this is not the right place to ask because I think posting this on Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) would be like facing the perpetrators head-on. I posted similarly before on Meta with fewer responses. Thank you.

RXerself (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:Take a break. After a while, if you miss it, come back. If you don't miss it, find something else to do. RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|RoySmith}}, {{ping|Donald Albury}} Yes, I tried. But links to Wikipedia and the other sites are everywhere. It comes out on web search results, on group chats with strangers, even the late Norm MacDonald named it in a comedy special I tried to watch. It is not that I'm tired or bored or annoyed or demoralized, I feel demeaned.

::RXerself (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:I endorse RoySmith's advice. Thirty years ago I started telling myself and others that if you no longer enjoy what you are doing, drop it and find something else. I've grown tired of WP more than once in the past 20 years and drifted away, often going months without making an edit, and then returned to active editing. Do try to not burn any bridges, however satisfying that feel at the time. Donald Albury 16:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::Apart from offering good general advice, as RoySmith and Donald Albury have done, there's not much we can do if you don't provide any specifics. Another piece of general advice to follow is to remember that chapters, volunteer committees and the WMF are not Wikipedia. We (including you) are. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Phil Bridger}} Yeah that's the thing. I feel like my edits, beside of whoever has benefited from it, also have been exploited to:

:::1) enrich WMF and some of its employees without users like me be benefited from their supposed responsibility; and

:::2) enable a local chapter to hold large power enough to make threats and mistreat me with impunity, with which,

:::3) the inability or incapacity of certain volunteer committees to oversee the behaviors of WMF and chapters.

:::And I feel like these aren't minor things from which I can recover any desire to contribute. It's harder when these even stemmed out from something happened IRL.

:::RXerself (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:I soldiered on for years, motivated by the knowledge that what I was doing was helping our readers but slowly realising that the WMF was exploiting us mercilessly. Finally, it got too much and I simply walked away. I may return one day if the volunteers who make Wikipedia regain some control, or join a credible fork if one appears, but I've found plenty of other enjoyable and productive uses for my time. As others have said, if you're not enjoying your time here, it may be time to tidy up your work in progress and move on, but consider making the occasional edit to keep your eye in and try not to burn bridges. An editor who leaves in good standing will always be welcomed back. Certes (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Certes: I don't think we volunteers will ever regain some control if we don't care and don't push. I want to move on but like I said above, I simply can't, Wikipedia mentioned everywhere. I want to tell a lot. I feel like nothing will be done after, the problems are in us editors as well where we are making room for the exploitation to go on, for abuses to go on. I agree a lot with what you said in your profile page and it's a shame to this site and community that you had to do that.

::RXerself (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%2Fcanoo%5C.net%2F canoo.net (dead, 7 hits)] vs Canoo (dead too). Is it the same company or not? What to do with the dead references on 7 pages? Taylor 49 (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

: Well I found Q36486216 (7 wikis, plus a least one never connected to that item) and Q1033575 (1 wiki) "Canoonet was an online dictionary with an attached grammar for the German language. The basic dictionary of Canoonet contained approximately 250,000 entries, which corresponded to more than 3 million word forms with over 25,000 application examples, the meaning information and synonyms for over 100,000 keywords and descriptions of linguistic terms. At the beginning of 2020 canoonet was discontinued and part of the content was acquired by LEO GmbH". Taylor 49 (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:CanooNet (canoo.net) apparently did not renew their domain at the end of July, 2019. There seems to be a comprehensive record of its pages up to then on the Internet Archive, accessible through the Wayback Machine. Donald Albury 16:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:See :Template:Webarchive recovering links to dead webpages. Donald Albury 16:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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