Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Need article-namespace sandbox

Is there a way to compile this info from the existing statistics? I am curious about the proportion of edits from each group (anonymous, autoconfirmed, extended confirmed, etc.) CVDX (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:@CVDX, I suggest that you ask at Wikipedia:Request a query, and then put the answer in Wikipedia:Wikipedians (and/or other pages) so other editors will be able to find the answer later. You might need to make a few more decisions (e.g., whether you want to check only the article space, what about bots, what about AWB/Twinkle/scripts, etc.). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia? is another page that might be appropriate for your results. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:The analytics team [https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_Platform/Data_Lake/Edits/MediaWiki_history_dumps maintains a denormalized dataset] which I think has what you need to do this, although you'll probably need their help to set up the appropriate Hadoop job. I'd start by getting in touch with them via [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Data_Platform_Engineering/Intake_Process their contact page] RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::I agree. It looks like they have an easy way of figuring out what groups a user was in at a given time, which is difficult to do from the live database replicas for a single user and entirely impractical to do in bulk. —Cryptic 01:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm 90% it was the product of a WMF project. IIRC: It was shaped like a triangle of squares, colored from green to red. One of the axises was the year/month of account creation; the other was, for a given date, the probability that the account was still active. I came past it around march of this year, but I can't find it anymore. Does that ring a bell to anyone? Thanks, — Alien  3
3 3 17:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:Is it [https://retention.toolforge.org/enwiki https://retention.toolforge.org/enwiki]? I previously put a link to it under {{section link|Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention|Resources}} so I could find it again. isaacl (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:: Thanks you very much. That's exactly what I was looking for. :) — Alien  3
3 3 18:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

In the recent RfC on the fate of ITN, the closers suggested a follow up RfC in 6 months (July 2025) as to whether ITN should be abolished. I am starting a discussion now so that we can take a look at what, if anything, has changed within the last 6 months. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:28, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

{{block indent|em=1.6|1=Notified: [[Wikipedia talk:In the news]]. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)}}

• My perspective is the same it's always been - I'm an impassioned "no" on getting rid of ITN or making the changes that have generally been suggested for the section. In fact, I actually think much better about the state of ITN lately. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• That prior discussion (from 6months ago), is the usual result when there are seemingly odd decisions at ITN about what to post or not post that come up every once in a while. Since then, while there's been a few couple similar incidents, I'm not seeing anything that suggests that there needs to be any change here. That prior argument on abolishing ITN is just one of those knee-jerk reactions that I don't think really still has legs now. ITN is not perfect, by any means, but the step to abolish it is just too far. Masem (t) 19:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• I'm still opposed to "abolishing" ITN. As an editor who occasionally checks the main page (with From today's featured article and In the news being the only two sections that I read or skim over) and who isn't involved with the behind-the-scenes stuff of ITN, ITN seems pretty much the same as it did six months ago. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Some1 (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. You'll have to remind me what the arguments for abolishing it are. If it's because it's toxic, well I'd rather do something to fix the toxicity than scrap a major part of the main page. It's also a good funnel for getting new editors involved, such as when I got an ITN in 2010: User talk:Novem Linguae/Archive 1#ITN%3A 2010 cargo plane bomb plot. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• ITN should be canned as it is still quite dysfunctional. Just look at its current state – it's got nothing about the Iran-Israel conflict even though this is all over the news. Instead, it's leading on a hockey game that happened days ago. This pathetic productivity arises because of poor attendance. There was just one nomination today and that has had zero responses. That's because it's another sporting event that few are interested in. Yesterday there was just a single RD nomination and that only got one response and so hasn't been actioned. The day before that there were zero nominations.{{pb

}} You have to go back four days to find a nomination that's getting any attention. That's about the hot topic of Iran-Israel but seems stuck too. The latest comment plaintively asks, "{{tq|what's taking so long?}}"{{pb

}} So, the big problem is that ITN's process just doesn't work. Every other main page section posts new content every day, regular as clockwork. ITN is supposed to be the most topical and timely but it isn't. This is not a fundamental difficulty because the Portal:Current events posts lots of fresh news content every day. The problem is that ITN has dysfunctional processes which prevent it getting things done. It has had years to reform but the incumbents with power are in denial. It should therefore be deprecated so that alternatives can be tried.{{pb

}} Andrew🐉(talk) 20:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• :1) news of major significance does not happen every single day, and 2) quality is still a requirement which is what holds up most nominations that are otherwise agreed on. Neither of those can be changed (the first we can't control, and the second is a requirement of the main page) Masem (t) 23:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::The US strikes on Iran are today's major news. Portal:Current events posted the article American strikes on Iranian nuclear sites about an hour after they happened. ITN has a nomination which doesn't seem to be arriving at a clear conclusion or paying any attention to quality. Ice hockey is the ITN lead for another day. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and since there's a requirement for quality for a featured article link, we're not going to rush a breaking story until there's consensus to post. (and fwiw, the last events in Iran did get posted about 12 hr after its nomination) If just want to push out breaking news stories, go to Wikinews which is built for that purpose. Masem (t) 12:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::{{tq|Portal:Current events posted the article American strikes on Iranian nuclear sites about an hour after they happened}}
• :::When that article was posted to Portal:Current events it looked like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_strikes_on_Iranian_nuclear_sites&oldid=1296743016 this], which would be frankly embarrassing to have on the main page. The blurb went live on ITN [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:In_the_news&diff=prev&oldid=1296797694 within 12 hours of the attacks]. I know WP:NOTNEWS is a dead letter by this point, but is it really a problem that it takes a whole 12 hours for an event to go up on the main page? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• :A bit of patience goes a long way. Both the American strikes on Iran, as well as the Israel-Iran Ongoing link are now live. What more do you want? Reaching consensus takes its time and sometimes quality issues prevent a quick posting. Khuft (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• :{{u|Andrew Davidson}} The best way to get ITN canned is to stop participating and have everyone else stop participating. Frankly, the fact that you have continued to participate despite all of your consistent misgivings tells me that you still find value in it and its process. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
• :: I get something out of it personally – for example, I quite enjoyed working on the new observatory which has been the lead blurb for several days now. But we can do better and disengaging would not improve matters.{{quote|“It’s like the story they tell about my brother—he was losing money in a gambling-place in Saratoga, and some one said to him, ‘Davy, why do you go there—don’t you know the game is crooked?’ ‘Of course it’s crooked,’ said he, ‘but, damn it, it’s the only game in town!’”|author=Upton Sinclair}}Andrew🐉(talk) 13:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::Sounds like people still care enough about it to where it still functions as its intended purpose: getting timely updated articles to the Main Page. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, being an internet encyclopedia that is editable by anyone at any time leads to us having articles on current events as they happen. And as such people like coming here to find them. I'm not convinced that this process should be removed from the main page. I am also OK with it "lagging behind" major news outlets -- we aren't journalists presenting breaking news. We simply are sharing newly minted encyclopedia articles about recent events, not a live feed of what is happening minute by minute. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 02:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: I asked above if anything had changed in the last 6 months given the calls for reform in the last RfC. I didn't intend to start an RfC now and I don't think bolded !votes are helpful at this point. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I attend ITN regularly and haven't noticed any significant structural change in the last six months. The news during this period has been dominated by the Trump administration's "flooding the zone". ITN has posted very little of it as there are many ITN regulars who seem averse to US news. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I suggest starting an RfC now (if you plan to initiate one in the near future), because this discussion is starting to devolve into a general complaint thread about ITN. Some1 (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::Not sure where you see that... there are currently two users complaining about ITN, with all the others thinking it's fine. Khuft (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::Agreed. It also hasn't been six months yet (and I'm also not inclined to start the RfC exactly at 6 months since that would be in the middle of the summer). I'm starting this discussion now so that editors can present evidence and maybe we can come to some sort of assessment of what's happening at ITN and figure out if there are ways to fix things without the nuclear option. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• As far as I can tell, ITN still uses editor's feelings to decide what's "significant", providing readers with incredibly visible content that's unbalanced in a way we try to prevent elsewhere on the project. It still encourages the creation of articles about random news stories themselves as opposed to updating articles about notable subjects. And it still occupies space that could be used to showcase higher quality content or a panel that recruits new editors directly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• No need to re-hash that old discussion, or to launch an RfC. Some people will never be happy with ITN. But I'm with User:Masem and User:DarkSide830 on this. ITN has been running pretty smoothly, recently. Khuft (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I'm not asking to rehash the old discussion. I'm asking for a 6 month update. Masem, DarkSide, etc. have their views, but characterizing the previous critiques of ITN as annoyance with {{tq|seemingly odd decisions}} and {{tq|knee-jerk reactions}} is quite dismissive. The issue here is that a large plurality of editors found ITN to be operating outside of the usual rules of consensus, so much so that the closers noted that there was no consensus to even keep ITN around. You can all continue to say ITN is doing fine, but I think honest reflection on what the rest of the community has said about ITN would be more valuable. If that's not possible from the ITN regulars, we may very well be on the path to abolishing ITN. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::Except that this is what has happened for as long as I've been contributing at ITNC; something does or doesn't get posted, someone yells the system is broken, and while a few times this has let to meaningful change (the RD system, where any notable death is automatically considered for the RD line), most of the time its just ends up that it works by consensus, and at times consensus can be fallible, and then life goes on. Masem (t) 15:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::I know a couple of editors are enthusiastic about getting rid of ITN, but is that what the millions of casual readers want? For the "community" to get rid of ITN? The main page receives ~5 mil page views daily[https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-30&pages=Main_Page]; it would be great if the WMF could conduct a survey to gather feedback/insight from casual (non-editing) readers on what they would like to see on the main page. Their input on this is, IMO, far more valuable than that of editors. (And I can't help but think that the vast majority of these casual readers have no issues with having ITN on the main page or with ITN itself.) We should also keep in mind that what we, as editors, want or don't want on the main page may not necessarily align with the preferences of casual readers. Some1 (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::A survey would be interesting, and I suspect that ITN would see a decent amount of support just because it's the status quo. But if a survey were to happen, I'd also want to see whether readers think it's representative of the most relevant news in the world, what types of things it covers too much, and what they feel it doesn't cover enough. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::I highly doubt readers want a newsfeed curated based on vibes where the only news that's shown are accidents/storm deaths, wars, elections, and random awards and sporting events. Even if they did, readers can't help with the way that ITN operates, which is what most editors take issue with. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::"the way ITN operates"--That's a separate issue from "abolishing" or getting rid of ITN altogether. Editors can always propose ideas for improvement on the WP:ITN talk page (or here at the Village Pump, too). Some1 (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Please see the RfC I linked to above. There were proposals for changing the ITN rules. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:00, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::I know, I participated in that RfC (my !vote was only regarding the "abolishment" of ITN; I didn't have opinions on the other two proposals as I don't participate in the behind-the-scenes stuff of ITN). Am I sympathetic to the editors who suggested those ideas and then had to see those proposals fail? Sure. But there must be more ideas to improve how ITN operates beyond those two proposals, right? Some1 (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::{{outdent|1}} Do you have any suggestions? What would you like to see change at ITN? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Good questions to ask those who have complaints about or want to get rid of ITN (neither of which applies to me); but I'm actually curious now in hearing suggestions from those who do feel this way and what ideas/changes they have in mind (changes that don't involve simply removing ITN, please). Is there anything specific you'd like to see changed at ITN, Voorts? (asking because I see that you'd !voted to abolish ITN at the RfC) Some1 (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Articles posted on ITN should be required to follow GNG (which requires secondary sources, not just breaking news) and editors' subjective opinions on importance should be subject to WP:DISCARD when determining consensus. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::Why do you think consensus is measured differently at ITN? I have faith in the Admins that regularly rule and post that, in general, they apply the rules in the same way as they do on other parts of the site. (I would also point out that in the vast majority of cases consensus is pretty obvious. It's the handful of controversial cases that end up ruffling feathers elsewhere.) Khuft (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::Are you trying to convince me that subjective analysis of "significance" isn't used when determining consensus at ITN? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::Every ITN item is posted (or not) based on editors' subjective opinions on importance; there'd be nothing to judge if they were discarded. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/April_2025#c-Floquenbeam-20250408185600-Floquenbeam-20250408171200 example comment from an admin on how ITN operates]) Even the ITNR items have such a status through a consensus of editors' subjective opinions on importance at the ITN talk page. Most of the posted events with stand-alone articles likely satisfy GNG at some point, but it's usually impossible for the requisite secondary coverage to emerge so soon after it occurs. Left guide (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::Then either find a way to determine posting based on sourcing or article quality, or abolish ITN. And delete any articles about events that haven't already received requisite secondary coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::being able to judge if secondary source coverage exists for an event is going to take longer than a week to know for certain. (And this is discounting the "Reactions" section which for the most part just primary reporting about what leadership figures have said) And using any coverage based metric will bias towards western nations, particularly the US and UK. Masem (t) 12:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::Which means that we shouldn't be posting links to articles about the events themselves. We should be posting links to articles about the affected subjects. That's the encyclopedic content, and that's what's in the news. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 14:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::It would be great if more editors updated existing article than rushing off to create a new one, but also if we had more nominations that are based on existing articles (for example the current story on the observatory and first light images is what we need more of). There are s a frequent incorrect presumption that an ITN nominee needs to be a sepearate article. That said some events can't easily fit into existing articles, like a natural disaster or a transportation accident, but in these cases it's long term notability is not always clear (like the hot air balloon accident) Masem (t) 14:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::So here we are, re-hashing the same discussion we had last time. Please refer to my comments then. Seems like a waste of my time to "present evidence and maybe we can come to some sort of assessment of what's happening at ITN and figure out if there are ways to fix things without the nuclear option" when the Inquisition has already made up its mind. Khuft (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Fair. I'd be happy to discuss what's been happening at ITN for the past 6 months. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::That 5 million figure for the main page is a complex artifact which doesn't represent ITN's actual readership. I often check the readership stats for topics in the news and my experience is that an ITN posting attracts about 10,000 readers/day. Most casual readers won't even know that ITN exists as the bulk of the traffic for topics in the news is driven by search engines such as Google. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::No section of the main page is meant to drive views. It is meant to highlight quality work that might be of interest to readers that start at the main page, so that will mean featured articles will likely see increased traffic from the main page, but its silly to pretend that readers go to the main page and then try to navigate without any searching to find a topic of interest they actually want. So we should absolutely not care about the impact on pageviews due to an item being features in ITN. Masem (t) 17:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::I reject the premise entirely. There is no single type of reader. Trying to say that readers collectively behave a certain way, or that they do or don't want something, will almost always give an unhelpful result. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::I'm not saying that there are no readers that come to WP to browse or get caught in the Wikihole of knowledge, but the bulk of WP's visitors are either via search engines directly to the article they want, or get to the main page, hit the search bar, and go to the target page. The few extra hits that come from those that browse main page links to articles are not a significant route. Masem (t) 12:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• I have come to believe ITN should function more like RD with much less room to keep something out based on a super-notability judgement, with the main driver being article quality. I'm not exactly sure how that would work, but we shouldn't fear posting something that isn't top level headline news around the world. It is very toxic which is partially why I'm not there as much as I used to be. 331dot (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• :A probably associated with any issues at ITN is the fact that we have far too much wikiediting that resembles a newspaper and not an encyclopedia. Editors are rushing to make articles about any small event that happens without establishing any long-term significance, which is not appropriate per NOTNEWS nor NEVENTS. Because of that, we need some type of discretion at ITN to limit what news events that are posted, and that's through the use of consensus to decide on such events (in addition to quality checks) as to balance out the lack of any checks at the article creation process. And then the other problem is that we are trying to fight the implicit bias of western and English-language media, which elevate certain national politics and events in the US and UK (and to a degree, Canada and Europe) over the rest of the world. Its not that we can't have national events there, but we need to be fully aware that something that seems minor on the world's stage can be exploded that appears big by mainstream media because it happened in a big US city. We want the smaller stories of significant events at national levels but that aren't from Western countries, and to that point, that's where we typically end up with the lack of any nominations of this type. Masem (t) 12:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• ITN operates as expected, given the vague guidelines at WP:ITNSIGNIF. People are welcome to establish consensus on improvements there. Otherwise, ITN acts well as a drive to get article quality improvements on what does get posted.—Bagumba (talk) 10:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• I oppose any attempt to abolish ITN. I'm not really versed in the internal issues of ITN-space and not denying that they exist but taking away something that is useful to readers with no replacement is not the solution. People will always look for articles concerning recent events, so the argument that ITN is unencylopedic doesn't really convince me; while we are building this project with an ideal in mind, we should also meet readers where they've at to a certain extent. Recentism and such would still occur even if there was no ITN; there's plenty of content with those issues never appears on the top right corner of the Main Page.  novov talk edits 06:38, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• :The idea would be to replace ITN with something else. A variety of suggestions were made at the previous RfC. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::Suggestions were also made at this thread four months ago: {{slink|Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)/Archive_65#What_do_we_want_on_the_front_page?}}. Some1 (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::Yes, there were lots of good ideas in those threads. But the trouble is that all these discussions go nowhere because, even though the main page says "anyone can edit", it's so locked down that just about no-one can be bold and try such changes. What's needed is a process to loosen this straitjacket. For example, perhaps each mainpage section should have a coordinator who is elected for a term, as happens at TFA. Then the coordinators could form a council or editorial board for the mainpage which would have sufficient clout and power to get things done. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
• Speaking in this case as a reader rather an editor, I strongly oppose abolishing ITN. Whatever backend problems it may have, I find it useful and interesting. And this isn't just because I do happen to be an editor, I actually got in the habit of checking it from a friend of mine who doesn't edit at all. Rusalkii (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - As outlined above, it seems more prudente to abolish ITN if it loses it value and people stop participating. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
• I am sympathetic to those who point to WP:NOTNEWS. Perhaps the way to square this circle is to focus less on the events themselves, and more on the BACKGROUND behind the events… the people and places that are behind news stories. That is what an encyclopedia is for. Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

There's a discusssion at meta:Public consultation about Wikinews about possibly shutting down wikinews. I know almost nothing about how wikinews works, but it seems kind of serendipitous that these two discussions are going on at the same time. Perhaps if wikinews is shut down, the people who are involved in that could be an influx of new talent and energy to rejuvenate ITN? RoySmith (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:As I understand it, the English Wikinews was smothered by an admin who was too controlling and so drove contributors away. So, there's no talent and energy left now – that's why they are shutting it down.

:What's more interesting is the suggestion of new namespace for news. I'm not sure how that would work so I'll be finding out more...

:Andrew🐉(talk) 20:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I’m working with classical manuscripts that have modern editors. The issue is: when using the sfn system, it only pulls the original author’s name, but sometimes I need to cite parts written by the modern editor (like introductions or biographies).

For example, if I’m citing The Letters of Abelard and Heloise (originally written by Abelard, but with a modern introduction and notes by Betty Radice), the sfn system will only display "Abelard" as the author in the citations. However, sometimes I need to specifically reference the modern editor’s introduction or commentary.

Is there a proper way to handle this? Should I create a separate citation for the editor’s contribution, or is there a better solution? Riad Salih (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:Using {{tlx|harvnb}} for simplicity:

::{{harvnb|Radice|2004}} → {{harvnb|Radice|2004}}

:and {{para|contributor}} with {{para|contribution}}; and {{para|date}} for the Penguin paperback edition (the rest of the bibliographic omitted for clarity):

::{{cite book |contributor-last=Radice |contributor-first=Betty |contribution=Notes |last=Abelard |first=Peter |author2=Héloïse |date=2004 |title=The Letters of Abelard and Heloise}}

:::{{cite book |contributor-last=Radice |contributor-first=Betty |contribution=Notes |last=Abelard |first=Peter |author2=Héloïse |date=2004 |title=The Letters of Abelard and Heloise}}

:—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for your help; it works. Riad Salih (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, if anyone has full access to JSTOR (not via the Wikipedia library access), I would like to check a few chapters from a [https://www.jstor.org/stable/jj.20626729 book]. Please let me know if you can help! Thanks! Riad Salih (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|Riad Salih}} The best place to ask for that would be the Resource Exchange. DuncanHill (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::@DuncanHill Thanks, but I've already done that. I posted here hoping to find someone who can help. Riad Salih (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::You should check WP:Wikipedia Library, given the age of your account you should already qualify and it gives you access to JSTOR and some other sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::As OP noted, that is not available. {{tq|Your institution does not have access to this book on JSTOR. Try searching on JSTOR for other items related to this book.}} WP:RX is the correct venue for this though. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Note: JSTOR BOOKS are generally unavailable, see phab:T252649. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:45, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I have access to JSTOR via the NYPL, but sadly I get the same "Your institution does not have access to this book on JSTOR" message there as well. And fie on JSTOR's bizarre search engine. When I searched for the title ("Ibn as-Sagir: Eine Chronik der Rustamiden"), I got "No results found". I only managed to find it by hand-crafting the URL where I knew it had to be (https://www-jstor-org.i.ezproxy.nypl.org/stable/jj.20626729). RoySmith (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Sorry I missed that in the OPs comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:45, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I have access to the Wikipedia library, but JSTOR is quite limited as it only provides access to articles, not books. I thought that a paid account with full access might allow me to view the chapters. Unfortunately, it seems the only option for now is to buy an [https://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de/Ibn_a%E1%B9%A3-%E1%B9%A2a%C4%A1%C4r/titel_7092.ahtml ebook] version. Thank you all for your efforts; I really appreciate it. Riad Salih (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Or, possibly the WMF will buy the book for you. See Wikipedia:Resource support pilot RoySmith (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::This pilot program needs to be linked from WP:TWL and WP:REX. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Done. RoySmith (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Thank you! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 19:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::This is a fantastic initiative. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

{{tl|OSM Location map}} was caught up in the withdrawal of the 'graph' Vega service in 2023, and was absent for over a year. It returned in 2024 having been re-written using wiki-markup and inline CSS to overlay text/graphics and directly calculated mercator coordinates onto the {{tl|maplink}} basemap. It is now re-written as a LUA module, vastly improving load/processing times, and allowing new features and 'unlimited' graphical/text overlay elements. Text labels and graphical elements can customise a generic OpenStreetMap starting point, to help explain a location-based page or topic. It is mainly driven by parameters within the template call, to allow incremental improvements/updating, but it now also includes map-data using wikidata Q values, wdqs SPARQL queries and raw geoJSON files, to expand the range of sources it can draw on. RobinLeicester (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

The Catalan version of this article is way more advanced than the English article. For this reason, I would like to request help with a translation, even if it is automated. Please, could anybody assist?

Thank you in advance!

Buran Biggest Fan (talk) 06:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'm unable to make a translation from "Catalan" into "English".

:I'm a French native speaker and I can understand between 20-50% of a text in Catalan without any help (Some texts are easier to understand than others).

:

:I have a lack of vocabulary in Catalan. I understand texts in this language because of my knowledge in others languages such as Spanish and French.

:Spanish is a language for which I have a lack of vocabulary. This is a language for which I can read and understand between 50-95% but I'm nearly unable to write in Spanish.

:

:I read the article "IBM System/23 Datamaster". I did also read the version in Catalan "there".

:I confirm that the article on "Wikipedia in Catalan" contain more information.

:The template "Template:Expand Catalan" was added by me on the article in English. Anatole-berthe (talk) 12:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The application to consider Wikispore was submitted in 2019. SPTF decided to review this request in more depth because rather than being concentrated on a specific topic, as most of the proposals for the new Sister Projects are, Wikispore has the potential to nurture multiple start-up Sister Projects.

After careful consideration, the SPTF has decided not to recommend Wikispore as a Wikimedia Sister Project. Considering the current activity level, the current arrangement allows better flexibility and experimentation while WMF provides core infrastructural support.

We acknowledge the initiative's potential and seek community input on what would constitute a sufficient level of activity and engagement to reconsider its status in the future.

As part of the process, we shared the decision with the Wikispore community and invited one of its leaders, Pharos, to an SPTF meeting.

Currently, we especially invite feedback on measurable criteria indicating the project's readiness, such as contributor numbers, content volume, and sustained community support. This would clarify the criteria sufficient for opening a new Sister Project, including possible future Wikispore re-application. However, the numbers will always be a guide because any number can be gamed.

We chose to review Wikinews among existing Sister Projects because it is the one for which we have observed the highest level of concern in multiple ways.

Since the SPTF was convened in 2023, its members have asked for the community's opinions during conferences and community calls about Sister Projects that did not fulfil their promise in the Wikimedia movement.[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WCNA_2024._Sister_Projects_-_opening%3F_closing%3F_merging%3F_splitting%3F.pdf [1]][https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Community_Affairs_Committee/Sister_Projects_Task_Force#Wikimania_2023_session_%22Sister_Projects:_past,_present_and_the_glorious_future%22 [2]][https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiConvention_francophone/2024/Programme/Quelle_proc%C3%A9dure_pour_ouvrir_ou_fermer_un_projet_%3F [3]] Wikinews was the leading candidate for an evaluation because people from multiple language communities proposed it. Additionally, by most measures, it is the least active Sister Project, with the greatest drop in activity over the years.

While the Language Committee routinely opens and closes language versions of the Sister Projects in small languages, there has never been a valid proposal to close Wikipedia in major languages or any project in English. This is not true for Wikinews, where there was a proposal to close English Wikinews, which gained some traction but did not result in any action[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_English_Wikinews [4]][https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiConvention_francophone/2024/Programme/Quelle_proc%C3%A9dure_pour_ouvrir_ou_fermer_un_projet_%3F [5], see section 5] as well as a draft proposal to close all languages of Wikinews[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Proposals_for_closing_projects/Archive_2#Close_Wikinews_completely,_all_languages? [6]].

Initial metrics compiled by WMF staff also support the community's concerns about Wikinews.

Based on this report, SPTF recommends a community reevaluation of Wikinews. We conclude that its current structure and activity levels are the lowest among the existing sister projects. SPTF also recommends pausing the opening of new language editions while the consultation runs.

SPTF brings this analysis to a discussion and welcomes discussions of alternative outcomes, including potential restructuring efforts or integration with other Wikimedia initiatives.

Options mentioned so far (which might be applied to just low-activity languages or all languages) include but are not limited to:

• Restructure how Wikinews works and is linked to other current events efforts on the projects,
• Merge the content of Wikinews into the relevant language Wikipedias, possibly in a new namespace,
• Merge content into compatibly licensed external projects,
• Archive Wikinews projects.

Your insights and perspectives are invaluable in shaping the future of these projects. We encourage all interested community members to share their thoughts on the relevant discussion pages or through other designated feedback channels.

We'd be grateful if you want to take part in a conversation on the future of these projects and the review process. We are setting up two different project pages: Public consultation about Wikispore and Public consultation about Wikinews. Please participate between 27 June 2025 and 27 July 2025, after which we will summarize the discussion to move forward. You can write in your own language.

I will also host a community conversation 16th July Wednesday 11.00 UTC and 17th July Thursday 17.00 UTC (call links to follow shortly) and will be around at Wikimania for more discussions.