Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

You are invited to voice your opinions in a request for comment about the future of Abstract Wikipedia. Thank you! Kowal2701 (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Unfortunately, this appears to be another indication that the Wikimedia Foundation Board has an antithetically different outlook on artificial intelligence from the outlook of the English Wikipedia community on artificial intelligence. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

This is GOFAI though, not LLMs. Dingolover6969 (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

It's neither. Articles written on Abstract Wikipedia are written by humans, using wikifunctions that are also written by humans. isaacl (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Humans also write GOFAI rules and content 🤷‍♂️ Dingolover6969 (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Humans write many things. That doesn't change that Abstract Wikipedia articles are written by users directly and no artificial intelligence program is executed by the server software. isaacl (talk) 02:55, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm not sure IOUF still exists. Can someone check that? E.g. at https://www.kvk.nl/zoeken/ it does not exist. Organization no. 41003178 has been erased. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

The institution's current webpage appeared at the top of a search in DuckDuckGo. Discussion of any problem with its existance and/or sourcing needs to take place on the article's talk page, not here. Donald Albury 18:16, 26 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

This question would be better suited for the reference desk. Joe vom Titan (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Not long ago, a new template for maps was developed and is currently in beta. It uses off-site data to define the territory of countries, and unfortunately that means it includes territories that there may be consensus not to include in maps on Wikipedia. The example I noticed was Crimea, which by consensus should preferably be denoted as a disputed territory, rather than just any old part of Russia.

It is technically possible to manually define which regions you color as part of Russia or any other country, but the vast majority of editors will either not notice, not know how, or not even think about this being a potential issue. I tried to get a discussion about solutions going on the template talk page, but it's very quiet. The main contributor to the template was noncommital when contacted directly.

The issue I see here is, these maps can quickly spread to hundreds of pages, making cleanup difficult, and it happens on pages that have no obvious connection to the territory or its article (on whose talk page we'd normally establish consensus about how to treat it). For example, I reverted to the old maps on pages like United States embargo against Cuba and Duty to rescue over the inclusion of Crimea. So this situation means we would silently get more and more maps that violate the actual consensus established about various disputed territories. On the other hand, the new template is quite useful and user-friendly, so we probably wouldn't want to go back to just SVG maps. So how do we fix this? Or do we just accept the situation? Sakkura (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Technical aside, what is the desired behavior here? If you have a map that gives different colors to Russia and Ukraine should Crimea be considered part of neither country and thus left white unless "Crimea" is given as a separate entity to color? If you have a map that gives different countries different colors on a matter unrelated to geopolitics there is no way to avoid making some sort of geopolitical decision on which colors to give to which regions. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 15:56, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

And are their any issues here other than Crimea? * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 15:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I have created d:Data:ChoroplethMap (without Crimea).map that doesn't declare Crimea as part of Russia (leaving it uncolored unless something is specifically specified for it). It would be technically trivial to modify the template to pass that as the default (change Module:ChoroplethMap#L-30), but I'm not familiar enough with the social implications here to do that myself. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 16:15, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

That should be c:Data:ChoroplethMap (without Crimea).map?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 16:23, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I think modifying the default behavior like that for each case as it comes up would be ideal. Then it doesn't have to be re-litigated on a hundred different pages, and usage of the template just inherently makes maps that match whatever consensus is arrived at in the proper forum. Sakkura (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

The template already has the "source" parameter to load c:Data:ChoroplethMap (without Crimea).map, see Template:Choropleth map#Alternative source for an example on how to use it. Sophivorus (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Perhaps it would be desirable to rename c:Data:ChoroplethMap (without Crimea).map to c:Data:ChoroplethMap (enwiki).map, use it as default here in the English Wikipedia and have it reflect all the current local consensus (not just Crimea). Sophivorus (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello. Information has been added to the article that violates the balance of the narrative and does not have secondary sources (Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight). Previously, such information was removed from the article. A warning was issued. Now the information has been added to the article again. Most of the information does not relate to Volkov, but for some reason it is included in his article. A discussion was previously opened here, but it was unsuccessful. ~2026-42190-90 (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

• meta: Wikimedia Korea/Open letter to the Wikimania community July 26, 2026/en
• meta: Wikimedia Korea/Open letter to the Wikimania community July 26, 2026/Wikimedia CUG Malaysia's response in support of Wikimedia Korea’s statement on Wikimania/en

A member of Wikimedia Korea and a member of Wikimedia Community User Group Malaysia were sexually assaulted during Wikimania 2026. Both groups' leaders (User:Jjw, User:Tofeiku) have published open letters, asking for an investigation into the assaults and for measures to be taken so that nothing like this happens again.

These open letters should not be buried in Meta subpages, so I am bringing them here for more attention.

User:Mdennis (WMF) has responded to both letters:

• meta: Community Resilience & Sustainability/Response to Open letter to the Wikimania community July 26, 2026
• meta: Community Resilience & Sustainability/Response to Open letter from Wikimedia CUG Malaysia

ltbdl (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation § RfC: Condensing or collapsing decline notices (except for the latest one on each draft). – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I have noticed, recently, that a number of wikipedia articles have asterisks that are in superscript tags, which is probably wrong because a normal asterisk already functions like a superscript character (compare * vs ^*). I don't really have time to fix all of them, so I mention it here in the hopes that other people will carry the effort forward if interested. (Also, some of the pages are probably right, because superscripted text with an asterisk in it would have a superscript asterisk — but most of the examples are standalone asterisks.) Dingolover6969 (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

You might mention this at WT:CHECKWIKI, as they have the tools to reformat all of them en masse, if that is a desired result. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I went to look at WP:SPI not long ago, and saw a picture of a cat in a drawer, saying Sock drawer empty. I didn't know if this was good or bad. (I also don't know if the cat thinks that this is good or bad. She may have been in the habit of resting on the socks rather than on the wooden drawer. Then again, she might have thrown the socks out of the drawer because cats like to play with things.) It could have meant that the SPI clerks had a backlog drive and dispositioned all of the SPI's, or that a template had been broken by a reckless edit. Then I saw two SPI cases listed, very different from the usual 30 or 40. So my question is: Should we thank the hard-working SPI clerks for eliminating the backlog, and also for what appear to be some improvements in the structure and handling of sockpuppet reports, or did something improperly close all of the sockpuppet reports? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

The SPI team heroically cleared the backlog. (We also have a talk page, by the way.) In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Also, the cat appears to be in good spirits. --Blablubbs (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

The cat's name is Socky McSock Face. RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

It's Gilbert, actually. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:16, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

We legitimately have zero SPI cases currently! Thanks are definitely in order to all the SPI clerks, admins, and checkusers who have been working hard not only on the backlog but also on training new clerks and getting new contributors involved. As far as my memory goes, there have been only two other moments when we have reached "SPI 0": last time was in November 2022 and before that in January 2022. Well done, everyone! Mz7 (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

The cake is a lie! RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply