Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

Why did Wikipedia decide to remove the RCP average from a chart showing various poll aggregators? One of your editors claim RCP has a strong right-wing bias. Have you ever actually read RCP. They have one article from the right followed by one from the left. They actually aggregate all polls. Historically, they have been the most accurate poll aggregator. What's more, they called the election results exactly. Perhaps the editor that made the claim needs to be edited. 71.178.70.53 (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Per WP:RealClearPolitics there is not a consensus on how to treat RCP as a source. They appear to have the trappings of a reliable source, but their tactics in news reporting suggest they may be publishing non-factual or misleading information. Use as a source in a Wikipedia article should probably only be done with caution, and better yet should be avoided. I would not personally consider them to be a reliable source for the reasons mentioned in the quote above and also because I find their definitions of key terms like "left" and "right" do not line up with academic consensus surrounding those terms and I find their assessment of media bias lacks rigor or an observable methodology beyond vibes. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

So, you cite a newspaper that tilts to the left as your reason why you don't use RCP because it supposedly tilts to the right. There are articles on RCP right now that are decidedly left of center. Some far to the left. There is no doubt there are articles that tilt to the right too. That is called being even. But that is not how they manage their aggregator. They simply take a braoder range of polls. Polls that others exclude because they are supposedly right of center. And yet, those polls were the most accurate and are the reason RCP has been historically accurate. So again I ask, why would you exclude the most historically accurate poll aggregator? They actually called the election spot on and they called the election before as well. They weren't considered right wing when they reported that Biden had the lead in the polls. It appears they are only right wing when they publish something with which the WP, which was completely wrong on the last election, and Wikipedia disagree with. That is called censorship. 71.178.70.53 (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

"The" election? As if there is only one election in the whole world that matters?

I'm not sure what you mean by "you cite a newspaper that tilts to the left as your reason". Nobody has cited any newspapers either in this discussion or in WP:RealClearPolitics (linked above). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I say 'the election' because RCP was specifically aggregating the 2024 US Presidential Election and it was because of their aggregation on this election that Wikipedia stopped using them. And to push back on me because I say 'The election' is disingenuous since we all know what election this is about. The left of center newspaper is the New York Times since Wikipedia pulled RCP directly after the NYT article. Furthermore, no one has addressed the fact that RCP is historically the most accurate aggregator, and Wikipedia only pulled it after its aggregation favored Trump, which was accurate. It wasn't pulled during the 2020 election when it favored Biden. RCP actually called the electoral college exactly and was much closer than any of the polling sources and aggregators Wikipedia uses. Why would Wikipedia exclude the most accurate of the aggregators? 71.178.70.53 (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Generally, when you want to know why something happened on Wikipedia, you need to look at the prior discussions. The WP:RealClearPolitics list entry links to a discussion in 2019, and a bigger discussion in 2021.

Both of those significantly predate "the" election, and I assume that "the" NYT article appeared somewhere during the run up to the 2024 United States presidential election, so – time travel not really being a thing – neither that election nor that article could be related.

Looking through the past discussions for the article about the election, I find this discussion, which is started by a logged-out IP editor from Australia, who claimed that bias was a good reason to remove RCP. Based on the comments from registered editors, that doesn't seem to have been a persuasive reason, though. They seem more concerned about lax methodology. (Weak methodology can result in an accurate answer, but it's less likely to do so.) One person mentions two articles from the NYT, but others don't say much about that, so I don't know whether anyone even read them, much less thought that was a useful basis for making a decision.

There are probably other discussions elsewhere. Maybe it would help if you posted a URL actually showing that One of your editors claim RCP has a strong right-wing bias. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I find this all very confusing as some of the comments in this thread seemed pointed at my response but I said nothing about RCP having a bias. I said their definition of key terms didn't match academic definitions, that their methodology was somewhere between lax and fully absent and that their work lacked academic rigor. None of these issues speak to any specific direction of bias. Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Someone else said that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I can't found the answer to this question on Internet.

I'd like to know in which countries can we find servers for Wikimedia projects ?
You understood I'm not only talking about Wikipedia. Anatole-berthe (talk) 04:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The main servers are in the United States, with caching proxies all around the world. See m:Wikimedia servers. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for this answer ! I had better than expected. Anatole-berthe (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

A photography contest is going to happen from March 1, 2025 to March 31, 2025 on commons to enrich the content and a central notice request has been placed to target English Wikipedia users including non-registered ones from Bangladesh and the Indian states of West Bengal. Thanks. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Does anyone have access to all the entries of the Encyclopedia Americana? I am looking for a PDF of it. Hulu2024 (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't think you're going to be able to get a PDF of the entire encyclopedia, but I would imagine most good libraries would be able to get you a scan of a particular article. I see the New York Public Library has a copy at a branch near me, so if you're looking for something specific, I could probably get it for you.

As a more general answer, WP:TWL and WP:RX would be good places for this kind of thing. RoySmith (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@RoySmith thanks. Hulu2024 (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

That's owned by Scholastic, which is not a partner for the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Are these possible to use on English Wikipedia? [1] [2] [3] - Maybe something under fair use?

And maybe this depiction of Jahan Khan? [4] - I think it could be used on Sardar Jahan Khan for the use rational of depiction purposes. Noorullah (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm not an expert in Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, but I think the answer is 'no' for the architectural images.

For the second, I think the book was published in 1959. Do you know whether the drawing was made for the book (and so is the same age)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@WhatamIdoing Pretty sure the drawing was made for the book, yes. Noorullah (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

It seems to be made by a "Trilok Singh", theres an inscription on the photo near the bottom. - I believe this person: Trilok Singh Chitarkar.

Another picture of it found here: [5] Noorullah (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Then it's unfortunately not public domain yet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Erik Satie has an RfC for possible consensus. Infoboxes have been a highly contentious topic in the past so getting more comments would be helpful to help find a concensus. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page . Thank you. It can be found under the heading Infobox RFC. - Nemov (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

BTW, if anyone likes adding infoboxes, then please look into Category:Wikipedia articles with an infobox request. Editors could probably add decent infoboxes to 10 articles in the time it takes to argue over just one of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

A new template {{incumbent }} has been created which can be used to print the name of current holder of a 'position' by specifying the name of the position as it's parameter. It uses wikidata. Useful for infoboxes, can be used in running text too. Riteze (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Please note that this template is not yet suitable for use in infoboxes, and its link to Wikidata should be supressed in prose, per the relevant RFCs. I have explained this requirement to the template's creator, but they have not yet made their new templates compatible with the RFCs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I found that the category award title in every edition are changed. The name are different now. It feels strangeness. Stevencocoboy (talk) 08:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Now that I'm aware of the existence of both of these groups, I wonder why there isn't just the Guild — because catching typos is part of copy editing. Does anyone know? Augnablik (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The typo team was created in November 2003 and the Guild of Copy Editors was created in July 2008 (though its predecessor, the League of Copyeditors, was created in November 2006). Typo-fixing is its own specialisation, with specific tools for that purpose, so I don't think the separation is a problem. Graham87 (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you, @Graham87, for such a quick response. But I can’t imagine why all editors specialising in copy editing wouldn’t have access to whatever "specific tools" for fixing typos there may be. Augnablik (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

No worries. It's not generally a problem of access, but rather technical acumen and a desire to use those tools. Many copyeditors are happy with their own methods. Graham87 (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

If you really think these two projects should be merged, a better place to suggest it would be on the two project talk pages. I suspect you won't find much support for merging them, however. Both projects do useful things and while there's some overlap, they're really not the same. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. RoySmith (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@RoySmith, I’m only just now becoming aware of both groups, so I have no strong feelings based on personal experience at this point.

My question came from wondering about what seemed very possible duplication, which I know some editors believe we have too much of with articles. And to be a little more transparent about all this, I’d also been thinking to get involved with proofreading and copy editing as one of my Wiki niches. Augnablik (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Augnablik, I look at them as different approaches: GOCE is about fixing many problems in one article at a time; Team MOSS is about fixing one problem in many articles at a time (using data query dumps). Schazjmd (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

A data query dump in this context would be a results list when searching for one particular word or piece of punctuation — that sort of thing?Augnablik (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

As Wikipedia:Typo_Team/moss#How_the_lists_are_made explains: The moss spell checker is run against a recent set of database dumps, which are generated on the 1st and 20th of every month (but take a few days to process). All the articles in the English Wikipedia are examined. (In looking for that, I noticed that the typo team pages have evolved since I participated there; it used to list misspellings and you'd click to find all the articles with that misspelling, then fix them.) Schazjmd (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Just as in real life, they're groups of people interested in collaborating together that formed separately. For instance, someone might create a Catan gaming group, and later on, someone else might want to play a broader set of games and create a more general desktop gaming group. The first group might want to merge its coordination under the second, but it doesn't have to. The two should ideally avoid competing with each other, of course. Bringing it back to this specific English Wikipedia example, the copy editor guild wouldn't need to replicate the techniques used by the typo team, but it should feel free to address typos when improving articles. isaacl (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

We're starting a discussion here. Please feel free to join in the discussion. — hike395 (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The New York Times website has a paywall that prevents you from reading all articles unless you subscribe. But for some reason, most if not all citations that cite the New York Times website don't have the "paid subscription required" tag, which should have been added.

(Note to administrators: Please relist this if it doesn't fit into the "miscellaneous" category) RaschenTechner (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Meh... I can go to my local public library and search the NYT for free (both the hard copy paper and the on-line version). Blueboar (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I only just now became aware that this the {{cite web }} template includes a parameter to mark a source as requiring registration. Anyway, that's a matter of the person creating a citation knowing about that parameter and thinking to set it. It doesn't have anything specific to do with the New York Times. Largoplazo (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• This is true of every subscription site. The |url-access=subscription is underutilized. There may be good reason. Pages may start out as paywall, then revert to free (or other way around). There might be some free access (5 per day etc). Possibly geography plays a role. Archive URLs often get around paywalls. Thus, access can change over time, and be relative to the viewer. IMO I see no reason to maintain these across millions of citations. Either you can get the page, or you can't, with whatever means is at your disposal. The warning doesn't change the verifiability, it's a courtesy, not a necessity. -- Green C 00:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/1 Al Jazeera in English and Arabic is not considered a reliable source on topics related to the Arab-Israel Conflict. But despite this many articles on the topic cite it like they would the BBC or Reuters. To solve this, we should get rid of these citations and any text only supported by them in IvP articles. It'll have to be a group effort because it's simply too much for 1 person. Denninithan (talk) 06:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Read RSP again, it says "biased", but that is not the same thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I would have pretty serious neutrality concerns over excluding AJ from the Israel - Palestine topic area considering there's few other reliable news sources in English for an Arabic POV. Simonm223 (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The article Alhambra Cinema (Israel) has a long history of people changing the country-designation of the pseudo-flag mounted on top of the building in the 1937 image. I think this article should be included under "Israeli–Palestinian conflict and all related issues" as listed in WP:List of controversial issues. I found the template {{Contentious topics/Arab-Israeli editnotice }}, but I'm not sure how to deploy it. (I'm not familiar with the geopolitical conflicts, I've just watchlisted this article about a building, and am annoyed with the back and forth edits.) Any help on how to reduce the long-term edit warring?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Wikipedia village pump

• Non-talk pages that are automatically signed
• Pages automatically checked for incorrect links