Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for a week.

« Archives, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79

Less images being uploaded

Why are less images being uploaded today? It wasn't like that from 2006 to 2009, many images were uploaded at that time period. Is there a reason why the image uploads declined after that period of time? MJGTMKME123 (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly because images to suit many purposes have already been uploaded, making new ones unnecessary? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but, why can't we upload new images that replace the old ones? MJGTMKME123 (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing preventing appropriate and policy-compliant images from being uploaded. As to when it is appropriate to replace an existing image with a new one, that will depend on the specifics: newer isn't necessarily better. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the criteria that determines if an existing image should be replaced with a newer and less outdated version? MJGTMKME123 (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If someone finds it worth uploading in each particular instance? I have very little clue what sort of general rule you'd expect there to be. Remsense ‥ 论 22:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. But how can contributors decide if a new image is worth uploading for a specific article? MJGTMKME123 (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no general answer to this line of questioning. Improved media are uploaded if editors discover or create them; what constitutes an improvement depends entirely on the media in question. Remsense ‥ 论 22:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an image that you think would illustrate an article better than whatever is already there? Then upload it and add it to the article, replacing the old one. Then, when someone reverts, explain on the Talk page why yours is better. —Tamfang (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MJGTMKME123, what do you mean by "less images being uploaded today"?

Do you mean specifically what's being uploaded today, as in Sunday, the 25th of August? (If so, please go to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) and sound the alarm, because a sudden downturn is probably technical in nature.) Or do you mean "in recent years"?

How much less? Is this like a long-term leveling off? Are you talking about uploads directly to the English Wikipedia, or at Commons? How are you counting the number of uploads? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "in recent years". MJGTMKME123 (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have made efforts to direct uploaders Wikimedia Commons whenever appropriate, so having less uploads here could be a good thing. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about image uploads on Wikimedia Commons. MJGTMKME123 (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking about any images in particular? Again, we can't really answer your question because it's way too broad. Remsense ‥ 论 22:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just asking about the trend of fewer image uploads in the recent years, but I understand if it's too broad. I was wondering if there are any topics where image uploads have noticeably declined. MJGTMKME123 (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that there are fewer uploads? What page or tool are you using to determine the number of uploads? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually use a tool. I just noticed that most images were made around that time period by just analyzing the date of random images. MJGTMKME123 (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MJGTMKME123, I suggest looking at c:Commons:Statistics of uploads vs deletions, which gives the number of annual uploads from 2003 through 2022, and which does not support your hypothesis that there has been a multi-year decline in uploads.

If you know anything about SQL, you can run queries like this and get whatever numbers you want. I use the "check 10 pages in Special:Random" method a lot, but you've got to remember that it's really quite a crude estimate, and if your random images weren't actually random (e.g., they were images used in Wikipedia articles), then you'd be looking at a crude estimate of a biased sample, which is basically worthless. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks, I just realized that there are actually more uploads on the recent years then I expected. MJGTMKME123 (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's way more useful data than what I found just below. So uploads to Commons have risen steadily if non-monotonically, and there is no year for which the number of files uploaded was less than ~~any~~ all of the three previous years. Folly Mox (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC) edited 10:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This wouldn't account for which images are actually being used in articles (plenty of Commons images aren't), but I'd be very surprised if those are mostly pre-2009. ― novov (t c) 10:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of them are pre-2009, I'm not entirely sure though. MJGTMKME123 (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you base that on? The number of articles in the English Wikipedia has more than doubled since 2009 (3,144,000 on 1 Jan 2010, 6,764,355 on 1 Jan 2024), and images in older articles are often replaced, so I suspect a large majority of images in articles have been added since 2009. For your claim to be valid, editors would have had to be preferencially using images uploaded before 2009 to add to articles. However, an analysis of the upload dates of a large enough sample of images currently in use in articles would be needed to support your claim. Frankly, I don't think that is worth pursuing, as I don't see its relevance to building a quality encyclopedia. Donald Albury 13:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donald Albury Thank you for pointing that out. I guess I was mistaken about the upload dates of the images. MJGTMKME123 (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As one potentially interesting pair of datapoints, I see that c:Commons:Database reports/Page count by namespace (current as of June 2014, almost exactly a decade ago) shows 22,097,492 pages in the File: namespace, of which fewer than 2% were redirects. Executing the Magic word {{NUMBEROFFILES}} on Commons today returns 107,994,945. So there have been some uploads. Folly Mox (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Folly Mox Thanks for sharing that data, that means I might have underestimated the number of uploads. MJGTMKME123 (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a related point, please consider looking through the popular articles for a favorite subject area – most WikiProjects have a page like Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages – and seeing what new images could/should be added. Not having an adequate number of images in each article is a constant complaint from readers, and it even has benefits beyond the obvious value of the image itself (e.g., helping people with dyslexia keep their eyes on the right part of the article). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another source for images (which I suspect has been under utilized) are family photos. For example, over his lifetime my Dad took approximately 4,000 photos which are in slide format. While some will be of little interest to Wikimedia in general -- I doubt anyone is eager to see photos of llywrch's first birthday -- there are a number of images that I know will be of interest, such as photos of his business trips to Sudan & Nigeria, photos Oregon from as far back as 1960, & so forth. (I have some of a railway train that ran between Banks & Vernonia back in the 1960s that no longer exists. The trackway has since then been converted to the Banks–Vernonia State Trail. I've already uploaded a few of these to Commons. I'd be far more along with sharing these on Commons except that for many I'm missing information. For example, he visited an agricultural station in a town in Western Sudan -- for which I'd be surprised if we had any photos -- however I don't remember/know the name of that town.

I expect there are countless Wikipedians with older family members who were hobbyist photographers, so this is a resource begging to be exploited. (PS, I had discussed doing this with my father before he passed, so I definitely have permission to do this.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probs because we mostly already got what we need in terms of pictures. Jasonbunny1 (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"In the news" section on the homepage?

Seems to be a primary spot for the site, but not updated very much. Is someone overseeing this section or is there some reason it doesn't get refreshed regularly? 2600:6C4A:4E7F:8D9D:6519:3F9A:34BF:6983 (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reasonably sized subcommunity who decide which news stories are linked at "In the news". The conversations are held at WP:ITN/C. You should be able to participate without an account, assuming some knowledge of Wikipedia policy. Folly Mox (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, knowledge of policy is not a prerequisite and in fact conflicts with common practice. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a common misunderstanding of what this section actually is. It is not meant to be a continuously updated news ticker, it is a way of showcasing articles that have been updated to reflect recent events. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts are appreciated. If the main page had 138 million page views in the last 30 days, maybe the space could be used for something more intriguing or something that changes every day like the other sections on the main page? 2600:6C4A:4E7F:8D9D:F09D:D640:9B79:6F77 (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't updated ITN particularly quickly compared to a normal news website. I think the normal cadence is a new news item in the ITN box every few days. And there's only around 4 bullets so not that many total news items either. I'm not sure the reasoning for this... maybe limited space, and the editor time it would take to do more voluminous or more frequent updates? –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, ITN does not have a formal overseer, unlike other mainpage sections which are either driven by a single key volunteer or elected coordinator. But it has plenty of editors who hang around and vote on nominations. Very little gets through this gauntlet and so the section often gets stale, as you have noticed. Most recently, ITN ran the same picture of a cyclist for ten straight days. There were plenty of other pictures that might have been run but no-one was accountable or responsible for making this happen.

The good news is that this doesn't much matter because our readers just go straight to topics which are in the news. For example, the top read article on Wikipedia yesterday was WWE Bash in Berlin. But you'd never see that at ITN because, for some reason, such combat sports get no love at ITN – InedibleHulk can perhaps explain why that is.

If you want to browse what's happening in the world, then the best place to look is Portal:Current_events, which seems to work much better because there's a crew of editors more focussed on posting items than arguing about them. For example, today it reports that "NASA announces discovery of Earth's subtle electric field, which contributes to the polar wind phenomenon." Such interesting science gets little love at ITN too.

Andrew🐉(talk) 19:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It all began on a night of indeterminate day and month in 1872, at the Zirkus Salamonsky in Berlin. Carl Kempf and Adolf Grün may or may not have "torn the house down". After that, it gets a bit fuzzy (though some online databases still never forget the man behind the curtain). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that if you want to browse “what is currently happening in the world”, the best place is a dedicated news outlet… not an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is better for history than current events. Blueboar (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And Wikipedia does, after all, generally by "lag" when it comes to information, by necessity since we focus on citing what others have already said. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"In truth, whatever is worth doing at all, is worth doing well; and nothing can be done well without attention"
— Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield, Letters to his Son (1746)

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. What if that section rotated with fresh links like the other sections on the main page? Are there any current event links on the page? Or how about positive news items to balance the negative trends of the for profit media? If this is an encyclopedia, maybe in the news section might be better as something else? Just wondering. I have no agenda. Seems a waste of potential to me. 2600:6C4A:4E7F:8D9D:F09D:D640:9B79:6F77 (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or hmmm, maybe a most popular article of the day, or the week, or month, or year, that rotates? Or what was the popular articles on this day last year? 2600:6C4A:4E7F:8D9D:F09D:D640:9B79:6F77 (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are all good points. The first link above was to discuss ITN candidate articles, but you might also try Wikipedia talk:In the news, which is where to "discuss improvements to the In the news process", and where you'd get responses from the people who would actually make such reforms.

For my part, I'd note that it's not the popularity of the article (or event) that determines if it gets on the main page, but the article's quality (despite the fact that ITN and WP:DYK are made for new-and-improved articles). This could be expressed more clearly about ITN on the main page, but typically a major news story will attract a lot of old and new editors, and consequent quality control, regardless of its appearance on the main page or linking elsewhere. That said, I agree that the section could be more dynamic day by day (while still even restricting it to 4 or so quality items), just by rethinking that instead of being so exclusive about what is added, we be exclusive about what is kept on for more than a single day or two (regardless of whether a news event is considered ongoing). Rotation is a fine idea for a possible implementation. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see it as "In the news AND likely Wikipedia-notable". I don't say that's any kind of policy, because I don't know. I think Wikipedia should avoid making that section more like a normal news website, because that would force Wikipedia to hire full-time staff to keep it up to date; or if it continued to be done by volunteers, it would be "just like [news site] except incomplete and out of date". Nobody needs or wants a bad copy of what other sites do, to be put here.

"In the News" can certainly be improved, but IMO it needs to stay a Wikipedia thing that's done in a Wikipedia way. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Duchet

Hi everybody. I was searching about a person named Geoffrey Duchet, but he doesn't have any biography in wikipedia. He was british explorer and he visited persepolis in 1569 AD. My source about him was a persian translated of 1 of books of Alfons Gabriel means Geographical research about Iran (unfortunately all of his books is in german language, and i don't know do any of you can read german books or not). Can somebody build Geoffrey Duchet's biography's page on english wikipedia? Hulu2024 (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And i shall add that i don't have any access on printed books on Geoffrey Duchet's biography to build his page, on myself. please if someone have access to english books on 16 th century, please write his biography. i needed it strongly. Hulu2024 (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hulu2024, if you're not willing to do it, it's unlikely anyone else will be - WP:VOLUNTEER. — Qwerfjkl talk 13:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I eager but i don't have access to academic and primary sources. It's odd that USA and UK have best universities with best storage of book (with monetary online access for western countries) and english wikipedia does the most editors in all languages, but nobody made this historical person's biography. Hulu2024 (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hulu2024: Geoffrey Duchet may not have been notable in his day, hence the lack of coverage. I pretty much could only find modern day people by that name with a Google search.

The only mention that I found of his name in a Wikimedia article space was in Farsi, fa:ایران‌شناسی (English version of the article is Iranian studies). At the end of the sentence mentioning him as جفری داکت, there is a footnote that points to a shortened footnote, موسوی، تخت جمشید، ۱۴. [Mousavi, Persepolis, 14], which then appears to point to a full citation of an encyclopedic text,موسوی، علی (۱۳۸۵). «تخت جمشید». دائرةالمعارف بزرگ اسلامی. ج. ۱۴. تهران: مرکز دائرةالمعارف بزرگ اسلامی. شابک ۹۶۴-۷۰۲۵-۵۴-۸. بایگانی‌شده از اصلی در ۷ اوت ۲۰۲۴. دریافت‌شده در ۷ اوت ۲۰۲۴. [Mousavi, Ali (1385). "Persepolis". The great Islamic encyclopedia. c. 14. Tehran: Center for the Great Islamic Encyclopedia. Shabak 964-7025-54-8. Archived from the original on August 7, 2024. Retrieved on August 7, 2024.]

I have been unable to find anything about about The great Islamic encyclopedia at WorldCat.org, presumably because of my total incompetence in Farsi. You may do better if you understand that language. Also you might find help at the website for the Center for the Great Islamic Encyclopedia, www.cgie.org.ir/en. Peaceray (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. Hulu2024 (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite odd that anyone could "strongly need" information about a 16th-century person who isn't very well known. Why do you need it? TooManyFingers (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TooManyFingers Because he was traveler and he travels to persepolis in 1569 and his wrote about that at his memorial, i want to improve my article in persian wikipedia (iraian studies) to be choose as Featured articles, so i need enough information about him. Persepolis is one of iranian's historical monument, which european travelers had seen, and that was the motivation to start about iranology. Hulu2024 (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is great, I hope you can find good information. I'm sorry I don't know. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have at the moment no opinion about notability, but just say that sources in German or Persian are just as valid as sources in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proper noun

Should the word "army" be capitalized when used to mention a specific army, such as the "French army"? M.Bitton (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem to be the general practice in WP articles. Donald Albury 16:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per French Army, yes. Article titles are a good (but not golden) source of this type of style issue. WT:MoS is also a good place to ask. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Peter_A._Hall

Seems to be a pretty notable person. We had an article by a user who has left, which was nominated for speedy by a user who has since been banned for socking, after a discussion, started unironically by another user who has since been banned for socking.

Can someone restore this, and other history of the page. Looking at the incoming links GNG should be easily achievable.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

This got turned into a dab page. I've put it in User:Rich Farmbrough/Peter A. Hall where you can sort things out. RoySmith (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 00:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Community Wishlist: Let’s discuss how to improve template discovery and reuse

Hello everyone,

The new Community Wishlist now has a focus area named Template recall and discovery. This focus area contains popular wishes gathered from previous Wishlist editions:

Wish #1: Quickly add infobox – an easier way for newer editors to find and insert common templates such as infoboxes.
Wish #2: Quickly add favorite and related templates – a way to show recently used templates and favorited templates for frequent template use.
Wish #3: Select templates by categories – a way to find templates by "type".
Wish #4: Easy access templates – help users configure the Template dialog to show common and favorite templates.

We have shared on the focus area page how are seeing this problem, and approaching it. We also have some design mockups to show you.

We are inviting you all to discuss, hopefully support (or let us know what to improve) about the focus area. You can leave your feedback on the talkpage of the focus area.

On behalf of Community Tech, –– STei (WMF) (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]