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, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81

Adding "Paid subscription required" to New York Times citations

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. -- GreenC 00:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it's 10 free articles per month at The New York Times (but that may be wrong or outdated). Like Blueboar, my local library provides both hard copies and online subscriptions for free. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Something needs to be done about the excessive use of Al Jazeera on Israel-Palestine articles

Proposer is not extended-confirmed so is ineligible to start this discussion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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]

While an Arabic POV is important using good sources is more important. And if the only sources that can be found for a claim are all biased or banned for being propaganda then the reliability of that claim is questionable and it shouldn't be included. I feel like using Al Jazeera along with other more reputable sources is fine (and this is very common) but my main issue is with articles where the vast majority of citations are either AJ or one of many smaller Palestinian website who's reliabilities I question; in my experience most of these articles are flat out biased. Denninithan (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How to flag Arab-Israeli conflict related article

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]

No tips? Anyone? ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Grorp, if you mean that you want to add the big warning on the talk page, then you post {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: Okay, I added that. However, the message states "You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic" but one can still edit the page as a non-logged-in IP editor (I tried it). There must be another step to limit editing on the article page. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 05:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The default is to allow anyone to edit. Now the page is tagged it warns about the situation, and an admin can protect the page if trouble comes along. For the talk page, others may wish to make edit requests. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But the flagging shows only when you edit the talk page, not the article itself, so the warning is inadequate for drive-by editors. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We only protect the pages when it is actually necessary. It is not, strictly speaking, necessary to protect a page just because someone might edit it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Code of Conduct annual review: proposed changes are available for comment

I am writing to you to let you know that proposed changes to the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement Guidelines and Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) Charter are open for review. You can provide feedback on suggested changes through the end of day on Tuesday, 18 March 2025. This is the second step in the annual review process, the final step will be community voting on the proposed changes. Read more information and find relevant links about the process on the UCoC annual review page on Meta.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. This annual review was planned and implemented by the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, you may review the U4C Charter.

Please share this information with other members in your community wherever else might be appropriate.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) 18:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Missing 9/11 backup data

While I was attempting to download a data dump an host a mirror to aid others, I came across this weird fact. On https://dumps.wikimedia.org/ under the missing backups page, it seems to insinuate that the only missing backup page is a 2007 version of the September 11th article. On the given URL there is a link that appears to list "backup dumps of wikis that no longer exist". Upon opening said link there only a single article listed . September 11 wiki dump from September 2007. Why is this? Eternallygr8fu1 (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better if we had a link to the ressource mentionned.

I think I'm unable to help you as I haven't the technical level necessary but it would be better with a link. Anatole-berthe (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Eternallygr8fu1 The sep11wiki isn't the September 11th article, it was a completely separate project. After 9/11 a wiki was created to act as a memorial and document everything about the events. This wiki was moved to a different domain before being deleted. See Meta:911wiki for a short information page. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 08:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

86.23.109.101, you just got in the way of a good conspiracy theory there! Phil Bridger (talk) 08:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need Recent changes" in the sidebar?

On special-purpose wiks with low volumes of traffic, recent changes is a great way to review what's been going on. But enwiki has such a high rate of edits that recent changes presents an essentially random sampling of pages. Is there really any value to having this in the sidebar? RoySmith (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good question but in my knowledge every Wikipedia linguistical version have an equivalent button.

I don't know if this can be deleted as I'm far to be a specialist. Anatole-berthe (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is something that an WP:INTADMIN can change. Or of not that, then certainly a dev by editing the project config file. But before we go there, we should figure out if we really want it or not. RoySmith (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith It can be removed by editing MediaWiki:Sidebar. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Putting #n-recentchanges { display: none } on your css page works if anyone wants to hide it. Nobody (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I use Special:RecentChanges all the time. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:39, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2020 left sidebar update there was consensus to keep this. At the time I voted to keep, saying Not only does it serve a important purpose to editors, but it also serves as a live demonstration of Wikipedia's editing activity to those unfamiliar with the site; I still agree with this. novov talk edits 01:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

-ve stuff

Is it wise to put -ve stuff on the Wikipedia home page. ? 220.240.117.89 (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, but your question is so lacking in context that it's impossible to answer properly. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Likely that they meant one of the ITN or DYK blurbs as those sometimes have negative (BLP) stuff (like the Arrest of Rodrigo Duterte). Nobody (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if the -ve stuff have good sources. Lova Falk (talk) 10:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is "-ve stuff"? Schazjmd (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I presume "-ve stuff" means "negative stuff". What had me stumped were the questions of what the "Wikipedia home page" is, and what negative stuff does it contain or someone want it to contain. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]