Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

Perhaps I wrongly assumed about WP:WikiProject Biography, WP:WikiProject Women artists, WP:WikiProject Actors and filmmakers, and so forth when I tried labelling them as "semi-active". Difference between activities of WikiProject talk pages and (somewhat?) active editing of related articles meeting any of these scopes? Or...? George Ho (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

What defines “activity” for a Wikiproject? Is it discussion, feedback and coordination at the project page level, or is it editing and collaboration at article level? A lot of our Wikiproject pages are essentially moribund… yet the articles under the project’s banner are actively edited. Blueboar (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

What defines “activity” for a Wikiproject? Is it discussion, feedback and coordination at the project page level, or is it editing and collaboration at article level?

I did judge the WikiProject activity primarily based on amount of responses in their talk pages. Too bad my efforts to label them as "semi-active" were reverted by SNUGGUMS and pburka. I was gonna discuss this with the former, but the latter also made one of the reverts. Thus, I'm discussing "activity" criteria here. George Ho (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

A lot of our Wikiproject pages are essentially moribund: If they can't be labelled as "semi-active", then how else can these "moribund" WikiProjects be handled? Reconstruct the pages, broaden the scopes, or...? George Ho (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

A revert can be a sign of activity in itself. The idea that editing of pages within a Wikiproject's scope means the Wikiproject itself is active is symbolic of the decline of Wikiprojects as a whole, from actual communities/hubs to a glorified tagging system. CMD (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

[Assumption that editing the pages that meet] a Wiki[P]roject's scope [makes] the Wiki[P]roject itself [...] active [exemplifies] the decline of Wikiprojects as a whole, from actual communities/hubs to a glorified tagging system.

Copyedited most of the quoted content for ya. ;)

In any case, shall I then ping SNUGGUMS and pburka, both who reverted my relabelling them? George Ho (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Curiously, why have WikiProjects' talk pages been mostly lacking replies either recently or in recent years? George Ho (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Sometimes people instead more actively post on the talk pages of articles within the scope or on their review subpages (e.g. FAC, GAN, PR). You clearly didn't account for this when incorrectly assuming that WikiProject talk pages alone determine activity levels. Adding "semi-active" tags there was hasty at best. I thought it was obvious that ongoing efforts to work on pages within a project's scope count as activity for that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:39, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Then why do you think WikiProjects are called "moribund" or something like that? (Sure, I was unaware of other factors of activity, but I'm still astonished by the broadening of what exemplifies an "activity", ya know.) George Ho (talk) 08:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

They might have gone with the overly narrow criteria that you did or perhaps judged statuses on whether the project members had been around any longer. Nevertheless, there are multiple factors to measure activity instead of just one. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Note a WikiProject is a group of editors who share a common interest for a particular Wikipedia initiative, such as editing articles related to a certain topic. A WikiProject talk page is a place for these editors to discuss matters of interest to the WikiProject. I agree that a lack of replies to editors starting topics isn't a good sign that the group is active, but it doesn't necessarily mean that there is no longer a group of active editors interested in the initiative. isaacl (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

The definition of activity for a WikiProject is the interaction of the group's participants with each other. The fact that other people edit articles within the group's scope is not a signal that the group exists. A chat on the group's talk page is a good signal, but not 100% reliable.

As a general rule: Tag the group's page however seems accurate/descriptive to you, and then be happy if someone reverts you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear before, I was also counting project members posting notices on each others' user talk pages along with threads on article talk pages as a part of "ongoing efforts to work on pages within a project's scope". Going off only a group's project talk page is an oversimplified way to gauge activity. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:54, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi everybody,

for around the last year or so I tried to stop one obscure neo-religious organisation from whitewashing their Wikipedia page and the page of their founder, for which they really used every conceivable tool (socks, meatpuppets, AI talkpage discussions, a massive amount of faked or extremely obscure sources, legal threats against another editor, whatever you want). After the ban of their last array of sockpuppets, I noticed that suddenly some central sources used in these articles both in the German and English wiki, which were already only available on archive pages, were deleted even there. This is obviously quite bad for verifiability, and I fear that in a few months/years another sockpuppet will come and delete parts of the articles on the basis that the sources aren't accessible anymore.

See for example:

>Focus article (deleted from the Wayback Machine)

>Tagesschau article (deleted from the Wayback Machine)

While there is some tohuwabohu about some legal proceedings against the Hessischer Rundfunk, I remember that the Focus article in particular only talked in a neutral way about the results of these proceedings, so I don't see how there is a basis to delete this. Both of these are nearly highest-quality sources in the German media landscape. I also couldn't find much information about when or how an URL can be excluded from the Wayback Machine by request of a third party, which does not own the website (which I assume is the case here). Does anybody know more about when/how such a thing can happen or about any similar events? Iluzalsipal (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that third parties can get pages removed from archives. Are the articles no longer available on the original websites? (We don't need archives if they are.)

In Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, when I search for "Bhakti marga" "Vishwananda" I see five potential sources. Maybe those would be useful. Google Scholar has some potential sources, though I don't know how many of them will be reliable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

IA exclusion policy. If going by this, the only party that can exclude the url from being archived is the site owners themselves, and likely what had happened is that they probably had gone after the publishers themselves to get it removed. Too bad that archive{.}today is deprecated, otherwise at least one of the sources could still be rescued. – robertsky (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say that two users in Iran have reported, happy and surprised, that despite the media restrictions in Iran, especially now, access to Wikipedia has somehow been getting through in the last couple of days. One commented, speaking of Timeline of the 2026 Iran war: "This page is my only news reference that I have. Please make an update everytime that you can". Volunteers willing to help out on Iran-related articles please take note, and please be sure to comply strictly with WP:Verifiability. Admins: govt. actors may perhaps get wind – please watch for disruption. Many thanks to @ARKO35717 and Slabs37: for letting us know about Wikipedia access in Iran; keep us up-to-date when you can, but above all, stay safe! Mathglot (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I noticed that Genshin Impact has been getting mentioned quite often in the Did You Know section of the English front page. I just want it known that it has been noticed. ~2026-14470-66 (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I haven't noticed that myself (I usually don't pay attention to DYK), but I have noticed that there's a lot of Taylor Swift and Meghan Trainor-related FAs on the main page throughout the years. Oh look, there's one on the MP right now! Some1 (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

That was the pattern a couple of years ago on Chinese Wikipedia. Back then I tried to hit the brakes but to no avail and I don't bother messing with Genshin editors since. If the same pattern happens here, are people translating from Chinese Wikipedia? MilkyDefer 14:54, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't know how big the genshin article space is but it will presumably one day hit a limit. I suspect that limit will be when genshin becomes a GA topic. CMD (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

It seems to have bypassed GA and gone straights to FAC. I hadn't even heard of this until it showed up there, but this wouldn't be the first time I'm out of touch with the latest pop craze :-) RoySmith (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I had to link Genshin Impact in the opening statement to know what it was. I'm of the age now when I don't care about people thinking me out of touch. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think so. Genshin is a continuously updating gacha game. So long as the game is still delivering new contents (it is a stable source of income for MiHoYo/HoYoVerse and somewhat endorsed by Chinese authorities to show off their soft powers), I doubt people would ever run out of articles to write. Genshin has a stable fan base in China and never runs out of sources for now. There is an active pool of editors willing to devote their time to source digging and writing articles, which is no small feat. The same applies to Mario/Zelda/The Simpsons etc. MilkyDefer 13:04, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Anyone can nominate an article to DYK, so long as they're willing to put in the effort to write the article and bring it to a sufficient quality. This often means that one person or a small group of people interested in a topic will write and nominate several articles about that topic. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Like, not just chronologically new editors, but new editors of the course of like, the past 6 months who seem active (certain number of consistent edits). — Knightoftheswords 19:38, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, but it would be a pretty simple database query. I'll give it a try. Probably using the Quarry interface. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/102941 should be a reasonable starting point. RoySmith (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

You beat me to it, but https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/102944 exists as of now. Interesting there are currently about a dozen week-old accounts with over 100 edits. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to draw the attention of WP:SHIPS to Talk:Carvel_(franchise)#Requested_move_3_March_2026, or would this be considered as canvassing? The move discussion is relevant because of Carvel (boat building), which falls under WP:SHIPS. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:23, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see why not, as long as the notification is neutral. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Notifying a WikiProject is a standard way to get more opinions on a relevant discussion. There isn't total agreement when it becomes canvassing, but the general rule is that it might be canvassing if there's reason to believe that the members of the WikiProject as a whole are strongly inclined to lean one way or the other, especially if it's the side that the notifier supports. But yes, if the goal is to get additional neutral input (which it pretty much always is), then it's good practice. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

To me, this copy edit appears to use an AI editor to produce the changes. I base this on the similarity to changes suggested by Grammarly (a product I use largely to detect typos that an ordinary spelling verifier would not detect). Beyond the blandness of the writing style that this produces, it can put errors into the article. In this instance I have had to change "across the Mediterranean" back to "the length of the Mediterranean", as the the two have quite different meanings in the context involved.

What is the Wikipedia view on editors using AI for copy edits? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:34, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Might it not be a good idea to ask the person who made that edit whether they used AI, or any tool? Let's at least ping them. Meleager91. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

There's no current rule on using AI for copyedits. That said, quite a few of those edits changed the meaning of the sentence, so it is worth asking the editor if they meant to do that. CMD (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, a ping is appropriate; thanks. I only checked a part of the article that I knew well for retention of meaning, as I was short of time. I've not looked further at the changes for more changes of meaning.
Just out of interest, Grammarly decided to check the two posts above. User:Chipmunkdavis has a writing style that it thinks needs fixing, whilst User:Phil Bridger only gets one complaint from the software (the comma before "or any tool"). To be clear, I think both original versions are perfectly OK. The second sentence of this post is something that Grammarly wants to change to a version which seems to me to have no meaning whatsoever. The lesson is, I suggest, always proofread the output of the proofing software.

I should probably alert User:HopsonRoad, who may be interested in this discussion due to the article involved. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 15:50, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I think my comment is correct either with or without the comma, but subtly different in meaning. I guess Grammarly doesn't do subtle. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be moved to WP:VPP instead? We now have this guideline about LLMs for articles (WP:writing articles with large language models)... Actually, it now applies to only new articles. George Ho (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I have no problem with this discussion being moved to Village Pump (policy). You presumably look for opinions from the other contributors. I am going to be limited on further involvement in this matter as I will be on the road for 2 days. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 20:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I created the {{Most appropriate article}} template as precedent grew for its use. Its original use was hard-coded on Talk:Donald Trump and a corresponding edit notice was created for it. There's now a corresponding edit notice for Talk:2026 Iran war. Now that it's a proper template, it would be preferable if it automatically placed an edit notice so they don't need to be created manually. Templates like {{Refideas}} do something similar. Could someone who knows more about templates look into the best way implement this? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)