Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• Jump to bottom
• New topic
• All village pumps

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.

For questions about a wiki that is not the English Wikipedia, please post at m:Wikimedia Forum instead.

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for 8 days.

« Archives, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88

New Google search announced

The new Google search has been announced a few days ago (their blog, but also reported by virtually every major source). This would basically mean that already this year our audience would shrink from being part human, part AI to being fully AI, no humans will read Wikipedia. This probably should have some consequences for what we are doing (you know, tastes of AI and humans are still different, though they seem to be converging very quickly). I have not seen this being discussed in the Wikimedia universe, and I would appreciate some links if someone is aware of such discussions. In the unlikely case it has not been discussed, we probably should start a discussion here. Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

The Google to Wikipedia reader is not the only type of reader, and they're really not the kind of reader I write for. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

My reading of the blog: "blah blah agentic coding blah blah intelligent search blah blah AI Mode blah blah Gemini 3.5" etc. Really there's nothing new announced that doesn't already exist in Gemini itself. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

tastes of AI and humans are still different, though they seem to be converging very quickly That's because you're projecting the tastes of humans onto nonhuman things. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

You may be interested in "Emotion concepts and their function in a large language model". Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Meh. Still seems to just be anthropomorphism: Note that none of this tells us whether language models actually feel anything or have subjective experiences. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, Anthropic has a strong incentive to claim that their models have become sentient, because then they can make money off of marketing themselves as "promoting AI welfare". (Yes, I am an AI skeptic.) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

To understand these models’ behavior, anthropomorphic reasoning is essential. is the part I thought might interest you, anthropomorphism as a tool for alignment. Aside from just trying to understand what is happening inside these networks with their interesting circuit structures, it seems to be about finding ways to align the values and preferences that influence their behavior with ours. I'm a skeptic by nature and training, but I think it's okay to use familiar words as stand-ins for emergent behavior that we don't understand produced by a bunch of vectors. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

My understanding they are going to get rid of the search feed, so that people would not be able to get to the websites in one click. This pretty much means they will not be getting to us. There are ways around this, for example (just throwing up smth) supporting DuckDuckGo which is currently does not provide the search of a quality comparable to Google. I am sure there are other solutions, but if we do nothing we just lose 99% of our direct audience. Ymblanter (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

It seems timely to explore the consequences if Alphabet abandon the longstanding arrangement that Google indexes and presents Search links to websites.

While incoming traffic to WP and other sites is the first victim, there are other consequences. Take the longstanding understanding that new unpatrolled pages are unindexed; avoiding hoax/nonsense from being surfaced was in everyone's interest when search accuracy was the thing, but in this new sloppy world, is that exclusion being respected by LLM bots, including those using the Enterprise API?

And for editors here, Findsources for Notability checking is primarily linking Google Search. Is that sustainable if it returns Gemini slop? Would appending udm=14 maintain the prior norm? Or should it be parameterized to the user's preferred search engine? Or seek a Wikipedia Library type arrangement with Kagi, for example? AllyD (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. This is indeed one thing, another thing is that whether a page looks nice to a human (and whether it is the case for desktop/mobile, different resolutions etc) becomes largely irrelevant, only the content. May be not even interlinking the pages. Ymblanter (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

And, as another consequence, I understand that it looks like red tape for some users, but Commons becomes more important under these conditions than Wikipedia (in any major language). Ymblanter (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

It says You’ll continue to get a range of results from Search, just like you do today. That does not sound like "they are going to get rid of the search feed, so that people would not be able to get to the websites in one click" to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Google for years has been moving away from delivering a list of blue links in response to search queries. But the refreshed search engine, which runs on the company’s new Gemini 3.5 Flash model, represents what may be its biggest shift yet toward AI and away from traditional search? Just a random article from my feed. Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Probably "will not be able" is too strong, if they are determined they will. But most will be not even interested at clicking at the links. Ymblanter (talk) 06:50, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I think this is the main threat: People will not be interested in clicking on the links, because they'll get their question answered without needing to click. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I thought this is pretty much what I said, but may be I was not clear enough.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, exactly that. "When people search with AI, they're less likely to click through". Google's AI Overviews are already causing Wikipedia to lose traffic. If and when Google makes "AI mode" the default search mode (or makes searching on Google similar to chatting with an AI chatbot), then that'll pretty much spell the end of this project. Some1 (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

My reading is this is what they are going to do this Summer, and this is not yet the end of the project because the LLMs need to get the information elsewhere, and Wikipedia is still the best source of structured information which is still being added on a regular basis, but, as I said in the opening statement of this thread, we will have to adapt to the fact that we will not get any human readers, only LLM readers.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:47, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

They're not getting rid of the search feed. They're introducing "agents" that will "autonomously crawl the web on your behalf". SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

AKA Google's own version of OpenClaw. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

My main worry is how AI manipulates information on controversial topics. I have tested this with queries like "Gaza genocide" at various times in the last 2 years. I prefer just regular web search and access to the open web. But in 50 years, the new generation might not know what the open web is.... 🐈Cinaroot   03:44, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

According to Google's own AI, "Users, tech critics, and researchers have documented a measurable decline in Google Search quality ... from a mix of aggressive monetization ... and the disruptive introduction of AI features." Certes (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the complaints about Google Search are correct, but I think it's more complicated than that. I've used DuckDuckGo as my main web search engine for a few years. I find that the quality is adequate for most everyday, low-stakes purposes (e.g., finding a business's website or looking up a word/place/product that's mentioned in something I'm reading). But I find Google to be better if I'm looking for more complex things (e.g., a specific news article whose title I have, finding something relevant when I ask for information from slightly wrong keywords). What's annoying with all of them is that when I search for exact phrases (e.g., a quotation from a source), they may not find the thing that I want, and they always throw in things that I don't want.

Earlier this month, I switched to having Wikipedia be my default search tool, and I've been surprised at how well that's going. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea, though obviously not great for finding reliable sources. I use DuckDuckGo (Bing with a false beard) but it's also going down the AI route, presenting "Learn about..." summaries as if they were Wikipedia leads. Certes (talk) 09:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Humans will continue reading Wikipedia, in the same way they will continue reading many other websites (the sites that will be really damaged by this will be minor ones that almost nobody knows, and it's a pity anyway).

Wikipedia is the largest reference work ever written, and also the most read one (yes, this will continue to be so, since LLMs and search engines are not written works). Even if, eventually, most people don't want to read more than three lines of AI-generated content, the ones who choose to retain their brains despite having AI available, would want to continue reading, and Wikipedia is a very interesting work to be (of course, partially) read.

AI summaries are very useful to get quick facts, and they are no problem, since WMF's money doesn't come from clicks. When you need detailed information or a permanent written work whose content doesn't change every time you perform the search, you click on the link (that still exists, even in Google's AI mode) and come here.

Two Wikipedia essays that I think can help you to highlight why Wikipedia is not just a tool to search for information, as search engines or AI-powered search are, but it is information in itself (disclaimer: they were both written mostly by me):

• Past and future of Wikipedia
• The hidden encyclopedia that resides in the article histories

MGeog2022 (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Sites will be able to opt out of the AI overviews

Google's announced that site owners will soon be able to opt out being in the AI overviews and AI Mode. They're currently rolling this feature out to "a subset of website owners in the UK" before hopefully rolling it out worldwide. Hopefully, this should mean Wikipedia should stop appearing in the summaries. Of course, there will still be other sites that don't opt out, and the summaries will still be at the top of the search results, but it's a step forward at least. CheeseAndJamSamdwich (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Is it? We know that Wikipedia's info on a topic is likely to be accurate and NPOV, unlike much else out there. The reader, and thus society at large, is better served if Wikipedia's content is not hidden from them. PamD 19:54, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Google is rolling this out in the UK initially, because they have to. It's not clear how best to respond. One way is to deny Google our content, hope that other outlets do likewise and that this makes the AI slop so visibly bad that no one uses it and Google withdraws it. The WMF may not go along with that, because it might result in losing income from Google (which they don't need, but that's another story). A more pessimistic assumption is that AI will creep in whatever we do, so we should minimise the enshittification by allowing Google to use our content rather than replace it by a less objective source. Certes (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

If we opt out nobody ever will use Wikipedia (or even know it exists). Ymblanter (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

That's not true, Google would still pull from our mirrors. CMD (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

That raises the interesting if slightly mischievous idea of dumping all our unwanted AI crawler traffic on those who reuse our content without giving anything back. Certes (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

If our content is free, the AIs will still be trained on it; opting out from this seems like it will just suppress explicit links to the site in question from being highlighted in discussion, rather than preventing AI from training on it. So this would make our content invisible to end users while still being the main corpus for AI training _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:46, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Google's move is terrible for the internet, but we have our own mission. I'd advocate for something nearly the opposite from opting out: give Google a sweet Wikimedia Enterprise deal granting it easy access to current data in exchange for very clear attribution, linking, etc. The worst case scenario is Wikipedia not being part of those AI summaries, the second-to-worst case scenario is being part of those AI summaries and people having no idea it's from Wikipedia. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:48, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

There are no circumstances whatsoever when it would be appropriate to offer Google (or any other business) 'a sweet Wikimedia Enterprise deal' in return for proper attribution. That'd basically be paying them to conform to the terms of use they are already supposed to be complying with, and an active inducement to non-compliance by anyone seeking a similar deal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

? Yes, of course satisfying mere legal obligations is not what I was talking about. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:42, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

The legal obligations are those specified by the CC BY-SA license, but the Wikimedia Attribution Framework provides tools for more in-depth attribution (cf. the page for AI assistant reuse). It neatly separates essential elements of attribution required by the license from additional trust signals such as the number of editors and the last update, and even a call to action to contribute. Having an API deal with Google or other companies conditional on this more in-depth attribution could be a great way to keep Wikipedia relevant in AI overviews. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 15:10, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Google already steals our content and doesn't give proper attribution with it's little "infobox" on the side of its search results. The implementation of this has varied over the years but it's been a terrible thing for Wikipedia because it prevents traffic from coming to the site because Google gave them the information they wanted already. It actively harmed our user base growth in my opinion. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Google already steals our content and doesn't give proper attribution All you need for proper attribution is a URL and a link to the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride banner

Hello everyone, it may be a bit late to ask this, but as the organizer of Wiki Loves Pride 2026, I would like to know if there is agreement within the community regarding requesting that the proposed banner for the event be available here (on the English Wikipedia) throughout the month of June and not just for the first 15 days (according to the Usage Guidelines). Thank you in advance for any comment. Sfs90 (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Continuing on past any potential bigots around here, I think it being up for the whole month sounds like a fine idea, though there will probably be diminishing returns in the final two weeks since people likely won't want to join up when an event is just about to end anyways. Silverseren^C 07:30, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not bigotry to expect Wikipedia to maintain a neutral point of view rather than promoting political campaigns. Of course we welcome readers and editors of all orientations and rightly try hard to treat them equally, but banners should be for matters directly relevant to Wikipedia. Certes (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

"This event has a goal of 75 articles created." Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:00, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I never see this type of reaction when wiki proclaims to love monuments. ~2026-32655-57 (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Certes: "Wiki Loves Pride is a global campaign to expand and improve LGBTQ+ content across several Wikimedia projects". What is your objection? Do you think LGBTQ+ content is unacceptable? That we have too much of it? DuncanHill (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Articles about LGBTQ+ peple and issues, monuments and other notable topics are always welcome. I've no specific feelings about this particular cause. However, the organisers of Pride Month are just one of many pressure groups out there declaring that this is Think About Us Day/Week/Month, and I have to question whether it is Wikipedia's role to carry such advertising. Certes (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Certes: By "pressure groups out there" you mean "Wikipedians"? And by "advertising" you mean "asking for help to improve Wikipedia"? DuncanHill (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

No, or I'd have written that instead. Certes (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah well, it's not like you would ever take a political position about Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I deemed that sentiment appropriate for a user page but not a global banner. It hardly shows the right-wing bias of which I am accused below. But let's keep this discussion about the merits of banners rather than me. Certes (talk) 10:39, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Certes LGBT issues are not any form of "political issue'; they are human rights and borderline bigotry such as this will not be tolerated. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 00:54, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

If people debate about the issues then they are political. Human rights are also political. Shutting down discussions because you disagree with someone is also political. On Wikipedia then we write about the politics, and we tolerate people having many points of view. Telling people to celebrate something is also political point of view. Our readers can decide what they want to celebrate (or not) themselves. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

At least some LGBT issues are not human rights issues. While discrimination is of course a grave issue that can be considered a human rights issue... underrepresentation in an online encyclopedia while still quite the issue is not the same. ~2026-21916-69 (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

At least some LGBT issues are not human rights issues.

Examples please. George Ho (talk) 11:24, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Most biographies are not human rights issues. Look at Gay men#Art and culture, there's not much about rights in that section. However politics still pops up. There is plenty of topics that are not about human rights. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I can't believe certain people here make discouraging comments, like "political", and treat it like something not to celebrate about. If Pride Month is part of identity politics, then prove it with reliable sources. Otherwise, the Month is something to celebrate as an "observance" and to be joyful about, not to dismiss as "politics" or whatever. (Speaking of politics, anybody aware of respectability politics lately?) George Ho (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

It is the selection of words on the banner that makes it partisan political rather than the intended outcome. "loves" and "pride" are the key words to it being political. A more neutral advert would be "Wikimedia USA wants to improve coverage of LGBT topics". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

"Loves" is literally the standard editathon language for Wikipedia and has been for decades. Hence, Wiki Loves Monuments as the most well known one. And Pride is both a group designator that is broad enough to encompass everything intended and also avoids grammatically weird structures like "Wiki Loves LGBT", which just sounds like a strange verbal construction. Additionally, Pride encompasses things beyond just LGBT (hence why even the associated Wikiproject says LGBT+, which would be an even weirder grammatical construction with "Wiki Loves"), such as articles related to asexuality would count as well. None of that is political except for those people who think the existence of LGBT+ people is inherently political. Silverseren^C 21:58, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree that "loves" is used for this purpose, but it is weird. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Maybe we should pivot from the use of 'loves' as that might give an appearance of impropriety. ~2026-21916-69 (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I will say though that people said the same thing about the "loves" terminology when Wiki Loves Ramadan was running. The name format "Wiki Loves X" is pretty well established, as seen in this list of "Wiki Loves X" events, and it would be hard to change it to something else ("Wiki Documents X"? Doesn't roll off the tongue well). HyperAnd [talk] 07:15, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@OP: Curiously, has Wiki Loves Pride run a banner on en.wiki before? If so, then why recent complaints about it other than... what's said above? George Ho (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I think it has been around in a previous year. Is it connected to Pride month? I hope we do not get a "Wiki loves donuts" because donut day is coming up on the 5th. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

It ran a banner in 2025, and people complained about it then too. A brief example. Don't know if it means much. I for one support keeping the banner around till the end of the month. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. Pride runs the whole month, after all. Fixinathing (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I sympathise with those arguing that endorsing 'Pride' is inherntly political in a way that endorsing articles about momuments (for eg) isn't. The whole Pride movement arose out of a wish to combat prejudice against (originally) LGB people and celebrating their existence and visibility. Worlswide, there are probably still many places where extensive prejudice against and denial of visibility still exists, and remedying that remains a campaigning objective of Pride. Whether there is any underrepresentation in terms of number of articles or biased coverage on WP about LGBT+ people or topics, I'm not competent to judge, but in my subjective experience not. As in any contentious area, there are problems of neutrality, especially in the TQ+ areas, but not AFAIK any shortage of articles on people or topics. Regardless of whether one sympathises with Pride's objectives (most WP editors probably do), it is inherently a campaigning phenomenon.Pincrete (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I love that we do Wiki Loves Pride and the other "Wiki Loves" projects (though sympathize with arguments that the names of some could be improved), and have been involved as both participant and judge in several (including WLP in the past), but two things worth talking about: 1) Given we typically only have one banner at a time, I'm not completely sure I want to see any initiative-specific banner displayed to logged out users (i.e. all readers) for a full month. Showing the banner to logged in users is one thing (like for Picture of the Year), but a full month to everyone accessing Wikipedia seems like too much... unless we have tons of different banners we're cycling through, which AFAIK is not the case. (Although having a persistent banner space for Wiki Loves, other community initiatives, public-facing initiatives, fundraising, ongoing invitations to edit, ads for the teahouse, etc. would be an interesting thing to explore). 2) I'd love to be able to have these decisions informed by data for projects where it's not the first year running. With Wiki Loves Monuments it's easy, because everything motivated by the contest is in one or more dedicated categories on Commons. What's the return on banner prominence for the other Wiki Loves initiatives? How many users click through, how many articles are created or promoted that wouldn't have been? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:10, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

We have enough banners running at any given point in time that most of them are put on a "diet" that restricts them to three impressions for the same campaign per day (the actual number is configurable). Many of them also have geolocation and language restrictions, so there can be (e.g.,) 12 campaigns running today, but only two are potentially shown to you. See m:CentralNotice/Usage guidelines for more rules and options. If you don't want to see these banners, then go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-centralnotice-banners and turn them off. Personally, I've got them all off on this wiki and most of them off on all the other wikis (via Special:GlobalPreferences).

The CentralNotice software logs data for every single impression in every single campaign, automatically. If memory serves, the basic stats (e.g., how many total impressions?) are public on Meta-Wiki and potentially sensitive details (e.g., how many people in that small country on Friday evening clicked through the banner?) are logged but kept private and deleted on a regular schedule (probably after 90 days). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Category:Films about birds

There is many-year edit war in this category about - should it be put into Category:Films about dinosaurs? I think - obviously not, because, even if birds are dinosaurs' descendants according to cladistics, in common language birds and dinosaurs are disjoint sets. In last 6 years, there is one user - Randy Kryn - who many times adds birds into dinosaurs category after many users remove it. I propose to decide here that this category should not be in dinosaurs category (and block users, who will add it to dinosaurs again). MBH (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

This isn't a dispute resolution board. See WP:DR for that. And messages along the lines of "I'm right and they're wrong" aren't a good way of getting uninvolved parties to join in. IMO it seems like a natural parent category to me. Not like Randy (courtesy ping Randy Kryn) is proposing to rename the category. Anyone looking for birds still gets birds. Also IMO categories are rarely worth fighting about -- better to write an article on a bird documentary. While we're off-topic for VPM, I'll recommend Listers: A Glimpse Into Extreme Birdwatching, a wonderful birding documentary by/for people who don't really understand birding. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:05, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

It's obvious to me that it won't be possible to convince him otherwise. What do you propose to do next in this case if the opponent disagrees with you? Without referring to the huge rule, just in your own words. The category discussion page is probably almost unwatched, so discussing it there won't lead to anything either. MBH (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:DR has a few options. If it's just you and one other person, a neutral pointer at WP:3O may help. You might also post to the talk page at either Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs or even Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film as a next step, if that doesn't work. But again, messages are best kept neutral e.g. "There is a dispute as to whether the category Films about birds should be in the category Films about dinosaurs. Please weigh in at Category talk:Films about birds". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:20, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

As explained above, WP:DR outlines the procedures. However, from your description it looks like the plan would be to start a discussion at a wikiproject (presumably one about birds, with a notification on one about dinosaurs). The discussion would not mention other editors, just say there is a disagreement and give brief, concrete examples (link to article + discussion + category). If the discussion results in a clear consensus, revert contrary changes (once only!) with a link to the discussion. If problems, post on user's talk asking why they don't think they are editing against consensus. If not satisfied with response, post at WP:ANI with a claim that an editor is editing against consensus. If there is no clear consensus, start an WP:RFC with a neutral, clear question. Johnuniq (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Third opinion: no, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_6#Birds. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 03:00, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@Pppery Thanks. So, could someone remove "Films about birds" from "Films about dinosaurs" and probably block Randy Kryn to edit this category? MBH (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I already did remove the category. I'm not going to issue any blocks myself; I'm far too involved to do so and promised to stay away from this kind of block in my RfA. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 20:39, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure that CfD established a full consensus on the pop culture categories, since its resolution involved a subcategory (since renamed, I believe), and currently Category:Birds is in a series of clade categories named in Latin that tops out at Category:Dinosaurs by classification and then Category:Dinosaurs, and while there was some agreement that birds and dinosaurs in pop culture aren't necessarily helpful to define cladistically, I don't think it was the focus, so it might be a good idea to have a focused CfD specifically on the film categories. Sesquilinear (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

The applicability of that CfD is that if "Films about birds" is already under a subcategory of "films about dinosaurs" then it shouldn't be in "films about dinosaurs". There is clearly nothing resembling consensus in that CfD that "birds aren't dinosaurs" or something. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, do we want to take this question to CFD? It'd be easy enough: "Should cat A be placed on cat B, or not?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Well I certainly don't want to. :) I like birds and I like dinosaurs, but I very much don't like categorization. I guess, just in case it's useful, I oppose any categorization decision made on the basis of "birds aren't dinosaurs" but don't want a say in the finer points of categorization hierarchy. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:29, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Birds are descended from dinosaurs, but are not themselves dinosaurs. Just as Homo Sapiens is descended from something dozens of millions of years ago, but is not that thing. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Only in the colloquial sense. Birds are theropod dinosaurs. Humans descended from early mammals, and are still mammals. Humans are not Australopithecus just as birds are not Velociraptor, but humans are mammals and birds are dinosaurs. You don't evolve your way out of your ancestry. The above CfD wasn't closed as "birds aren't dinosaurs", but as "it shouldn't be directly in the dinosaurs category, because it is already in the dinosaurs category, several subcategories down". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:12, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

The closest analogue for humans is likely Category:Monkeys, which Category:Humans is not part of. (Although Category:Humans is not part of any category tree apparently.) CMD (talk) 02:37, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

The reason for that is WP:Category escape hatches, concerns that don't apply here. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 02:39, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

It is also the case for the equivalent non-escaped categories such as Category:Homo. CMD (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Nota bene: Homo → Hominini → Homininae → Hominidae → Apes → Catarrhini → Monkeys Sesquilinear (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah thank you, I went up the Primate taxonomy tree instead. Looks like we do have a good comparative example. CMD (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

The main point here is that birds are dinosaurs (not "descended" from dinosaurs or "somewhat" dinosaurs, 100% dinosaurs and have been since they became birds), and films about birds are also films about dinosaurs. There is no difference except in the two words, and dinosaurs on Wikipedia are classified as two types: Avian dinosaurs and non-avian dinosaurs. The non-avian dinosaurs perished 68 million years ago while the avians, over 11,000 species of birds, went on to dominate, along with bats, Earth's airspace. Although there is disagreement here, past decisions have been heavily weighed down by editors insisting that birds are not dinosaurs, comments which should have been ignored. The use of the humans as monkeys, and other mammal comparisons, would only be accurate if humans were the only mammals left, and have been the only mammals that survived an extinction event and flourished for 68 million years. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the current descriptions of both Category:Films about dinosaurs and Category:Films about apes explicitly note them as not quite using their literal meaning, and instead being about a paraphyletic subset of the clade.

The difference as far as I can tell is that there isn't a category for films about humans because that would not be defining. Sesquilinear (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I was curious, and the edits to clarify the meanings here were added by... Randy Kryn? Why are you edit warring after making these changes to the descriptions? Sesquilinear (talk) 04:48, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Birds are not dinosaurs in common language, see any English dictionary. MBH (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

wikt:dinosaur and wikt:ape mention both the paraphyletic and cladistic definitions, for what it's worth Sesquilinear (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

And there was I, innocently thinking that the "en" in some Wikimedia projects meant "English", when it turns out that it really means "cladistic jargon". Phil Bridger (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

That's what I mean, those who don't believe that birds are dinosaurs would never include the categories being discussed here, and in order to do so they must ignore Wikipedia and use personal bias in a serious context (trying to get someone blocked is pretty serious, no?). Wikipedia recognizes that birds are dinosaurs, which is pretty much all we have to know to include films about birds in the category films about dinosaurs. WP:Common sense. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Are there people who believe that the main characters in The Land Before Time are fundamentally the same animals as the titular character in Daffy Duck's Fantastic Island?

Your main argument appears to be that the existence a scientific definition of a word causes the lay definitions to not exist. That's not how language works, but I think that what we would need to resolve this in your favor is some reason to believe that non-technical, non-expert readers would not be confused or even believe that Wikipedia had an error, if they found Daffy Duck in the same category/tree as a baby apatosaurus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Randy Kryn reverts several more edits by several users in category. Could someone block him and enforce decision did on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_6#Birds? MBH (talk) 10:06, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, this fellow is a joy and quick with blocking fellow Wikipedians. No, I did not revert "several more..." but I did revert MBH again because MBH started this discussion to resolve the matter and yet is reverting to enforce their opinion. Listing films about birds in the category films about dinosaurs is as logical as listing Category:Sun in Category:Stars. They're the same topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:13, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Ultimately, what we need is for editors to reach a decision, even if they make the Wrong™ decision. I think that's going to involve a trip to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Tool for Finding Unlinked Pages in Other Pages

This is probably the wrong place for this but I don't know where else to ask: Does anyone else remember or use a tool which you could input the name of an article into and it would find other articles which mention that article but which don't have it linked? I've been searching for ages but I can't remember what it was called or if it even still exists. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 05:47, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

You can type insource:"string of text" into the searchbar and it will output any article with that string of text. WP:Autowikibrowser can also compile such a list much more quickly. 1brianm7 (talk) 07:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Those are both handy but there used to be one that would actually insert the links for you too. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 07:26, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

that would actually insert the links for you too Do you mean a tool that would edit the articles that mention the specified string on your behalf to insert links? I am pretty sure AutoWikiBrowser could do that, but I may be misunderstanding what you said. - BlueEleephant (talk · contribs) 16:39, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Find Link may be what you're looking for. I can't check at the moment because it's hit a rate limiter. Documentation is here. Certes (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Edward is the author of the Find Link tool and I've left him a ping in case he wants to comment. EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

This is exactly it, thank you very much! FishandChipper 🐟🍟 05:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

There is Find Link which I made in 2008. Recently I've been building a replacement, Missing Link. It's mostly working, although I'm having some problems with Wikimedia rate limiting API access. Edward (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your work on this. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 05:27, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Edward. I would hope that you can negotiate a higher API limit (or multiple keys if that's infeasible) since you are providing a widely used service rather than just doing something expensive for your own ends. Certes (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:BAG nomination notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Zackmann08 (2nd attempt) regarding my request to join the bot approvals group. Posting the required notification here. Your input would be greatly appreciated! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:36, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Alma Mater vs education. Any difference?

I have come across a lot of Infoboxes that have both a |education= AND a |alma_mater=. Sometimes as conflicting params and sometimes not. Is there a difference here that I'm not aware of? When I see that Joe Smith was Educated at NYU isn't that the same as saying his Alma mater is NYU? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:01, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Education is more general than Alma Mater - as it potentially covers the whole of someone's education (through schools, universities and post university learning), not just one example of school/college/university. Using education is (at least in the opinion of this Brit) a damn sight less pretentious than Alma Mata. I would also wonder why this belongs in an infobox - is it really a defining characteristic?Nigel Ish (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Some people (think certain recent British prime ministers, or Wikipedia editors) seem never to leave their school/university days behind them, so it seems that, for them, it is a defining characteristic. I was going to make the point that one is more pretentious than the other, but it has already been made. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I would add that I have received an education, but it would be difficult for me to define an Alma Mater. I have been to three different universites (two at the "normal" time and one in my fifties) and I couldn't say that any one has had more effect on me. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:26, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

If it is meant to be a single defining characteristic, then it may be difficult to select - for example is David Cameron more defined by the fact that he went to senior school at Eton College or to university at Brasenose College, Oxford? In comparing Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson, is the key comparison what college they went to that one studied Chemistry and the other Literae humaniores? I'd be a bit worried that using Almer Mater might be pushing the editor into making judgement calls about what is the "defining" phase of education - making such judgements may challenge NPOV.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

This is a good point. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Education is a fairly basic piece of biographical information that does make sense to include in many/most biography infoboxes. I would probably avoid alma mater both on the grounds of pretension and potential confusion/inconsistency as to which school goes there when there are several options but I'm open to the possibility that there is a use case for |alma_mater=. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it is worth opening up an RFC to deprecate the use of |alma_mater= in Infoboxes and centralizing to the use of |education=. Does anyone have strong feelings on this? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:29, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I can't say that I have any strong feelings. If I have to choose one or the other than I prefer "education". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

My initial reply was a little flip. I do sometimes find alma mater pretentious but the term is in use and is not improper for our purposes. I have never once edited either of these parameters (that I can recall, anyway) and don't typically edit biography articles, so I would want more information from editors who use these. The collapsable table at Template:Infobox officeholder#TemplateData indicates that |education= is intended to contain more detailed information, such as degrees attained or even with whom the officeholder trained. If the person has multiple post-secondary degrees, there's guidance on how to list them all, and I have seen this in articles. The guidance says that the alma mater parameter may be more appropriate if details about specific degrees/credentials are unavailable. The guidance for |alma_mater= is scant and just says to use it for The linked name of attended higher education institution(s). I assume the parameters are intended to be used in more or less the same way in all the other specialized biography infobox templates. The template guidance basically conforms with the plain meanings of these terms. Alma mater is just the name of the school someone went to. It may imply a college or university (which is what at least the {{Infobox officeholder}} param asks for) and that someone graduated but there is some ambiguity there. Education is broader and can include more details about the training. I'm sure I have seen secondary schools and other types of education or "training" listed under "education" as well. tl;dr There is a distinction but I don't know that we need to codify it and I wouldn't be surprised if people mix this up. I do think |education= ought to be able to handle all of the variation—from details about degrees from multiple institutions to just the name of a single school—but this is not yet a firm conclusion.

If we retain both of these, there's the separate question of how best to handle the aliases/conflicting parameters. I can sort of see the logic either way but this already seems prone to confusion and adding the variable of similar infoboxes handling this differently doesn't help. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Good news! |alma_mater= is only used on 9 infoboxes! Going to initiate an RFC. Thanks for the feedback all! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:38, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

@Zackmann08, {{Infobox person}} also uses it but doesn't show up on your search. I identified this infobox shortly after posting my last reply. This is used in over half a million articles and there are additional templates in Category:Templates calling Infobox person that I assume would be impacted by any change. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm realizing that RIGHT now.... Trying to figure out why the hell it doesn't show up in my search. I'm at a loss... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:46, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

RFC opened below. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:53, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

RFC: Alma mater vs Education in Infoboxes

Should we remove the uses of |alma_mater= from infoboxes in favor of |education=? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:53, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Background

There are currently 10 infoboxes that use |alma_mater= in their code. Most of these also have |education=. This seems very confusing and un-necssary to me. When does one use |alma_mater= vs |education=? I am proposing that we simplify things and remove |alma_mater= entirely, merging any existing values with |education=. In the event that a given Infobox does not have |education=, I am proposing replacing |alma_mater= with |education= for consistency. This will not be a trivial task. Bots can certainly help, but ultimately will likely require a lot of manual edits.

Important note, {{Infobox sportsperson}} & {{Infobox person}} have dozens of wrappers calling them so this issue will affect hundreds of thousands of pages.

RFC alma_mater vs education discussion

Please add any thoughts below! - Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:53, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to "education" parameter. Just using "education" whether what's known is precise or imprecise seems less confusing and easier for downstream consumers to parse. And "alma mater" seems like a phrase readers are less likely to be familiar with. -- Beland (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: Template:Infobox college coach does not have |education=. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
  • @Jweiss11: good point. Thanks! Updated above. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:28, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Merge "alma mater" to "education". It's functionally the same thing but the "education" parameter is more flexible and more understandable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Merge alma_mater to education per my comments at Template talk:Infobox person#education and alma_mater parameters. They are redundant with each other and "education" is both more flexible in meaning and more widely understood. I suspect there are probably some infoboxes using both that will need human attention rather than an automated merge, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Perhaps “Alma Mater” is used to indicate that the person not only attended, but graduated and received a diploma/degree from the school? Someone who attended Harvard for a year (but dropped out) could Harvard under “education”, but not “Alma Mater”? Blueboar (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

    That's what the {{infobox person}} documentation says, and non-degree attendance can also be indicated under "education". -- Beland (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

    Er, no, actually, that's not the distinction that the documentation makes; it thinks alma_mater is for if the specific degree is unknown, and non-graduates generally don't have any college listed (with exceptions). Regardless, "education" can handle all these cases. -- Beland (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

    Yeah, the guidance is kind of goofy. We're supposed to use education when we know the specific degree. {{Infobox officeholder}} has slightly different guidance and says education can even include with whom the officeholder trained. In both cases, if we only know the name of the institution but not the degree or other details, alma_mater is suggested. I see the logic but it doesn't seem particularly helpful. I looked at all 10 of these and the guidance is either similar or absent for most of these. And I just learned that there is MOS guidance on these. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

    If someone dropped out of Harvard, we can write |education=Harvard University (dropped out). If someone received a PhD from Harvard, we can write |education=Harvard University (PhD). We do not need |alma_mater=. Khiikiat (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

    Bill Gates is the canonical example given in the documentation for a few of these templates and MOS:INFOEDU, and that is exactly how his article handles it. Although {{Infobox person}} currently says |alma_mater= should used while the MOS is silent on this. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Merge |alma_mater= to |education= per Zackmann's proposal. We do not need |alma_mater=. It is an entirely redundant parameter. Khiikiat (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Note: There is guidance on using these parameters at MOS:INFOEDU. I will place a notice at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes about this discussion. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Merge |alma_mater= to |education=. The Bill Gates case uses education (since at least 4 June 2024). Alma mater is more common in American English . Education should be preferred per MOS:COMMONALITY. We should also avoid redundancy in infobox parameters. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Merge. Stephen Hawking is another example that shows that a simple alma mater does't work – his BA was at Oxford and his PhD was at Cambridge. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Merge "alma mater" to "education". One is clear and easily understood. The other is very confusing, particularly "the last-attended higher education institution", especially in fields and countries where multiple institutions are relevant and where many graduates have subsequent qualifications from universities, some vocational (e.g. Graduate Diplomas in Law or Postgraduate Certificates in Education) , some taking courses for personal interest. For instance which was Gerald Gardiner, Baron Gardiner's "alma mater" - Magdalen College, Oxford where he took a Law degree before a lifelong career in the law (reaching the very top as Lord Chancellor) or the Open University where he took a Social Sciences degree in his mid 70s? Timrollpickering (talk) 11:01, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Merge |alma_mater= to |education= per Zackmann's proposal as clearly redundant. FaviFake (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Merge |alma_mater= to |education=. I agree with the prior rationales stated. While I had some hesitation, the more I think about this the more I confirm my initial sense that this is redundant and unhelpful. Cinderella157's additional point re: MOS:COMMONALITY provides additional support for this. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

June 2026 Wikimedia Café meetups regarding the English Wikipedia Editor Reflections project

Hello! There will be two Wikimedia Café discussion opportunities during the last weekend of June. Both sessions will focus on the English Wikipedia Editor Reflections project. The featured guest in the Café will be User:Clovermoss. Participants may attend either or both sessions.

1. 27 June 2026 15:00 UTC (timestamp converter), at a time friendly to the Americas, Africa, and Europe
2. 28 June 2026 03:00 UTC (timestamp converter), at a time friendly to Asia and the Pacific

Please see the Café page for more information, including how to register!

↠Pine (✉) 03:31, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I've added a pointer to this section from Wikipedia talk:Editor reflections § June 2026 Wikimedia Café meetups regarding the English Wikipedia Editor Reflections project and signed up to the second session. Looking forward to it! Graham87 (talk) 09:11, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Fútbol - Central Notice Banner

Hey all, second try at this! WikiLatinos is currently launching a campaign around the World Cup (which is already underway): Wiki Loves Fútbol. We'd like to enable a banner in the US for two weeks during the event, inviting people to edit topics around Latin American culture and the sport, as well as broader themes like culture and immigration in the US. Here's the list of target articles, and here's the Commons contest. Our overall goal is to reach as many people as possible with our mission using the love for the sport to do some edits. If anyone has objections to enabling the campaign, this is the place to voice them. Thanks! Oscar_. (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support. Love it! —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Strongly oppose any mention of the World Cup per WP:NPOV. We do not exist to promote a commercial event.

What is the justification to showing this to millions of readers, in the hopes of getting 78 article edits? Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:17, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Interested editors can see the CentralNotice campaign request on Meta-Wiki. The campaign at the requested settings would show this banner to all readers and editors in the United States for a duration of two weeks. It would appear a maximum of 3 times per browser-ish (it's cookie-based) per week, so 6 impressions over the course of the campaign. Best, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 00:17, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Connecting to Wikipedians in other languages/countries

Hello: I edit voluntarily, but also am a COI editor (the disclosure which you can find on my user page). I have recently been approached by someone who lives in the US but has media coverage in Dutch dating back to the 1990s. I suggested they inquire about a page on the Netherlands Wikipedia site. Similarly, I just spoke to someone in China in the same situation. Is there a way to connect these people with the Netherlands/Dutch, and Chinese wikipedia community, respectively? I appreciate any feedback and advice for them. Thank you, LeepKendall (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Concerning "Wikipedia in Dutch" , you can try "this".

Concerning "Wikipedia in Chinese" , you can try "this" or "this". Anatole-berthe (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much!

LeepKendall (talk) 04:45, 16 June 2026 (UTC)