Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

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, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82

Follow up discussion on ITN

In the recent RfC on the fate of ITN, the closers suggested a follow up RfC in 6 months (July 2025) as to whether ITN should be abolished. I am starting a discussion now so that we can take a look at what, if anything, has changed within the last 6 months. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:28, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Notified: [[Wikipedia talk:In the news]]. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• My perspective is the same it's always been - I'm an impassioned "no" on getting rid of ITN or making the changes that have generally been suggested for the section. In fact, I actually think much better about the state of ITN lately. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• That prior discussion (from 6months ago), is the usual result when there are seemingly odd decisions at ITN about what to post or not post that come up every once in a while. Since then, while there's been a few couple similar incidents, I'm not seeing anything that suggests that there needs to be any change here. That prior argument on abolishing ITN is just one of those knee-jerk reactions that I don't think really still has legs now. ITN is not perfect, by any means, but the step to abolish it is just too far. Masem (t) 19:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• I'm still opposed to "abolishing" ITN. As an editor who occasionally checks the main page (with From today's featured article and In the news being the only two sections that I read or skim over) and who isn't involved with the behind-the-scenes stuff of ITN, ITN seems pretty much the same as it did six months ago. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Some1 (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. You'll have to remind me what the arguments for abolishing it are. If it's because it's toxic, well I'd rather do something to fix the toxicity than scrap a major part of the main page. It's also a good funnel for getting new editors involved, such as when I got an ITN in 2010: User talk:Novem Linguae/Archive 1#ITN: 2010 cargo plane bomb plot. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• ITN should be canned as it is still quite dysfunctional. Just look at its current state – it's got nothing about the Iran-Israel conflict even though this is all over the news. Instead, it's leading on a hockey game that happened days ago. This pathetic productivity arises because of poor attendance. There was just one nomination today and that has had zero responses. That's because it's another sporting event that few are interested in. Yesterday there was just a single RD nomination and that only got one response and so hasn't been actioned. The day before that there were zero nominations.
  You have to go back four days to find a nomination that's getting any attention. That's about the hot topic of Iran-Israel but seems stuck too. The latest comment plaintively asks, "what's taking so long?"
  So, the big problem is that ITN's process just doesn't work. Every other main page section posts new content every day, regular as clockwork. ITN is supposed to be the most topical and timely but it isn't. This is not a fundamental difficulty because the Portal:Current events posts lots of fresh news content every day. The problem is that ITN has dysfunctional processes which prevent it getting things done. It has had years to reform but the incumbents with power are in denial. It should therefore be deprecated so that alternatives can be tried.
  Andrew🐉(talk) 20:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

  1) news of major significance does not happen every single day, and 2) quality is still a requirement which is what holds up most nominations that are otherwise agreed on. Neither of those can be changed (the first we can't control, and the second is a requirement of the main page) Masem (t) 23:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

  The US strikes on Iran are today's major news. Portal:Current events posted the article American strikes on Iranian nuclear sites about an hour after they happened. ITN has a nomination which doesn't seem to be arriving at a clear conclusion or paying any attention to quality. Ice hockey is the ITN lead for another day. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and since there's a requirement for quality for a featured article link, we're not going to rush a breaking story until there's consensus to post. (and fwiw, the last events in Iran did get posted about 12 hr after its nomination) If just want to push out breaking news stories, go to Wikinews which is built for that purpose. Masem (t) 12:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  Portal:Current events posted the article American strikes on Iranian nuclear sites about an hour after they happened

  When that article was posted to Portal:Current events it looked like this, which would be frankly embarrassing to have on the main page. The blurb went live on ITN within 12 hours of the attacks. I know WP:NOTNEWS is a dead letter by this point, but is it really a problem that it takes a whole 12 hours for an event to go up on the main page? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  A bit of patience goes a long way. Both the American strikes on Iran, as well as the Israel-Iran Ongoing link are now live. What more do you want? Reaching consensus takes its time and sometimes quality issues prevent a quick posting. Khuft (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  Andrew Davidson The best way to get ITN canned is to stop participating and have everyone else stop participating. Frankly, the fact that you have continued to participate despite all of your consistent misgivings tells me that you still find value in it and its process. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

  I get something out of it personally – for example, I quite enjoyed working on the new observatory which has been the lead blurb for several days now. But we can do better and disengaging would not improve matters.

  “It’s like the story they tell about my brother—he was losing money in a gambling-place in Saratoga, and some one said to him, ‘Davy, why do you go there—don’t you know the game is crooked?’ ‘Of course it’s crooked,’ said he, ‘but, damn it, it’s the only game in town!’”

  — Upton Sinclair

  Andrew🐉(talk) 13:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

  Sounds like people still care enough about it to where it still functions as its intended purpose: getting timely updated articles to the Main Page. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, being an internet encyclopedia that is editable by anyone at any time leads to us having articles on current events as they happen. And as such people like coming here to find them. I'm not convinced that this process should be removed from the main page. I am also OK with it "lagging behind" major news outlets -- we aren't journalists presenting breaking news. We simply are sharing newly minted encyclopedia articles about recent events, not a live feed of what is happening minute by minute. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 02:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: I asked above if anything had changed in the last 6 months given the calls for reform in the last RfC. I didn't intend to start an RfC now and I don't think bolded !votes are helpful at this point. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  I attend ITN regularly and haven't noticed any significant structural change in the last six months. The news during this period has been dominated by the Trump administration's "flooding the zone". ITN has posted very little of it as there are many ITN regulars who seem averse to US news. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  I suggest starting an RfC now (if you plan to initiate one in the near future), because this discussion is starting to devolve into a general complaint thread about ITN. Some1 (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  Not sure where you see that... there are currently two users complaining about ITN, with all the others thinking it's fine. Khuft (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed. It also hasn't been six months yet (and I'm also not inclined to start the RfC exactly at 6 months since that would be in the middle of the summer). I'm starting this discussion now so that editors can present evidence and maybe we can come to some sort of assessment of what's happening at ITN and figure out if there are ways to fix things without the nuclear option. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, ITN still uses editor's feelings to decide what's "significant", providing readers with incredibly visible content that's unbalanced in a way we try to prevent elsewhere on the project. It still encourages the creation of articles about random news stories themselves as opposed to updating articles about notable subjects. And it still occupies space that could be used to showcase higher quality content or a panel that recruits new editors directly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• No need to re-hash that old discussion, or to launch an RfC. Some people will never be happy with ITN. But I'm with User:Masem and User:DarkSide830 on this. ITN has been running pretty smoothly, recently. Khuft (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not asking to rehash the old discussion. I'm asking for a 6 month update. Masem, DarkSide, etc. have their views, but characterizing the previous critiques of ITN as annoyance with seemingly odd decisions and knee-jerk reactions is quite dismissive. The issue here is that a large plurality of editors found ITN to be operating outside of the usual rules of consensus, so much so that the closers noted that there was no consensus to even keep ITN around. You can all continue to say ITN is doing fine, but I think honest reflection on what the rest of the community has said about ITN would be more valuable. If that's not possible from the ITN regulars, we may very well be on the path to abolishing ITN. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  Except that this is what has happened for as long as I've been contributing at ITNC; something does or doesn't get posted, someone yells the system is broken, and while a few times this has let to meaningful change (the RD system, where any notable death is automatically considered for the RD line), most of the time its just ends up that it works by consensus, and at times consensus can be fallible, and then life goes on. Masem (t) 15:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  I know a couple of editors are enthusiastic about getting rid of ITN, but is that what the millions of casual readers want? For the "community" to get rid of ITN? The main page receives ~5 mil page views daily[1]; it would be great if the WMF could conduct a survey to gather feedback/insight from casual (non-editing) readers on what they would like to see on the main page. Their input on this is, IMO, far more valuable than that of editors. (And I can't help but think that the vast majority of these casual readers have no issues with having ITN on the main page or with ITN itself.) We should also keep in mind that what we, as editors, want or don't want on the main page may not necessarily align with the preferences of casual readers. Some1 (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  A survey would be interesting, and I suspect that ITN would see a decent amount of support just because it's the status quo. But if a survey were to happen, I'd also want to see whether readers think it's representative of the most relevant news in the world, what types of things it covers too much, and what they feel it doesn't cover enough. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  I highly doubt readers want a newsfeed curated based on vibes where the only news that's shown are accidents/storm deaths, wars, elections, and random awards and sporting events. Even if they did, readers can't help with the way that ITN operates, which is what most editors take issue with. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  "the way ITN operates"--That's a separate issue from "abolishing" or getting rid of ITN altogether. Editors can always propose ideas for improvement on the WP:ITN talk page (or here at the Village Pump, too). Some1 (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  Please see the RfC I linked to above. There were proposals for changing the ITN rules. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:00, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  I know, I participated in that RfC (my !vote was only regarding the "abolishment" of ITN; I didn't have opinions on the other two proposals as I don't participate in the behind-the-scenes stuff of ITN). Am I sympathetic to the editors who suggested those ideas and then had to see those proposals fail? Sure. But there must be more ideas to improve how ITN operates beyond those two proposals, right? Some1 (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  Do you have any suggestions? What would you like to see change at ITN? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  Good questions to ask those who have complaints about or want to get rid of ITN (neither of which applies to me); but I'm actually curious now in hearing suggestions from those who do feel this way and what ideas/changes they have in mind (changes that don't involve simply removing ITN, please). Is there anything specific you'd like to see changed at ITN, Voorts? (asking because I see that you'd !voted to abolish ITN at the RfC) Some1 (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  Articles posted on ITN should be required to follow GNG (which requires secondary sources, not just breaking news) and editors' subjective opinions on importance should be subject to WP:DISCARD when determining consensus. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  Why do you think consensus is measured differently at ITN? I have faith in the Admins that regularly rule and post that, in general, they apply the rules in the same way as they do on other parts of the site. (I would also point out that in the vast majority of cases consensus is pretty obvious. It's the handful of controversial cases that end up ruffling feathers elsewhere.) Khuft (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  Are you trying to convince me that subjective analysis of "significance" isn't used when determining consensus at ITN? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  Every ITN item is posted (or not) based on editors' subjective opinions on importance; there'd be nothing to judge if they were discarded. (example comment from an admin on how ITN operates) Even the ITNR items have such a status through a consensus of editors' subjective opinions on importance at the ITN talk page. Most of the posted events with stand-alone articles likely satisfy GNG at some point, but it's usually impossible for the requisite secondary coverage to emerge so soon after it occurs. Left guide (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  Then either find a way to determine posting based on sourcing or article quality, or abolish ITN. And delete any articles about events that haven't already received requisite secondary coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  being able to judge if secondary source coverage exists for an event is going to take longer than a week to know for certain. (And this is discounting the "Reactions" section which for the most part just primary reporting about what leadership figures have said) And using any coverage based metric will bias towards western nations, particularly the US and UK. Masem (t) 12:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  Which means that we shouldn't be posting links to articles about the events themselves. We should be posting links to articles about the affected subjects. That's the encyclopedic content, and that's what's in the news. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 14:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  It would be great if more editors updated existing article than rushing off to create a new one, but also if we had more nominations that are based on existing articles (for example the current story on the observatory and first light images is what we need more of). There are s a frequent incorrect presumption that an ITN nominee needs to be a sepearate article. That said some events can't easily fit into existing articles, like a natural disaster or a transportation accident, but in these cases it's long term notability is not always clear (like the hot air balloon accident) Masem (t) 14:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  So here we are, re-hashing the same discussion we had last time. Please refer to my comments then. Seems like a waste of my time to "present evidence and maybe we can come to some sort of assessment of what's happening at ITN and figure out if there are ways to fix things without the nuclear option" when the Inquisition has already made up its mind. Khuft (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  Fair. I'd be happy to discuss what's been happening at ITN for the past 6 months. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  That 5 million figure for the main page is a complex artifact which doesn't represent ITN's actual readership. I often check the readership stats for topics in the news and my experience is that an ITN posting attracts about 10,000 readers/day. Most casual readers won't even know that ITN exists as the bulk of the traffic for topics in the news is driven by search engines such as Google. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  No section of the main page is meant to drive views. It is meant to highlight quality work that might be of interest to readers that start at the main page, so that will mean featured articles will likely see increased traffic from the main page, but its silly to pretend that readers go to the main page and then try to navigate without any searching to find a topic of interest they actually want. So we should absolutely not care about the impact on pageviews due to an item being features in ITN. Masem (t) 17:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  I reject the premise entirely. There is no single type of reader. Trying to say that readers collectively behave a certain way, or that they do or don't want something, will almost always give an unhelpful result. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not saying that there are no readers that come to WP to browse or get caught in the Wikihole of knowledge, but the bulk of WP's visitors are either via search engines directly to the article they want, or get to the main page, hit the search bar, and go to the target page. The few extra hits that come from those that browse main page links to articles are not a significant route. Masem (t) 12:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• I have come to believe ITN should function more like RD with much less room to keep something out based on a super-notability judgement, with the main driver being article quality. I'm not exactly sure how that would work, but we shouldn't fear posting something that isn't top level headline news around the world. It is very toxic which is partially why I'm not there as much as I used to be. 331dot (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  A probably associated with any issues at ITN is the fact that we have far too much wikiediting that resembles a newspaper and not an encyclopedia. Editors are rushing to make articles about any small event that happens without establishing any long-term significance, which is not appropriate per NOTNEWS nor NEVENTS. Because of that, we need some type of discretion at ITN to limit what news events that are posted, and that's through the use of consensus to decide on such events (in addition to quality checks) as to balance out the lack of any checks at the article creation process. And then the other problem is that we are trying to fight the implicit bias of western and English-language media, which elevate certain national politics and events in the US and UK (and to a degree, Canada and Europe) over the rest of the world. Its not that we can't have national events there, but we need to be fully aware that something that seems minor on the world's stage can be exploded that appears big by mainstream media because it happened in a big US city. We want the smaller stories of significant events at national levels but that aren't from Western countries, and to that point, that's where we typically end up with the lack of any nominations of this type. Masem (t) 12:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• ITN operates as expected, given the vague guidelines at WP:ITNSIGNIF. People are welcome to establish consensus on improvements there. Otherwise, ITN acts well as a drive to get article quality improvements on what does get posted.—Bagumba (talk) 10:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• I oppose any attempt to abolish ITN. I'm not really versed in the internal issues of ITN-space and not denying that they exist but taking away something that is useful to readers with no replacement is not the solution. People will always look for articles concerning recent events, so the argument that ITN is unencylopedic doesn't really convince me; while we are building this project with an ideal in mind, we should also meet readers where they've at to a certain extent. Recentism and such would still occur even if there was no ITN; there's plenty of content with those issues never appears on the top right corner of the Main Page.  novov talk edits 06:38, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  The idea would be to replace ITN with something else. A variety of suggestions were made at the previous RfC. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  Suggestions were also made at this thread four months ago: Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 65 § What do we want on the front page?. Some1 (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, there were lots of good ideas in those threads. But the trouble is that all these discussions go nowhere because, even though the main page says "anyone can edit", it's so locked down that just about no-one can be bold and try such changes. What's needed is a process to loosen this straitjacket. For example, perhaps each mainpage section should have a coordinator who is elected for a term, as happens at TFA. Then the coordinators could form a council or editorial board for the mainpage which would have sufficient clout and power to get things done. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

• Speaking in this case as a reader rather an editor, I strongly oppose abolishing ITN. Whatever backend problems it may have, I find it useful and interesting. And this isn't just because I do happen to be an editor, I actually got in the habit of checking it from a friend of mine who doesn't edit at all. Rusalkii (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - As outlined above, it seems more prudente to abolish ITN if it loses it value and people stop participating. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
• I am sympathetic to those who point to WP:NOTNEWS. Perhaps the way to square this circle is to focus less on the events themselves, and more on the BACKGROUND behind the events… the people and places that are behind news stories. That is what an encyclopedia is for. Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Merge with Wikinews?

There's a discusssion at meta:Public consultation about Wikinews about possibly shutting down wikinews. I know almost nothing about how wikinews works, but it seems kind of serendipitous that these two discussions are going on at the same time. Perhaps if wikinews is shut down, the people who are involved in that could be an influx of new talent and energy to rejuvenate ITN? RoySmith (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

As I understand it, the English Wikinews was smothered by an admin who was too controlling and so drove contributors away. So, there's no talent and energy left now – that's why they are shutting it down.

What's more interesting is the suggestion of new namespace for news. I'm not sure how that would work so I'll be finding out more...

Andrew🐉(talk) 20:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Not sure. There's already some criticism of ITNC perhaps driving creation of news event pages that ultimately don't meet WP:NEVENT. —Bagumba (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I just can't see that working even if a new namespace was created. Far too many of our policies are geared towards encyclopedic content, and not every news-breaking story is necessary worthy of encyclopedic coverage or a separate article (which is the problem we already have now with far too many event articles created that will not have long-term significance). Wikinews is great for being an incubator for possible events of long-term significance and keep it to its own wikiproject would help with that approach, and then if the event turned out to have long-term importance, that content can be directly incorpated into en.wiki. Masem (t) 13:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Don't see this working. Wikinews includes many instances of original reporting [2], which is an obvious contravention of WP:NOTNEWS, mundane routine news [3] that would violate WP:ROUTINE, and otherwise is just newsstyle articles without incline citations and some RSs at the bottom [4] which would require effort to convert into Wikipedia-style and would usually not be their own articles. While the contributors share an interest in current events, I don't see how a separate namespace for this type of content on Wikipedia would be helpful when (at least for non-original reporting) they should just directly contribute to Wikipedia articles using Wikipedia's existing rules. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Help translating IBM System/23 Datamaster article from Catalan

The Catalan version of this article is way more advanced than the English article. For this reason, I would like to request help with a translation, even if it is automated. Please, could anybody assist? Thank you in advance! Buran Biggest Fan (talk) 06:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm unable to make a translation from "Catalan" into "English".

I'm a French native speaker and I can understand between 20-50% of a text in Catalan without any help (Some texts are easier to understand than others).

I have a lack of vocabulary in Catalan. I understand texts in this language because of my knowledge in others languages such as Spanish and French.

Spanish is a language for which I have a lack of vocabulary. This is a language for which I can read and understand between 50-95% but I'm nearly unable to write in Spanish.

I read the article "IBM System/23 Datamaster". I did also read the version in Catalan "there".

I confirm that the article on "Wikipedia in Catalan" contain more information.

The template "Template:Expand Catalan" was added by me on the article in English. Anatole-berthe (talk) 12:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Buran Biggest Fan, you can see the Google translation of the page by enabling SidebarTranslate in your Preferences as explained in that link. You will need to switch your skin to Vector Legacy (2010). Technical translations are quite good, and most of the article references are in English. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Sister Projects Task Force reviews Wikispore and Wikinews

Dear Wikimedia Community,

The Community Affairs Committee (CAC) of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees assigned the Sister Projects Task Force (SPTF) to update and implement a procedure for assessing the lifecycle of Sister Projects – wiki projects supported by Wikimedia Foundation (WMF).

A vision of relevant, accessible, and impactful free knowledge has always guided the Wikimedia Movement. As the ecosystem of Wikimedia projects continues to evolve, it is crucial that we periodically review existing projects to ensure they still align with our goals and community capacity.

Despite their noble intent, some projects may no longer effectively serve their original purpose. Reviewing such projects is not about giving up – it's about responsible stewardship of shared resources. Volunteer time, staff support, infrastructure, and community attention are finite, and the non-technical costs tend to grow significantly as our ecosystem has entered a different age of the internet than the one we were founded in. Supporting inactive projects or projects that didn't meet our ambitions can unintentionally divert these resources from areas with more potential impact.

Moreover, maintaining projects that no longer reflect the quality and reliability of the Wikimedia name stands for, involves a reputational risk. An abandoned or less reliable project affects trust in the Wikimedia movement.

Lastly, failing to sunset or reimagine projects that are no longer working can make it much harder to start new ones. When the community feels bound to every past decision – no matter how outdated – we risk stagnation. A healthy ecosystem must allow for evolution, adaptation, and, when necessary, letting go. If we create the expectation that every project must exist indefinitely, we limit our ability to experiment and innovate.

Because of this, SPTF reviewed two requests concerning the lifecycle of the Sister Projects to work through and demonstrate the review process. We chose Wikispore as a case study for a possible new Sister Project opening and Wikinews as a case study for a review of an existing project. Preliminary findings were discussed with the CAC, and a community consultation on both proposals was recommended.

Wikispore

The application to consider Wikispore was submitted in 2019. SPTF decided to review this request in more depth because rather than being concentrated on a specific topic, as most of the proposals for the new Sister Projects are, Wikispore has the potential to nurture multiple start-up Sister Projects.

After careful consideration, the SPTF has decided not to recommend Wikispore as a Wikimedia Sister Project. Considering the current activity level, the current arrangement allows better flexibility and experimentation while WMF provides core infrastructural support.

We acknowledge the initiative's potential and seek community input on what would constitute a sufficient level of activity and engagement to reconsider its status in the future.

As part of the process, we shared the decision with the Wikispore community and invited one of its leaders, Pharos, to an SPTF meeting.

Currently, we especially invite feedback on measurable criteria indicating the project's readiness, such as contributor numbers, content volume, and sustained community support. This would clarify the criteria sufficient for opening a new Sister Project, including possible future Wikispore re-application. However, the numbers will always be a guide because any number can be gamed.

Wikinews

We chose to review Wikinews among existing Sister Projects because it is the one for which we have observed the highest level of concern in multiple ways.

Since the SPTF was convened in 2023, its members have asked for the community's opinions during conferences and community calls about Sister Projects that did not fulfil their promise in the Wikimedia movement.[1][2][3] Wikinews was the leading candidate for an evaluation because people from multiple language communities proposed it. Additionally, by most measures, it is the least active Sister Project, with the greatest drop in activity over the years.

While the Language Committee routinely opens and closes language versions of the Sister Projects in small languages, there has never been a valid proposal to close Wikipedia in major languages or any project in English. This is not true for Wikinews, where there was a proposal to close English Wikinews, which gained some traction but did not result in any action[4][5], see section 5 as well as a draft proposal to close all languages of Wikinews[6].

Initial metrics compiled by WMF staff also support the community's concerns about Wikinews.

Based on this report, SPTF recommends a community reevaluation of Wikinews. We conclude that its current structure and activity levels are the lowest among the existing sister projects. SPTF also recommends pausing the opening of new language editions while the consultation runs.

SPTF brings this analysis to a discussion and welcomes discussions of alternative outcomes, including potential restructuring efforts or integration with other Wikimedia initiatives.

Options mentioned so far (which might be applied to just low-activity languages or all languages) include but are not limited to:

• Restructure how Wikinews works and is linked to other current events efforts on the projects,
• Merge the content of Wikinews into the relevant language Wikipedias, possibly in a new namespace,
• Merge content into compatibly licensed external projects,
• Archive Wikinews projects.

Your insights and perspectives are invaluable in shaping the future of these projects. We encourage all interested community members to share their thoughts on the relevant discussion pages or through other designated feedback channels.

Feedback and next steps

We'd be grateful if you want to take part in a conversation on the future of these projects and the review process. We are setting up two different project pages: Public consultation about Wikispore and Public consultation about Wikinews. Please participate between 27 June 2025 and 27 July 2025, after which we will summarize the discussion to move forward. You can write in your own language.

I will also host a community conversation 16th July Wednesday 11.00 UTC and 17th July Thursday 17.00 UTC (call links to follow shortly) and will be around at Wikimania for more discussions.

-- Victoria on behalf of the Sister Project Task Force, 20:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Requests for comment notification

Please be notified that there is a request for comment on Meta that you may be involved with, at m:Requests for comment/Should paid editing as a CU be allowed. You can voice your concerns regarding the topic.

Please do not reply to this message. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 10:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

What to title microscope--microscopy articles?

I've been working on improving articles on microscopy, which is kind of a neglected corner of Wikipedia. It lacks its own wikiproject and yet is an important subject for a large number of them. (And in anticipation of this response - no microbiology =/= microscopy, even though the former makes heavy use of the latter.)

The first issue that I've come across is that there's zero consistency as to whether an article on a particular technique or mode is titled 'microscope' or 'microscopy'. Consider the following article titles: Optical microscope - Phase-contrast microscopy - Fluorescence microscope - Confocal microscopy - Electron microscope - Scanning electron microscope - Transmission electron microscopy - Scanning probe microscopy - Atomic force microscopy. There's no rhyme or reason to any of this! At the top level, there are both 'Microscope' and 'Microscopy' articles, but even though in theory one is supposed to be about the instrument and the other about technique, in practice, the two articles are effectively content forks.

Any ideas on how to proceed, and maybe how to set a policy on article titles on the topic? My proposal is that the default title should be '__ microscopy', barring a very good reason to instead go with '__ microscope' - 'Inverted microscope' would be an obvious choice for the latter, but I can't think of many other cases where it would be preferable. I base the default choice of 'microscopy' on the fact that most college level textbooks, from the introductory level up to the very specialized, almost always use the word "Microscopy" somewhere in the title.

Anyway, feedback on this would be most welcome! Peter G Werner (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• Agree on Microscopy. I will respond for the "electron" terms as this is my area.

The two terms should point to the same article, with a brief clarification in the lead. Some knowledge of the hardware is required to understand the various techniques used. When teaching any/all electron microscopy there is always some coverage of the hardware such as how lenses, apertures and detectors work hand in glove with explaining uses and interpretation theory for the various imaging modalities. Similarly there is always some coverage of both in textbooks. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

All of the articles I link to have both the "microscope" and "microscopy" titles redirect to the same article, with the exception of the top level articles mentioned above. The problem is that there's not consistency at all as to which of the two possible titles is used for the article proper. Peter G Werner (talk) 09:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

As above, use microscopy in all titles.

A suggested, generic first sentence would be:

XXX microscopy is the technique of using a XXX microscope to obtain images and related information; this article describes aspects of both.

(The "related information" is needed as at least electron microscopes do more than just yield images.) Ldm1954 (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good suggestion, though with the caveat that are many microscopes that are capable of multiple modes of illumination. For example, it's common for laboratory microscopes to be capable of brightfield, darkfield, phase-contrast, and widefield fluorescence microscopy, depending on which light paths and optical elements are set up. And it's definitely the case that in EM, confocal, and the like there are microanalysis modes that yield non-image data on top of their imaging capabilities. Peter G Werner (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I was leaning towards "___ microscope" rather than "___ microscopy" until I read this comment. This is probably the best reason to focus the articles on the techniques rather than the instruments: The instruments are not necessarily distinct, but the techniques are.--Srleffler (talk) 05:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

To me, microscopy for the technique, microscope for the actual machine. Red Fiona (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

In practice, the two topics are essentially the same. About the only topic that's purely "microscope" rather than "microscopy" might be the pure mechanics of a microscope, such as the rack and pinion system controlled by the focusing knobs. And in practice, there's not a whole lot of literature on that topic, it being largely the domain of in-house field service literature. Peter G Werner (talk) 09:20, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree I think this consistency proposal is fine and harmless in any case where the xx-microscope redirects to xx-microscopy. I suggest you post your proposal to the two top level article Talk pages. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree – I pretty strongly feel that the topic is generally microscopy, rather than simply a type of microscope. In general, the "microscopy" should be created before the "microscope" article, and in general the latter should be a redirect to the former, but may be separated as an article if characteristics of the instruments merit a separate article. It really makes no sense to talk about a type of instrument before talking about the technique that it is built around. —Quondum 18:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I have been thinking over this and agree that "microscopy" is broader than "microscope", and so as a default titles should be microscopy and the article should explain the type of microscope(s) that can carry out this microscopy. There may be exceptions. CMD (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with CMD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

How much more!!???

God. I've been searching wiki for FIVE MONTHS!!!!! and I think I an not 0.1% there. Dylanyuan1123 (talk) 05:06, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

If you ask how many articles there are here, it's over fifty millions.

More precisely, 63,448,097. --CiaPan (talk) 06:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

And, of course, a very much larger number of possible paths through hyperspace. Wikipedia abhors a deadend. Donald Albury 14:20, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

(That's pages, not articles. We "only" have 7,018,805 articles.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia Library loss of access to SpringerLink

I've been using SpringerLink via Wikipedia Library for the past couple of months on an article, but I checked yesterday and I can no longer access a lot of the sources. "The Wikipedia Library Wikimedia Foundation" still appears at the bottom of the page. I relogged on wikipedia and wikilibrary, still doesn't work. The other collections seem to work just fine. Tried again this morning, same thing. Has this happened to anyone else? Anyone know what's up? Shredlordsupreme (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

There have been reports on this since June 20. See Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library#Springer's journals not working. I hope the agreement with SpringerLink has not lapsed, as I use it a lot. Donald Albury 14:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

German AI articles

Hi, We've come across a bunch of articles on the German Wikipedia that were created with AI and seem to include some hallucinations. One of them — where it's fairly obvious — is likely to be deleted soon on de:wiki, and that one has also been translated into English (=> Theopathy). What's the best way to deal with it here? Should I nominate the English version for deletion once the fate of the German one is decided? Or would it make more sense to wait and see what happens with the whole batch over there first — and then report it? If so, where would be the right place? DaWalda (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

What does or does not happen at WP.de has no bearing on what happens at WP.en. They have different policies and guidelines over there.

If the English language article is based on AI hallucinations, either rewrite it using proper sources or nominate it for deletion. Blueboar (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

It's a straight translation of the hallucinated German. @DaWalda, thanks for the note. I'll send it to AFD immediately. You don't need to do anything else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

See active sessions

Hello ! I'd like to know if there are a way to see active sessions concerning "SUL" for each Wiki on a global page.
I don't know if this is the right place to ask this question. Anatole-berthe (talk) 03:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Technical questions should be at WP:VPT. However, you would need to give an example of what you mean. I believe all contributors are SUL now. If you mean, who is currently active as in reading or editing articles, I'm pretty sure that information is not available as it would be a breach of privacy. Johnuniq (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I was asking if there are a global page that permit us to see to which Wiki we're are currently connected.

For example , a page that permit us to disconnect an active session for a Wiki in particular or all of these (if we can't make a choice for a Wiki in particular).

A page that permit us to see devices used for active connections.

Of course , I'm talking only for the connections with my account. Anatole-berthe (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

No such page exists. See phab:T58212 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:20, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

As indicated on the Phabricator thread, by logging out of any one session, all sessions for that user are logged out, which is all that one really needs from a security perspective. The ability to centrally monitor active sessions by a user presents a security challenge in this context, and would be best avoided. Not enough information is given by the OP to determine what the purpose is, since only a mechanism is asked about. —Quondum 11:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks you ! I read "phab:T58212" and it did helped me to have a better understanding.

If I forget to disconnect and that I close my browser in private mode.

The cookies is destroyed , but I didn't understood if the session itself is disconnected if the cookies is destroyed. Anatole-berthe (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

It is we, the Grammar Police; will ye allow us to proceed?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No, we will not allow this. Wikipedia is not a place to advocate for language change. WP:SNOW close. Anomie⚔ 01:38, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

---

OK, so there are many hundred articles out there wherein, outside quotations, the object form of pronouns is used as complement of the copula (be), instead of the subject form, which is wrong (or not acceptable) in formal English, the variety (or type) of English in which we write here. What I mean are such constructions as "pretending/claims/wants to be him", "to be her", "was her", "will be them", …, instead of "to be he", "was she" and "will be they".
I came across that first in the Billy the Kid article, fairly recently (days ago), where it reads that "a number of men claimed to be him".

The problem here is that, as you gentlemen may already know, to be is not an action verb, but a copulative one, one that refers to the existence or state of something; if there is no action, there is no object. "That'll be us" and "Who is him?" are as wrong as "Us'll be that" and "Him is my friend", because, with be (dissimilar to others), pronouns use the same form on both sides "I am the writer" → "The writer is I", not *"The writer is me" (since *"Me am the writer" would be wrong).

One complication is that such basic error/confusion of common Indo-European grammar is widespread in English (as it is in French, the tongue that has had great impact and influence over ours, for worse and for better).
Being so common, being the default used whenever and wherever non-formal English is written or spoken, one could use such ubiquity to argue against changing anything, after all we are not writing research papers or legal documents here, but only a compendium of knowledge, right?

With that in mind, I do wish to alter, with Your permission (O Community), that reality in our texts, to straighten those deviations from the Encyclopedia's formal tone. If we won't let go of the venerable, old, die-hard pronoun whom, which lives on for ever and ever despite many attempts against its life over the last centuries (especially today), unlike the Dutch's (wien, which they have forsaken altogether long ago, even in High Speech), then I say we ought not forsake the be-rule briefly reviewed above, either.

What I plan to do is to use AutoWikiBrowser (and regular expressions) to find and replace all those incorrect instances with correct forms. Of course, per the Manual of Style and per basic decency, no text within any sort of quotation ("normal", <block>, inline, in-ref, etc.) shall be replaced; quotees may speak their minds however they will. (Edit: Names of artworks must also be left untouched; great example: It's Not Them. It Couldn't Be Them. It Is Them!) I shall be careful and efficiently review everything before publishing. There won't be many hundreds of edits, I suppose, due to the exclusion of quotations and artworks (which, thankfully, account for a significant fraction of the instances), and due to her being both a possessive (most instances; excluded) and the object form (target) of she, so nothing too massive or disruptive.

Do you think that could be good, or do you deem it unnecessary and advise me not to bother with it?

Shall I proceed?

Überpedantically,
The Officer-Trainee of the G.P.,
Bytekast^{[ TLK : CON : LOG ]} 02:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any accepted guideline prescribing the use of the Predicate nominative. Therefore this would be a controversial change, and you shouldn't use AWB to impose it en masse across all articles.

See also https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/it-is-i-or-it-is-me-predicate-nominative-usage-guide WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I think such a guideline should be included, or mentioned explicitly, in the MOS, as it is in accordance with the traditional formal usage of English. People wouldn't find it surprising or out-of-place to see such wording in an encyclopedic text. I tell you we will have nothing to lose, but only more respect to gain as a fully (rather than 98%) proper encyclopedia.
Bytekast^{[ TLK : CON : LOG ]} 02:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I would find it surprising, I think, to read "a number of men claimed to be he." That construction is unfamiliar to me. I know "this is she" for phone calls and "it was he who did the thing", but hearing "I want to be he when I grow up" would sound strange to me. (Of course, 'up' is a preposition, so perhaps it would more properly be "I want to be he when I have upwardly grown.") Maybe I don't have much experience reading material styled at the highest levels of formality, but that probably just means that most EnWP readers don't either. I ain't got no problem with that there sitch. I don't find tonal fastidiousness inherently respectable. 207.11.240.2 (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Its also unfamiliar to me and sounds terribly unnatural. I would object to such a change anywhere. I'm of the opinion that there isn't a rigorous way to formally define "correct" English, and that attempting to chase prescriptivist perfectionism leads to uncommon, unidiomatic, and unhelpful (to general readers) constructions like "to be he". Not to mention the multiple varieties of English represented on enwiki and their idiosyncrasies. No thank you. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

It is unnatural and strange to the both of you, as well to millions of speakers, because you and they are not used to it! One doesn't see it often. It's just like whom: people don't see or use it often enough; they need to be accustomed to it through exposure (more and more of it!). We could change that feeling of unnaturalness by doing what I intend to do! Also, formal English tends to have a consistent grammar everywhere, differing only in spelling, vocabulary, and pronunciation.

But I understand and agree that, if it'll turn out to be too distracting to our readers, maybe making them frown in puzzlement, setting them away from an article's content (knowledge) even if for a second, then it shouldn't be done.
Bytekast^{[ TLK : CON : LOG ]} 16:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

"they need to be accustomed to it through exposure ... We could change that feeling of unnaturalness by doing what I intend to do!" – some may agree, some may disagree, but Wikipedia's purpose isn't to be a catalyst for linguistic change and attempting to use it as such would be advocacy. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh! Hadn't thunk of it that way. Anyway, I was just talking about minor (narrowspread?) consequences, unlikely side effects. The goal here, my only one, is to abide by the "use formal English" rule of Wikipedia, to broaden its scope, yet again grow its reach, by ridding our articles of phrasings like "it was them who did it" and "claimed to be her, but weren't", because they are inherently informal and traditionally incorrect (it's a misusage of be, mistaking it for other verbs that take an object, which should have no place in an encyclopedia).
Bytekast^{[ TLK : CON : LOG ]} 17:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

While others would likely posit that no mistake or misuse has occurred. I would, and do. We may fundamentally disagree on this, which is fine, but other editors may be more amenable. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

What's more important here, what I am focusing on in advancing my intention, is propriety and impropriety in the context of formal standard English, which is the variety or register we use here in our texts. (I am 60% a descriptivist myself, by the way.) Outside such contexts, it is absolutely okay to break the be-rule, the whom-rule, among others. In fact, it'd be awkward and improper if, for example, Mario were to say "It's I, Mario!", since he's an Italian immigrant (English is only his second language) from a children's videogame (colloquial context).
Bytekast^{[ TLK : CON : LOG ]} 17:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

To be clear I find "pretending/claims/wants to be him", "to be her", "was her", "will be them" perfectly acceptable for formal English. I would guess I'm a fair distance north of your 60%. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone else agree with this user? Do you share their opinion? If so, I'll drop my case, regardless of what I think.

Please be honest and do not say you agree with the user just to shoo off this poor annoying pedant, your humble colleague.

I disagree, because formal language is all about communicating precisely and logically, by means of following good (sensible), old rules; moreover, among all major European languages, only English and French misuse the to be verb in that way. (Maybe that gives it legitimacy tho, since those are two great world languages?!)

In any case, at times — I lastly add — even formal language doth surrender: it cedes when the overwhelming majority of language users disagree with it (consciously or not), and then we ultimately take over it and overrule it. There have been many such cases. I think you see this as one of them, do you not?
Bytekast^{[ TLK : CON : LOG ]} 18:27, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm having trouble following all the details here (TIL that copulative verbs are a thing). It would be useful if you could provide a few specific examples (before and after) from articles of changes you propose making. RoySmith (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I provided some examples in the text (like Billy the Kid). For you, here are some perfect, real-life (or real-wikipedia) examples taken from random articles, according to my search:

• Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna of Russia: "However, it was later proven that Anastasia did not escape and that those who claimed to be her were imposters." → "[...] who claimed to be she were imposters." (That is an article about royalty, so it follows that we should maintain a high tone in it and in the others of its kind.)
• The Stranglers of Bombay#Plot: "To appease them, Henderson agrees to appoint a man to investigate, and Lewis believes it will be him." → "[...] and Lewis believes it will be he." (to appease them = action, doing something; will be he = existence, nothing being done)
• Uber (Reference number 121): "Hiltzik, Michael (June 10, 2016). 'Column: How sleazy is Uber? This federal judge wants to know'. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved July 22, 2022. 'As it turns out, it was them.' " → Unchanged! It's a quotation from a newspaper.
• Marilyn Manson#Columbine High School shooting: "He argued the media should be blamed for the next school shooting, as it was them who propagated the ensuing hysteria and 'witch hunt'." → "[...] as it was they who propagated [...]" (Indirect quotation [paraphrasis] in encyclopedic text, so it should keep the formal tone.)
  Bytekast^{[ TLK : CON : LOG ]} 16:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Another option is to use the person's name in such places. Consider "However, it was later proven that she did not escape and that those who claimed to be Anastasia were imposters." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, seems like a good way to work around and avoid wording perceived to be excessively formal. By the way, we (the Grammar Police... and @Jruderman) are discussing the possibility of leaving those instances, like that one ("those who claimed to be her were imposters"), unchanged, and only changing the likes of "it was them who caused the hysteria" (should be "they": *"them who caused" seems too informal, no? *"them caused it"? I'm not having it!)
Bytekast^{[ TLK : CON : LOG ]} 17:29, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I would write it was they who propagated rather than it was them who propagated (though I am not sure I would see the latter as an error to be fixed were I not primed by this discussion), but I find those who claimed to be she jarring and archaic-sounding, and Lewis believes it will be he worse – if you asked a random sample of readers to identify the grammatically correct choice out of Lewis believes it will be he and Lewis believes it would be him I would be surprised if a single one said the former. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I recommend against making these changes: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Contested_vocabulary says Avoid words and phrases that give the impression of straining for formality, that are unnecessarily regional, or that are not widely accepted. This falls within both "straining for formality" and "not widely accepted". Jruderman (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, what about our usage of whom? Many would say that it's overly formal, outdated, old-fashioned, others would say it is formal but not much. It is effectively dead and unused in informal and colloquial Englishes, yet here we are, properly using it, as an encyclopedia should. Maybe we will get rid of it by the 2060s or 2100s (or hopefully the 2550s), but not yet.

I think you are focusing more on the likes of "to be him", "will be them"? Because those seem to be the strangest or most formally strained, right? But, say, is "it was they who saw it all" really that unnatural and bad to read? I'd say not as much as "it is I"; I'd put it on the same level as whom: formal but not much.

So what about a compromise: I'll change the "is–are/was–were"-type phrasings, but not the "bare be" ones?
Bytekast^{[ TLK : CON : LOG ]} 17:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

As a trained linguist (PhD, Univ. of Florida, 1974) (although not a practicing one), I will note that many of the so-called rules of English grammar were introduced by overly-pedantic grammarians who were trying to make English grammar perfect by making it more like Latin. Such rules were never rooted in how native speakers spoke English, and trying to force people to use English in a way that feels unnatural to them is just wrong. I therefore oppose efforts to force Wikipedia to use pedantic rules that feel unnatural to most speakers of English. Donald Albury 18:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Such rules aren't merely 'pedantic', they are outright wrong. They neither reflect contemporary English, nor reflect past usage. They aren't 'rules of English', they are rules of a fictitious language. The English-language Wikipedia was, is, and shall be written in actual English. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the proposed change, and to the thinking behind it. I would revert a change from "pretending to be him" to "pretending to be he" in a heartbeat. The latter sounds wrong because it is wrong. That is now how contemporary English-speakers speak or write. Language is created by those who use it, and evolves over time. Prescriptive grammar is useful for educating new generations but must yield when the language changes.--Srleffler (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I would revert any instances of "pretending to be him" being changed to "pretending to be he" in a heartbeat too, on the grounds that it is grammatically incorrect. Also: "whom" is not dead in colloquial English. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

It is true that the writing of Wikipedia aims to be formal, but this is not the only goal. This is why we have a Manual of Style. Due to the nature of the project, sometimes, we diverge from the formal rules. In this case, the best question is: do other general purpose encyclopedias adhere to this grammar rule? Do contemporary formal works often adhere to this grammar rule? If it is found that they use the less formal construction, no overhaul of articles is necessary. Dege31 (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Someone should probably point out before this exercise in misplaced pedantry goes too far that the Village Pump is no place to be making such decisions anyway. In the extremely unlikely circumstance that anyone were to want to enact a policy or guideline regarding this peculiar act of prescriptivism, it would at minimum require an RfC, broadly advertised, and would almost certainly belong in the WP:MOS. And meanwhile, since this discussion has no bearing on content not discussed here (or indeed content that is discussed here), it can safely be ignored, and edits imposing such weird constructions reverted per usual, in the interests of communicating with those who customarily read actual English. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

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.