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.

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for a week.

« Archives, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76

tosdr.org lies about we

Hello, you are about to read a lie announcement. https://tosdr.org says Wikipedia can delete our accounts without a notice nor reason, but we know deleting accounts is a technically impossible action in all WMF wikis including Wikipedia and bans/blocks are only applied as a last resort to save wikis. That's an obvious lie. I wrote a comment and sent an e-mail to them but i could not get answer and text is not changed. I also cannot find an "edit" link to delete that lie. Also Wikipedia has "Grade-B" privacy to them but we know Wikipedia has a very strict privacy policy and it's more private than DuckDuckGo (it's "Grade-A"). They are exaggerating the "bad" things on our Privacy Policy with a huge amount and they are not showing the "good" things on our privacy policy. What we can do to remove this lie and write a correct privacy grade? RuzDD (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@RuzDD: People lie or misinform on the internet with astounding regularity. The answer is probably "nothing". 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I just joined two weeks ago and already I feel insulted by this. Wikipedia is a source of knowledge, not a place for hate! Something more should be done about this. 3.14 (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

tosdr.org appears to be correct. The page Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use contains the text we reserve the right to suspend or end the services at any time, with or without cause, and with or without notice. -- GreenC 22:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@GreenC Is "suspending or ending services" the same thing with "deleting accounts"? RuzDD (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I mean, for example you can stop your apache without cleaning your database. RuzDD (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The TOU doesn't say accounts are "deleted", you are correct. I think it is technically possible to delete an account. Edits are renamed to a generic placeholder name. I've seen that before although it's been a while, and I don't know if it's still done. It's an obscure thing and I doubt that is what tosdr had in mind. Probably tosdr is equating a permanent ban with deletion, in effect the account is made inoperable, either way. -- GreenC 01:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Deleting accounts is a technically impossible process if you don't have access to the database, and of course you can do everything you want if you have access to the database (is it in control of Jimbo Wales?). Of course, database owners will not delete accounts, so i think "technically impossible" is not a wrong definition. RuzDD (talk) 09:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: Permanent bans or blocks does not make accounts inoperable at all because for example you can continue to using your custom CSS and JS files when reading articles. RuzDD (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It is possible to globally lock an account, which outright prevents logging in to it. But I don't TOSDR was referring to any specific technical action on Wikipedia, merely regurgitating what the TOS says as it is designed to do. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

But, it will not delete the account from the database, right? Also, i can't see something like "we can delete your account without a reason nor notice". RuzDD (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

No, accounts can't be deleted. But that's standardized terminology on the TOSDR site and is close enough to be accurate anyway. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I could not see something like "we can delete your account without a reason nor notice" in our terms of service. Forgot to say: i received a reply a few days ago but that's not satisfying because it came too late for the laws (just for reference, nothing is implied) and also another citation is not showed (existing citation is invalid). RuzDD (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I think RuzDD's question is the relevant one. Specifically, they seem to have interpreted "we reserve the right to shut down the entire website" (which is what I think that sentence is about) as being the same thing as "we reserve the right to delete your account".

We could use an article on the right to delete. In the GDPR definition ("right to obtain...erasure of personal data concerning him or her”), you can "delete your account" by resetting Special:Preferences (e.g., by removing your e-mail address and personal pronouns). This is never done by anyone else. In the CCPA definition (see https://www.oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa#sectiona, third question), the information potentially relevant for a right-to-delete request is: username, password, e-mail address, personal pronouns, and maybe the IP addresses that you post from (which are kept only temporarily). Of those, they would have clear exceptions for refusing to delete all except the e-mail address and pronouns ...and you can delete those yourself, any time you want, but this is never done by anyone else.

Probably they don't have a category for "Website could disappear with no warning" or "You can't delete your account, but there isn't really much of an account to delete". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and i think they must not write anything about this if they don't have a correct category. RuzDD (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, this arcitle does not exists... RuzDD (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Disclaimer - I am not a lawyer. Regarding the phrase I believe people are referring to: we reserve the right to suspend or end the services at any time, with or without cause, and with or without notice - it's important to read the context in which that originates. This is Section 13 (Termination) of the WFTOU. There's a boatload of legalese in this, so I'll post the entire statement and try to provide proper context:

If your account or access is blocked or otherwise terminated for any reason, your public contributions and a record of your activities on or in relation to the Projects (including any correspondence you have sent us) will be unaffected (subject to applicable policies), and you may still access our public pages for the sole purpose of reading publicly available content on the Projects. In such circumstances, however, you may not be able to access your account or settings. However, regardless of any other provision in these Terms of Use, we reserve the right to suspend or end the services at any time...

Terms of use, sometimes interchangeable with terms of service, serve (or at least, attempt to serve to the fullest extent provided by law) as an individually binding agreement between user and provider, notwithstanding exceptions in which a user might receive a severed agreement - "If you have not signed a separate agreement with us, these Terms of Use are the entire agreement between you and us". Thus "the services" in this case do not specifically reference the user's ability to access the website, nor does it reference WMF's management of the entire website as a whole. It is in reference to the entirety of any form of participation granted to the user/contributor from WMF.

Although they do promise to continue providing access to public pages or providing a record of public contributions and activities, they are not beholden to maintain that in perpetuity, nor does the termination clause provide any limits on the extent to which they can and cannot withhold services; it is deliberately written to be open-ended. When you have a statement that is this broad, unless the company has provided an explicit waiver in the text of either the TOU or the PP that excludes them from deleting an account without notice, they can indeed delete an account without notice. The privacy policy provides limits to how long Wikipedia can retain data for, but it doesn't exclude them from ever removing data. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@WaltCip I think there's another point: service also includes data transmission from WMF to the user. So, not giving data to a user can be considered as "ending sesrvices", but giving data to user but not the ones about the account can not be considered as "ending services" as i understand. TOS says "If your account or access is blocked or otherwise terminated..." but that's only says what will happen if that's happened, not this can be happened as i understand. So, i think (but i don't give any law advice) they can't delete accounts.

Anyway, even if TOS says "we can delete your account without notice nor reason", the info on the TOSDR is still unacceptable because their citation only includes "we reserve the right to suspend or end the services at any time, with or without cause, and with or without notice.". RuzDD (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Alyne Pimentel vs. Brasil case

Alyne Pimentel vs. Brasil case is marked "orphan". I hate this tag, but I don't think I'll find articles to link it. It is a case decided by CEDAW. I don't know how many cases in the world were submitted to CEDAW. Does anyone have any tips for calling? And for categories? Does anyone know of more cases submitted to human rights courts? ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

there are some (unsure of list completeness) cases submitted to CEDAW here, also unsure which are represented on Wikipedia. This Wikipedia list page could also be helpful. 73.168.172.136 (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will look into the possibility of creating a list. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

"Stint" Is an Anachronism and Should Not Be Used

"Stint" is often used to refer to an athlete's time with a team and subsequent return to that team. It's an anachronistic term. "Return" is more moder, more common, more well known. "Return" is more appropriate and should be used rather than "stint".

See also: Talk:Joe_Flacco#Etymology_for_"Stint"

ProofCreature (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

If you want to deprecate use of "stint", Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch might be a better place to discuss your proposal. Off hand, I am familar with that use of "stint", and likely would be opposed to deprecating it, but I am older than the average Wikipedian, and think that any decision to deprecate its use in Wikipedia should depend, at least in part, on how commonly it is used in fairly recent (say, since 1975) reliable sources. It is also something that can be discussed on the talk pages of individual articles. Donald Albury 19:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Donald Albury: I appreciate your comment. I might try to discuss the topic in the Manual of Style as you suggested. The comments here, below, though, suggest " stint " is used much more than I thought. (I still think it's an ugly word).

ProofCreature (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The etymology page ([1]) linked from the Flacco talk page mostly talks about old/archaic but the most prevalent modern meaning isn't. See [2] and wikt:stint in particular, where the meaning being used about Flacco isn't marked as archaic or obsolete.

And "return" doesn't mean similar enough for a one-to-one replacement since if someone does something in two non-contiguous periods they both could be called "stints" but only one of them could be called a "return". If it's the "best" word to use on a particular page should be discussed on the article's talk page (just like any disputed prose edits) but I oppose a general deprecation of it when used in the meaning described in the Oxford's Learners Dictionary [3]. Skynxnex (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think maybe you meant to say, "Stint is obsolete" or "archaic", because saying it's "anachronistic" makes no sense in this context. So, going on the assumption that you meant "Stint is obsolete": no, it isn't at all obsolete; whatever gave you that idea? Use of the word has been on a slow, steady upward trend since World War II; some recent examples (post-2000) in books are here.

Having said that, the expression return [to a team] is not a synonym or valid alternative for stint, because stint doesn't imply they ever came back (and doesn't rule it out, either). Also, you appear to contradict yourself: you started out by saying, "'Stint' is often used to refer to an athlete's time with a team", but if it is often used, then how can it be obsolete? Mathglot (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC) Post-ec note: looks like Skynxnex had some of the same ideas, and beat me to it. Mathglot (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

That chart is remarkable. It does not reflect my (isolated and limited) experience, @Mathglot:. It surprises me that it is being used as often as that, but I guess everything old is new, eh? ProofCreature (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

ProofCreature, It's suggestive, but not proof. Fortunately, ngrams does allow part-of-speech tags, so at least we could skip verbs, but it doesn't have semantic tags, so we don't know for sure how much of the increase is due to increased research on the bird variety; that would take a deep dive and wouldn't be simple. The other thing, is you can extend the starting point back to 1800, when the proportion of scientific publications would have been much less (even that is my conjecture, and would have to be proved, but seems likely). Bottom line, the chart helps, but if someone was really determined to get to the bottom of it, they'd have to do a whole lot more work, and for one word, who really cares? If someone has a synonym that works and doesn't actually make things worse, I think that's fine. I just thought the proposal of deprecating a word is a bit over the top. Or just examine what word the majority of sources use, and just use that; I can't see anyone objecting to that, and we could finesse the whole discussion about whether to deprecate a word or not. Also, I forgot to say last time, that 90% of the articles I read on the site are full of words I don't know, and how is that a bad thing? It's all about learning new things, and Wiktionary is that-a-way ⟶   ⟶ . Mathglot (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The question is if the word is precise or vague, within a context of use. Does it clarify, or muddle. Many words can be used to smooth over a lack of knowledge, and merely imply something that may or may not be true. If it's imparting vague information, consider a more precise way of saying what is actually known. -- GreenC 22:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

It has never occurred to me that it might be possible to get confused. A stint can have different meanings according context, but my experience is that context is always clear.

verb

supply a very ungenerous or inadequate amount of (something).

"stowage room hasn't been stinted"

noun

1. a person's fixed or allotted period of work.

"his varied career included a stint as a magician"

2.limitation of supply or effort.

"a collector with an eye for quality and the means to indulge it without stint"

It's a useful word. Doug Weller talk 12:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Could always use "spell" for a change. Bon courage (talk) 12:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The etymology doesn't suggest any particular use, either. It is a vague word. I think there is a better more accurate word to use.

ProofCreature (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

To my ears, spell has a much too informal tone, and I wonder if it isn't chiefly an Americanism. Mathglot (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly vague in modern usage; etymology doesn't (solely) define current meaning. My impression is that most people don't even really know there's a meaning other than noun#1 in Doug Weller's comment. Browsing through Special:Search/insource:stint seems to support both that it's fairly commonly used, across many fields, and seemingly overwhelming this single meaning. Skynxnex (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

That's very persuasive; who'd a thunk that there are over 36,000 uses of it on WP alone by hundreds of different authors? I think that just gave the coup de grace to this proposal. Mathglot (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the link you posted (Special:Search/insource: stint), @Skynxnex:. One could replace the word "stint" with the word "time" in most sentence there, still have the same significance to the sentence, and have a slightly more accurate word.

ProofCreature (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I think I figured out what my problem with the word is. "Stint" is very similar to the word "stent" (tiny tube that a doctor places in an artery or duct to help keep it open and restore the flow of bodily fluids in the area.) Obviously they are different words, but "time" or "Return to" (as opposed to "second stint") do not at all suggest injury. ProofCreature (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Neither does stint; not even a whiff of it. Stint is narrowly focused and applies to an interval with an implied beginning and an end, as opposed to time which is both broader and less precise. Glad you figured out what the problem was, and it's understandable. The arbitrariness of sound–meaning correspondence is a core feature of all human language, so we can't get any clues about the meaning of stint by knowing the meaning of sting or tint or splint or stent—it's all arbitrary, and not infrequently sound similarity can lead to confusion of lexical items. Mathglot (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree - "sound similarity can lead to confusion of lexical items". It does seem (un)fairly arbitrary at times. One way to reduce that confusion is to use words that are distinct, simple, and common. "Time" and "return" seem more common than "stint". "Time" seems distinct and simple, too.

I wonder if there's some resource to measure distinction, simplicity, commonness. Any ideas, @Mathglot: (or on anyone)? Any other charts or graphs?

ProofCreature (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding "reduc[ing] that confusion" by using "words that are distinct, simple, and common", may I suggest you have a look at Simple Wikipedia? You can find it here, and you may find it matches your philosophy better. At some point, this discussion at WP:VPM will have run its course, and I'd suggest that we are at that point now, or close to it. If there is a side-issue about "measur[ing] distinction, simplicity, commonness" in language, that might be an interesting discussion at another venue; perhaps WT:LING, or maybe even better, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. You could try raising it there. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Not getting their way here, the editor has taken this to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#I Suggest "Stint" Should Be Replaced In Most Context. Doug Weller talk 11:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

It was recommended (see above) that would be a better forum. I'm curious about other opinions and enjoy the discussion.

ProofCreature (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, I did initially suggest that, but I would have thought the discussion here was pretty clear that your proposed change was not regarded as a productive idea. Donald Albury 14:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Nb: User_talk:Mathglot#Consensus

Opinions from more than five users would be appropriate.

ProofCreature (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a bad idea. Our diction recommendations are not based on individual users' associations of words with other similar-sounding words. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Your comment is recognized and appreciated.

ProofCreature (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• No action needed - ”Stint” is a perfectly fine word, indicating a relatively brief term of activity (“When his stint in the Army was over, Fred went back to school and got a medical degree”). Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  Your comment is recognized and appreciated. Additionally, it is well phrased, and appropriately located.

  ProofCreature (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

A better alternatively (than "return") is that one could replace the word "stint" with the word "time" in most sentences, keep the same significance to the sentence, and have a slightly more accurate word. ProofCreature (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Meh… I think “stint” is somewhat more precise than “time”… a “stint” doing an activity is usually a (relatively) brief subset of “time” - it conveys the idea that there is an expected start and ending to the activity… while “time” is more open ended. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Stewards Election and Confirmation

The Stewards Election and Confirmation is currently taking place until 27 February. Interested editors can participate in the election here and the confirmation here.

Currently, 11 editors are running to become stewards, and 27 stewards are running to be reconfirmed; I have attempted to provide a neutral summary of the process and the editors running to be elected or confirmed at the Village Pump. BilledMammal (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata for Beginners

Let me invite you to a workshop called Wikidata for Beginners, which I'll be hosting online this Wednesday, February 14, 2023, where you can get in touch with the basics of Wikidata. You will have the opportunity to try contributing and improving items. More information via Wikiversity. Juandev (talk) 09:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

This will be an hour-long meeting using Jitsi Meet video conference tool. It's mid-morning if you're in New York's timezone, which means early morning for California, mid-afternoon in the UK, and the middle of the night for Australia.

Even if you're not excited about Wikidata, it's good for experienced editors to know a bit about the basics. If you are available and have any interest, please consider joining this class. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

A bit too much Alexander McQueen?

Today's featured article on the main page is, again, about an Alexander McQueen collection. Right below it, the first Did you know... article is about an Alexander McQueen collection.

"Wikipedia is not for sale", but is it up for manipulation by able marketers? Or what is going on here? BuonoPasto (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Did the possibility of "one editor working within their particular interests" cross your mind at any point? Cursory examinations of the evidence would seem to support this theory, boring as it is. Remsense诉 02:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree this isn't an ideal situation, ideally the main page shouldn't give excess weight to individual subjects. The accusation of deliberate promotion seems undue though, I think this is just a coincidence. The TFA and DYK sections are worked on by different teams with separate scheduling systems. It would have been a good idea to have spotted this and shifted the date of the DYK hook IMHO and something to think about going forward. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

BuonoPasto if you want different content featured, then you're welcome to find an article that needs to be improved and fix it up so it can get nominated for the main page. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Announcing the results of the UCoC Coordinating Committee Charter ratification vote

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear all,

Thank you everyone for following the progress of the Universal Code of Conduct. I am writing to you today to announce the outcome of the ratification vote on the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee Charter. 1746 contributors voted in this ratification vote with 1249 voters supporting the Charter and 420 voters not. The ratification vote process allowed for voters to provide comments about the Charter.

A report of voting statistics and a summary of voter comments will be published on Meta-wiki in the coming weeks.

Please look forward to hearing about the next steps soon.

On behalf of the UCoC Project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 18:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Is wikipedia reliable?

Do you think think Wikipedia is reliable? And when and how. Outside you often hear about admins reverting falsehoods, tho thats obviously an oversimplification. On niche subjects? On known ones? I as someone who edits niche non_western cultures can tell you that modernizing ancient situations with exact dates and works of synthesis as sources is a problem. But overall, is wikipedia reliable? Encyclopédisme (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, Wikipedia is classified as "generally unreliable". Personally, I'm not sure that's a reliable source. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

More to the point, wikipedia is a WP:TERTIARY source. In theory, there's nothing in wikipedia which isn't sourced to some other reliable source, so there should never be any reason to cite a wikipedia article. Just cite the underlying WP:RS directly. Well written wikipedia articles are often a great way to get a broad understanding of a topic. But you always need to dig deeper to get down to definitive statements of fact. RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You never know, the moment you look at an article, even a WP:FA, somebody might have slipped some unreliable/hoaxed content in. So like most Wikis it's unreliable. Theoretically, some timestamped versions of article may be reliable; ISTR there was a push a few years ago to have some medical articles peer-reviewed as good. Bon courage (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. We have an article on this topic (Reliability of Wikipedia) - which may or may not be reliable itself :D For a more general response - most of our articles that list facts have references, which you could then follow up with if you want to establish the reliability of a statement. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty good in parts. Which parts those are, opinion may differ. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Reliability is often a function of how good the citations are: formatting, metadata, archive URLs. Without quality citations, it's hard to verify, or it simply looks so sloppy it gives the appearance of unreliability - and appearance counts for a lot. Many editors don't cite at all, or leave bare links, or sloppy free-form cites without templates. It seriously degrades the reliability of the of the project. Furthermore I have found from personal experience, you have to revisit every citation every couple years to make sure it's still in good shape. URLs still working, can the templates be improved based on your evolving knowledge of best practices. It's a never-ending process. Unfortunately most editors write it down one time, consider it "done" and walk away - always chasing the new. If editors spent more time maintaining, rewriting, improving, the content they already wrote, and did so on a regular basis. I try to go through every article I wrote on a regular basis, checking every citation, and even though I've checked them multiple times over the years, invariably I keep finding new ways to make improvements with each pass. They get better and better that way, over many years. -- GreenC 15:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

About China

I left a question in Talk: China, but there is no answer yet. Please answer a lot. Mamiamauwy (talk) 12:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Someone has now replied to you there, and that is where the discussion should continue. Donald Albury 17:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Data Citation Corpus

DataCite launches first release of the Data Citation Corpus: https://makedatacount.org/first-release-of-the-open-global-data-citation-corpus/

This appears to be a large database of citations taken from open source journals. The first iteration is citations that contain DOIs.

It is funded by Wellcome Trust serious backing. The first version is available as a data file: https://makedatacount.org/data-citation/

You can explore it visually with a dashboard: http://corpus.datacite.org/dashboard -- GreenC 15:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is currently not a source of the citations, which has pros and cons, for Wikipedia. Cons because hey, what about us. And pros because it can be a reliable source in creating/modifying citations on Wikipedia (reliable in the sense it has not been influenced by Wikipedia). -- GreenC 15:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

List of codes of languages

Is there a full list of codes of languages and their WD codes? Eurohunter (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know of a list of language tags and their wikidata qids. You might try assembling such a list.

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Property:P220&limit=5000 will return the first 5000 wikidata items that have ISO 639-3 code (P220) (the remaining 3000+ are available on a second page). You could take that list and match the qid title against the list of ISO 639-3 tags and names listed in Module:Language/data/ISO 639-3.

There are similar properties for ISO 639-1 code (P218) and ISO 639-2 code (P219) and there are Module:Language/data/ISO 639-1, Module:Language/data/ISO 639-2, and Module:Language/data/ISO 639-2B.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Valid use of Wikipedia's name?

Check this video on YouTube and see how it's identifying itself with Wikipedia. Does Wikipedia take action over stuff like this? Largoplazo (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)