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, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89

Looking for a tool that can merge duplicate citations

Hello, I seem to recall there was a tool that can merge duplicate citations? Basically I've realized that a page has a duplication of its best source, and both versions are used in a bunch of places throughout the page, so it will be a bit of a pain to clean up manually. If anyone knows if this tool exists and where I can find it, please drop a page link! Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Just-a-can-of-beans: If you're referring to Cyclosporiasis, an automated tool would get thrown because the citations aren't technically identical (one says "|date=2021-09-02 " in ISO, one says "|date=2 September 2021" in DMY). It's harmless in this case, but a tool can't be sure - sometimes there really are, say, two editions of the same book but with different pagination or heavy revisions where it's not safe to combine them.

I would say a tool would be overkill here. Just go into the source editor, search for { name=":0" }, and do a find-and-replace for { name="Mathison 2021 Cyclosporiasis Microorganisms" }. presto, all citations unified. Then delete the duplicate, and make sure the ref tag is unclosed for the original definition (i.e. <ref name="Mathison 2021 Cyclosporiasis Microorganisms" /> with the slash for the original <ref name=":0"> in the lede which didn't include the / before.

If you truly have a gnarly case of citation duplicate cleanup, it may pay to have something slightly "smarter". Be wary of WP:NOLLM and avoid modifying the prose this way, but dropping the raw source wikitext (NOT the rendered HTML) into a file and telling a coding agent like Antigravity or Claude with access to a local Python env to write some scripts analyzing the refs and suggest de-duplication locations can work. Just... make sure to look at the diff yourself and verify everything personally if you do this, do NOT just copy-paste output blindly. SnowFire (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed answer! Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

If you do edit one reference to be identical to the other, then you can use the WP:REFILL tool to combine them. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

If one of you has a few minutes, I suspect he'd be grateful if you just fixed it for him instead of explaining how it might be possible to fix it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Invitation

I am closing this discussion because it is completely unrelated to Wikipedia. ElKevbo (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Appeal to the community with the intention of attracting participants. Cartechnic (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! What are you inviting us to? Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 00:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I recently created https://carrepair.miraheze.org and I’m inviting anyone interested to take part in its development. I’m looking for people who can create templates and layouts, as well as those who simply want to write articles, car enthusiasts and vehicle technicians. Cartechnic (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh… drat… I was hoping you were inviting us to a free breakfast buffet… I’m hungry. Oh well. Blueboar (talk) 12:29, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't like to click on things that I don't know what they are for. A brief description of the project might be helpful, just 2 or 3 sentences. Vanguard10 (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Description is there:

"A technical wiki focused on automotive systems, including electrical, mechanical, and diagnostic topics.

This resource is intended for technicians, students, and enthusiasts who want clear explanations and practical diagnostic knowledge." Cartechnic (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Could I be able to have a 346-byte signature?

It's not a necessity, but it would be nice to have one. Just to be able to remove the italics, get the parentheses to be colored right, and have some padding and rounding. Is there any chance I could be able to have one? WikipediholicRat (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

My recommendation is to concentrate on writing good articles and don't obsess over fancy signatures. RoySmith (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

fair, fair. still, would be nice :) WikipediholicRat (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The 255 character limit is set for all users on the wiki and can't be changed individually, so the only way to do this would be to expand it for everyone. It's been in place since 2007 without change so I don't think there would be much appetite for this. Andrew Gray (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

This reduces your current signature from 249 to 215 bytes: WikipediholicRat (talk). PrimeHunter (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Guidance for DRN

I am discussing this here rather than at the DRN talk page because the DRN talk page is not very active. There is a controversy about the front page guidance. Under the Request Dispute Resolution button, there are 7 paragraphs. The seventh paragraph is headed Follow moderator instructions, and then says:

There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.

The history shows that the paragraph was added on 22 May 2020, and that it was added by Galendalia, who was indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry and competence issues in July 2020. However, the volunteers at DRN have not noticed that the instruction was improperly added, and, to the best of my knowledge, the volunteers consider it a useful provision.

A user objects to this provision and wants it removed. I can't see why a user objects to a provision saying to follow moderator instructions, unless they want to ignore the moderator and dominate a DRN discussion, but I don't know their reason. So I have a few questions. First, is there a way that the volunteers at DRN can ratify or regularize that instruction? For instance, can it be deleted, and then reentered by a good-standing editor? Second, where and how should the objecting editor provide their case for removing that rule? Third, is VPM an appropriate forum for this discussion? If not, where should we discuss? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:46, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Meh, I don't think an instruction counts as improperly added if the user in question got blocked later. Fait accompli is not ideal, but there is a level of silent consensus after half a decade, and we'd probably want some explicit consensus to remove it at this point. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 08:02, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Third, is VPM an appropriate forum for this discussion? If not, where should we discuss?

Well, DRN is mentioned in the WP:DR#Dispute resolution noticeboard. Perhaps move this thread to WP:VPP. Indeed, finding ways to resolve dispute is an official policy, right? George Ho (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Hmm... On the other hand, maybe VPM would be the right venue for wider attention? George Ho (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

First, is there a way that the volunteers at DRN can ratify or regularize that instruction? I think you can simply hold a discussion assessing consensus about the current wording. No need to remove and re-add. If anything, I think there is value in maintaining a "clean" history to show how long the wording has been in place, assuming it has been followed and accepted, mostly without incident, ever since. You don't even need to hold the discussion, but since someone has challenged it, it's reasonable to do so. I agree with Chaotic Enby's take. Problematic editors make useful contributions all the time. It's fairly common for editors to question the wording of policies and guidelines on the talk page, and for the current wording to be affirmed. Sometimes an {{efn}} is added linking to key discussions when wording was added or affirmed. I don't know that a formal discussion and {{efn}} is necessary it this is just to satisfy a single dissenting editor, but these are options if the volunteers want to visibly and explicitly affirm the instructions. I'm not well-versed in DNR, but as I understand it, it is a voluntary process and is treated as a WikiProject. This calls for pretty broad deference to local consensus among the active participants. If there were widespread dissatisfaction from the community, that may call for reform, but this doesn't appear to be the case. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

(comment from involved editor) Is there anyone other than geHo who objects that we should follow volunteer instructions at the forum to have disputes mediated by a volunteer? As I've mentioned multiple times previously, WP:EDITCONSENSUS is consensus, and now I'll add that it is the most common form of consensus. Until someone else says a word, I would emphatically oppose opening a discussion. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Totally fair and reasonable. I was waxing about various options, probably more than necessary, but overall I agree. It's clear that this has been discussed somewhere since folks seem to know about it. If DNR editors want to point to prior discussions or do something more formal, there are ways to do so, but it doesn't sound necessary. I fully agree that EDITCON is valid, which is part of what I meant by saying that there is value in maintaining the original addition to clearly show that this has been accepted for years now, regardless of how it got there in the first place. If it gets removed and re-added, there should be some reference in the edit history as to why, but that seems like a whole lot of rigamarole just to maintain the status quo. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I'm involved in the dispute where this initially came up, and I have to say that particular rule is basically the most useful part of DRN. Without it, the whole thing kinda devolves into just another talk page battleground during a dispute. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:36, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I'm also involved in the dispute, and I have to say that that rule is pretty useful to the DRN. Otherwise it would become a back-and-forth chaos which would achieve nothing, Against a discussion, but maybe @George Ho can state out his points neutrally here to see where the misunderstanding stems.

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Where is the actual disagreement? In general, it is best to avoid instructing editors. However, the whole point of DRN is to have a moderated discussion and that means a moderator has to give instructions when required. Participation at DRN is voluntary and if someone doesn't want to be instructed they can ignore it, although they might have to also drop whatever the underlying issue is if they can't get clear support. Guidance that has existed unchallenged for an extended period has consensus regardless of its author. It has to stay in place until there is a clear consensus on its talk to change it. VPM is a good place to discuss this issue—VPP is for a significant proposal after initial discussion shows consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I honestly wasn't sure whether to follow moderator instructions that are labelled "essays". Nevertheless, I won't try to rebut people's support for the "follow moderator instructions". I just am hesitant to support the addition just because everyone here has no opposition against it. Indeed, as I see, Robert has frequently volunteered the DRN cases, especially within the past year.

Found ones closed not by Robert but other volunteers (in chronological order):

• 2025: The Bengal Files (1), Coptic language, Operation Sonnenblume
• 2026:
  • pre-June: Ultrasonic atomization, Keisha Waites
  • June: Direct Democracy Cyprus, Direct Democracy Cyprus (2) (possible archival duplication by bot), Sayyid, Haplogroup R1a, Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
  • July: Jessie (2011 TV series), Emirate of Nekor, Interpolation (popular music)

That's not to say that Robert is the "dictator" that I have made him ought to be. Well, he's not a dictator. Rather closures done by someone other than Robert have been... infrequent if neither occasional nor rare.

Furthermore, Robert himself may... or may not have benefitted from the "Follow moderator instructions" rule, but I dunno how interested other volunteers have been in the DRN process overall. The closures not done by Robert may have been... perhaps easy, be a case a failure... or not.

Oh, and this isn't the case of trying to oppose the addition done by the now-blocked sockpuppetry. Rather I'm trying to lean toward neutral in light of feedback above by others. George Ho (talk) 07:41, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment,

In my opinion, this discussion has already resulted in a clear consensus. There has been unanimous support from other neutral editors that the rule should be allowed to stay. The core dispute between @Robert McClenon and @George Ho seems to have been resolved, with @George Ho in the previous message affirming other's support for the rule. They have also stated that he is "[not] trying to oppose the addition done by the now-blocked sockpuppetry" and "trying to learn toward neutral in light of feedback above by others". Hence, I believe that this discussion is effectively over. I do not see any disagreement on this matter and on the close. As such, we should focus back to the NPOVN and the talk page of the article of the primary content dispute. I may stand corrected, and I apologize in advance for that. Thank you very much for your attention.

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

*sigh* Tried to point out how active the DRN volunteers (who aren't Robert) have been, but I guess I'll raise the matter about DRN activity again someday. George Ho (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

There have been very few volunteers willing to mediate discussions at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard for years – so few, that if Robert stops, DRN might get closed.

Participating in DRN discussions is 100% voluntary. If you don't want to engage in a discussion at DRN, you can reply to an invitation with words like "I don't want to participate in DRN" or "I think we should use [name of other noticeboard or dispute resolution process] instead of DRN for this dispute". (And then stop posting in that discussion: It's confusing when someone says "I'm not going to participate in DRN", but then they keep participating in the discussion.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

There have been very few volunteers willing to mediate discussions at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard for years – so few, that if Robert stops, DRN might get closed.

I suppose no process or venue would replace DRN even after potential "historical"-marking, would it? George Ho (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure of your intent in discussing hypotheticals. I think discussion will be more focused by looking at a specific problem: key English Wikipedia processes shouldn't rely on one volunteer. What can be done to attract more people to help out? Would a different format encourage more volunteers? Is it just too much work for unpaid community members to do? If it's unsustainable and the community doesn't want to seek assistance from paid moderators, what different process can be put in place to resolve disputes that is sustainable? isaacl (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

That is something to be raised someday at WP:VPIL, isn't it? George Ho (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Again, I don't see much point in discussing a hypothetical question about where something could be discussed in the future. That can be sorted out when the discussion is actually held. (It's an existing process so refining it could be discussed here, but if you want to discuss it at the idea lab, that could be done too. Or don't discuss it if you're not up for it right now.) isaacl (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I recently raised this matter at WT:DRN#Any other frequent volunteers? five days ago, but I've still awaited replies there. George Ho (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @George Ho for your concerns over the DRN if @Robert McClenon does not mediate. This is a valid point about the DRN process. However, I once again affirm that we should focus on the content, and not the past DRN procedure flaw, which is irrelevant. We can resolve the "few volunteers" problem after the core content dispute, since we simply do not have time to investigate such issues (originally about Superpower dispute, then a failed DRN over an "essay" prompted a clarification, but now it seems that we are beating a horse's carcass over these issues). I suggest we focus on the content dispute and not spiral over into such issues for now. I welcome others to resolve the manpower issue at the DRN at another time, but now is certainly not a great timing. Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay. We had two issues here. First, we have an editor who made a poorly considered statement, that the rule to follow moderator instructions was problematic, and persisted in defending the statement for a while but then agreed with a consensus of editors that is should be seen as a consensus-based rule. So there isn't a remaining issue. Second, we have some rules that a moderator can use to conduct moderated discussion, that have incorrect short descriptions that refer to themselves as "Essay on editing Wikipedia". That short description confused at least one editor into thinking that there were essays because they said that they are essays. I am not sure why they had that description, but it may have been a default description for pages created in project space, or a gnome trying to be helpful but being mistaken. I will change the short descriptions, because they are inaccurate and caused confusion.

Also, I agree that the editors should collaborate with a previously uninvolved volunteer at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. I would suggest that it would be better to wait for a volunteer than to continue restarting your positions. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard § Superpower lede and content

This appears to be the NPOV/N discussion in question. I agree that the VPM question is settled. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

It has that short description due to the {{essay}} template, which you have now removed and which I agree probably wasn't appropriate. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Shall Robert then do the same to other rules listed at WP:DRN Rule Guide and other unlisted rules, like WP:DRN Rule G? George Ho (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Probably. In fact I would encourage nesting them under WP:DRN. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

What is the question about the rules that are referred to as essays? I already said that I would remove that tag from them, and I have removed it from some of them, and not from the others. I am aware that I haven't finished. What is the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Hopefully, my question here should be clearer: if I want a volunteer to resolve disputes rightfully, then must I follow the DRN moderator rules (enforced by any other volunteer besides you) and to treat them as if they're guidelines... or more than just "essays"? George Ho (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

They're instructions, just like "Please add new topics at the bottom of the page". In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Remember, we are all volunteers here. You do not have to follow any instructions, but if you choose not to abide by the usual procedures in a forum, no one else is obliged to help you, and your refusal to participate in a collegial manner may be held against you. Donald Albury 23:19, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. Why would you ask a volunteer to resolve disputes rightfully if you don't plan to work with the volunteer? You have no obligation to ask for assistance at a noticeboard, and you have no obligation to continue to work with the volunteer who answered your inquiry, but if you weren't planning to do as the volunteer says, why did you go there? If you thought that you would work with the volunteer, but then you discovered that you and they didn't agree, you have a right to discontinue working with them. I don't understand the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Why would you ask a volunteer to resolve disputes rightfully if you don't plan to work with the volunteer?

Well... You often volunteer there, and I hadn't been sure whether you and I can work things out. Honestly, you and I have interacted at other venues, and I'm unsure whether they've been good thus far. I thought your tone was stern... kinda stern... and hostile and very rigid when I brought an image to DRV and when I mentioned an extra source at an AFC review on Tyson Apostol, though you said not to exceed the maximum number of sources you wanna review.

Furthermore, I hoped everyone would go for an RFC, but then after the DRN failed, I was pushed back from further brainstorming an RFC and then reluctantly sought for sources that can validate my arguments. Too bad multiple sources proved otherwise.

If you thought that you would work with the volunteer, but then you discovered that you and they didn't agree, you have a right to discontinue working with them.

Totally unaware of that kind of right. Still, I really thought the DRN request would success rather than fail. George Ho (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, User:George Ho. You dislike me. That is your privilege. You don't need a reason to dislike me. You only have a duty to be civil, and you have been civil. You have a right to discontinue interaction with me any time that I pop up as a DRN volunteer or AFC reviewer. Your question still doesn't make sense. Why would you go to a noticeboard and disregard the instructions from the volunteer at the noticeboard? Or do you have a question? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Why would you go to a noticeboard and disregard the instructions from the volunteer at the noticeboard?

  Is this a rhetorical question? If not, then why still wanting me to clearly answer this question further? I answered as much as I can, but still you want me to be clearer than before. So here goes: I just thought that you would continue the process but then warn us again about disregarding your instructions. I never really thought you would abruptly close the request as a failure in effort to especially enforce the instructions. Also, I had been unsure whether any other DRN volunteer would take their own instructions as seriously as you have been. Never meant to treat the DRN process as a test. However, perhaps I should've pinged you first about the Rules before replying to the other editor about the Rules, but then you might have abrupt close the discussion still, anyways. Also, I really thought back-and-forth discussion wouldn't be much of a huge deal as long as it's minimally done without disrupting the process, but I didn't think my explicit disregard for the Rules (previously labeled an "essay") would lead to huge consequences. Well, now here we are.

  Or do you have a question?

  What do you think would happen to the DRN without you frequently volunteering? What happens when you cut down your DRN volunteer work? —George Ho (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  It might be time to move on. Further responses won't help. Johnuniq (talk) 05:47, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you @George Ho and @Robert McClenon for their attempts to resolve the DRN conflict. Now, let us de-escalate and focus on the content dispute in the article talk page and the NPOVN entry.

  Friendly reminder: at those venues, please AGF, be civil, and avoid rhetorical questions.

  Thank you for your attention and understanding.

  Sincerely,

  16dvnk (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Strange messages on talk page

Sorry if this is a useless waste of talk page space, but I came across some weird talk page messages at Talk:Fair use that don't look like mistakes given they were sent repeatedly at different times. Wondering what people think of them. GreenAndWhiteA320 (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I have removed them… it looks like vandalism (or at least nonsense) to me. Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

this is probably one of the hundreds of people who mistake talk pages for Google or ChatGPT Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Sometimes people get lost on the internet, and might mistakenly navigate to a Wikipedia talk page thinking it's a forum for discussion of some topic completely unrelated to Wikipedia. This can happen on any talk page, but is more likely to happen for pages that get linked to a lot.

As for why our article on Fair use would attract such folks, I expect it's because we link to it in the File Upload Wizard, as well as a lot of templates used for files. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - Solidarity 05:04, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Request for comment (the future of Abstract Wikipedia)

You are invited to voice your opinions in a request for comment about the future of Abstract Wikipedia. Thank you! Kowal2701 (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this appears to be another indication that the Wikimedia Foundation Board has an antithetically different outlook on artificial intelligence from the outlook of the English Wikipedia community on artificial intelligence. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Intercultural Open University Foundation

I'm not sure IOUF still exists. Can someone check that? E.g. at https://www.kvk.nl/zoeken/ it does not exist. Organization no. 41003178 has been erased. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

The institution's current webpage appeared at the top of a search in DuckDuckGo. Discussion of any problem with its existance and/or sourcing needs to take place on the article's talk page, not here. Donald Albury 18:16, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

This question would be better suited for the reference desk. Joe vom Titan (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)