Wikipedia talk:Village pump (miscellaneous)
Policy | Technical | Proposals | Idea lab | WMF | Miscellaneous |
![]() | Daily pageviews of Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | Please note that the Village pump talk pages are rarely used, but might allow to archive relevant discussions. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Move discussion in progress
[edit]There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:Village pump (policy) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Request
[edit]Hi, I’m trying to find my help to a forum to apologise for editing mistakes. Thanks for help. Ema--or (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
No more footnotes with no link and when link go inactive auto-delete claims.
[edit]This is existential and needs to be fixed ASAP. And to be clear this is not solely an issue of link rot, though it largely is, it's fundamental to the legitimacy of the project, handwaving notwithstanding 🙏 Iluvlawyering (talk) 02:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
This is especially problematic re:philosophy/history/religion but exists in all entries, mathematics, physical and social sciences, individual biographies, definitions and concepts, etc. The central premise of the entire project is impartiality and transparency, not expediency, so just as there's no justification for claims made without support, whatever the authority, there's no reason that references to purported support not be strictly limited by salience/availability. No one I know has a library card or any other way to access the recorded thoughts of other human beings than via remote access to electronically stored information. No? Iluvlawyering (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Is this serious? 0xDeadbeef 06:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Looks more like an attempt to stir up controversy. —Kusma (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Much as I dislike ad hominem arguments, the clue may be in the account name. On a practical note, most internet sources which go offline are available on archive sites. Certes (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Looks more like an attempt to stir up controversy. —Kusma (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)