Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

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, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79

Has a good or featured article ever be nominated for deletion?

I'm just curious. EternalNub (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember a GA or two have been deleted in the past - no idea what. Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of times - my first attempt at a search finds a bunch, without anything I'd call a false positive before I got tired of checking them. I don't know offhand how much our search results vary, but the first couple hits for me are WP:Articles for deletion/Lewis (baseball) (2nd nomination) (which I remember, since it made it to WP:DRV), WP:Articles for deletion/Nude celebrities on the Internet (2nd nomination) (then a former FA), WP:Articles for deletion/Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (a mass nomination including four FAs), WP:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (2nd nomination) (became a FA during the afd), and WP:Articles for deletion/Goomba (technically qualifies, but it's hard to call that a real afd). The more interesting question is how many currently-featured/good articles (not just former) have actually been deleted. —Cryptic 03:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through old revisions of WP:GA yields Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony M. Benis. As well as the titular article, it also includes NPA personality theory which was a GA at the time according to the voters. Though of course the average quality of a GA was a lot lower in 2006 than now, as is evident in the discussion. novov talk edits 03:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An example is Justin Bieber on Twitter, which was a GA, and was nominated for FA but withdrawn after athe AfD was filed. The AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Bieber on Twitter banned all articles on the subject area. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Articles for deletion/Keith Miller in the 1946–47 Australian cricket season was deleted last year as a featured article looking like this. Thincat (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember that not that long ago, the main editor of a then-current FA (possibly on a 19th C. cricketer?) took his own article to AfD while it was an FA, and it was subsequently deleted. That's pretty specialist :) SerialNumber54129 15:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be WP:Articles for deletion/Lewis (baseball) (2nd nomination) which was already mentioned above. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article mergers where the content is never actually merged

I've observed a pattern where article mergers never actually result in any relevant content being merged, so the content, while often (usually?) not entirely lost, remains hidden away in edit histories and difficult to access. It's extremely annoying when you click on a link, are redirected to some random article, typically a sub-section, and find nothing about the subject in question, or at most a throwaway line. That's not what a merger is! At least the useful and decently referenced content found on the merged page should be actually merged, and not just a tiny summary, let alone nothing at all. Mergers often seem to amount to (sugarcoated) deletions. This has become a pet hate of mine recently. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That problem can occur when the content is regarded as WP:UNDUE on the target page, so in theory the merge resolution was wrong, but in practice it becomes, as you say, a de facto deletion. Sometimes it is done with that very purpose in mind. The other form is where the merge is never performed at all, because it would require actual work. In some cases, this results in a de facto deletion; in others, despite the merge resolution, the subject page is never merged and hangs around for years. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other problem I see many times..... is there maybe a consensus to merge.... but the content is horribly sourced or not sourced at all.... Thus not suitable for any page let alone the target merge page for those who actually work on the content. Must remember rfc's attract random people that many times have no clue about the topic at hand thus can't help out with any merger..... We literally have editors that just go around from RFC to RFC. This is also the case for deletion talks..... dominated by very few editors who simply can't have expertise in everything they discuss.Moxy🍁 01:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that many "mergers" are in fact little more than redirects, making them like deletions to the vast majority of our readers who don't look in article histories. But very little is likely to happen unless someone champions the issue, and identifies which articles this has affected. I don't have the time to do this (or maybe am too lazy) so we have to look at the OP or elsewhere for a volunteer. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template translation

There are templates that I want to translate into my language, but the manual method makes it take more than 3 hours. I don't know why the Content translation tool does not support template translation, If I could use it would only take a few minutes.

I want a tool that enables me to translate templates. Is there any help? Mohmad Abdul sahib talk☎ talk 03:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Amire80, who can sympathize with you, but we don't have a good solution. More information and links at mw:Global templates. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like some expediting solution could be accomplished via templates, even if they're not reflected in the live version. Remsense ‥ 论 14:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally made an IP edit (not vandalism)

I accidentally made an IP edit, what do I do??? How will I make the IP address invisible?? Will people track my location?? Susbush (talk) 13:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much to do I'm afraid. However, typically no one would think to notice these things unless one makes a post specifically drawing attention to it. Remsense ‥ 论 13:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Susbush, email oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org and provide a link to the edit, requesting that it be hidden for user privacy. They will hide the IP address that made the edit. Schazjmd (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My gmail is out of space. Now what am I gonna do?? Susbush (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(And my apologies for thinking Oversight didn't address this specific class of edits.) Remsense ‥ 论 14:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Susbush: Use the builtin email - see User:Oversight and use Special:EmailUser/Oversight. Be sure to properly identify the edit(s) to them in your email. You may want to have a read of Wikipedia:Oversight after you've emailed them. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed them through Yahoo mail, will they reply? Susbush (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. They're normally quite quick to respond to most requests. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 3 days, they haven't replied. How often do they reply? Susbush (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Susbush: That's too long (I'd be surprised if more than 2 hours had passed). If the IP has already been suppressed ('made invisible'), then check your spam folder for a reply. If the IP has not been suppressed, send the email again. I recommend using the built-in form to reduce the chance of errors, and again being very specific about what you want suppressed (maybe also mention your previous email). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I even replied using the built-in form, but no reply or suppression. Susbush (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm out of advice, except to say you can also contact an oversighter directly. You can find a list here; some are more active than others. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nvm, the IP address was suppressed. Susbush (talk) 12:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment about Assassin's Creed Shadows

Assassin's Creed Shadows has an RfC for possible consensus.Should Assassin's Creed Shadows retain the Re-enactment flag controversy and Japanese reaction? A discussion is taking place.Xslyq (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration committee 2024 election

The 2024 arbitration committee election will be taking place in two months. Given the significant commitment required to be an arbitrator, it's a good time to start thinking about candidates. If there is someone you'd like to see run, or if you want to know someone else's plans before making your own decision, I encourage you to get in touch with them now! For more information about the work involved with serving on the committee, see the arbitrator experiences page. isaacl (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please source and update foreign language articles on Kuwohi

I have been trying to Google translate talk page messages on a number of Wikipedias but Spanish Wikipedia reverted the move because Spanish language sources are required. So I am asking anyone who understands the languages where it has either been reverted or not done yet to please update it. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Clyde, is your goal to have more (non-English) articles about the Kuwohi mountain at other Wikipedias? If so, I think you will want to read m:Meta:Babylon. It lists several ways to find translators. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My goal is to get everything renamed so that we have consistency across all of the Wikipedias that currently have an article on Kuwohi; (except for local variants due to the language). And that’s about a dozen and a half languages. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In other words: I want the existing foreign language articles that say “Clingmans Dome” (or a variant thereof) to be updated to the new name.

The only new language (if there were any) that I’m necessarily requesting an article be written for about this mountain would be the seemingly defunct Cherokee Wikipedia. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For chrwiki, I suggest talking to Nesnad or Seb az86556. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the request is. There is nothing to rename, we don't even have an article on ᎫᏩᎯ. We do have one on red mulberry (ᎫᏩ) but that is not the mountain, just it's namesake. Anyway, I hope a literate user contributes an article on ᎫᏩᎯ someday soon, but nothing yet so nothing to rename. Also, incidentally I would say Cherokee Wikipedia is NOT defunct, just not so active. Nesnad (talk) 09:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then I’ll clarify it to everyone: my request is that all of the foreign language articles that are currently out get updated. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 12:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This includes several articles in Arabic script, the Russian Wikipedia, and as of this writing the Spanish Wikipedia. The title and text within the article need to be updated to reflect the new official name. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 12:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't rush it. Some Wikis might have a local language source rule. Just let it happen naturally, it will be updated as time goes on. Nesnad (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found that out the hard way on Spanish Wikipedia; and I’ve also made an administrator on the Danish Wikipedia mad at me by posting a message on his talk page. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was not a wise idea (regarding Danish Wikipedia) Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moral of the story: don’t bother (in his words) “random Wikipedians”. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nesnad. Different wikis have different rules, so trying to get a blanket decision would a real headache, and also not needed. There are still some wikis that have "Uluru" titled "Ayers Rock" (see Uluru (Q33910)), and that was renamed in 1993 (and the order switched in 2002). Kuwohi was only officially renamed this year, so please sit tight. Cremastra (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did get it changed on some of the wikis though. So at least a partial victory there. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And as for Cherokee Wikipedia, my additional request would for someone to create a Cherokee language article on Kuwohi. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 12:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Wikidata item' link is moving. Find out where...

Apologies for cross-posting in English. Please consider translating this message.

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T66315

Hello everyone, a small change will soon be coming to the user-interface of your Wikimedia project. The Wikidata item sitelink currently found under the General section of the Tools sidebar menu will move into the In Other Projects section.

We would like the Wiki communities feedback so please let us know or ask questions on the Discussion page before we enable the change which can take place October 4 2024, circa 15:00 UTC+2. More information can be found on the project page.

We welcome your feedback and questions.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sharp drop in page views in May 2024

Hello, I have noticed, for some numbers articles, a sharp sustained drop in daily page views occurring in May 2024, see: https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2023-09-07&end=2024-09-27&pages=1%7C2%7C4%7C5 I mentioned this at WP:NUM and it was suggested it could be related to Google's roll-out of AI summaries. This doesn't affect every article (3 for example doesn't see any significant change) but I have checked a few non-number related articles and see a similar drop. However, I haven't done any extensive analysis. Has this been noticed elsewhere? Polyamorph (talk) 08:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had a hunch and tried it for the article Index, which is subject to strange activity because of its name. Similar result. I suspect this has something to do with an automated process that stopped in May, and that the views we're seeing now are closer to the true number of readers. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Mount Takahe still has the spurious reader numbers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=3#Sources-of-Traffic suggests that 3 is getting more internal traffic than 1, which might partially buffer the difference. I don't think it explains everything, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar issue regarding POV on titles for objects in preservation.

I am deciding to officially issue this thread as I have investigated through Wikipedia and determined that there is a grammar issue for machinery in preservation. Most people are using the grammar "surviving" for machines instead of "preserved". I have moved some of them due to the following grammar issue (which I will highlight in bold to convince you guys in order to fix this issue), but for one example, it has been reverted many times.

The word "surviving" is only used for a term to describe organic beings (e.g: Pets, humans).
The word "surviving" (although could be used for machinery) sounds more like the Wikipedia article was titled from a fan's point of view instead of a neutral point of view as per this thread and per WP:POV.

Grammar issue being referred to machines in preservation.

@Chaotic Enby recommended me to move it to here after I attempted to report this to WP:ANI Airbus A320-100 (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really a POV issue as such; it's much more of a style issue. While some may not find "survived" to be the best word, I don't really see why it matters as much as you say. Both communicate the meaning perfectly well, and the sense of animate versus inanimate "POV" seems to be more of a personal hang-up of yours barring any further explanation, if I can be frank. This doesn't seem like something worth having a rule about, and it is not very persuasive to showcase an example of your getting reverted repeatedly. Remsense ‥ 论 01:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the ANI thread after I have moved this thread to here. Airbus A320-100 (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word "surviving" is only used for a term to describe organic beings (e.g: Pets, humans) doesn't match my experience as a native English speaker familiar with railway preservation and archaeology, and it doesn't seem to be an opinion shared by reliable sources, for example:

quote from "Ferrier, Art of Our Century, p. 16-17 "the only surviving direct pictorial record of the original."
Somerset Historic Enfironmnet Record "...potentially the only surviving balloon hanger for the storage of fully inflated WWII barrage balloons ... Comparable to the two surviving barrage balloon workshop hanger at Pucklechurch"
François de La Rochefoucald, Norman Scarfe (translator) "A Frenchman's Year In Suffolk" page xxxiv "She was responsible for the drawing of him, apparently the only surviving portrait"
Billie I Gavurin, "Exquisite grotesques - evolutionary thought and the mythic hybrid at the fin de siècle" "...it is far from the only surviving prehistoric work to combine human and bestial elements"
Warwickshire Industrial Archaeology Society "November 2020: John Berkley OBE - E Crossely & Son, Aircraft Constructors of Banbury" page 4 "It is also to be hoped that someone will complete his little aeroplane, one of the oldest surviving home-designed and homebuilt ultralight aeroplanes in Britain."
Essex Society for Archaeology and History "Essex Archaeological News Summer 1980 to Autumn 1984" [20 examples, search for "surviving"]

Given that all those sources are/appear to be written in British English it's not impossible this is an ENGVAR matter (or that could just be an artefact of google's personalising my search results), but either way it's not a POV issue. Even if it were a POV issue, it would not justify the edit warring over it you seem to have been involved with. Thryduulf (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf graciously posits that this may be an WP:ENGVAR issue. It isn't. I am a 72 year old American and "surviving" is normal usage in American English in the context of historic preservation and archaeology. This is neither a grammar issue nor a POV issue, and the concern lacks merit. Cullen328 (talk) 06:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It just doesn't make sense for aircraft when you think about it. Airbus A320-100 (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Thryduulf (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep reading my thread again and again, you will see what I mean. Airbus A320-100 (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And then you will realise it is more than what you think. Airbus A320-100 (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've read this thread multiple times and all I can see is you declaring your own opinion to be objective fact and refusing to consider the possibility it is not. Thryduulf (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it will happen instantly, it will take some time to understand it just for clarification. Airbus A320-100 (talk) 02:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, we understand it. Your point is just not persuasive. No amount of re-reading is going to change that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of a passage in the introduction to Dianetics: (paraphrasing) "If the text makes no sense to you, at some point you have misunderstood a word; go back and find what word that was." —Tamfang (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also you sourced a reference from Wordpress, which is an unreliable source. Airbus A320-100 (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wordpress is not a source, but a publication medium. The source is the Warwickshire Industrial Archaeological Society, who are a reliable source in this context. Thryduulf (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. I misread that. I got confused. Because across Wikipedia through hundreds of debates, I've since learned that Wordpress as a source is an unreliable source. Airbus A320-100 (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd prefer some more, unambiguously reliable sources...

Graham Farmelo "The Strangest Man: The Hidden Life of Paul Dirac, Quantum Genius" ISBN 9780571250073
- Page 12: "The photograph, the only surviving image of the entire family..."
- Page 144: "..the oldest surviving version of the Anglican Bible..."
- Page 232: "Of all Dirac's surviving letters..."
General Accounting Office "Alternatives Available for Reducing Requirements for Spare Aircraft Engines: Report to the Congress"
- Page 39: "Also, as surviving aircraft are required to fly additional sorties..."
Nicholas A. Veronico "Hidden Warbirds: The Epic Stories of Finding, Recovering, and Rebuilding WWII's Lost Aircraft" ISBN 9780760344095
- Page 18: "...many a surviving aircraft owes its existence to his efforts.". Thryduulf (talk) 02:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This WP:FORUMSHOP follows directly on from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Names of Surviving Aircraft Articles (Airbus A320-100, see WP:DR for how/when to use dispute resolution processes properly; that said Thryduulf's refs show that your belief does not accord with common practice -- also look at all the other books using "surviving aircraft"). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This does look like forum shopping and another editor had to apparently undo dozens of article page moves that Airbus A320-100 did and then refused to undo when challenged on the WikiProject talk page. One of the major rules in collaborative editing is don't force other editors to clean up your mistakes. That's a great way to try other editors' patience and is unlikely to sway anyone to your point of view. If you are challenged, revert and find consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Surviving" has 17,500 hits on Historic England's NHLE. Some may be "surviving members of the family", but the first two are one surviving windbrace (no idea what that is!) and surviving panelled dado. Good inanimate surviving entities. PamD 08:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, "surviving" applied to inanimate objects is good British English (see Thryduulf's comment, above). I found the following examples which indicate that it is also good American English; searching isn't easy even if you know the sort of thing you're looking for, there's a lot of clutter:

Narky Blert (talk) 06:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Preserved" and "Surviving" have very distinct meanings; they're not simply interchangeable. "Preserve" implies that someone, at some stage, has attempted to maintain the thing in a way that keeps some aspect of its original state, or at least that's what they want. Some ancient railway tracks may be preserved in their original location, because someone at least chose to leave them there, chose not to get rid of them, and possibly cleared away the weeds and documented them. "Survive" puts the stress on the fact that time and decay have not obliterated the object. The railway tracks may survive, in that despite no one looking after them (even despite a land-owner possibly wanting rid of them), the historically-interested observer can go there and find that they still exist. Both are good English; please remember the subtlety of the written word, and don't substitute rules for understanding. Elemimele (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No two words are simply interchangeable: in the narrow context of its use as a descriptor here, they essentially are. Remsense ‥ 论 10:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, first of all, it's not a question of grammar at all, it is about idiomaticity. And it's not all that difficult to find out how "surviving" is used if you use a text corpus (my go-to collection of corpora for this kind of question is the one at https://www.english-corpora.org ). When I search for "surviving NOUN" in the British National Corpus and the Corpus of Contemporary American English at english-corpora, animate nouns (spouse, children, victims, etc) are of course much more common than inanimate ones in both corpora, but both corpora have quite a few different instances of "surviving" with an inanimate noun such as "records", "letters", "accounts". And the usage is in fact much more frequent in the British English corpus, both in terms of actual frequency (the BNC yielded 0.2 instances per 1 million words, versus 0.03 instances per 1 million words in the COCA), and in terms of variety, where the BNC has surviving portraits, villages, and buildings – in fact, looking at the 100 most common nouns that follow surviving, the BNC had about 44 different inanimate nouns, with about 27 different inanimate nouns in the COCA.

This was a very quick investigation, and I did not search for any alternative construction such as "surviving ADJECTIVE NOUN", for instance. But it does show without any doubt that "surviving" is indeed used with things other than people and animals, in British English as well as in American English. --bonadea contributions talk 10:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All sorts of things have survived, from ancient literature to archaeological remains to brutalist buildings. The henges that remain in the UK survived for thousands of years before anyone started trying to preserve them. The last surviving example of some aircraft might be a decaying wreck deep in a rainforest. Any that still exist have survived, whether or not they've been preserved. NebY (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think "preserved" can also be used without any human intervention, when something has been preserved by natural factors such as soil chemistry: see Bog body. PamD 11:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - cold water's preserved the Titanic, though the bacteria are getting to it now. Preservation helps things survive. NebY (talk) 11:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my head, "preserved" is a hyponym of "surviving" that merely implies the presence of external factors favorable to the entity's survival. I don't have a problem with describing old aircraft as either "surviving" or "preserved" but I would strongly prefer to use the latter if said aircraft "survived" exclusively in a museum setting, which seems to be the case with the Avro Lancasters the OP mentioned meaning I'd vote in support of moving the page back to the OP's preferred title even though, like many others, I completely reject their curious theory about living beings vs. objects. 78.28.44.127 (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surviving is a far better word. Trident 5B-DAB survives at Nicosia Airport, but you couldn't say it is "preserved". Mjroots (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might say that, akin to how I would say ants are preserved in amber. Remsense ‥ 论 18:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with everyone - in general, "surviving" is the best word in most cases, especially in archaeology and art history. "Preserved" may be useful for planes etc where a lot of upkeep is needed. Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is notionally a MOS issue at best, but I don't think we would benefit from a top-down directive. In situations where it's controversial for some reason we would probably want to reflect the best sources. All that said, it seems to me that "surviving" is a more general and neutral term overall. "Surviving" merely states that it continues to exist (a neutral fact, provided its survival to the present is uncontested), whereas "preserved" carries additional connotations of someone or something actively preserving it, which may not always be the case. --Aquillion (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CentralNotice for Bengla Wikivoyage contest

A contest will take place from October 1, 2024, to October 30, 2024, on Bangla Wikivoyage to enrich its content. A central notice request has been placed to target both English and Bangla Wikipedia users, including non-registered users from Bangladesh and the Indian state of West Bengal. Thank you. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 08:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey: Future work

Hello! The Moderator Tools team is doing some research to understand how certain features and tools are used by moderators, and if there are any frustrations that moderators have with these tools.

Currently, the team is recruiting admins and content moderators to take a quick survey (4 questions) about the Recent Changes feature. If you are interested please visit the survey at: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Moderator_Tools/Survey:Recent_Changes
If you have any further questions, please contact: otichonovawikimedia.org

Thank you! OTichonova (WMF) (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am not sure exactly what you mean by "content moderators", are you referring to recent changes patrollers in general? Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]