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.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

More precisely, 63,472,485.

--CiaPan (talk) 06:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(That's pages, not articles. We "only" have 7,020,226 articles.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?" ^[a] 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).

^ I've seen that one in the wild before... *shudders* It's up there with "May 2024 is your best year"!

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

[1] I've seen that one in the wild before... *shudders* It's up there with "May 2024 is your best year"!

[a]