Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous): Difference between revisions

:On this topic, can someone remove or tone down the bright blob of blue in the “25” of the logo? It’s very visually distracting and keeps tricking me because I’ve been primed by years of experience that a dense blue blob at the top of the page means there’s a new ‘notification’. (If this logo is only going to only last for one day, then nevermind.) –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[user_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 21:39, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

:On this topic, can someone remove or tone down the bright blob of blue in the “25” of the logo? It’s very visually distracting and keeps tricking me because I’ve been primed by years of experience that a dense blue blob at the top of the page means there’s a new ‘notification’. (If this logo is only going to only last for one day, then nevermind.) –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[user_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 21:39, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

::I’m on desktop, and the logo looks really pixelated. The text underneath WIKIPEDIA and the “25” in the puzzle are also very small (like it’s 5 pt size). There’s also large empty white space underneath the logo for whatever reasons. [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 23:37, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

== See RFC for [[Kaja Kallas]]’s infobox ==

== See RFC for [[Kaja Kallas]]’s infobox ==

Central discussion page for topics not covered by specific topic pages

I stumbled upon an article on the Economy of Yemen (don’t ask me how) and to put it mildly I wasn’t impressed. Most of the statistics in the Industries section are old enough to buy alcohol (or maybe khat?). Of course, nearly all of us have seen such articles and this problem is the reason why we have various article improvement initiatives. There are 35k articles featuring Template:Update tags and it’s clear that the problem has not been solved and won’t be solved this way.

The top google results when I search for “Economy of Yemen” are hardly better but that’s hardly a big consolation. There are also other alternatives. The Grokipedia article is actually pretty decent but has its own problems: it claims that khat is grown on “25-30% of cultivated area” but the source it cites doesn’t contain this number. I’ve also asked Claude to generate a report in the research using the research mode, it took 5 minutes and the result is pretty good [1] (the original has references but they are not displayed in the published version unfortunately). My only quibble is that it used Wikipedia and we all know it’s not a reliable source. If we consider it as a starting point for further research, it works better than our own article.

I don’t have a solution – I definitely don’t propose generating content using AI – but I’d be interested in hearing what the community thinks about this problem. Would aggressively deleting outdated content help by encouraging new writing? Paying editors to write on such topics? Gamification? Alaexis_¿question? 20:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On the narrow question:

1. Log in to Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library.
2. Search for marketline profile yemen in the search box.
3. Update article.
4. Search for "regional business news" yemen in the search box.
5. Update article.

This wouldn’t produce stellar results, but it should be pretty easy to improve the article this way.

On the broader question, all of the “Economy of country” or “Healthcare in country” type articles could be listed for improvement in a contest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know about these resources and I have improved similar articles. My point is more general – that with the current editor numbers, processes, policies and initiatives we have a long tail of articles that are of subpar quality. I don’t think that it’s an exception, see Economy of Laos which is little more than a stub and also has plenty of outdated information. Alaexis_¿question? 07:11, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I assume that pretty much all of them, even for the biggest countries, are in fairly bad shape one way or the other.

Femke, is this something Wikipedia:The Core Contest could support? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Most would qualify for the CC, but we don’t normally push particular themes. Johnbod (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The problem of dated articles is widespread. I would love for a controlled experiment where we reduce these highly outdated articles to a few paragraphs and see their health over 5 years compared to a control set of articles. My guess is that new editors will be more likely to add (recent) content to these pruned articles.

Updating articles is now a newcomer task (yay!). Going off my homepage, most of the suggestions are to low-pageview articles. My view is that new editors should work on important articles where they can find mentors, and can hopefully feel they make more of an impact. @User:KStoller-WMF: has the effect of recommending high-pageview articles been tested? The suggestion for me now is to update Brighton, Marathon County, Wisconsin, which has 29 pageviews per month. That’s not really making good use of editor time. How popular is that task?

In terms of contests, they’re fantastic, but only cover a small set of articles. I’m usually advertising TCC more in areas where dated content is more harmful (i.e. WPMED), but will also leave a message on the economics. Another campaign I’m organising is the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Vital Signs 2026, where we’re updating the 100 top-importance articles in WikiProject medicine. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

most of the suggestions are to low-pageview articles perhaps we should have an automated process which highlights articles that have had a sudden uptick in page views? That would be a clue that something has happened in the world which has suddenly made that article more relevant and thus a higher priority for us to make sure it is accurate and/or up to date. RoySmith (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Most “sudden upticks” are temporary, & by the time the article has been improved the moment has probably passed. There are millions of articles with relatively high views & pretty low quality, but nonbody takes much notice. Johnbod (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

High-traffic articles = articles where good-faith newbies frequently end up in conflict with experienced editors. Finding a mentor is a nice idea, but it’s not a typical experience. A typical experience is unfortunately more like “try – get reverted because it wasn’t perfect, and the experienced editor is nervous about having imperfections in a high-traffic article – try again – get a warning on your talk page – try again – get another warning – give up”. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It’s very possible that it will not work out well; a lot of folks bite. And perhaps new editors will be too scared to make the suggested edit. I know I made the switch to enwiki when I discovered that big articles needed updating quite urgently, and that I could have a bigger impact than working on obscure articles over at nlwiki. And that meant I immediately got exposed to people kindly telling me how to be a better editor. I imagine that kind of motivation (want to make an impact) is quite common.

But, the only way to discover what works is to test it, even though high-traffic WP:contentious topics are best avoided even in a test, given the limited assumption of good faith in those articles. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Femke, “recommending high-pageview articles” sounds like a great idea, especially if we can recommend articles that have the Template:Update tag or some other tags. Assuming that an article doesn’t require a complete re-write, updating can be a simpler task with a greater impact. Alaexis_¿question? 22:58, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aggressively deleting Economy of X articles would not encourage their development. In general they are victims of Wikipedia:Main article fixation, like many other X of Country articles. They are also hard to write. Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics as a whole has barely 100 quality articles! Claude seems to have gone for an essay/news style, but I doubt that is what we want. What we would need is for editors to get together and figure out what a model modern Economy in X article would look like, and start with just one. (Demographics of X and Culture of X may be in a worse state, mind.) CMD (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that blanking articles about developing countries encourages their development, and since they are obviously notable subjects, there’s no realistic chance of deleting them, so I don’t think that’s worth considering.

I’m not sure why you think that Aggressively deleting Economy of X articles would encourage their development. If you try to do something that is, in your words, “hard“, do you find that having a neighbor come by, smash everything you’ve done, and throw it away is an encouraging response? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It would be discouraging if we delete stuff that was added in the last 5-10 years, as it’s plausible contributors would notice it. My suggestion was to test deleting extremely dated content, where it’s very unlikely that the original author is still around. When an article ‘looks’ finished, I think that makes it scary for new editors to contribute. It’s even more scary to delete content, something new editors don’t often do. It’s an extreme thing to try, but I think it’s a massive problem, maybe even more in other contexts (for instance, extremely dated medical text). Keen to hear other big ideas of course on things to try to ensure Wikipedia remains up-to-date. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Forever ago, one of the official rules was to have part of an article be obviously unfinished. The idea was that an {{empty section}} or even a sentence that stops in the middle would be a way to attract editors, by giving them an obvious entrée to editing. I don’t know whether the concept worked, or if it worked back then, whether it would still work today. (The web’s a different place now.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: A lot of editors focus on a few very niche articles (to a degree, I’m one of them), and are not interested in broader topics. Some of the bigger articles are also fairly intimidating with the number of watchers involved, so trying to make big restructuring is more stressful then on a smaller article. In terms of difficulty to write, I agree that many topics really require a level of expertise that is hard to achieve, and we need experts in the field to do it well. One problem with experts on bigger articles is that non-expert editors may throw up a lot of flack and make the whole endeavor very stressful. One expert drops five citations for something really doesn’t matter if three page watchers say “nu-uh” on the talk page. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:02, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, WhatamIdoing, that was a bad typo that got made during rewrites, hopefully contradicted by the rest of my comment. What does often improve these is simply porting the work done on the Country pages. GeogSage, good points however I would not be worried about talkpage watchers in these articles. CMD (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I understand now (and have made the same unfortunate typo myself multiple times). Yes, replacing some or all of a weak Economy of Yemen with a decent Yemen#Economy – assuming the latter is better the former – can be a quick way to improve an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where to file this. It feels wrong to me, but I don’t know if we have policy on this somewhere. A YouTuber linked to our page on interval signals (not critically), where we play many audio files. However we/commons are not hosting any of them – we are playing embedded audio directly from a different website https://www.intervalsignals.net/ and without any kind of attribution. Surely we shouldn’t be doing this? Secretlondon (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it might fall under copyright violations? The host site says Visitors to this website should be aware that the audio files provided are intended purely for personal listening, and should not be downloaded or further distributed without permission from the copyright holder. The website provider must not be made liable in any way for any copyright infringement by a user of this site. Looks like these were all added in September by a new editor. Schazjmd (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see any indication that we’re embedding audio directly from intervalsignals.net. The references to that site are all in alt tags, while the files played are actually files generated from the LilyPond code, such as https://upload.wikimedia.org/score/b/b/bbs3vmxpi63i24b22dysejxo3e03p30/bbs3vmxp.mp3. If you load the intervalsignals.net files, such as https://www.intervalsignals.net/sounds/ukg-bbcws_b_interval_signal_170701.mp3, they’re clearly different. Anomie⚔ 23:19, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve converted that long and oddly formatted list to a table. It still needs some work. If anyone wants to edit or rearrange it, I suggest using the visual editor: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interval_signal&veaction=edit&section=1

@Anomie, I think that {{thumb}} should be stripped out. Do you think some regex magic could replicate this edit of mine throughout the article reliably? Or maybe even add the |caption= as a ‘title’ as shown in Help:Score? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: I don’t know about regex magic, handling templates and such with regexes can be difficult. I can do it with AnomieBOT code easily enough though. Here’s reproducing your edit. And here’s also setting the title in the <score>, although the ones without the raw parameter seem to not work right and it’s not clear to me from Help:Score how to fix them. Anomie⚔ 13:36, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That looks better than what we’ve got now. The individual items aren’t standardized, so there’s a need to hand-re-format things eventually.

Do you know/can you figure out whether <score> produces alttext? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It outputs the contents of the <score> tag as the alt text. There does not appear to be a way to specify different alt text. Anomie⚔ 00:28, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn’t sound ideal, but it also doesn’t sound like anything we can fix. I was hoping that the answer would be the specified title.

Do you want to make your edit to Interval signal, or would you rather that I did it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:40, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can go ahead; I don’t want to be responsible for any cleanup after the replacement. 😀 Anomie⚔ 13:48, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I didn’t want to deprive you of credit for your work, but I’m happy to deal with any complaints. There are still formatting problems and some re-organizing that needs to be done, but I feel like we’ve made a lot of progress. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Wikipedia. I’m rusty on exact policy so I’m looking for guidance before acting (I was reverted ages ago and didn’t want to fight). In the article The Unbelievable Truth (radio show) every single episode is detailed in full. I think this is against policy (and that’s how all the details previously written in the OffMemu podcast article was deleted). Any guidance would be gratefully received doktorb _words^deeds 05:08, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Doktorbuk, having a full list of the episodes for a broadcast show is normal. What’s not wanted is an overly detailed plot summary of each episode. A radio or television show should have a list of episodes that is somewhat similar to the list of tracks on a music album, with maybe a couple of sentences (not paragraphs) about what happened in each. Generally the main risk in such articles is that someone will copy the “official” episode teaser/description, which is a copyright problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: User contributions on 5 January

Brand new user started today, fifteen edits in their first 20 minutes (+2.5kb); thirty in the first hour (another +2.5kb). They are certainly off to a blazing start. Not AWB, and given the mix of articles and edits, it doesn’t seem to be script-assisted. Could be a long-time anon who just registered, I suppose. Even so, this is a rapid pace for any user, and I am at a loss what, if anything, to do here, such as ask something at their Talk page (but what?) Thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 07:31, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Drop a suggestion to use edit summaries more? Nothing stands out as particularly problematic, one edit I looked at that appeared to be random blanking was actually part of a shift of the text and it was readded elsewhere (edit summaries!). CMD (talk) 09:30, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought whenever anyone adds content this fast is whether it’s AI — these edits are sometimes only 2 minutes apart, although they’re not entire paragraphs or anything. Spot-checking, nothing leaps out to me right away. Special:Diff/1331319421 failed verification (claims something happened in August 2020 based on an article that came out in June that only said it was expected to); the Swimsuit and Female boxing edit seem fine (the first one had a ref error, but they fixed it). Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, AI was high on my list, too. It’s pretty clear they are not new, just newly registered, and must have been editing for some time anonymously; but I see no problem with that—we urge anonymous users to consider registration, and if that’s what happened here, then that’s what we want, so at least that part is unproblematic. The speed is still striking, though, given that it is not AWB and the article set and type of edits are diverse. Mathglot (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(for future reference, the help desk is probably a better place for discussions like this) mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 20:34, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A side issue, but since you raised it, I cannot agree. HD is specifically for questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia, and this isn’t about that. I am raising an issue of possible community concern regarding the behavior and on-boarding of new users, that skirts the boundaries of several policy and guideline areas like WP:COSMETICBOT, WP:LLM, WP:TEMP, WP:TALK, as well as WP:WikiProjects such as WP:Welcoming committee, WP:Editor retention, and possibly others. From a practical point of view, the linked user has not edited for three days, and so the question—for this one case—may be moot. But the general question remains. If a user is using a bot or LLM to quickly generate content at Wikipedia, questions about detection, assessment, and proper response arise, because an enormous amount of damage can be caused by one editor very quickly, that may take numerous editors significant effort to undo. The worst case, is when the damage is not discovered until later, when it is complicated by other positive edits coming in behind them. (There is even a discussion going on somewhere about an admin who may have added LLM content to a thousand articles; I will link it if I find it again.) None of this is remotely a Help desk type of issue. You may be right that VPM isn’t ideal for this question, but I don’t know of a better one. Mathglot (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There’s the AI noticeboard for individual cases (though I’m not totally convinced these edits are AI, could be, could not, not the worst of them either way).

Regarding new edit onboarding specifically there was this discussion recently, the gist of which is that our newcomer onboarding process is inadvertently encouraging people to mass-edit with LLMs (though this isn’t the exact same situation). Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIN redirects to WP:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents, not to WP:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Noticeboard, presumably as a misspelling of WP:ANI. Maybe I should start an RfD about that. MEN KISSING (she/they) T – C – Email me! 04:37, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Within seven hours I came across this pair of edits incorrectly making Linda George (Assyrian singer) out to be Chaldean rather than Assyrian, and then this edit recasting Chaldeans as allies to the Median Empire in place of the Babylonians. The respective updates were by separate temporary accounts. Has there been a broader outburst of Chaldean nationalist edits here? I’m aware that two incidents don’t make a pattern and this is the wildest of hunches, but I can’t think of the last time Chaldeans came to my attention, let alone twice on Wikipedia over the course of a few hours, so I felt the urge to inquire. Largoplazo (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GS/ACAS. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Would it be appropriate for me to put a GS/Talk notice tag on the Linda George talk page? Or are only admins permitted to do that? Also, would it be appropriate at the Median Empire talk page, even though in that case, the content that’s normally there isn’t covered by the GS, only the text that was added (and that I reverted) is? Largoplazo (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that anything would be appropriate as long as you explain what you are doing and are transparent about it. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone with access to The Times (British newspaper) please verify the claims referenced to it in the article Husain Al-Musallam? I want to make sure the claims are correct. Thanks. Janhrach (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You seemed to have asked a question best suited for the help desk in the wrong place. For future reference, the help desk should be used for questions like these mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 20:38, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mgjertson Try WP:RX. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just have a template for questions that should be asked elsewhere, I wasn’t suggesting he go there looking for the source, just that for any future questions of this nature to ask them there mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 14:36, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, pinged wrong editor. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have lots of “thank”s in my logs, but how do I see the actual revision they thanked me for if it’s been a while? Clicking on the date just shows the individual item. If you reply here, please ping me. Thanks, thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk | contributions 18:41, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTechie, you can view the edit you were thanked for in your Special:Notifications history. Paging through them is slow (only shows 50 at a time) and there’s no search, sort, or filter capacity, but it’s the only method I’ve found. Schazjmd (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazjmd  Thanks! thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk | contributions 20:39, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Poking around in my browser console, I see that API requests like this get made when you click the arrow buttons:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&format=json&meta=notifications&notgroupbysection=1&notmessageunreadfirst=1&notlimit=50&notprop=count&uselang=en&_=xxxxxx

If you’re a little handy, you could just take that mess, copy-paste it into your browser’s address bar, and change “notprop=count” to “notprop=list” to get a list in JSON format. Then you could change “notlimit=50” to some other number (I imagine there’s some limit, but it seems to be happy with 200). Or you could use Special:ApiSandbox to make it a little easier to edit (questionable). I’m sure there’s some attribute to filter the responses to just thanks. Once you’ve got this JSON blob in a file, there’s all sorts of tools to slice and dice it.

Just for the curious, the “not” in things like “notlimit” doesn’t have anything to do with negation; it’s just the API’s way of prefixing attribute names with an indication of what call they apply to, i.e. “not” for “notifcations” RoySmith (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know where to put this, I don’t know much about the topics this user is editing but they changed a flag and team name with no edit summary and also added multiple spaces to different articles for no apparent reason. They also started editing through vandalism. What is to be done and what do I do when I see suspicious users like this in the future? — Awesomecat / ✉ / ✎ / 00:54, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Awesomecat713 In the future, when you encounter vandalism, revert the edit and issue a warning ( as you did here) If thy continues vandalizing revert again and escalate the warnings through levels 2, 3 and 4. After a level 4 warning, persistent vandalism you should reported at AIV. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 16:07, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but they were also making weird edits like this one. They’ve been reverted now, but it doesn’t really count as vandalism. Should I be reverting them? Awesomecat (✉ / ✎) 17:34, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That’s Disruptive editing and yes, you should do the Revert, warn, explain and educate. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 17:46, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, was Louis Jacolliot‘s 1890 novel The Plunderers of the Sea (Les Ravageurs de la mer (1890)) based on a true story? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Vyacheslav84 Try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa SångThank you! —Vyacheslav84 (talk) 08:45, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Was the recent color change of the WP:UAA header discussed anywhere at all? I just noticed the change and was curious. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 02:05, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would first try asking the editor who made the change[2]. — LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:55, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an opinion, please join. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again English Wikipedians! In September, I wrote on the Village Pump to let you know that the Wikimedia Research team would be conducting a survey of newcomers (in this case, defined as editors who registered between March 1 2025 through the fielding of the survey, and had made at least 25 edits at the time of the survey).

I’m writing now to update you that the results have been added to the project’s Research page on metawiki. If you have any questions, feel welcome to ask them here or on the project’s Discussion page.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your thoughts about these results! — TAndic (WMF) (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1) Was the distinction between editing on your mobile vs with the mobile app clearly explained to (and hopefully understood by) the participants? 2) Does “when editing on my mobile phone” refer to using the app, using the phone’s browser, or both? —User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:17, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your question! The distinction was explained as “A mobile phone, using my browser (e.g. Chrome, Safari)” for mobile web, and “A mobile phone, using the Wikipedia App” (the first question here). It’s possible that some respondents did not understand the difference, though unfortunately there is no way for us to know whether that was the case. The “When editing on my mobile phone” questions were asked of those who indicated they use either one of these without specifying the platform, and some indicated they had used both. About 2/3 of those who answered these questions had selected that they use mobile without indicating they use the app. (I checked for differences between those who indicated using the app, and app users were slightly more likely to disagree on a few points – finding mobile-friendly articles to work on, referencing help & policy pages, and using talk pages; otherwise they were not very different from other mobile editing respondents within this data). – TAndic (WMF) (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. While I am glad that the questions were presented to the respondents in a way to highlight the difference, I am dismayed that the answers were not presented to us with proper attention to said differences. —User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:58, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this really helpful feedback; I have added a clarification in the text below the mobile charts to note that the questions were asked of both mobile web and app users. Let me know if this addresses your concern, or if you have suggestions for how it could be better clarified. Thanks once more! — TAndic (WMF) (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia turned 25 years old today! Griefing22 (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On this topic, can someone remove or tone down the bright blob of blue in the “25” of the logo? It’s very visually distracting and keeps tricking me because I’ve been primed by years of experience that a dense blue blob at the top of the page means there’s a new ‘notification’. (If this logo is only going to only last for one day, then nevermind.) –jacobolus (t) 21:39, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m on desktop, and the logo looks really pixelated. The text underneath WIKIPEDIA and the “25” in the puzzle are also very small (like it’s 5 pt size). There’s also large empty white space underneath the logo for whatever reasons. Some1 (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As a heads up, a follow-up discussion at Kaja Kallas is now live about footnotes of people born in the Baltic states from 1940 to 1991. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]