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

Links to Wikidata

Hi there. I see many new articles in the English Wikipedia which are not then properly linked to the corresponding Wikidata item. It's a pity, because there's relevant data in that other project, but also because that's they way to get links to other editions of Wikipedia and to other projects within Wikimedia. Would it be possible to get a list of pages in this Wikipedia with no links to Wikidata? Thanks in advance, Alavense (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that there is significant resistance to linking Wikidata in the English version of Wikipedia. Check the archives here and at the other village pumps for the discussions about that (there have been many). Blueboar (talk) 11:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not for this type of linking, which is adding a link to an enwiki article on Wikidata, not the other way around. These can be found at Category:Articles without Wikidata item, currently 157 items. Fram (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah… yes… true. Linking to WP at Wikidata is fine. Sorry if I misunderstood the intent. Blueboar (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear, but that's what I was looking for. Thanks, Blueboar and Fram. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Links are eventually auto-created. Consequently, one big problem is that Wikidata will have separate items for the same subject, as it auto-created an item for the English Wikipedia, without knowing that Wikidata already had an item for that subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know, WhatamIdoing. That's why I like to link them myself and I also merge some items on Wikidata when needed. Thanks, Alavense (talk) 06:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of pages detailing energy use by countries

Academics funded by the oil industry are writing pages about the power consumption of each country. Instead of stating this power in watts which is the correct measurement of power, they are multiplying the numbers by calling one watt 8740 watt hours per year or 31.5million watt seconds (joules) per year. This inflation is done simply to make the numbers impossible to understand. For example a 3kW toaster would be described in one of these articles as either a 262 megawatt hours per year toaster or a 94.6 gigawatt seconds (giga joules or GJ) per year toaster. They use watt seconds for a country's total energy and watt hours for its electricity use so you cannot compare the two. For example the article for Germany says the total power use is 1,900 PJ. This is incorrect - it should say 1900 PJ per year. This means 1900 petajoules per year or 1900 x 10^15 watt seconds per year which is equivalent to 300GW which can easily be compared with other power levels. The electricity consumption is shown incorrectly as 508TWh and should be 508TWh per year or 508 x 10^12 watt hours per year. This equates to 58GW and now you can easily see the relationship between the whole energy use of 300GW and electricity use of 58GW. The oil industry wants to blur this distinction because they are trying to make out that all we need to consider is electricity and not worry about everything else. If 300GW and 58GW are clearly shown you can see straightaway that electricity is only a small part of the total energy use. They miss out the "per year" part of the power measurement because that further magnifies the difficulty for an ordinary viewer of understanding what the numbers mean. I would like to see this deliberate obfuscation of the power usage of each country terminated and the proper power measurement of watts used. This deliberate obfuscation goes on to my knowledge on the French Wikipedia and it is my belief it will be happening on every single language version of Wikipedia and every single article about the power usage by a country. I have not yet found any exceptions. This represents an serious abuse of Wikipedia and needs urgent attention. BrianAnalogue (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to cite some specific instances of the editing behavior you're concerned about if you want other editors to share your concern. Remsense ‥ 论 23:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gave as an example the article on Germany's power consumption which can simply be stated as 300GW in total with 58GW used for electricity (a GW is a normal unit for a large amount of power - it is 1000 MW or 1 million kW or 1 billion watts. The Wikipedia article does not use these simple figures - instead of saying it is 300GW it says it is 1,900 PJ which is incorrect. It should say 1900 PJ per year. Without the "per year" the number is meaningless. This is multiplying the 300GW, which is a large number, by 31.5 million times by calling 1 watt 31.5 million watt-seconds (joules) per year. Then 300GW becomes 1900 petajoules per year which is 1900 x 10^15 joules per year. This is a misuse of numbers and using the term "PJ" will be understood only by engineers who are used to using these numbers, and it is done specifically to make the numbers impossible to understand. They cannot be understood because they are inflated 31.5 million times, they are stated in watt-seconds instead of watt-seconds per year, and they are using the letters PJ that only a very few people in the world will understand. How much clearer can I make it? I had to use a calculator and my engineering knowledge to find out what these colossal numbers actually meant. I also knew that numbers like this were intended to mean "per year" even though it was not stated so as to make it impossible to understand what it means. I have found that this is being done for the power levels of every country I have looked and and I have found an example on the French Wikipedia using the exact same number. What it needs is for all articles about the power used by countries to state the power in GW only and no other units. BrianAnalogue (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You had a response to your post at Talk:Energy_in_Germany#Description_of_various_amounts_of_energy_are_in_different_(and_incorrect)_units., you should continue that discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like the OP has two complaints:

Articles such as Energy in Germany are not using the units that the OP believes are best/most familiar, and
"Academics funded by the oil industry are writing pages".

WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lifespan of a URL: report

Report: "Some URLs Are Immortal, Most Are Ephemeral".

Summary: most URLs have a median lifespan of 1 year.

-- GreenC 02:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The average for the all the URLs cited on enwp is probably somewhat longer, given that newspaper websites etc. generally have a longer shelf life than, say, some random person's homepage. Though it's probably still a lot shorter than is ideal, given the number of dead links one comes across when working on articles. novov talk edits 03:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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]

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 “Climgmans 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]

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]

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]

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]