Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 65

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Village pump (miscellaneous) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80

Request for the phonetic transcription of the family name

Dear colleaques, allow me to inform you about the request I've posted recently at the Talk page of the relevant article. I kindly ask anybody for whom American English is the first language to consult about the correct pronunciation of J. B. Straubel's name in the U. S. A. - at least, to write the answer on the talk page of the article. Thanks in advance. Cherurbino (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

(UPD) my POV is that the orthoepic standard for „Straubel” is the same, as for Levi Strauss - /ˈstraʊs/: „s”, not „sh”, and „au”, not „o” - am I right? Cherurbino (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Please, tell me the criteria for the significance of one existing article

Does anyone know the criteria of the significance of the article about Yegor Zhukov? In Russian Wikipedia, the article about this person is constantly removed, and in the discussion for the preservation of the article I haven't arguments. Maybe I can take advantage of the criteria from the article with a foreign speech Wikipedia? -Dmitry Pechenkov (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)-

I don't know, Dmitry Pechenkov. If you think that he's not noteworthy, you can propose deletion. Here is the procedure. But please familiarize yourself with deletion criteria beforehand; in particular, NB "an article about him has been repeatedly deleted on Russian-language Wikipedia" is not a valid argument for deletion here (just as "an article about him has been repeatedly judged worth keeping on Russian-language Wikipedia" would not be a valid argument for retention here). -- Hoary (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
On the contrary. I want to understand the significance of this article in the English Wikipedia, in order to use it in the Russian Wikipedia and restore the article) --Dmitry Pechenkov (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
He is considered notable on English Wikipedia because he is covered in at least 4 highly reliable sources that are cited in the article: NPR, The New York Times, The New Yorker magazine, and the BBC. There are also 4 Russian language sources that might also be reliable, but you might be a better judge of those. Station1 (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
The problem with determining if he meets WP:N on the English-language Wikipedia is that this policy is highly unlikely to be identical to the equivalent policies on the Russian-language Wikipedia. Each Wikipedia is its own project with its own rules and standards, and what's acceptable on one of them may be lacking on another. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 18:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Virtual Great American Wiknic CentralNotice for US editors

I have put in a request for a geo-targeted CentralNotice for the Virtual Great American Wiknic on Sunday August 16. See the request on meta at m:CentralNotice/Request/Virtual Great American Wiknic.--Pharos (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Can't find

Where can I find this or this templates? I have been templated with both, but can't find them anywhere for me to use. I am pretty sure they were not created fresh for my talk page. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

As the HTML in the wikitext says, both are derived from {{subst:Ds/alert|topic code}}. If you are considering placing them on another editor's talk page, please read the Usage section of that template's documentation first. Certes (talk) 09:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Non free images help page

There doesn't seem to be a venue for novice users seeking assistance in writing rationales for non-free images. Do we have such a page? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The best I think we have is at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches#The rationale which is linked at WP:NFC as a See Also , but this likely assumes one is using a template and this is for meeting the NFCC#8 part (all other 9 points addressed.) --Masem (t) 21:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

User Deb has deleted the page "Gaza Sky Geeks"

Deb has deleted a page called Gaza Sky Geeks (GSG) that I and other editors have worked on. The page is a few years old, was blanked/vandalized by someone and then deleted. Then it was created again by an ip user and then I asked on the Village Pump to have the draft restored because I knew that it was in a better condition. Given what Deb has written on his talk page (User_talk:Deb), I don't think discussing the matter with him will lead anywhere. So I ask if an uninvolved moderator can restore the page. If Deb or anyone else wants to have the page deleted, he should nominate it for "Articles for Deletion" so that it can be discussed. GSG has received lots of news coverage and clearly fulfills the WP:N critera. ImTheIP (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@ImTheIP: this is the wrong venue for much discussion on this, but lets see if we can settle it quickly. That page was nominated for speedy deletion by SUSTAMI and the deletion was carried out by Deb - obviously this is a contested speedy nomination now - so I suggest restoring the page and letting SUSTAMI list at AfD to move forward. Deb, agree? — xaosflux Talk 20:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
If this is not agreed to, we can move this to a more approriate venue for admin action review/page deletion review/etc. — xaosflux Talk 20:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't like restoring material that has been nominated for deletion as G11. I looked back through old versions and it seemed to me they were just as bad in terms of promotional language. However, I'll put the first few versions (dating from 2018) back into draft for User:ImTheIP to work on. Not much point trying to get the other named user to fix it - I think there may be a WP:COMPETENCE issue there. Deb (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
The last version of the article was from 2020 so that is the version that should be restored. Moreover, I think the article should go through the AfD process if people want it gone so that the community can decide if the topic ever will get an article. Because what we had was pretty much all information about GSG there is.ImTheIP (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
@ImTheIP: if this is stalled out, please move this discussion to WP:AN for review by an uninvovled admin. — xaosflux Talk 13:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Was that the page I should have posted on in the first place? I have been here for years but all these meta pages still confuse me! ImTheIP (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
@ImTheIP: there are a few options but that one is certainly better than VP:M. — xaosflux Talk 13:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Home page

I wish you would go back to the old home page format that had the featured article right below the search box. The info placed there now is just clutter we have to scroll past to get to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.210.220 (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about which content you consider to be clutter? I see that you are currently using a mobile device, as do the majority of our readers. On a desktop (Firefox on Linux) the things that I see between the search box and today's featured article (whether I use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page or https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) are the slogan "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. 6,140,016 articles in English" and nine links to portals. Are they what you feel shouldn't be there? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Before TemplateStyles were added to the main page (a few months ago), the header bar (welcome and portals) did not display. (Nor did much of our main page in fact.) It appears this unregistered reader does not appreciate those as being wasteful of space (i.e. they push the FA (partially) below the fold at mobile resolutions). --Izno (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Removing rename templates on files for which there is no consensus to rename

There are 138 files in Category:Wikipedia files requiring renaming that were added by Jonteemil. These are mostly double extensions like File:A-Square (Of Course).JPEG.jpg and some odd things like File:AARP logo SVG.svg.

It's unclear if WP:FNC#5 would cover these. On Commons, there is #6 which covers "Non-controversial maintenance and bug fixes, including fixing double extensions, invalid or incorrect extensions, character handling problems, and other similar technical issues" but on WP we don't have this.

For some more info, see Wikipedia talk:File names#Addition of criterion.

The problem is that finding new requests in the category has been complicated by all these requests that can't be fulfilled right now. I'm keeping up with new requests so far, but I doubt anyone else will, and I don't like the extra work.

I have saved all the move links to User:Alexis Jazz/Double extension links. So if at any point we decide to move them, we can. No matter if we approve or decline these requests, the rename template on these files needs to go. I want to remove the {{rename media}} templates now and make the category Category:Wikipedia files requiring renaming usable again.

Any opposition? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Wp:Be bold.Jonteemil (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I will wait for either 24 hours or some more people supporting this before I actually remove the template from the files. Because while removing the template will be easy, putting it back would take more effort. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
The arguments at Wikipedia talk:File names#Double extension seem convincing. I would follow the advice there, and do the renaming under #3 or WP:FNC#5, preferably the latter. Longer term we should consider changing the policy to get the equivalent of Commons criterion #6, which specifically mentions double extensions. This point was noted above by User:Alexis Jazz. To move forward on an actual change in the policy, people have begun collecting opinions at Wikipedia talk:File names#Addition of criterion. EdJohnston (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Don't want to be "that guy" but I actually noted the point, not Alexis, although it seems that he agrees with it.Jonteemil (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for more input on RfC on Winona Ryder's article

Can we get more input on this RfC: Talk:Winona Ryder#rfc_3EA12AB? The dispute is whether her relationships with two of her former boyfriends (Matt Damon and Dave Pirner) are notable enough to be included in the infobox 'partner' parameter. Thanks. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Good job, AfD

Looks like we correctly identified in 2017 that DC Solar wasn't notable enough to get an article. According to a recently-submitted article, it turned out to be a Ponzi scheme and got shut down by the US federal government in 2018. signed, Rosguill talk 22:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: That doesn't mean it wasn't notable. I actually find it unlikely that any billion-dollar operation (Ponzi scheme or otherwise) isn't notable. Not impossible, but remarkable. More importantly, Wikipedia/AfD is not Trustpilot. Monsanto was a shit company (before it became a shit division of Bayer), but it's notable. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Alexis Jazz, I mean yeah, but it's amusing nonetheless. We inadvertently saw through their bullshit, even if there's a possibility that it wasn't for the right reasons. signed, Rosguill talk 23:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz:, it is possible that an organization could be non-notable as a business but notable as a criminal organization. Indeed, the vast majority of businesses owned by organized criminal organizations would be in that boat. It's not surprising that the promotional efforts of a Ponzi scheme (which only works if heavily-promoted) might have been the only coverage of DC Solar in 2017. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

How to writing about Wikipedia's actual impact on a topic on Wikipedia

For the video game project, we long since suspected that how we defined the console generation (eg as First generation of video game consoles, etc.) was sorta our own original research from near the creation of Wikipedia, but could not verify this was easily the case. All we know is that the main, typically non-academic but gaming press and maisntream news sources we use for the project since --- 2010 nearly all use our numbering scheme (in that the current console gen is the 8th with the PS4, Xbox One, and Switch), so there's almost been no reason to change it. However, recently I've hit upon a key academic paper that has been key to saying, "yes you guys (Wikipedia) created your own system, but so did pretty much everyone else". I've been able to work that into the section History of video game consoles#Console generations (The paper itself is the Kemerer one in the refs).

My question or what advice I'm trying to seek is just making sure that how I've written that is "hands off" enough to reflect that Wikipedia had a role in identifying these, and that in how we present going forward stays with it as media since that point uses our scheme, but I've never seen a case of how to describe the "we" as in editors of Wikipedia in mainspace to the main audience like that in a more "active role" here (compared to other places like the Stop Online Piracy Act blackout). It's easy to write this way in WP: space as instructions, but not mainspace. --Masem (t) 21:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Masem, hmm, that's an interesting case study. I don't have any immediate suggestions, but you might find it useful to look at pages like COI editing on Wikipedia or Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Wikipedia, or guidance like Wikipedia:Manual of Style (self-references to avoid). So long as you're following the MOS and not linking to WP-space from mainspace, etc., we should be good. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Is it OK to quote Covid {“clusterf**k” on campus} ?

Do I remove the asterisks? https://www.huffpost.com/entry/daily-tar-heel-editorial-unc-coronavirus_n_5f3b0385c5b670ab17aecc91 Charles Juvon (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you should quote it as written in the original. If the original has asterisks, keep them. Chuntuk (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Charles Juvon (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Referencing an mp3 or mp4 interview

If a person interviews another person and there is significant encyclopedic content in the interview, where does the interview have to be posted or published to serve as a Wikipedia reference? Assume neither person is currently a notable person. Also assume that no one has published a review of the interview. In fact, this is an interview of a WW2 veteran who states details about the Manhattan Project that may be heretofore unknown. Charles Juvon (talk) 23:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Charles Juvon: Depends. Assuming the interview is not in the public domain or freely licensed (like Creative Commons), it probably can't be uploaded here. It could probably be uploaded to archive.org and/or YouTube. Exactly who is/are the copyright holder(s) may be a rather complicated question. But if you are talking about "what would make it WP:RS?", the answer is more simple. It would have to be published by an existing RS. Say, if it appeared in a history documentary from an established documentary maker or an existing RS embeds the interview on their website. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. The copyright owner is willing to freely license to Commons. However, I don't see much audio in Commons. Would you suggest that the copyright owner find a WW2 publisher that is RS? Charles Juvon (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
@Charles Juvon: It is possible to upload audio to Commons and/or Wikipedia. In this particular case, there are a few concerns: who is the copyright holder? If I don't know, you almost certainly don't know either. The person who recorded it? In that case, if I interview J.K. Rowling and ask her to read some paragraphs for me from one of her books, do I now own the copyright for those paragraphs of Harry Potter? And if I work for the BBC, who owns the copyright? Me or the BBC? Or technically me but do I contractually transfer nearly all my rights to my boss? (hint: probably yes)
There is another concern: authenticity. I can invite a friend over, we have some wild fantasies and record an interview. How would anyone know if it's real?
For the copyright issue, contact WP:OTRS. For the authenticity question, seek out a reliable source. Might be a local radio station or something. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
(Standard disclaimer: this is not legal advice.) The person who makes a recording owns the copyright in the recording, unless it was a work for hire, in which case the employer owns the copyright. This doesn't mean you have the right to make copies, though, if doing so would infringe other copyrights. J.K. Rowling continues to hold copyright for her work, and you would not be free to make copies of the recording without permission. However some jurisdictions have a concept of fair use or fair dealing. So if you've interviewed an author for a news story and she read a small excerpt, it would likely be covered under that. Some jurisdictions have rights of privacy or rights of publicity which also can restrict how you can use a recording. isaacl (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Charles Juvon, sorry to throw out another policy here, but Wikipedia:No original research may be somewhat relevant. If the information in the interview is significant enough to be encyclopedic, it will presumably be covered by reliable sources. As for the audio, if we figure out who the license holder is and they upload it to Commons, that would be great, since it could then potentially be used in the article, like e.g. here. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I disagree about WP:NOR excluding all recorded interviews. If someone records a person who is clearly a reliable source on the subject, & puts a copy of that interview online at a durable online location (i.e., Commons or YouTube, as opposed to a website they created that might vanish at any moment), I would consider that meets our criteria for citing. For example, if one were to record an interview with Ward Cunningham about Wiki software & upload it to Commons, that is a reliable source (if cited appropriately, of course); however, if you were to interview me about why Donald Trump is a crappy president/person & upload it, it is not reliable since I (freely admittedly) am not a reliable source on the subject -- beyond being a legal voting citizen of the US. (And if that interview was uploaded to Commons & subsequently nominated for deletion, I probably would vote to delete it.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
@Llywrch: But how would you verify the authenticity? Also, YouTube videos might vanish at any moment. The uploader could delete them, or I could. All it takes is a report of copyright infringement and YT takes it down. No matter how insane the report, they'll take it down. Also your account might vanish for no reason. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Alexis Jazz, we have to assume good faith. No matter what mechanisms we set up, in the end we have to assume our contributors are not lying to us when they provide a reliable source, which works most of the time. I admit does not always provide a reliable result. For instance, one now-banned contributor fabricated countless articles by citing an existing book but not providing the pages in said book where he alleged to have found this information. And then the burden of proof that they are hoaxes falls on the person who nominates them for deletion. (It's a pain finding these hoax articles, some of which he created with a sock puppet -- especially as sometimes the fiction is mixed with bits of truth.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
A source does not have to be available "online" in order to use it. Is this just a copy of an interview, or is it the only recording of the interview? Could a reader (even with much effort) track down the interview independently? — xaosflux Talk 16:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Even if it were Wikipedia:Published (and posting to Commons would count for that purpose), it's still be a WP:PRIMARY source. Charles Juvon, it might be more appropriate to send this to one of the many oral history projects for veterans, such as https://www.loc.gov/vets/ WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, great idea. I had been searching, with no luck, for an appropriate repository. Charles Juvon (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The growing paperwork in creating an article

I'd like to point out that currently creating an article also has acquired a number of additional steps. (Not sure if all are required, but I feel compelled to do them.)

  • Write the article. (And there is a lot of required unnoticed work involved in this -- but I won't discuss that here.)
  • Create a Talk page by adding WikiProject templates.
  • Look for a corresponding entry on Wikidata. If it exists, links to it; if not, create it.
  • Create a short description. (Or whatever happens to be at Wikidata shows up for mobile users.) A step I admit I forget to do.

The barrier to creating articles is gradually growing higher. -- llywrch (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Except for the first step, none of those are mandatory. Someone will come along eventually. –xenotalk 21:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
There's also "add to categories" (but like the wikidata step, there are gnomes who seem to specialize in that). Schazjmd (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Llywrch, Just get creating. If you go via AFC others will take care of your talk page and maybe even categories. Fiddle Faddle 21:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't put too much faith in AfC, having just stub-sorted Churiwal (surname) which had arrived in mainspace from AfC unnecessarily disambiguated and with no link from Churiwal. (I moved it). PamD 11:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Xeno, but I worry about doing a complete job. -- llywrch (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
@Llywrch: Don't worry. Few articles are "complete". A good job which someone else can finish is a welcome addition. Certes (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Once upon a time, our rule was that every article should be obviously incomplete in some respect, in the hope that another editor would get involved in the article/Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd add,
  • If it's a disambiguated title, make a dab page entry or hatnote so that readers can find it from the basic, non-disambiguated, title.
and ideally also:
  • Make redirects from likely alternative titles
  • Add to surname page, if it's a biography
PamD 22:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
  • That good point about surnames can be generalised to: add it to any lists of which it is a member. Do we need a how-to page somewhere in WP: space? Help:Your first article is useful and covers topics such as incoming links (#Avoid orphans) but it omits many good points made above and the title won't appeal to regulars. Certes (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
  • We should certainly be trying to minimize the barrier to entry, but I'm not sure there's anything we could reasonably do to reduce the tasks listed here; they're all pretty important and non-automatable. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 09:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
    A script could be written that provides a nice GUI which suggests the actions that need to be done. It could check the dab page and see if it contains a link to this article (for pages with disambig terms in title), point out the existence of first name/surname pages (for bios), provide quick links to year pages (where birth/death is to be recorded), provide suggestions for redirects. And allow adding shortdesc, wikidata item and categories from the same GUI. Adding talk templates is a bit complicated -- maybe this script could just call Evad37's rater script. SD0001 (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • For biographies, at present the DEFAULTSORT has to be added manually and also the "listas=" parameter in the {{WP Bio}} talk page banner has to hold the identical information. It ought to be possible to automate this so that the info doesn't need to be added twice.
It would also be possible for a bot to run regularly to flag up cases where the article "Foo (xyz)" doesn't have a link from "Foo", either by hatnote or dab page. To my mind that navigational link is more important than most of the other things we're worrying about here: without it, the reader struggles to find the article, and a future editor may well create a duplicate at "Foo (xzy)" if that's another plausible title.
A bot could also look for cases where the bolded title in start of lead isn't the same as the article title and there is no redirect from it, and either create the redirect automatically or flag it up for wikignomes: quite often creating that redirect resolves a red link in an existing article where, for example, a person is listed under their full name complete with the middle name they don't usuallly use.PamD 11:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
PamD, for DEFAULTSORT, that sounds like an excellent bot task; please take it to WP:BOTREQ! Same goes with the bolding, which if editors are following MOS:BOLD properly should turn up a lot (more likely, it'll turn up a lot of MOS:BOLD violations, but that's useful too.
For disambiguations, that's definitely an issue, but programming a bot for it may be a little more involved. For instance, for some pages, the hatnote is For other uses, see Foo (disambiguation), which only then links to the page. I'm sure there are other edge cases as well. A bot wouldn't need to be perfect if it's just flagging cases for human editors to fix, but it'd be need to be good enough to not be filled with false positives. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Summarizing an article

The lead of an article needs to have a summary of the article, but Cleavage (breasts) has anything but that in the lead. I wrote the article in most part, but now I find myself unable to summarize it crisply enough for the lead. I have have been to the LEADTEAM and recieved some help. But not in summarizing the article. Is there anyone who can lend a hand here? I promise to be as much help as I can, but I need someone to take the lead in writing the lead (bad pun intended). I don't know where else I can go begging for help. Anyone? Please? Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Update request

Please go on meta:Requests for new languages and change to created the Wikipedia Ladin on the approved section. Thank you in advance!!! --151.49.93.113 (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Done! the wub "?!" 14:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

This signpost report got me thinking about measuring Wikipedia's growth. Has anyone ever measured it by the number of footnotes? Seems like it would be easy enough to do by counting instances of <ref>, and it would give an important measure of Wikipedia's progress over time. (Seems better than measuring article count, article length, etc.) I didn't see this when I looked in a few obvious places. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Important: maintenance operation on September 1st

Read this message in another language

The Wikimedia Foundation will be testing its secondary data centre. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to do a planned test. This test will show if they can reliably switch from one data centre to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.

They will switch all traffic to the secondary data centre on Tuesday, September 1st 2020.

Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.

You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.

  • You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Tuesday, September 1st. The test will start at 14:00 UTC (15:00 BST, 16:00 CEST, 10:00 EDT, 19:30 IST, 07:00 PDT, 23:00 JST, and in New Zealand at 02:00 NZST on Wednesday September 2).
  • If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.

Other effects:

  • Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.
  • There will be code freezes for the week of September 1st, 2020. Non-essential code deployments will not happen.

This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule. There will be more notifications about this. Please share this information with your community.

Trizek (WMF) (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Trizek (WMF): will a Cental Notice be up for this, or should we do something locally? We don't normally advertise short outages, but with this one being longer we may want to consider one. — xaosflux Talk 14:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
@Xaosflux:, yes, I'll setup CentralNotice banner. It will be displayed during the 30 minutes prior to the event. Then the global lock message will be shown. However, any initiative taken by the communities to inform other users is welcomed. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Trizek (WMF), I assume this will also be in Tech News? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
It was in 2020-33 and 34 but a reminder wouldn't hurt. Certes (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
It is already in the next issue. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for more input on RfC

Any chance of more input on this RfC: Talk:Christina Ricci#rfc_37B4931? The dispute is whether, since Ricci has filed for divorce from her husband, it should state "separated" in the marriage template or not. Thanks. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there anyway to make the content of template appear only once after transclusion

I have a question that is there is any magic word or other wiki markup to make template display only once even if the template has multiple instances on the same page. For example, if the template is used at the first position, it appears after you submit the change, then if the template used at another position of content, it doesn't display at all. --Great Brightstar (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Great Brightstar: I'm not aware of any such magical spell. But I am also not able to devise any reason to design one. Can you describe a specific case where such behavior is desired? --CiaPan (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
It would be a good idea to answer CiaPan's question, and then if you want to pursue this to post at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), where more people who could answer your question hang out. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Template expansion is stateless, so template one cannot set a variable and have template two test for it. However, CSS does have the concept of first child of a thing, so perhaps there is some way to hide the second instance of a template. Can you point to a specific case where this is needed? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 19:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, I just had an idea for this.--Great Brightstar (talk) 03:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

La Valencia Mine/The Valenciana Mine

Is La Valencia Mine = The Valenciana Mine? If so, is one article enough? // Zquid (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You are correct. I have renamed The Valenciana Mine to Valenciana Mine and redirected La Valencia Mine to it. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
@Phil Bridger: Thank you! And I found the articles because user EstrellaSuecia 24-30 August arranged "Weekly contest" about Mexico in sv-wp (sv:Wikipedia:Veckans tävling/Tema Mexiko). The contest made things better not only in sv-wp. :-) // Zquid (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Collections Now Available (September 2020)


Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL owl says sign up today!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing new free, full-access, accounts to reliable sources as part of our research access program. You can sign up for new accounts and research materials on the Library Card platform:

Many other partnerships are listed on our partners page, including Adam Matthew, EBSCO, Gale and JSTOR.

A significant portion of our collection now no longer requires individual applications to access! Read more in our recent blog post.

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 09:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.

Peer review request

Requesting peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Women in Islam/archive1,

Bookku (talk) 09:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Third opinions requests

  1. Talk:Overseas Pakistani#Following content was censored from the article.
  2. Talk:British Pakistanis#Sectarianism.

Disagreement about deletion of section and sources. Requesting third opinion per WP:3O Bookku (talk) 11:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bookku: This is not the place to request third opinion. Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Third_opinion RudolfRed (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

"Public thanks"?

What does that mean? It shows up when you thank someone. Where can the "public" see who thanked whom and when and for what? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Who and whom and when, but not for what, are at Special:Log/thanks. —Cryptic 10:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Planning to add Template:Cleanup translation to 1000+ pages

See this archived discussion on AN.

I want to add {{Cleanup translation|(language of source)}} to all the pages listed on User:S Marshall/sandbox. As this is a mass edit I'm announcing it here.

Pinging @Bradv, S Marshall. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz, are you able to identify the source language for each of these articles? If not, perhaps {{Rough translation}} would be a better fit? Either way, thank you very much for taking this on. – bradv🍁 01:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
@Bradv: I should be able to figure that out. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
You can get that information from WP:AN/CXT/PTR.—S Marshall T/C 07:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
It would be even better if you fixed the pages yourself. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: My priority is to get them categorized by source language. (using the cleanup template) Once that's done, I can look at the ones that were translated from a language that I understand. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
By the way, if anyone gets the idea of just checking the facts using English sources, be very careful to avoid citogenesis. You can try to avoid this by using sources that predate the English article or sources that clearly didn't rely on Wikipedia. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
If these pages are only possibly in need of cleanup, it might be better to introduce a parameter that changes the wording on the template to "may need attention" and use that. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Arteche Group began as a raw machine translation of fr:Arteche (it's a Spanish corporation but the article is a translation from the French). In 2019, Beland tagged it with {{copyedit}} and three days later, it was imperfectly fixed up into plausible English by Lfstevens, who removed the tag. Judging by the contribution history of Bssanssanchez, the original author, I'd say he's not fluent in English, and I don't have any reason to think anyone who's edited it has fluent French. At first glance, the translation isn't terrible; the promotional and unencyclopaedic tone is in the original.—S Marshall T/C 16:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't speak a single word of Sorani Kurdish so I can't evaluate Shahriyar Jamshidi in the same way. All I can do is confirm that it says the same thing that de:Shahriyar Jamshidi says. A needlessly picky person might raise quibbles about some of the sources in Mr Jamshidi's article, but I'm not the notability police, so I wouldn't do anything so unkind. For the purposes of this project, if I was the reviewing editor, I'd simply tag it with {{translated}} on the talk page and delete it from the working list.—S Marshall T/C 17:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Sdkb: Fair point, I added a type parameter to {{Cleanup translation}}. See User:Alexis Jazz/sandbox for an example. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Abuse response template

Wikipedia:Abuse response has been marked as "closed down by community consensus, [and] retained only for historical reference" since 2013; the related template, {{AR talk}}, likewise, is marked "currently inactive and is retained for historical reference".

Nonetheless, the template is transcluded on over 100 pages, mostly if not all IP talk pages, on which it says "this IP address is currently the subject of an open Abuse Response investigation"

Should the template be deleted, or each transclusion removed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: announcement

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional editors to the Checkuser and Oversight teams. The arbitrators overseeing this will be Bradv, KrakatoaKatie, and Xeno.

The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will assist in the vetting process.

This year's timeline is as follows:

  • 7 September to 19 September: Candidates may self-nominate by contacting the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en-c@wikimedia.org.
  • 20 September to 23 September: The Arbitration Committee and Functionaries will vet the candidates.
  • 24 September to 26 September: The committee will notify candidates going forward for community consultation and create the candidate subpages containing the submitted nomination statements.
  • 27 September to 7 October: Nomination statements will be published and the candidates are invited to answer questions publicly. The community is invited and encouraged to participate.
  • By 14 October: Appointments will be announced.

For the Arbitration Committee, Katietalk 23:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Article Superstition in Judaism has been nominated for deletion

Hello,

Since some editors are contesting existence of articles associating religions and religious communities to superstitions, One of the article which concerns topic has been nominated for deletion. You can support or contest the deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superstition in Judaism by putting forward your opinion.

Thanks and regards Bookku (talk) 05:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Default page image on facebook

When posting a link to a Wikipedia page on facebook, if the page has no image on it, a fuzzy image of a padlock is substituted. This seems like a really peculiar choice! Assuming wp has some control, almost anything would be better! How about the wp globe, or a cap W? Mwanner | Talk 14:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that some page here (en.wikipedia.org) has a link to a Facebook page with text copied from Wikipedia? Why would that be done, and why would we worry about how a Facebook page appears? Johnuniq (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
No, I think the poster is saying that when you share a Wikipedia article on Facebook, sometimes the default image selected by facebook is a fuzzy padlock. I assume this happens to semi-protected pages where the padlock is the only image on them. I'm not sure that there's anything we can do about this, but if someone knows someone at facebook it wouldn't hurt to ask them if there's a way to change this on facebook's end. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
It would have to be done on our end, but it Looks like it's incredibly straightforward. Just make the wiki logo the default somehow. The documentation is at https://developers.facebook.com/docs/sharing/webmasters/images/ -~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-channyan 07:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm against any engagement with Facebook, particularly one that makes it even a tiny bit more functional (and therefore more attractive). Facebook is bad, at least in the political sphere, and that matters because they are so big. Herostratus (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Facebook's instructions say to add an og:image tag. Although called Open Graph, this protocol appears to be specific to Facebook. If so then I think we should omit it as we do with Google Analytics and other proprietary tracking. Certes (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
phab:T204054 may have more on this. — xaosflux Talk 19:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
It seems to have been taken care of... I just saw a link to a Wikipedia page that showed no image at all, a great improvement. As for the suggestion that we should avoid any engagement with Facebook, that strikes me as absurd. I see people on Facebook trot out the usual "Wikipedia is unreliable" crap, and I refute them at length. You may think Facebook is a terrible, dreadful thing, but it is not going away, and it is immensely influential. Besides, this isn't about making Facebook more functional, it is about making Wikipedia look less peculiar when it is linked to on Facebook. Mwanner | Talk 00:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I have a question

Hi, ^_^ , first of all I am not angry at all, I am just frustrated at some policies. I was working on articles about Aum Shinrikyo members. They have all pages in the Japanese Wikipedia and most in the Chinese as well. My question is, why don't even the ones who were executed in 2018 qualify for an article but American articles about the Manson family, most of whom did not even commit a crime have their place? I see double standards or it's really me that is wrong?. Well, thank you and hope you have an awesome day. --CoryGlee (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Did the articles ever exist and then get deleted? I am guessing the reason the articles are not here is because no one wrote them. Sources in Japanese are OK if you can understand them enough to write an English article. You are seeing WP:systematic bias. I have moved your article to Kazuaki Okazaki. But I did cut out some copied text. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Graeme Bartlett, thank you for the review of the article. I was mostly enthusiast because I was reading a book about the Aum group. Yes, I may have overreacted about systemic bias. I had the example of Tomomasa Nakagawa, on which I extensively worked and it was redirected almost instantly while Manson family insignificant members like Tex Watson have a page. Again, I may be wrong, it was just my opinion. I will be submitting drafts instead of articles for review about further Aum members. Thank you again and sorry If I sounded rude, that's the last thing I meant to be. --CoryGlee (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Do those individual members satisfy our notability standards, say as per WP:CRIME? I well remember those attacks by Aum Shinrikyo but individual members received very little coverage in English. I can't speak for in Japan. As for the Mansion family, they have been a very central part of American history because their story has gotten entangled with that of pop culture. It's hard to overstate how much media coverage they have gotten. It's not a crime itself that makes people notable, it's the coverage of their crime. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Draft pages turning up in a Google search

Question: I recently speedy deleted several drafts per G3 as hoaxes. In doing a BEFORE search at Google I was surprised to find that the drafts turned up in a Google search. I thought drafts were not supposed to be indexed? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Wikipedia:Controlling_search_engine_indexing agrees with you. User, User talk, Draft, and Draft Talk are supposed to be not indexed. Not sure if something has changed in that regard. Maybe ask at WP:VPT RudolfRed (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Will move my question there. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Maybe this has something to do with articles being automatically indexed after a while? I didn't think drafts would be affected too though. Adam9007 (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Daily habits

I'm looking at some research that suggests part of what makes people edit frequently is working editing into a daily habit. I know I have one: I pick up my laptop every morning and click the button that opens a bunch of tabs, especially Special:Notifications and the history for WT:MED. I've done this for years.

But I don't know how it works for others. I think some folks are mostly after-work-hours editors. Do you have a daily habit that works for you, or that you would recommend to others? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I edit Wikipedia at odd moments that I get during the day here in England. This usually includes a short time in the morning and evening and, if I don't have any day-long commitments such as child care, at other times during the day. I usually look at my watchlist (which is far too long because I'm not disciplined enough to delete things from it) and at articles that are undergoing any of our deletion processes. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I used to have my watchlist on my "morning" button, but I gave up on it a few years ago. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Daily habits

I'm looking at some research that suggests part of what makes people edit frequently is working editing into a daily habit. I know I have one: I pick up my laptop every morning and click the button that opens a bunch of tabs, especially Special:Notifications and the history for WT:MED. I've done this for years.

But I don't know how it works for others. I think some folks are mostly after-work-hours editors. Do you have a daily habit that works for you, or that you would recommend to others? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I edit Wikipedia at odd moments that I get during the day here in England. This usually includes a short time in the morning and evening and, if I don't have any day-long commitments such as child care, at other times during the day. I usually look at my watchlist (which is far too long because I'm not disciplined enough to delete things from it) and at articles that are undergoing any of our deletion processes. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I used to have my watchlist on my "morning" button, but I gave up on it a few years ago. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Polish

Hello! I hope you cn help me with the translation of following Polish words:

«Szkolenia Wojska Polskiego»
«Główny Zarząd Polityczny Wojska Polskiego»
«Gospodarki terenowej»
«Wojsk Obrony Powietrznej Kraju»

Thank you in advance! Best wishes! --Mbakkel2 (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Consider asking at WT:POLAND. These are military terms. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Google Translate usually does a pretty good job of translation between Polish and English, and, unless any of those terms have an "official" name in English that is different, it seems to me (my Polish is pretty fluent) that it translates those phrases correctly, except you should note that three of your examples are in the genitive case, with the last being plural. The nominative singular would be:
«Szkolenie Wojska Polskiego»
«Główny Zarząd Polityczny Wojska Polskiego»
«Gospodarka terenowa»
«Wojsko Obrony Powietrznej Kraju»

Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mbakkel2:
  • The term "Wojsko Polskie" is a common name for Polish military forces of all kinds (see the lead in Polish Armed Forces). "Szkolenie" = training. The first term lacks a word, it was probably something like "Ośrodek Szkolenia Wojska Polskiego" (Polish Army Training Center), "Główny Inspektor Szkolenia Wojska Polskiego" (General inspector/supervisor of training) etc.
  • Google translates "Główny Zarząd Polityczny Wojska Polskiego" as 'Main Political Board of the Polish Army'. That seems quite reasonable (as far as I can tell – I'm not very fluent in English), but you may try to see the translation of the pl-wiki article pl:Główny Zarząd Polityczny Wojska Polskiego for a little more information.
  • "Gospodarka" = economics. "Gospodarka terenowa" = terrain economics (be aware of my not-so-good English), a part of economics is the responsibility of local governments as opposed to centralized administration.
  • "pl:Wojska Obrony Powietrznej Kraju" = anti-air forces, one of four kinds of Polish armed forces in 1962-1990 to defend the country from airplane and rocket attacks (the other three were "wojska lądowe" land forces, "wojska lotnicze" air forces and "marynarka wojenna" navy).
HTH. --CiaPan (talk) 07:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Thank you very much to both of you. Best wishes --Mbakkel2 (talk) 08:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia so cool?

Just asking cause I think it's cool — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Sheldonator (talk • contribs) 18:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

A passing admin might want to look at the OP's user page and decide whether it's block-worthy or just a bit of childish silliness. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Well I don't think it reaches the level of childish silliness. But I blocked them. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Fashion campaign banner

I've put a request for a three-day fashion campaign banner at meta:CentralNotice/Request/Wiki Loves Fashion 2020.--Pharos (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Guardian article will probably increase commercially motivated editing

Link. Tony (talk) 05:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The researchers claim to have translated some presumably accurate and balanced articles from other wikipedias. Although commercially motivated, this seems to be a win for enwiki, for the town and for the newspaper which has an experiment to write up. Of course, many other forms of paid editing remain unwelcome. Certes (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Per the article, they didn't edit en-WP. Unless they edited Collegio Carlo Alberto. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Nice that Alex Hern took time to report it and publish it in a WP:RS. Most of the article was useful, but he could have gone back to Daria for a comment rather than linking back to his previous article in the final two paragraphs. I see that there are three implications for us. Firstly we need to be a bit more diligent in watching for WP:COI. Secondly we should write a little tutorial on how to avoid Commercial and CoI in writing location articles. Then explain how they can constructively add to an article.Explaining copyediting and the use of the Talk page. Thirdly, and most excitingly we can engage with the authority and just ask them to release images in their own archives under a CC-SA-BY license (notice that NC must be missing) and put a CC-0 on text pages in their online and print publications. Something similar to Open Government Licence v3.0. --ClemRutter (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at Collegio Carlo Alberto it is still a stub, needs infobox, references, and photographs. ClemRutter (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Notification on global ban proposal for a LTA

This is a notification of global ban discussion against Sidowpknbkhihj, pursuant to the global ban policy.

My regards. SMB99thx my edits 09:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

User script testing: section-watchlist

I wrote a user script to watchlist sections. It's still pretty unreliable, but you can try it out at User:Enterprisey/section-watchlist. It's not ready for general use (I'll post, perhaps, on WP:VPT when that's the case) but I'm ready to see what everyone else thinks of it - what could be improved, bugs you come across, etc. Enterprisey (talk!) 09:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It would be helpful, for the same reason that it would be useful to have this facility, if you could name a dedicated page that we can watch for progress rather than WP:VPT. I'm rather disinclined to put that page on my watchlist because much of what is posted there is gobbledygook to me. Anyway, that's only a minor point: the most important thing is to thank you for working on this. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Phil Bridger, true; I'll also post on User talk:Enterprisey/section-watchlist with updates, which I should've mentioned in the original post. And you're welcome! Enterprisey (talk!) 18:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for more input on RfC

Can we get some more input on this RfC: Talk:Liu Yifei#rfc_E210EBF? The question is whether the lead should refer to her as "Chinese-born American" or "Chinese-American"? Thanks. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Boosting size of wide aspect ratio images

9 times out 10, when I come across an image with a wide aspect ratio on a lesser-watched page, it's too small and needs to be made larger using thumb=1.25 or similar. Is there any way we could set up a tracking list of potentially too small images and then go through them with AWB or something to fix a bunch of them? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

You could try? a db query (WP:RAQ) but I don't think that will work, so I think you would probably need a bot to work through all the images used on Wikipedia and see if they have the appropriate sizing, and consensus that such an activity as changing the sizing would be welcome. --Izno (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Very long pages

As shown at Special:LongPages we now have 81 pages with over 400K of wikicode; the longest has 712,082 bytes; these pages should be subdivided, each into several sections. Please help to do so, or join disucsisons on their respective talk pages to decide how to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Boosting size of wide aspect ratio images

9 times out 10, when I come across an image with a wide aspect ratio on a lesser-watched page, it's too small and needs to be made larger using thumb=1.25 or similar. Is there any way we could set up a tracking list of potentially too small images and then go through them with AWB or something to fix a bunch of them? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

You could try? a db query (WP:RAQ) but I don't think that will work, so I think you would probably need a bot to work through all the images used on Wikipedia and see if they have the appropriate sizing, and consensus that such an activity as changing the sizing would be welcome. --Izno (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Very long pages

As shown at Special:LongPages we now have 81 pages with over 400K of wikicode; the longest has 712,082 bytes; these pages should be subdivided, each into several sections. Please help to do so, or join disucsisons on their respective talk pages to decide how to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Volunteers must declare that they are paid?

Moved to WP:VPP § Volunteers must declare that they are paid?
 – 12:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

.

Major AFC fail re: Korean literature

Close forum-shopping. Original discussion is here. Primefac (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

I invite people to look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Major AFC fail re: Korean literature. Just wanting to make sure the community is aware of some problems at AFC and thinking about how they can be solved. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I have been involved in AFC for a couple of months now. I started reviewing articles there when I realised the extent of the backlog there, which I wasn't previously aware of. I am very concerned about AFC becoming the place where articles (and new editors) go to die. These are some of my problems with it:
  • When new editors have to wait months for a draft article to be reviewed it is inevitable that some of them won't hang around long enough to improve it if it's rejected first time.
  • The process by which one editor can reject a draft on their own subjects drafts to a higher standard than AfD does. When an article is proposed at AfD it will require at least one editor to give a policy-based reason to delete the article, it gives other editors an opportunity to make counter-arguments, and then an administrator would have to decide to delete the article. Additionally articles get rejected at AfC for reasons such as tone which would rarely result in an article getting declined at AfD. Also the principle of WP:BEFORE doesn't seem to apply at AfC.
  • The AfC standard that an article should be accepted if it would have a 50% chance of passing AfD is too high. We shouldn't be declining articles that have a fair chance of passing AfD without subjecting them to a process similar to AfD.
  • The AfC process doesn't prevent competent spammers from introducing articles into mainspace. A competent spammer/sock-farm/UPE can easily meet the requirements to be able to create articles in mainspace. AfC only serves the purpose of restricting newbies (good or bad faith)
  • Bad quality drafts tend to get rejected at AfC quickly because reviewers can trivially determine that they don't meet requirements. It's the good drafts that require the reviewer to actually read the sources and check the content that tend to sit at AfC for weeks or months. Surely the new editors who are creating good quality articles are the ones that we should be doing the most to encourage to stay and contribute, but AfC has the opposite effect.
  • AfC isn't a good platform for articles to actually get improved. Articles that could be improved (i.e. reliable sources exist but aren't adequately cited, or tone of the article could be changed) are habitually rejected with template messages. Pi (Talk to me!) 18:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Just noting other part of the discussion at AfC Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Before_This_Hits_the_Fan so people are informed KylieTastic (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Cross posting proposal (edited) from above AfC discussion :
  • I think the problem is that if AfC doesn't accept articles with in the 50-75% chance of surviving AfD one group of editors will complain, but if they do another set of editors will complain. Apparently some editors are calling for getting rid of AfC completely it seems to show they don't understand the level of crud (100+ a day) that is submitted, which I assume is a fraction of what would be created if not having to submit to review. It seems that these editors mostly see the failure to accept "OK articles" and not the crud, and those on the other fence mostly see the crud and not the missed good articles . Although ideally I would just like to see many more reviewers, and more wikiprojects involved so the AfC reviews are done better and quicker I think that is a pipe-dream. I think a possible solution is too take reviewers partially out of the marginal accepts. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Proposal 1 redefine AfCs role from "judge and jury" of articles (as Calliopejen1 and others have said), to crud rejectors, speedy acceptors and improvers. This could be done by just saying if an submission is not accepted, declined or rejected in x weeks a bot automatically moves, tags, categorises and adds talk page notes so it's status is clear. The clearly good and bad would still be accepted/declined hopefully in the first few days of submission, and it would be worth people making improvements to make possibly notable but terribly formatted more acceptable if auto-moved to main-space. If AfC has come to no conclusion in x weeks, effectively NPP and consensus takes over. It's a compromise between the two camps that seam to exist at the moment, that hopefully addresses the worst concerns of both.
  • Proposal 2 same as above but each article needs to be tagged by an AfC reviewer in some way to effectively say "this is not a clear accept/decline but has been reviewed" - this would stop things just being missed and auto-moved. We would need a bot to stop random people adding the tag.
  • Proposal 3 as either of above but also clarify as per TryKid @ AfC:Before This Hits the Fan that the key checks are just notability/source checks (and basic formatting, i.e. not all caps in bold) - make it easier for reviewers to accept marginals without the abuse and complaints.
  • Note 1 This should preserve the non patrolled status meaning it would just add an evaluation delay to non autopatrolled additions and be picked up by NPP
  • Note 2 We could start at the current AfC backlog (9 weeks) and slowly reduce to 2-4 weeks

Thanks KylieTastic for cross-posting this. My intention here was just to provide a pointer to the relevant discussion at WT:AFC. I propose that further discussion happen there, so all of the discussion is kept in one place. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I think I did not include enough detail in my original posting, and I'm not sure this was the best place to post it, so I started a new discussion at WP:VPP. Please have a look at my description of the situation there. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
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.

lack of knowledge question

On looking for Battle of Cape Matapan I searched for "Cape Matapan" and got Cape Matapan, which has no redirect options to the battle, which is what I had expected. What Cape Matapan seems to need is one of those common Wikipedia statements that goes something like "for other uses of Matapan, see Matapan" (which is a disambiguation page). I do not seem to be able to track down the precise format for adding such a statement. Can someone point me at the right language and/or help text to explain its correct usage? Thanks,ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I've added a hatnote at Cape Matapan. For good measure I linked to the other battle too: not sure whether that will survive, though I reckon it's useful. PamD 07:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
ThoughtIdRetired, for future reference, see Wikipedia:Hatnote. —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Mention of Time 100 in the lead

With the announcement of the 2020 TIME 100, a fellow Wikipedia editor has added "[NAME] was included in Time magazine 's 100 Most Influential People of 2020." in many (not all) of the people named in the list. Do you consider it worth mentioning in the lead (or at all)? It sounds like merely re-asserting the fact, well established by the content of the Wikipedia article, that world leaders such as Angela Merkel are influential. --Jabo-er (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Jabo-er, I think that the right answer depends on the article. If it's obvious that the person is notable (e.g., Merkel) then IMO it does not belong in the lead, and maybe not in the article at all. In less obvious cases, it could be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Academics pushing own research

I've been noticing an author publishing his own research as part of a wiki article. This research has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. However - its very recent and has not been cited/critiqued by anybody else. What exactly are the policies regarding this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potaman (talk • contribs) 06:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Potaman, not policy, but Wikipedia:Expert editors has good advice, for example #7. See also guidance at WP:SELFCITE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Opinions can be asked at WP:COIN. A discussion about a similar incident is in this ANI section. Johnuniq (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I ran into a case of an academic with major self-citing at Unisex public toilet, where the author is (or was) responsible for about half the content, and has a definite point of view. I pushed back for a while, but got a lot of resistance, and in the end, it wasn't where I wanted to spend my time. At one point, the following comment was directed at me, which to this day, is my fave comment ever from an academic, regarding COI and SELFCITE (excerpted from a longer response on the Talk page):

Now I note that Mathglot bothered to look up my editing history. In the event that anyone worries that I have some pattern of introducing bias, I want to clear that issue up. I don't.

I never realized how easy these situations were to clear up. I went off to greener pastures, and left the article to its fate. Mathglot (talk) 07:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Where Would I Suggest A New Project For The Wikipedia Store?

I have an idea for a new product for the Wikipedia store (a t-shirt saying "Be Bold", based off a mug design) but I'm not exactly sure where I would propose this. Any suggestions? Squid45 (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Squid45: To be honest, unless you are writing about an issue with an order-in-progress, I wouldn't expect them to respond to a random person like you or me. However, at the bottom of their website, there is an "Email Us" link that points to merchandise@wikimedia.org. You could try that. The worst they could do is say no or not respond, I suppose. Mz7 (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I never knew that there is a Wikipedia store. There is no link from the home page. There is no reference to it that I could find in Wikipedia itself - no Wikipedia Store or even Wikimedia Store. They actually sell Wikipedia Socks! — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 18:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
GhostInTheMachine, there used to be a link in the left sidebar, but it was removed earlier this year as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2020 left sidebar update#Wikipedia store. Nowadays I'm not sure how you would stumble across it. Mz7 (talk) 03:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

How to get participant in an RfC?

An RfC at Indian subcontinent looked initially like WP:SNOW, but then participation dried up, from both ends of the dispute. I have tried posting all relevant Wikiprojects (9 of them), but no result. I have also requested all the admins who took a look at the RfC to comment, no result again. How can I get more particpants in the discussion? Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Next time you need a short and clear statement of the issue, not a rambling and fairly incoherent disquisition, referring to equally rambling and fairly incoherent discussions above, that fails to make clear what you actually want comments on. But you seem to have a decent number of comments now. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. But that doesn't solve anything for the current RfC. The "rambling and fairly incoherent disquisition" has been collapsed before I posted this query, and the "equally rambling and fairly incoherent discussions above" is probably no part of the RfC. Anyways, I'll probably have to figure out on my own how to do this (and not step on any red tapes). Thanks again for the advise for the "next time". Aditya(talk • contribs) 06:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd ask someone (not me) for help crafting a clear and concise question next time. Johnbod (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Aditya Kabir, you can ask for help at WT:RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for block

Shout-out to administrators of English Wikipedia! Please block this user User:Wan588 because he has been adding fake information in articles and had been blocked as well in Malay Wikipedia. Thank you.CyberTroopers (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I have warned User:Wan588 for edit warring, and take note of their six month block on the Malay Wikipedia. Though I am unclear on the reason for such a long block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Wiki of functions naming contest

Hello. Please help pick a name for the new Wikimedia wiki project. This project will be a wiki where the community can work together on a library of functions. The community can create new functions, read about them, discuss them, and share them. Some of these functions will be used to help create language-independent Wikipedia articles that can be displayed in any language, as part of the Abstract Wikipedia project. But functions will also be usable in many other situations.

There will be two rounds of voting, each followed by legal review of candidates, with voting beginning on 29 September and 27 October. Our goal is to have a final project name selected on 8 December. If you would like to participate, then please learn more and vote now at meta-wiki. Thank you! --Quiddity (WMF)

21:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Function here means subroutine, and the wiki could be regarded as a library (computing). Certes (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Nope... didn’t help... I still have no idea what the concept is here. Obviously, I am not in your market audience. Good luck. Blueboar (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
It's about code reuse: writing bits of software once and putting them where others can find them. So if User:Foo has written a good algorithm to sort a list into date order, I can borrow it for my new program, rather than taking the trouble to write another one and risk getting it wrong. Certes (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Blueboar, imagine that instead of writing "Excelsior is a historic building", you could write "<code for its name> = <code for a historic building>", and the system could automagically translate that sentence into a hundred languages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah... using magic spells and sorcery to automatically translate text... got it. Thanks. Sadly, I don’t have the arcane skills to participate in such demonology, so I will leave you to it. Blueboar (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
After listening to the clinic on it, I'm much more aware of what the black magic involves, but I still felt confident I wouldn't be able to do it - leave it to the wizards! Nosebagbear (talk) 09:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
The project has two parts. The first part creates a library of software functions to allow code reuse; this message invites us to help choose its name. The second part, Abstract Wikipedia, supports Wikipedia articles in a language-independent way. Abstract Wikipedia will be the main user of the library of functions. Certes (talk) 12:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  • All joking aside, now that I have read the page describing m:Abstract Wikipedia, I have some very serious questions about how it will operate. It certainly needs a much more PUBLIC discussion on how it would interact with en.Wikipedia, the effect it would have on our articles, and our editing experience. Blueboar (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
    I am not seeing anything that says Abstract Wikipedia will affect en.Wikipedia. Firstly, the project will take a couple of years to deliver much - Abstract Wikipedia is scheduled to start in roughly 2022. ( and MW:Extension:WikiLambda is just a placeholder so far.) Secondly, small wikis with a shortage of hand crafted articles will have the option to use abstract.Wikipedia to build text for articles in their specific language. I see that as an evolution of templates that source data from Wikidata - nobody has to use them, but they can be effective in some areas. Doubtless I am missing something, but I am having trouble finding any concrete high-level examples of what is ultimately intended. — GhostInTheMachine talk to me

Eyal Zamir

This article was deleted as "does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject" . But Eyal Zamir is the current Deputy Chiefs of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces since december 2018. As far as I can see the admin that deleted the atricle - User:Bbb23 is retired. Can someone look at it. --geageaTalk 23:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Geagea: See here. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. --geageaTalk 18:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Breaking categorization cycles

  You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:SDZeroBot/Category cycles. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Should the use of the 'Undisclosed paid' template be explained on article talk pages?

Please contribute to the discussion at Template talk:Undisclosed paid#Make talk page discussion mandatory when this template is used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

“Hello, and welcome to the Wikimedia Foundation!”

I just found this page here, on the MetaWiki. This was intended to serve as an introductory to the project, but this shows miserable writing skill and was obviously written by a newcomer. Should we delete the page, rewrite it, or what should we do about this? - Wzth Regvrds, Ghoste | Dzscussixn 20:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

We are not responsible nor authorized to change material on meta:. You will need to ask there. --Izno (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Just to expand on that a bit, the Wikimedia Foundation runs a large number of projects and wikis. The English Language Wikipedia (i.e. what you're reading now) is just one of them. Meta-wiki is another. There are lots more. Each has its own rules, its own community, its own culture, etc. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Ghxstee, there are a lot of bad pages on Meta. For instance, until I recently overhauled it, this was their page on English Wikipedia. The advantage of doing work there is that, once it's done, you can have it marked for translation into many languages, multiplying the impact of your work. The downside is that many pages there are poorly connected to English Wikipedia, and fewer incoming links means fewer pageviews (and fewer editors, thus the poor state of many pages). Also, in some ways, Meta has a different version of the same struggle that afflicts Wikidata: it wants to be the central repository of shared resources for all Wikimedia Projects, but since English Wikipedia is so big, it often usurps that function by default, and non-English Wikipedias often turn here to source their translations rather than there.
Anyways, if you want to improve a major help page, I would highly suggest taking a look at WP:About, which receives more than 10,000 pageviews per day (largely thanks to being linked from the left sidebar) but which could use a major overhaul to make it much much shorter and cleaner. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

First stage of GA and FA topicon redesign has been launched

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop § Good article and featured article topicon redesign. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Call for feedback about Wikimedia Foundation Bylaws changes and Board candidate rubric

Hello. Apologies if you are not reading this message in your native language. Please help translate to other languages..

Today the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees starts two calls for feedback. One is about changes to the Bylaws mainly to increase the Board size from 10 to 16 members. The other one is about a trustee candidate rubric to introduce new, more effective ways to evaluate new Board candidates. The Board welcomes your comments through 26 October. For more details, check the full announcement.

Thank you! Qgil-WMF (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Soliciting examples of compromise in policies/guidelines

What are some examples of policies or guidelines based on explicit compromises? So examples where neither "side" would be entirely happy, but which provides a workable way forward. Not looking for theoretical compromises, like how NPOV can be framed as supporting compromise. One example that comes to mind is the way WP:ENGVAR, where we say that one variation is preferred in certain cases, but otherwise comes down to "go with whatever version was there first" rather than saying one version is correct. What else, along those lines? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

A classic example is WP:LONDONDERRY, which reflects strong disagreement about terminology in the offline world. Certes (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Another is WP:ERA (BC/AD or BCE/CE), which is comparable to ENGVAR. WP:CITEVAR also emphasizes "priority". WP:LONDONDERRY is different, with no first come, first served. Maybe a better example. I've put a real classic below - this one has its own teeshirts ({{Gdansk-Vote-Notice}} in case it gets moved away. Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
{{Gdansk-Vote-Notice}}
This situation can occur wherever multiple groups share a space and use different names for it, such as Brussels naming conventions. My original example is unusual in that supporters of both titles mainly speak English. Some non-geographic Wikipedia naming conventions may also make good examples, but I'm not sure which. I suspect that Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints) may include compromises: many titles are as the LDS would wish but some use fringe theory notation. Certes (talk) 08:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Rhododendrites, WP:EL allows links in certain types of list-articles (in the body, not in a proper ==External links== section), even though some people want them everywhere and others want them nowhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Additional examples welcome if people have them. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

If you're interested in guidance at a lower level: there used to be battles over the use of modified letters (accents and such) on ice hockey player names. In the absence of a consensus at an English Wikipedia-wide level, the ice hockey project reached a compromise where player names in articles related to North American hockey would be written without modified letters (unless the associated league generally uses them, such as Quebec leagues). The issue has largely faded out with many of the various involved parties losing interest. Note it was indeed a real compromise: the project chose an approach that people could live with, while waiting for a general consensus to one day emerge (and... still waiting on that). isaacl (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:WMF-legal banned user is used sometimes on User pages, sometimes on User talk pages, and often on both for the same user. I'm thinking of going through Category:Wikipedians banned by the Wikimedia Foundation and fixing these so it only appears on the user page, eliminating the duplicates. Is there any reason not to do this? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think these should probably be placed only in the one namespace. --Izno (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
You could always run it by the WMF person's talk page, because otherwise they'll just do it again. This template, among other things, is employed as a means to replace the content of a page, and presumably discourage any more. I would think that redirecting one page to the other would be the obvious alternative with much the same effect. I can't say I've seen it done much recently, but this type of redirection used to be SOP at one point. I can't see anything additionally controversial about it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Reported death not confirmed

An editor stated that James Randi died today. I haven't seen any confirmation. Should this be removed until there is confirmation? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bubba73: Yes. WP:BDP is clear: anyone born within the past 115 years is covered by WP:BLP unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. WP:BLP, as I am sure you are aware, states that we must observe the three core content policies, one of which is WP:V. Claiming that somebody is dead when there is no reliable source to verify that claim may be seen as contentious, and WP:BLP says

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

In other words, no source = not dead, so out it goes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Content dispute resolution approaches

Last year during the expansive discussion on managing undesirable behaviour by editors, I started a brainstorming process on changing processes and procedures to encourage desired behaviour and dissuade poor behaviour. After trying to initiate discussion on suggestions from other editors, I've now written up some ideas I have on approaches to mitigate difficulties with managing mostly unmoderated online discussions in a large group across many time zones. These are not proposed as universal approaches, but offered as tools in a toolbox from which you can pick and choose as appropriate:

  • a round-robin discussion phase, to avoid a small number of voices dominating discussion and to focus participants on prioritizing ideas
  • building up pros and cons summaries of options, to provide clear progress towards understanding the options and enable interested parties to catch up quickly
  • a revisit respite, to avoid participant fatigue and provide incentive to work towards a best-compromise solution

For more details, please see my content dispute resolution toolbox page, and feel free to comment on its talk page. I know these ideas have been used at times in the past. I've tried to refine them in ways that will encourage positive, effective collaboration. As these are just suggested approaches, anyone interested can adapt them to a specific situation as desired. isaacl (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of serial killer cases in "Category:Human rights abuses in [country]"?

I have just become aware of Category:Human rights abuses in Japan (and similar categories), in which the article North Kanto Serial Young Girl Kidnapping and Murder Case is included for some reason. I considered just removing it outright since "human rights abuses in [country]" usually refers to actions either performed by or tacitly sanctioned by the state rather than (possibly) unsolved crime sprees. But the inclusion of the Jōkyō uprising seems problematic for an entirely different reason (a farmers' uprising that was put down by a political entity that ceased to exist and was absorbed into the Empire of Japan well over a century ago, and happened long before human rights were first conceived of). So I figured that rather than just arbitrarily removing blatantly mistaken ones like the serial killer case, it would be better to ask here if the community was aware of and had sanctioned both the existence of these categories and these somewhat-strange inclusion criteria. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

ACE 2020 Electoral Commission selection

Hello, please note that Editors are invited to provide feedback on the candidates for the 2020 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until 23:59 October 16, 2020 (UTC) - comments and endorsements are welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Electoral Commission. — xaosflux Talk 17:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

A wikisite for consumer products

Hey guys, I read the signpost so I know paid editing is a problem. I am also on Reddit where I came across this: https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/jai5aa/starting_a_wiki_site_for_consumer_products_was/
I am not the most knowledgeable editor, nor do I know a lot about how the different wiki's are connected. But I thought this could be a potential problem, so I figured I'll shine a light on it by showing it here. The 1 comment (as of me writing this) on Reddit is by the second person involved in trying to create this. --Dutchy45 (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Dutchy45, There's absolutely no problem. The MediaWiki software which drives wikipedia is free for anybody to download and use for whatever purpose (including commercial) they want on their own servers. It's not just allowed, it's encouraged. Fire up a linux box on your favorite hosting provider, load up the MediaWiki software, and you have a working wiki in an afternoon.
The rules about paid editing, etc, only come into play when you try to use/abuse the running WMF projects, such as en.wikipedia.org. If you pay for your own servers, you're free to do whatever you want with the software. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Thanks for the lightning quick clarification! Dutchy45 (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I made a website for exploring geotagged Wikipedia articles

I made a website for exploring every geotagged article from the top 15 language-specific Wikipedias: https://wikimap.wiki

I've been slowly working on this project for a while, and just recently got it to the point where it's ready to share. The data is imported monthly from the Wikipedia XML/Wikidata JSON dumps, rendered with Mapnik, and displayed using OpenLayers.

Here are a few examples of how it can be used:

- Land art

- Radiation accidents and incidents

- Individual trees in California

- "crater" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underion (talk • contribs) 18:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Underion, interesting tool; thanks for sharing! Thanks to it, Ahl al-Bayt University is no longer located in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean (according to us). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary

On this IP user's second edit, he put "fixed typo" in the edit summary. The editor did much more than fix a typo. Is there a problem with this edit? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

So what? Why are you bringing this here? It's a tiny change. Proof-reading it shows nothing out of the ordinary. You are a highly experienced editor. This is a brand new editor who appears to be acting in good faith and who needs encouragement and nurturing. Why didn't you welcome the editor? The standard welcoming templates have links with important information for them. Why didn't you start a conversation with them thanking them for their contributions maybe with some polite advice on writing a good edit summary? They have an account now so and I see a potential great future editor here. I'll go ahead and give them the welcome. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not in the habit of welcoming new editors, and it is common for vandals to leave the same, or similar, edit summary. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Please get in the habit. Expecting new editors to know too much too quickly and pushback without feedback is some of the things proven to turn new editors into former editors (see strategy:Former Contributors Survey Results#Key_findings). Even if the edits are not perfect, it's pretty clear these two edits are not vandalism, so bringing a slightly misleading edit summary to the Village Pump seems like making a mountain out of a molehill. The sustainability of the entire project is in doubt, with more and more work falling on fewer and fewer editors. It's just as important to try to encourage new editors as it is to write content. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
No reason to think this is anything but a good-faith edit. However, it did introduce some problems – the edit to the first paragraph left the phrase "culture in African influences", which doesn't really make sense, and the edit to the second paragraph changed the meaning of some sentences (instead of a list of languages that the Gullah language merely has "ties" to, it is now a list of languages that are "almost identical". This may or may not be correct, but it is a change in meaning). – Teratix ₵ 04:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Isn't "fixed typo" one of the standard edit summaries that newbies can select from a list? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
One of the perils of setting an edit summary too soon is that one can arrive at an article aiming to fix one typo, and half an hour later when you are ready to save, forget to change the edit summary from fix typo to total rewrite. If an editor does it frequently and it bothers you then I see no harm in politely raising the matter on their talkpage. But an isolated example of an edit summary that doesn't fully describe a good faith edit is not worth raising with an editor, let alone escalating to here. ϢereSpielChequers 10:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
We will have to wait I guess, but I saw the edit yesterday, or at least the first edit, and it was not a good edit, nor were the other two. They introduced bad grammar, made unexplained changes, and added unsourced information to an article that is already a problem. Eg we now have " They developed a creole language, also called Gullah." I've notified them about this discussion. Doug Weller talk 08:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Distribution of biographies by date ?

I have previously read a study of the numbers of biographies in Wikipedia according to the subject's date of birth, but I have tried and failed to re-find that data. The number of biographies being heavily weighted towards living people, and within that to subjects whose notability has been established during the digital era IIRC, both simply because of editors' interests and because it is more difficult to find sources and establish notability for pre-digital-era subjects. Was there a project about this? Can you help, please? Monxton (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe ask at WP:BIOG?10:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GhostInTheMachine (talk • contribs)
OK, I'll try there, thanks. --Monxton (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Web colour

Where can I find the web colours of the parties mentioned in this list: List of Premiers of Alberta

Best wishes! --Mbakkel2 (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  • KylieTastic Those don't work on Norwegian-language Wikipedia, where I'm mostly occupied. I am searching for templates like this:   Alberta Liberal Party, in which #E51A38 indicates the web colour of the party in question. --Mbakkel2 (talk) 11:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Timelinesinhistory.com

Timelinesinhistory.com is a website that allows any user to submit any properly formatted textual information and present it on a timeline. Right now, we are testing the system out, allowing users to import any one of the several million Wikipedia articles. We plan on eventually allowing many different sources of information to be displayed as timelines, including any articles or books you may have written or possess. Even very complex family histories. We hope it will be useful to art historians when we add popup pictures. In a few months we plan on creating a timeline system of all of world history.

Going forward The conception of this system is 10 years old now. Which was when our first date parser from free form text was initially written. Given the complexity of this type of system we have restricted the dates that can be deduced and therefore placed on the timeline to 1000 AD to the present. We plan on doing 1 AD to 999 AD as soon as we can. We plan on doing BC dates also, which we understand will be very important for historians of antiquity. These are both very difficult technological challenges.

Special thanks to key people of the Ministry of National Education, Higher Education and Research (Ministere de l'education nationale, de l'enseignement superieur et de la recherche) in Paris, France.

Your support was important and we will continue to look forward to implementing a French, Spanish, German and Portuguese version as soon as we can.

Thanks Jeff Roehl Timelinesinhistory.com Jroehl (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Anyone german speaking here? (Article about Emma Coradi-Stahl)

Emma Coradi-Stahl: She died 1912, but the article says she started a buisness 1974... Can anyone german speaking see what the correct year is? (Text in german).

Thank you! // Zquid (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Zquid, looks like the correct date is 1874, I've gone ahead and fixed it. signed, Rosguill talk 00:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Would have been a great DYK...! Nosebagbear (talk)

Important: maintenance operation on October 27

Read this message in another language • Please help translate to other languages.

The Wikimedia Foundation tests the switch between its first and secondary data centers. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to do a planned test. This test will show if they can reliably switch from one data centre to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.

They will switch all traffic back to the primary data center on Tuesday, October 27 2020.

Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.

You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.

  • You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Tuesday, October 27. The test will start at 14:00 UTC (14:00 WET, 15:00 CET, 10:00 EDT, 19:30 IST, 07:00 PDT, 23:00 JST, and in New Zealand at 03:00 NZDT on Wednesday October 28).
  • If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.

Other effects:

  • Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.
  • There will be code freezes for the week of October 26, 2020. Non-essential code deployments will not happen.
This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule. There will be more notifications about this. A banner will be displayed on all wikis 30 minutes before this operation happens. Please share this information with your community.

-- Trizek (WMF) (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Donation request messages

Hello,

I continue to receive drop-down notices telling me I use Wikipedia a lot and asking for donations.

I signed up for monthly $25 donations to Wikipedia a while ago and would like to stop receiving these pop-ups.

Please forward my request to the appropriate Wikipedia department.

Thank you,

Rwsiii (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you KylieTasticRwsiii (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

New section on Recent Changes talk page

The instructions on that page suggest posting a link at the Village Pump as that page doesn't get much traffic. So, er, here's the link: MediaWiki_talk:Recentchangestext#Filter_options_changes. Matt Deres (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

NY Times op-ed

There's a really nice op-ed in today's NY Times: To Learn the Truth, Read My Wikipedia Entry on Sichuan Peppers, by Mary Mann. Per policy, I won't identify the author by wiki user, but it's easy enough to figure out :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Yup, that was nice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
She linked another article, and look at what happened to its page views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Power of the press. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm a university student and as part of one of my subjects I am hoping to expand on the wikipedia article for Rolf Muuss. I am having difficulty finding a photo of him with clear any clear copyright information. I have found one photograph that was used in an article and emailed the author who told me that the photo was given to him as a handout. This photo appears in several places online and none of them give any copyright information What can I do to find out whether I can use this image? Aoujwt (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Assume it is copyrighted unless proven differently. Check out the links here for more info. The page here could probably give you more specific advice. Matt Deres (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia @ 20 - Stories of an Incomplete Revolution

It's a book. For the interested, it can be read here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Korea

I apologise if this is the wrong forum. In December last year I made a proposal that Korean peninsula be merged to Korea. There were no objections so I performed the merge. Then this merge was reverted. In August I proposed a discussion on the merits of the merge. So far, there has been one response against (without reasons) and one for. Given that this has been going on for a year, has anyone got any suggestions for a way forward?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

mainspace pages vs. project namespace

Hello,

I'm wondering if anyone could point me to data/statistics on the number of pages in the project namespace (Wikipedia:) - I am working on a project and would like to be able to compare the amount of pages in mainspace with project namespace. Thanks Dr. Vetter (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The {{PAGESINNAMESPACE}} magic word is disabled in this wiki, so it cannot display a live count. Using a search for an invalid string in different namespaces gave me 6,182,098 pages in mainspace and 1,118,425 pages in the project namespace. BTW: There are general statistics at Special:Statistics (which says 6,182,065 mainspace pages), Wikipedia:Statistics and an overview at stats.wikimedia.org. — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 19:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
There are ~1,253,885 pages in ns:4 (Project: a/k/a Wikipedia) according to this recent query on the replica: quarry:query/49448. — xaosflux Talk 20:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh no. 6,182,098 vs. 6,182,065 is fine by me – the two systems will have a minor time difference. However, 1,118,425 vs. 1,253,885 is another matter. I am now doomed to fretting about the reason behind the anomaly. Any thoughts? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 21:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
@GhostInTheMachine: one was relying on the internal search engine and was was relying on replica data which can lag --- but I'd trust the replica data a bit more. Also there are more like ~8,230,049 "pages in mainspace" - the smaller number above is closer to "articles" in mainspace, which is excluding redirect pages - which are "pages" - but that is what you literally asked for, even if it isn't what you really wanted? (The replicate count also included redirects above). — xaosflux Talk 01:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
There's a database report for page count by namespace. Graham87 08:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Graham87. With a million other pages, no wonder I missed it. Endless options for my ToDo list! — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 12:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. This is excellent and will be really helpful. Dr. Vetter (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Loves - goats?

Hi all, there is a discussion open at MediaWiki talk:WikiLove.js regarding removing goats from the localized wikilove utility, any feedback would be welcome there. — xaosflux Talk 16:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Local copies of files uploaded by User:Renamed user 995577823Xyn with no apparent reason

Hi. I was looking at the uploads of User:Renamed user 995577823Xyn (formerly User:We hope) and found there are a bunch of files that are definitely public domain in the US, but are marked with {{Keeplocal}}. I do not see any point in keeping the ones that are safe for Commons in two places — is there any real reason to not export all of them and delete the local copies? DemonDays64 (talk) 06:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

The drawings seem to be by various British architects but the authorship is often uncertain. Have you checked to be sure who the artists are and whether they died more than 70 years ago? If not they are unsuitable on Commons because they will still be in UK copyright. If they were published (not just created) before 1925 they are public domain in the US and so OK here. If they have not been published with the artist's consent they are likely to be still be in copyright in the US. Thincat (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
@Thincat: no not those ones, which are in copyright — go forwards a page or two and there are a ton of American movie posters and stills and stuff that are definitely out of copyright, like File:Hands Up lobby card 2.jpg — either due to age or because they did not have a copyright notice. DemonDays64 (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
@DemonDays64: Well, that one could be beneficially exported to Commons but it should not be deleted from here. The "real reason" for not deleting it here without WP:FFD is that we aim to respect community consensus. See Template talk:Keep local. Thincat (talk) 09:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Potential influx of attention to Toby Young

This article in The Spectator could be driving a lot of people with, shall we say, a certain political interest, to Toby Young. Young is practically begging his readers to censor his past comments about eugenics from the article. More eyes on the article over the coming days would be very helpful, to make sure the article is broadly inline with our policies and standards. (As a sidenote, the Spectator piece is very funny given that he is the most or second-most significant contributor to the Wikipedia article. Also, feel free to point me to any other appropriate noticeboards to gather more attention on the subject.) — Bilorv (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

mw:Who Wrote That? indicates that he's written only about 7% of the current article, and much of that was more than 10 years ago, when we operated under different rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Do we really need navboxes of US presidential & vice presidential candidate's spouses? See example at Eunice Kennedy Shriver article. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay, do you mean succession boxes? Navboxes are a different kind of navigational template. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Errr yeah. The succession boxes. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Please note that actor Faraaz Khan died on 4 november. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Faraaz_Khan has his date of birth. RudolfRed (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Moving an essay from article space to WP space

Earlier today I noticed Rodw had to fix a link in an automotive article talking about a car's pumper. The link bumper goes to a low traffic essay about running into other editors in real life. To actually find an article on bumpers like those on a car you need to search for bumper (car) (not to be confused with bumper car. There is no disambiguation page for various bumper related topics. How do we move an essay from the name space to WP:space? I would like to set up a disambiguation page for Bumper unless there is an obvious primary topic. Thanks! Springee (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Springee: Unless I'm missing something, Bumper is already a disambiguation page and the link Rodw fixed was to that disambigutation page. I'm not sure where the page about bumping into other editors is. Sam Walton (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
You can only get to the essay by prefixing the title with WP:. Without that prefix, Bumper is an extensive dab page. Schazjmd (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
That's weird. Looks like user error but I have no idea how I ended up in an essay by accident. I was curious why Rodw changed the link so I clicked on the old bumper link. Perhaps I accidentally double clicked. Either way, looks like there isn't a problem here. Thanks for the replies! Springee (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I thought, when I saw the ping, I had chosen a wrong link for the dab, but now see you found an essay by User:Fluffernutter. I'm not sure why an individual users essay (even if employed by WMF) should have the shortcuts WP:BUMPER and WP:BUMP.— Rod talk 18:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I can't remember if I originally made those redirects or if someone else did, but I have zero objection to them being put to better use. I have a vague sense that their existence might have pre-dated the norm (or maybe just my awareness of the norm?) that we don't do cross-namespace redirects to essays. At any rate, their existence definitely has nothing to do with my employment with the WMF, and that essay was written before I worked here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Wiki of functions naming contest - Round 2

Hello. Reminder: Please help to choose the name for the new Wikimedia wiki project - the library of functions. The finalist vote starts today. The finalists for the name are: Wikicode, Wikicodex, Wikifunctions, Wikifusion, Wikilambda, Wikimedia Functions. If you would like to participate, then please learn more and vote now at Meta-wiki. Thank you! --Quiddity (WMF)

22:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Fake Wikipedia article in the "real world"

What are the rules on something like this?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: ? what's the question? DemonDays64 (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
@Vchimpanzee: This is probably the relevant policy: [1] It says "You may use the marks in satire or jokes. To avoid confusing users that your work is affiliated with the Wikimedia sites, it may be helpful to mark your work as "satire" or "parody." If you're concerned, you can file a report there. RudolfRed (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Are you asking for the opinions of individuals who are not lawyers specializing in intellectual property law? In that case I doubt whether the WMF would win a lawsuit against this cartoonist, as it doesn't look enough like a wikipedia page. Geo Swan (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

“Interlanguage” help desk?

Hi! Would anybody be able to point me to a place where I can ask technical questions that are not strictly related to the English-language edition? I contribute to a Wikipedia for a minority language, and we are way too small to have a help desk. My question is related to the use of subpages in the main namespace. I know this is normally discouraged, but I think we have a valid reason for it, and I'd like to discuss this with someone more experienced – especially to make sure we don't end up messing up Wikidata, etc. Thanks! Jean (t·c) 18:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Meta is usually the place to go for smaller wikis, but asking on en.wp at the most applicable pages or e.g. here at VPM are also reasonable. --Izno (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
m:Tech is good. m:Wikimedia Forum is another option. Izno is also right that asking at enwp is fine as well. Killiondude (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

BAG nomination

Hi! This is a procedural notification that I've requested to join the Bot Approvals Group. Your comments would be appreciated at the nomination page. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

WP makes NYT crossword

New York Times crossword puzzle, 13 November. 10-across: "Wikipedia articles that need expanding". Five letters. I'm not here seeking the answer (I already know it), but just to point out that we made the NYT crossword. I've been working it four days a week for many years and this is the first time I can recall. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I assume that's the quick crossword, or do they not have a cryptic one? DuncanHill (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
It's not what they call "The Mini", if that's what you're asking. It's the standard daily crossword, accessible here, but I don't know whether even that page can be accessed without a crossword subscription. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Ah, well I can't see the crosswords, but I found this article. By the looks of it it's not a cryptic crossword, and that article suggests the NYT only has them occasionally on a Sunday. DuncanHill (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Right, it is not cryptic. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
That’s cool! But I’m pretty sure it’s not the first time WP has appeared as a crossword clue. I think I have seen it several times. Yep, here’s one from earlier this year: [2] Here’s one from a couple of years ago. [3] But those were generic; this may be the first clue that depended on a person knowing Wikipedia jargon. I see that was the Friday crossword, they are always a little tricky. I agree, it’s always fun to find something in a clue that has a particular meaning to you. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
The answer, using rot 13 would be ghiog, correct? Geo Swan (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
fghof, not that we need to hide the answer from anybody reading this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Mandruss, Glad to know there's more people like me who can't make it to the end of the week. I'm a Sunday-Thursday guy. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I'm Thursday-Sunday. Monday-Wednesday are too easy. But I use the internet as a reference (including Wikipedia) and don't consider that cheating. In the modern age, it's not what you know, but what you know how to find out. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Mandruss, Pardon me while I remove my foot from my mouth. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Not at all. My way is not the only correct way, it's just what works for me. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Block quotations

The formatting of block quotations seems to have changed substantially. Can anyone point me to where this was discussed? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

You would be looking for the unilateral change at phab:T265947, which I caught a day or two ago. Please complain if you please. :) --Izno (talk) 06:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm personally leaning toward thinking this is an improvement, but I do have process concerns that the WMF has not adequately consulted the community here, so I'd support further discussion. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't think concerns of process are really that valid for basic display of basic HTML. That's more or less the responsibility of skins. If there was a process failure here, it was assuming the guide was necessary for all display resolutions when the style was obviously made for mobile. "One style" isn't necessary and guides where shown to be defective or incorrect in motivation should be ignored. --Izno (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Izno, sorry, (1) I looked at phab:T265947, and found it opaque; (2) I don't know what a "skin" is.
The last time I realy looked at the templates written to support block quotations, a decade or so ago, I found chaos. I found several competing templates, which all rendered quotes slightly differently, which is probably okay, but all required slightly different usages, which I found definitely not okay. Worse, I saw good faith contributors engaged in what looked like edit warring to me, breaking the well known principle of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
I don't use any of those quote templates. I don't use them for the same reason Bill Joy, author of many of the highly influential BSD Unix utilities, like the vi editor, stopped using the vi editor. Proponents of the emacs editor used to claim this was because he finally recognized that the more complex editor was superior to his editor.
But there was a simpler explanation I read in an interview, circa 1985. Unix licenses required the publication of his source code, and his popular and highly customizable editor had been highly customized. When he left Berkeley and helped found Sun Microsystems Sun worked out a barter deal with the manufacturer of high end publishing workstations. Everyone at Sun got a high end WYSIWYG publishing workstation, so no one at Sun used either vi or emacs.
When he visited other labs, he found he had to avoid using vi, because he would be very likely to encounter a modified version. If even one of the commands he was used to using worked differently his demonstration would be an embarrassment. His audience wouldn't realize he could not make his own editor do what he wanted, because of their local modifications.
So, when he visited other labs, and gave demonstrations, he relied on the first Unix editor, the very primitive ed editor, which was so primitive it always worked.
I work on multiple wikis, and I hate it when I encounter an advanced template, that has a lot of fan support, that isn't available on other wikis. There are templates that are commonly used on enwiki that either aren't available on the commons, or don't work the same way there.
I work on, or have worked on, almost a dozen non-WMF wikis. The alternate non-WMF wiki that I use most supports a reasonable subset of the most commonly used templates. That same reasonable subset of the most commonly used templates can be counted on working on the Citizendium.
So, I stick with that reasonable subset, so I don't have to remember whether an advanced template does or doesn't work where I am now.
For quotations I enclose the text to be quoted in a table with a single field. That works everywhere.
{| class="wikitable"
|

Text to be quoted

|}
Any of us who reach back to cut and paste a passage from an older version of an article risk trying to use a passage that relies on a template that has been deprecated, or no longer works the way it used to work. Infobox templates are horrible this way. Geo Swan (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Please don't use tables to mark up blockquotes... --Izno (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@Geo Swan, why aren't you using plain old <blockquote>, which also works at all MediaWiki sites? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
The technique I use can be prefixed with colons, so it gets indented when used in talk pages and similar fora. This can't be counted on working properly with clever quote templates, which remain in a constant state of flux. As above, I want to build the habit of using the one technique that works everywhere, enwiki, commons, other WMF wikis, and non-WMF wikis that use the underlying wiki software. Geo Swan (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Geo Swan wrote:

The technique I use can be prefixed with colons

The plain old HTML blockquote tag can also be prefixed with colons, it does not use any templates (clever or otherwise) and it works on all WMF wikis and non-WMF wikis using the MediaWiki software, and probably a substantial proportion of the wikis that aren't using MediaWiki. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
FYI, there is a discussion open at MediaWiki_talk:Common.css#Fixing_the_accidental_return_of_decorative_quotations - which is trending towards turning that bar off for Vector (default desktop skin) users/readers. — xaosflux Talk 20:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

When I was a newbie in Wikipedia I used to make lots of copyright violations and plagiarism. Now altough them being deleted they are still in Wikipedia's database and can still be viewed by anyone by clicking page history. I heard that a Twitch streamer was fined in court due to a video which was violating copyright. But the thing is he was fined despite the fact he deleted that video. The court's reason for that was video still existing in Twitch's database. Could the same thing also be true for Wikipedia? Can someone's now fixed, amateurish, old edits haunt him back years later? --Visnelma (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Theoretically yes, but it's only happened once and that was a much more serious situation involving defamation. Don't worry too much about being sued; if an old edit ever were to become problematic, the courts would give us a chance to delete the revisions rather than jumping immediately to litigation. ‑ Iridescent 18:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Call for insights on ways to better communicate the work of the movement

The Movement Strategy recommendations published this year made clear the importance of establishing stronger communications within our movement. To this end, the Foundation wants to gather insights from communities on ways we all might more consistently communicate about our collective work, and better highlight community contributions from across the movement. Over the coming months, we will be running focus groups and online discussions to collect these insights. Visit the page on Meta-Wiki to sign up for a focus group or participate in the discussion.

ELappen (WMF) (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the page, there appears to be a chicken-and-egg problem here. --Yair rand (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Redirects from project space to user space?

A couple of years back, I wrote User:RoySmith/Three best sources. After getting tired of typing that every time, I created WP:THREE as a redirect, which (to my pleasurable surprise) became quite popular. This morning, Geo Swan raised some reasonable concerns on my talk page about the appropriateness of this redirect. I feel that userspace is basically an extension of project space, so I don't see this being as much cross-namespace as, say, a redirect from mainspace to userspace. Certainly, if you make a broad division of namespaces into "stuff we present to the public as part of the encyclopedia" vs "stuff we need to run the project", both are clearly in the latter group. On the other hand, I can see the concerns about WP:OWNERSHIP.

I don't want to turn this into a formal RFC, but I am interested in what other people think about the general concept of redirects from WP to userspace. And, more particularly, whether what I've done with WP:THREE is legitimate. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  • We've always had them, and I've never even thought about them being a problem. WP:RAUL is 15 years old. Cross-namespace redirect are not a problem, and you don't own your userspace, so there is no real issue here. —Kusma (t·c) 16:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally, these redirects are uncontentious. Sometimes, there is contention, for which the correct remedy is WP:RFD. I do agree with what Geo Swan has pointed out on your talk page, and that it is possible someone will come along and assume that your page is a Wikipedia-space essay when it is not, because Wikipedia- and user-space essays do have different retention requirements. --Izno (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
edit conflict
It is one of the places that makes clear there are important distinction between essays in userspace and essays in the wikipedia namespace.
I think Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays also makes clear there are important distinctions between essays in userspace and essays in the wikipedia namespace. It says:
  1. "Essays placed in User namespace (i.e., user essays) are often – though not always – meant to represent the viewpoint of one user only. The author of a personal essay located in his or her user space has the right to revert any changes made to it by any other user."
  2. "The Wikipedia community has historically tolerated a wide range of subjects and viewpoints on essay pages. However, there are a handful of "essay" pages that tend to get deleted or transferred to user space."
  3. and, in a list of material generally not tolerated... "Writings that contradict or subvert policy (or other pages with established consensus), especially if they are intended to undermine, not just disagree with, those pages. Such oppositional views are, however, generally tolerated within user essays."
Wikipedia:Essays#User_essays says
""Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace..."

and

"...Writings that contradict policy are somewhat tolerated within the User namespace. The author of a personal essay located in his or her user space has the prerogative to revert any changes made to it by any other user, within reason."
  • I think the preceding passages strongly suggest we should maintain a distinction between user essays and the more widely accepted essays in the wikipedia namespace.
You may never have gotten a challenge over using user essays in ways that make them look they are essays in the wikipedia namespace. But I have.
I used to link to my essays with a pipe, so [[User:Geo Swan/opinions/Pick one|Pick one]] would render as Pick one. Years ago, when I got some pushback from contributors who voiced concerns that I was implying my user essays were in the wikipedia space, I started to always state the essay I was linking to was a user essay.
  • My question to anyone who has been using a cross namespace redirect for their user essay -- would you consider taking whatever risks are involved in moving your whole essay to the wikipedia namespace? Geo Swan (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I too followed a flawed practice, for a long time, without being challenged.
Kusma I too followed a flawed practice, for a long time, without being challenged.
In 2006 I started four quasi-templates - entries in the template namespace that I started using in a series of closely related articles, that rendered an image, its caption, and a paragraph or two, that I wanted rendered in all those articles. Keeping one instance had the advantage that if I wanted to update the caption, it got updated everywhere I used that quasi template.
It had a bunch of disadvantages I was oblivious to.
I can't remember how long I followed this practice, before it was challenged. I thought the MfD was going to close as no consensus. Several people who weighed in saw nothing wrong with this practice. Those who challenged it advanced weak arguments.
I questioned the closing administrator for a closure justification no one had mentioned during the discussion. They were quite patient in their further explanation. I didn't accept their arguments, right away. I think I may even have considered DRV. But, I spent some time thinking about it. And, a few hours later, or a day later, I'd come around. I decided they were 100 percent correct. I excised the instances where I was misusing transclusion with the other quasi-templates, and requested speedy deletion of them.
The wikipedia's policies are complicated. They can be ambiguous, contradictory, and are in a constant state of flux. Even our most experienced contributors may have been misinterpreting or overlooking some wrinkle in our policy. There should be no shame in suddenly realizing this. Geo Swan (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
-- RoySmith (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Also:
WP:CHEESE, WP:CHEESY, WP:GREENCHEESE, WP:Astronomer vs Amateur, WP:ASTRONOMER
WP:Best of and Top 100 lists, WP:ABT, WP:Awards, Best of and Top 100 lists - demoted to userspace following a discussion at WP:VPP in 2007
WP:Rant and WP:Rantstyle
WP:APANA
WP:CRATERS and WP:CRATERCAT
WP:OWB
WP:1AM, WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY, WP:One Against Many, WP:One against many
WP:GUTTING, WP:Gutting, WP:GUT, WP:GUTTED, WP:Gutted, WP:Gut
WP:Re-target to search page, WP:Deleting redirects to facilitate searching , WP:DRFS
WP:NERCH
WP:NOMOVE, WP:Don't move articles at AfD
WP:RAJ, WP:RSCASTE
WP:CL-RULE
WP:MOSCHURN
WP:TR, WP:TTR, WP:Do template the regulars, WP:DoTTR, WP:Template the regulars
WP:Conciseness razor
WP:WIFC
WP:Wikipedia do's and dont's, WP:The rules of Wikipedia
  • The distinction between USER essays and COMMUNITY essays is one of acceptance. In some cases, a USER essay is one that was presented to the community, and rejected. Blueboar (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think the distinction between "Wikipedia essays" and "user essays" is all that helpful here. They both have no real weight, but can be surprisingly popular, so may need shortcuts for easy linking. WP: is our standard shortcut prefix (almost all other shortcuts are in the article namespace), used for links into all sorts of namespaces. WP:DISCUSS, for example, goes into the Help namespace and WP:DYKT into the Template talk namespace. That WP:THREE is a more widely accepted idea than many other essays is not caused by the existence of the redirect, but by the usefulness and simplicity of the concept. (In the past, we used to host many essays on Meta: some of the famous ones are m:DICK, m:POLE and m:GAY (the last one had its shortcut taken away at some point in the past). Essays from MeatballWiki were also commonly used, for example meatball:DefendEachOther or meatball:ForestFire). As Wikipedia is now so old, we have many essays that are outdated, lots of others that are contradicting each other or try to promote some particular point or Wikiphilosophy. Most of our essays are wrong or attack problems that are no longer important, with the exception of some timeless gems like WP:REICHSTAG or WP:VEGAN, the latter being an example of an essay that started on a userpage but was later duplicated into Wikipedia space. WP:THREE could also (of course) be moved or duplicated into Wikipedia space, but I disagree that it needs to be. The entire essay situation is a huge mess, but it is a wonderful creative mess, and I don't see rules about what types of essay deserve what classes of shortcut helping us one bit. —Kusma (t·c) 23:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with what you've written here. Earlier today I was going to comment that at this point if someone feels it should be deleted the conversation needs to be taken to RFD. Not really a VPM matter. There are a mixture of opinions here, but mostly seem to be leaning towards meh. Killiondude (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't have a problem with WP:THREE going to that essay; I'd have a bigger problem if it was deleted, given its high usage. I do think that the essay has gotten enough attention that it might be time to consider promoting it to WP-space rather than userspace, but that's ultimately RoySmith's decision to make. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Sdkb and Kusma: I think everyone recognizes that cross namespace links, from the wikipedia namespace, pointing to userspace essays, has been a long-standing practice. I think those who are concerned over this practice recognize that, while they think it is a mistake, and not entirely consistent with policy and guidelines, they were made in good faith.

    My concern triggered this discussion, but I am not suggesting any of these essays be erased.

    I have a simple suggestion to the authors of the user essays that have been linked from wikipedia namespace. (1) Wean yourself away from being the sole author of your essay; (2) move it into wikipedia namespace, where it can take its chances of being challenged at MfD, under the more stringent inclusion standards there. If every author agreed to do this, this problem would go away.

    What if the author of a userspace essay won't agree to promote it to a shared essay in the wikipedia namespace?

    Would it make sense to have all those cross namespace redirects point to a list, with a name like Wikipedia:List of user essays formerly cross namespace redirected to project space? That list could have a schema, pointing to this discussion, that explained this kind of redirect had been employed, for years, but a discussion decided to deprecate this practice. The essay would still be available to be read - without, however a direct link from [[WP:]] that implied they had survived the more stringent scrutiny applied to wikipedia space essays. Geo Swan (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

    I don't think we can really say that WP-space essays have been subjected to any kind of stringent standard. The {{Essay}} disclaimer notes that some represent only minority viewpoints, and I've certainly come across plenty of essays that haven't exactly been put through the ringer. Perhaps we'll get to a point someday where essay-space is developed enough to be held to some standard (that will require stronger efforts to resist duplication), but currently we're a long ways off. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I don’t think most user essays are in userspace by preference of the “owner”. Most are there because the wider community strongly disagrees with (or outright rejected) the ideas expressed in the essay. We accept that the creator of the essay is entitled to express his/her opinion, but we are not going to give it our stamp of approval by moving it to Wikispace. Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Blueboar, well, user essays the community rejected should not be moved into the wikipedia namespace. But they also shouldn't have a redirect in the wikipedia namespace, that makes it look like they underwent the greater scrutiny of being in the wikipedia namespace.

      There seem to be dozens, or hundreds of these. These are the ones we are discussing here.

      FWIW, none of the dozen or so I looked at since this discussion started show any obvious sign of being too controversial to take their chances in the wikipedia namespace. Geo Swan (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thing is, many of them WERE originally created in Mainspace... and then moved to Userspace after being discussed and rejected (hence the redirect... since when a page is moved, a redirect is automatically created). Perhaps we shouldn’t automatically create such redirects, but that is why they exist. Blueboar (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Where to place tabular/auxiliary data represented otherwise by a graph

To use an example, Wii sales has a table built from Nintendo's reports of the sale of the system. It's great and all, but its clunky and for the general reader, I believe this is better done using a graph (like stacked bar). (This is anticipation of merging that into the Wii article itself) Replacing that is no problem, but an issue I see is that a reader may want to see the exact numbers in a tabular format like that, and I would like to still offer that tabular format somewhere. Unfortunately, I don't know of a good way to do this on en.wiki or any sister projects, as least as best as I can tell. Mainspace we're supposed to avoid subpages, and Wikisource doesn't not appropriate since we're not using PD sources here.

Any ideas of what's a good way to do this? --Masem (t) 14:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

If the table is being used to create the image, put it in the file description. --Izno (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, my plan was to us the inline wikitools rather than a static image that would live in File: space (where that then would make sense). This could be achieved with page transclusion (wrapping the wikicode for the table in includeonly and the table outside that) but we don't allow mainspace subpages (where it would make to do that). --Masem (t) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Commons accepts tabular data sets, and there are graph templates that can use them directly. --Yair rand (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Perfect, that's a workable solution for this. --Masem (t) 17:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey 2021

The 2021 Community Wishlist Survey is now open! This survey is the process where communities decide what the Community Tech team should work on over the next year. We encourage everyone to submit proposals until the deadline on 30 November, or comment on other proposals to help make them better. The communities will vote on the proposals between 8 December and 21 December.

The Community Tech team is focused on tools for experienced Wikimedia editors. You can write proposals in any language, and we will translate them for you. Thank you, and we look forward to seeing your proposals!

SGrabarczuk (WMF) 05:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for giving us yet another platform on which we can put suggestions the WickedMedia Foundation will ignore :) Wikimedia Foundation may or may not use. {{u|Squeeps10}} {Talk} Please ping when replying. 04:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Suicide

Good afternoon Village Pump. A question. The phrase "commit/committed suicide" is discouraged these days. The phrase litters Wikipedia. I wondered if there is a policy here about using the phrase and whether we have a policy on rephrasing the term to something else? doktorb wordsdeeds 12:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk: a quick search shows this has come up often, somewhat recently at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_138#Change_suicide_references_to_remove_criminal_allusion and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_140#Stigmatizing_language_regarding_suicide; I'm not sure where you are ascertaining that the phrase "is discouraged these days", but it does not appear to be in the context of Wikipedia. When editing an article, a method that could help you decide what to write would be to use the same phrasing that your associated reliable source uses. — xaosflux Talk 12:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Cheers @Xaosflux:. I did a cursory search and couldn't see anything. If there is no hard and fast policy decision or community agreement I'll follow your advice. Sounds like best practice to me. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I am working with a small group of admins on prepping an RFC to discuss this very issue and come to some resolution if there is a consensus to continue to use "committed" or to change it as to actually establish something in MOS for this. --Masem (t) 14:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @Masem:. If I can help, I'll happily do so. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
The drafting of this RFC has been on my talk page here User talk:Masem#Williams and in the final stages to get the easiest question to answer towards this. --Masem (t) 20:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Doktorbuk your pings are not working. You need to use a straight line "|" rather than a colon ":" like this {{u|Doktorbuk}}. I'm pretty sure these editors will see your reply but I wanted to let you know for future reference. MarnetteD|Talk 18:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I have never understood the objection to “committed suicide”... yes, one can “commit a crime”... but one can also “commit an act of kindness”. Blueboar (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Blueboar, I think some people feel there is a moral judgment in the phrase. A person might commit homicide, suicide, genocide, violence, adultery. Even the positive phrases have religious overtones, e.g., "We therefore commit his body to the deep..." (an old-fashioned line for burial at sea). Bumper stickers that encourage people to commit random acts of kindness and senseless beauty haven't overshadowed the more solemn and moral feeling that some people get from the word.
For a different POV (and a discussion of different phrases that some people prefer), you might be interested in https://slate.com/technology/2018/01/why-the-ap-stylebooks-rules-on-how-to-talk-about-suicide-dont-work-for-me.html WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The verb “to commit” simply means “to do” or “to perform”... it is a completely neutral word. Any positive or negative connotations are due to WHAT is being “committed”, not the commitment itself. I agree that “suicide” that has a negative connotation... but that is not changed by getting rid of the word “commit”. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
In the RFC workup, I have some sources from mental health professionals that describe why "commit suicide" is not a helpful phrase for those dealing with depression and suicidal tendencies and thus why there's a urge to move away in that area. Whether WP should as well will be a subject of this RFC, but there's a fair rational for the urge to move away from it. --Masem (t) 16:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I have suffered from (another phrase that some people seem to try and avoid) depression for nearly twenty years. Because of this I know plenty of others with similar conditions, and I don't know of any who feel that the use of the word "commit" comes anywhere amongst the many problems that they have. I have also had two friends who have committed suicide, and am pretty sure that none of their loved ones feel that the use of this phrase is in any way stigmatising. I wish that mental health professionals would focus on the real problems faced by people with such conditions rather than made-up problems about language. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Agree. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
This is why me and a few others have nearly finalized an RFC wording to prepare to present as to formalize something we can fix in a MOS and point to, as to whether to avoid "committed" or not based on what is used by sources. (I personally think there's no issue with "committed" either but recognize where the logic is coming from, but I'm on pages that see this language routinely changed out by drive-by IPs, hence the need to have a place in MOS to point to and thus the need for the RFC). --Masem (t) 21:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The larger and more important question for me is whether Wikipedia should be leading/driving language evolution or following it. It has been my understanding that we should follow, which should immediately invalidate even discussion about "commit suicide" – unless someone can make a compelling case that most of the English-speaking world has abandoned the phrase. No number of "experts" on the subject will ever constitute "most of the English-speaking world". So the RfC is inappropriate in my view; if someone wants to present said case in an RfC, they are free to do so, but we don't need to be encouraging debate that is inherently inconsistent with Wikipedia fundamentals. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
We have a Manual of Style for a reason, and that is to restrict the phrasing used on Wikipedia to a portion of the English language. And it's not like no one uses any phrasing other than "committed" - according to Google Ngram, "killed himself" and "killed herself" together are close to as common to "committed suicide." Gbear605 (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
If you're saying that it's ok to reach a community consensus that violates a bedrock Wikipedia principle, I strongly disagree. Some things are inviolable, at least until they are modified at that bedrock level. As for the rest of your comment, I think you're confused. I have not suggested that we should require "committed", only that we should not ban it as proposed in this thread and others that I've seen recently. Or even discourage it, which at Wikipedia is very close to banning it. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm saying that Wikipedia already does ban a lot of normal English speech, to be consistent or to be more accurate. Banning certain phrasing around suicide isn't crossing any new line - just look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Vocabulary. Gbear605 (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Granted, there is some precedent for violating the inviolable bedrock principle. Those who know me know that I don't support the creation of bad stuff because of the existence of other bad stuff of the same kind (I've even had something to that effect on my user page for almost three years). If someone wants to take this discussion to a higher level and debate whether following language evolution is in fact a bedrock principle around here, or whether it should be one, I would be happy to participate in that. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Should template sandboxes have interlanguage links?

Why are there no interlanguage links for most template (and module) sandboxes? JsfasdF252 (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata does not take template/module subpages. If you need to navigate between them, you can use the main template/module page. --Izno (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
User in other language Wikipedias can easily copy the templates themselves into their wiki, but what if they don't know how to use them? JsfasdF252 (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
In that case, they should translate the documentation. --Izno (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
It turns out you can add interwiki links for template documentation by adding links in the format [[language code:Title]] in noinclude tags without using Wikidata. JsfasdF252 (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
You can but should not. They are likely to be removed for being clutter and unnecessary. --Izno (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Izno, I wonder whether Special:Import brings across the subpages. I think that's what people use when importing the citation templates. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: It does not appear so, though someone importing a citation template might review Special:Import and catch the templates invoked on the page, at least one of which is the documentation. (That's if you graciously assume that best practices for attribution are used offwiki. I can definitely assure you they are not as at least I have not done so, some long time ago. :) --Izno (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
AFAICT the point of Special:Import is that it brings across all the other sub-templates and Lua modules necessary to make the template work, so I know that at least some of them (at least within WP:SUL wikis) exhibit an excellent level of attribution for the templates. But perhaps the tool doesn't believe that a transcluded doc page is necessary to make the template work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

BAG nomination

This is a procedural notification to note that I have requested to join the BAG. Your input is welcome at the the nomination page. – SD0001 (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Global bot policy proposal: invitation to a Meta discussion

Hello!

I apologize for sending a message in English. Please help translate to other languages.. According to the list, your wiki project currently is opted in to the global bot policy. Under this policy, bots that fix double redirects or maintain interwiki links are allowed to operate under a global bot flag that is assigned directly by the stewards.

As the Wikimedia projects developed, the need for the current global bot policy decreased, and in the past years, no bots were appointed via that policy. That is mainly given Wikidata were estabilished in 2013, and it is no longer necessary to have dozens of bots that maintain interwiki links.

A proposal was made at Meta-Wiki, which proposes that the stewards will be authorized to determine whether an uncontroversial task may be assigned a global bot flag. The stewards already assign permissions that are more impactful on many wikis, namely, global sysops and global renamers, and I do not think that trust should be an issue. The stewards will assign the permission only to time-proven bots that are already approved at a number of projects, like ListeriaBot.

By this message, I would like to invite you to comment in the global RFC, to voice your opinion about this matter.

Thank you for your time.

Best regards,
Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

No need to apologize, we like English here. Did you mean to post this somewhere else? RudolfRed (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I guess the same message was mass-posted to a discussion page on every wiki. – SD0001 (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Heh, you're totally right, I massmessaged to all wikis that are in the list of global bot wikis, and didn't realize it has the English Wikipedia too. Striked the apology :-). --Martin Urbanec (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@Martin Urbanec: English Wikipedia has never opted-in the global bot policy. Ruslik_Zero 20:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: It is included in the list of wikis with active global bots through, so the group itself is active here. So perhaps the wikiset should be updated to reflect that? Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
It was a limited approval for interwiki bots only. Ruslik_Zero 20:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Virtual WikiConference North America CentralNotice for regional editors

I have put in a request for a geo-targeted CentralNotice for the Virtual WikiConference North America on December 11-13. See the request on meta at m:CentralNotice/Request/Virtual WikiConference North America.--Pharos (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Articles that should be renamed

SrpskiAnonimac (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Please, see Wikipedia:Requested_moves. Ruslik_Zero 18:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Ruslik0, I do not know English --SrpskiAnonimac (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
SrpskiAnonimac, I'm gonna take a wild guess from your userpage that you're Serbian, or at least understand the language, and another wild guess that Google Translate is decent:
Молим вас идите на WP:RM. Кад сте тамо, копирајте и залепите упутства у https://translate.google.com/?sl=en&tl=sr&op=translate њих и следите их. Хвала. Squeeps10 Talk to meplease ping me 03:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
The third one definitely makes sense. Waterthatisdry (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

A new addition to wikipedia

I propose a new idea, and though I'm sure long time users of wikipedia will be divided, I think it is in line with the times.

What I suggest is simple: The option to comment on any wikipedia page. This will not only allow editors to gain feedback but also supplement any existing knowledge. There may be information within a given community that could only be had by this setup. Let's say x article has a cult following. There is a very elementary page about it but none of the users are willing to edit it for themselves. Their commentary would allow a contributor to update the page with new information. etc.

I think this could easily be implemented through disqus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:743:4100:17A0:B879:3FB9:E430:8265 (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I mean, we do have talk pages for discussing articles. I understand the idea behind this, but, as we can all see from reading the comments on news articles, sometimes making it easier for the public to add comments is not great. Killiondude (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
We tried this. It mostly followed the 80-20 rule for garbage:goodness, and didn't interact well with our existing comment system, which is the article talk page. --Izno (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure how X's cult following is helpful in building articles in ways not already covered by talk pages. Allowing multiple "voices" to be seen also dilutes the effectiveness of the encyclopedia. We're already not reliable by our own standards; adding opinions and comments and in-jokes just makes that worse. Matt Deres (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@Killiondude: It is true that news article comments are...not good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterthatisdry (talk • contribs) 13:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • This sounds a bit like the Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool which had to be stopped in 2013/14. There was a difference of opinion between those who thought it wrong in practice and its main problem was that scattered among the expressions of love for Justin Bieber et al were some really vile things that had to be suppressed. So it put a big extra burden on the volunteer community - far greater than any benefit it brought; And those who thought it wrong in theory, and that it undermined our SoFixIt philosophy by diverting potential new editors from improving articles into creating extra work for our dwindling volunteer base. More details at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article feedback ϢereSpielChequers 10:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Restoring from archives for close versus closing in the archive

Some of the closes requested at WP:AN/RFC recently have been RfC's that had lingered without resolution long enough to be archived. This is most likely to happen at centralized discussion boards such as WP:BLPN, WP:RSN, etc. I have recently done multiple NAC's on threads that were archived, on one I linked from the current noticeboard to the close that I posted in the archives. On the other I did the opposite ad returned the thread to the current noticeboard to close it there. In both cases, I have been contacted by at least one person suggesting the opposite procedure is preferable, always by experienced editors. I therefore do not believe that there are clear standards on this situation.

The only rule I'm aware of on this situation is WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE within the Talk Page Guidelines which says: If a thread has been archived prematurely, such as when it is still relevant to current work or was not concluded, unarchive it by copying it back to the talk page from the archive, and deleting it from the archive. This seems like an option that is available, not a directive of a best practice. It goes on to say: Do not unarchive a thread that was effectively closed; instead, start a new discussion and link to the archived prior discussion. That makes it seem that threads not "effectively closed" are likely to need to be unarchived but again is not very definitive.

I can see arguments for doing such closes either way. On the one hand, archives are supposed to preserve a record of discussions that are over so modifying a discussion in an archive is against that. On the other hand, restoring archived discussions to the current noticeboard clogs ongoing discussions. Either way, the archive is changed and something that was "over" is not really over. Do we know if there is a rule anywhere that explicitly covers this type of situation or a community preference for one type of closing procedure over the other? Thanks in advance. (courtesy pings: Guy, buidhe) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the restoring approach is generally better. Very few people are monitoring archives, so restoring allows a close to be seen and (if needed) commented on.
We should note that there's a third option: pinning a section so that it does not get archived until it receives a close. Generally, I don't think this is a good idea, as it tends to lead to discussions sprawling beyond the point of usefulness. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I couldn't be more strongly opposed to modifying an archive page in any way, with two exceptions:
  • Removing a section that has been restored from archive.
  • Fixes to serious formatting issues that make it very difficult to use the archive for its intended purpose. I've seen perhaps two such cases in seven years.
Archive pages are not places to conduct talk page business of any kind, and a closure should be seen in the talk page's history, not the archive page's history.
That leaves the question of whether a closer should be required to restore a discussion in order to close it. I would say no, their job is already very difficult, preventing many editors from taking it on, and the only "benefit" to doing that would be to prevent any further discussion before the closure. Correctly restoring a discussion is beyond the technical skill of many editors, anyway, particularly if it's too late for a double-undo. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with not continuing a discussion on an archive page, as I believe the vast majority of archive pages are unwatched. I've seen many cases of missing HTML closing tags, often from signatures, causing issues on archive pages (the version of MediaWiki at the time they were written would auto-close them). isaacl (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Re-reading myself, I now see that it might look as if I'm contradicting myself there (my comments always seem crystal clear to me at the time of writing). To avoid any confusion, I'll add that I support pinning the discussion until closure ({{subst:pin section}}) when a closure has been requested or is otherwise expected. Many closers will remove the pin when they close, and failing that any other editor may do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Eggishorn, in those situations, I think the first question is whether the discussion truly needs a summary added to it. (IMO "Closing" is technically putting a box around it to discourage further comments, which is pointless.) If editors have moved on or already implemented the results, then I'd ignore it. It'd be silly to say "25 November: The result was agreement to make the edits that were made a few weeks ago", right?
I have, just once or twice in the last dozen-plus years, added a closing statement to something still in the archives. I could see the point, e.g., if there's a link that might be useful to someone reading it later. However, outside unusual circumstances, the best practice is to un-archive it and add the summary statement on the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing and Mandruss, I'm thinking particularly of RSN. With source deprecation RfC's now popping up seeming right and left, it is a disservice to everyone for these to remain unclosed, particularly long ones. If another editor wants to see what the status of a source is, there should be some definitive statement so they don't have to read the whole conversation and puzzle it out each and every time. Hence closing archived threads has become a necessary thing now. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't follow. Whether you archive and then close, or close and then archive, you end up with a closed, archived discussion. The differences are what I mentioned above: the integrity of the page history and the fact that the closure is plainly visible to editors watching that history (transparency, and the opportunity to challenge the closure – per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE – in a timely manner).
If there are a few cases where you can't anticipate the need for closure before the discussion has been archived, there should be someone around who can do the restore. Heck, it should be a fairly trivial matter for a script-qualified editor to create a restore-from-archive script, which would open that up to a large majority of editors. It could operate exactly like the existing One-Click Archiver, except that instead of clicking an "Archive" link on the talk page, you would click a "Restore" link on the archive page. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@Eggishorn: Per direction at the help desk (permalink), I have suggested such a script at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject JavaScript#OneClickUnarchiver, but there has been no response in 46 hours. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata descriptions changes to be included more often in Recent Changes and Watchlist

As you may know, you can include changes coming from Wikidata in your Watchlist and Recent Changes (in your preferences). Until now, this feature didn’t always include changes made on Wikidata descriptions due to the way Wikidata tracks the data used in a given article.

Starting on December 3rd, the Watchlist and Recent Changes will include changes on the descriptions of Wikidata Items that are used in the pages that you watch. This will only include descriptions in the language of your wiki to make sure that you’re only seeing changes that are relevant to your wiki.

If there is a local description in the article already a change to the description on Wikidata will not show up in Recent changes and Watchlist unless it is explicitly included via Lua.

This improvement was requested by many users from different projects. We hope that it can help you monitor the changes on Wikidata descriptions that affect your wiki and participate in the effort of improving the data quality on Wikidata for all Wikimedia wikis and beyond.

Note: if you didn’t use the Wikidata watchlist integration feature for a long time, feel free to give it another chance! The feature has been improved since the beginning and the content it displays is more precise and useful than at the beginning of the feature in 2015.

If you encounter any issue or want to provide feedback, feel free to use this Phabricator ticket. Thanks! Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia doesn't use the Wikidata description anywhere any longer (if everything works as it should). So for most enwiki editors and articles, seeing the changes in the Wikidata description will not have any use, as it won't change anything on Enwiki (unlike other changes which may affect things here, like coordinates or many other values which may be used from Wikidata in some cases). Adding these description changes will thus only add clutter here. Fram (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
There's probably a reasonable phab task for "don't send description updates to local description clients". --Izno (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

2021 Ombuds Commission nomination process now open!

Hi everyone! It's coming close to time for annual appointments of community members to serve on the Ombudsman commission (OC). This commission works on all Wikimedia projects to investigate complaints about violations of the privacy policy, especially in use of CheckUser and Oversight tools, and to mediate between the complaining party and the individual whose work is being investigated. They may also assist the General Counsel, the Executive Director or the Board of Trustees in investigations of these issues. For more on their duties and roles, see m:Ombuds commission.

This is a call for community members interested in volunteering for appointment to this commission. Volunteers serving in this role should be experienced Wikimedians, active on any project, who have previously used the CheckUser/Oversight tools OR who have the technical ability to understand these tools and the willingness to learn them. They are expected to be able to engage neutrally in investigating these concerns and to know when to recuse when other roles and relationships may cause conflict.

Commissioners are required to comply with the appropriate Wikimedia Foundation board policies (such as the access to non-public data policy and the privacy policy) and to sign the required Non-disclosure Agreement. This is a position that requires a high degree of discretion and trust.

If you are interested in serving on this commission, please write me an email at kbrown@wikimedia.org to detail your experience on the projects, your thoughts on the commission and what you hope to bring to the role. The commission consists of ten members; all applications are appreciated and will be carefully considered. The deadline for applications is 31 December, 2020.

Please feel free to pass this invitation along to any users who you think may be qualified and interested. Thank you! Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Jeff Zients page

Normally I post only to relevant WikiProjects, but this may need attention from the Wikipedia community as a whole https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/03/wikipedia-page-bidens-new-covid-czar-scrubbed-442735

There are allegations of Jeff Zients being scrubbed of political info WhisperToMe (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Politico claims also brought up at ANI. Schazjmd (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Starting radicalpedia

Wikipedia has a rival called Conservapedia for those who think Wikipedia has an anti-conservative bias. Would any one agree that at times, Wikipedia is TOO Conservative? I wrote comments on the talk page on the article on the Conservative Party of the U.K., but they were deleted. I was also accused of trolling the talk page of the article on Margaret Thatcher. Has the time come to start a rival to Wikipedia called "Radicalpedia"? Vorbee (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Go for it. Let us know how it works out. RudolfRed (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Or start a new country, a floating island made up of used plastic bottles. There are many ways to resolve disputes on Wikipedia. -- GreenC 01:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The far left already has websites like radtube and lefttube. Maybe someone could make a center-left one called liberalpedia explaining liberal and progressive philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnigornia (talk • contribs) 23:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

misspelling on donation page

Wikipedia Donor Feedback __________________________

Credit card, (Visa, MC, Amercian Express, Star, Diners, Pulse, Discover)

Debit Card (Visa, MC, Amercian Express, Star, Diners, Pulse, Discover)

--Thnidu (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Thnidu: thank you for letting us know about this, and we can try to get the right people to fix it. I'm having a little trouble finding the page you are seeing though - would you mind letting us know the steps you took to get there and if it is on a mobile device or a computer? Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 20:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
You can also report problems to donate (at) wikimedia.org, but please include the URL of the page with the error and any other information that could be helpful. RudolfRed (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

2020 Coolest Tool Award Ceremony on December 11th

Hello all,

The ceremony of the 2020 Wikimedia Coolest Tool Award will take place virtually on Friday, December 11th, at 17:00 GMT. This award is highlighting tools that have been nominated by contributors to the Wikimedia projects, and the ceremony will be a nice moment to show appreciation to the tools developers and maybe discover new tools!

You will find more information here about the livestream and the discussions channels. Thanks for your attention, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) 10:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey 2021

We invite all registered users to vote on the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. You can vote from now until 21 December for as many different wishes as you want.

In the Survey, wishes for new and improved tools for experienced editors are collected. After the voting, we will do our best to grant your wishes. We will start with the most popular ones.

We, the Community Tech, are one of the Wikimedia Foundation teams. We create and improve editing and wiki moderation tools. What we work on is decided based on results of the Community Wishlist Survey. Once a year, you can submit wishes. After two weeks, you can vote on the ones that you're most interested in. Next, we choose wishes from the survey to work on. Some of the wishes may be granted by volunteer developers or other teams.

We are waiting for your votes. Thank you!

SGrabarczuk (WMF)

15:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

WMF Fundraising on en.wiki

Hey All

Later today we will be launching our upcoming annual fundraising campaigns in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the USA, and the United Kingdom. It's a critical campaign and during this quarter we raise approximately half of the annual funds for the Wikimedia movement. The banners form just one component and since October, our E-mail fundraising programme has already been running in these countries.

Banners will be starting at approximately 1600UTC. For non-urgent feedback you’ll find me in real time:

If you see a donor on a talk page, OTRS, or social media having difficulties in the donation process, please refer them to: donate @ wikimedia.org.

To report any technical issues with the banners or payments systems you can:

From myself and on behalf of my colleagues, can I thank everyone for the patience and support fundraising is given from across the movement both throughout the year and especially over the coming weeks.

Many thanks. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC),

@Seddon (WMF): Lots of questions again this year at WP:HD and WP:THQ about the fundraiser. I hope next year you or someone else from WMF will spend some time monitoring those boards and answering the questions directly, rather than leaving it to the en wiki volunteers to do it or to refer users to the email address. Thanks. RudolfRed (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Fundraising feedback from Lemon Gras

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 2 § Fundraising feedback from Lemon Gras

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdkb (talk • contribs) 19:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Requesting volunteering for Compendium and Encyclopedia

Greetings,

Wikipedia was launched on January 15, 2001 and coming January 15 will be of 20 years. Even after 20 years articles Encyclopedia and Compendium are still incomplete and not at their best.

Some of the issues and sources are shared @ Talk:Encyclopedia#Any takers ? & Talk:Compendium#Any takers ?.

I am already busy on multiple articles, I wish and request some volunteer supports in expanding and updating articles Encyclopedia and Compendium.

Thanks

Bookku (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Hiring a full-time facilitator in this community

Hi. Board elections and governance conversations are expected in the next months. In order to be ready when they happen, the Wikimedia Foundation is forming a team of facilitators to ensure good communication and representative participation across Wikimedia. We are hiring a full-time contractor focusing on English speaking projects and affiliates. We are looking for someone who is a good communicator and understands the peculiarities of Wikimedia. We need someone motivated by equity, diversity and inclusion, the drivers behind these conversations. Check the job description for more details and to apply. Please help us share this opportunity with your contacts and groups. If you have questions, you can ping me here or you can contact me at qgil@wikimedia.org. Qgil-WMF (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

How do these differ from the old Community liaisons?©Geni (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
©Geni, the roles are similar but these are six month contracts focusing on a single area. This model has been used recently for Movement Strategy and the Universal Code of Conduct. Is this what you were asking? Qgil-WMF (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Also, unlike when my team was created in 2013, the focus for these people is on the non-technical aspects of the movement. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Having admitted, to Wikipedia, that Wikimedia has difficult-to-understand peculiarities, shouldn't the next step be to soften these peculiarities, not to create an intermediary to protect the peculiarities from the frictions they cause the Wikipedia-Wikimedia relationship? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    • SmokeyJoe: This facilitator role is justified by the complexity of the English-speaking community. We are not trying to prevent direct participation of Wikipedians in Wikimedia-wide conversations. English Wikipedia contributors are very fortunate, you don't have a language barrier on Meta. :) With or without a facilitator, if you want to participate in global conversations directly, you have the choice. We are hiring a full-time contractor to focus on English-speaking projects and affiliates. This means English Wikipedia but also its sister projects, plus chapters and user groups communicating in English (except when covered by regional facilitators). These many entities may have different peculiarities in their opinions and preferences. As mentioned above, equity, diversity and inclusion will drive the facilitation work. These entities may have underrepresented groups within, with even more peculiarities. The facilitator will promote conversations to inform everyone, understand priorities and peculiarities. They will share this feedback through reports on Meta and wherever appropriate. This is a lot of work that is unlikely to happen organically, hence the hiring. Qgil-WMF (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Can we be involved in the selection process? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
        • SmokeyJoe: You can encourage candidates to apply and you can send me recommendations. The selection itself follows a standard hiring process. The privacy of candidates is very important. Only a few staff members are involved and we gather additional references for promising candidates. Also, we are hiring nine roles in total (3 full-time, 6 part-time) and the process needs to be agile. Qgil-WMF (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
          • Yeah, privacy, especially when HR are involved. Pity, if the communities can’t have even symbolic input. You could invite the shortlisted to present something, and then invite comments to be sent to the selection committee. It could create some community excitement, and generate useful broad awareness for the appointees. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
            • Although the idea of community review might sound nice in theory, I don't think it would work as desired in practice. This is not a community role, it's a job. Candidates might have other jobs and their managers / colleagues might not know they are applying. Candidates might not feel comfortable exposing themselves to a public assessment open to anonymous feedback (including potential trolling). The public feedback might suffer the same systemic problems of bias and under-representation. If the person selected was not considered the most popular by the participants in this public review, that would create a strange situation from the start. I think this is a process very different than i.e. admins selecting admins. Qgil-WMF (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Alphabetically sort bots

Hi guys. Is there any bots that can help in sorting list in alphabet order? CyberTroopers (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@CyberTroopers: a "bot" would really only be needed if this was something that had to happen over and over again - if so should first discuss if this is needed at the talk page related to the content, then you can request at WP:RFBOT. — xaosflux Talk 19:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
If this is a one-time thing, where is the list - someone can probably help. — xaosflux Talk 19:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Xaosflux You mean WP:BOTREQ, not WP:RFBOT. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Just post links here and maybe somebody will sort them for you? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 23:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
@Xaosflux:@Headbomb: Thanks for responding. It's not a one time list but it's ones that is going to be updates quite frequent. BTW, this bot is not going to be used in the English Wikipedia. I think I've found one before but I can't remember where it was. Is there any that you guys know who the bot is? CyberTroopers (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@CyberTroopers: If it's a list of things on a wikipedia page, there is a Lua module that will sort it alphabetically: [bad example removed] -- GreenC 04:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@GreenC: The list is here. Can you help me with that? CyberTroopers (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Module:List is incorrect. It is {{sort list}}. I installed it and sorted the list. -- GreenC 05:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
@GreenC: If I add new article title which is not in a sort way, is it going to be automatically sorted? CyberTroopers (talk) 07:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes. On display it will sort, not in the wiki source itself. -- GreenC 15:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

On Max Crabtree, I have added a link from Questia (this one) but I have noticed the site is about to close from tomorrow. Can I ask if someone can archive it at Wayback Machine/Internet Archive and put the link in the article please? I ask as I have tried to do that but my computer won't access the site and I don't want this to deadlink. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I took an archive capture with the Wayback Machine, but it's only the free sample, since a Questia membership is required to view the whole article. Is the sample still suitable as a citation? It doesn't include any mention of Joint Promotions. Hydrothermal (talk) 08:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Last day: Community Wishlist Survey 2021

We invite all registered users to vote on the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. You can vote until 21 December, 6pm UTC for as many different wishes as you want.

In the Survey, wishes for new and improved tools for experienced editors are collected. After the voting, we will do our best to grant your wishes. We will start with the most popular ones.

We, the Community Tech, are one of the Wikimedia Foundation teams. We create and improve editing and wiki moderation tools. What we work on is decided based on results of the Community Wishlist Survey. Once a year, you can submit wishes. After two weeks, you can vote on the ones that you're most interested in. Next, we choose wishes from the survey to work on. Some of the wishes may be granted by volunteer developers or other teams.

We are waiting for your votes. Thank you!

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Entering the public domain soon

A good set of lists of what movies and books - published in 1925 - will become public domain in the United States come January 1, 2021 and thus fair game to be used as free media/content. [4], [5] --Masem (t) 18:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Difference between Muslim .... and Islamic .... ?

Why discussing here ?
  • Issue of normativity

Whenever any topic related to Muslim, Islam and Islamic comes for discussion on Wikipedia, one comes across 2 refrains frequently; First I/We don't have understanding on the topic, pl. go over to WP talk:WikiProject Islam, the second is even when topic is critical of Islam that is categorized Islamic project pl. go over to WP talk:WikiProject Islam. Here comes concept of normative. It's true that Wikipedians working on WikiProject Islam need to have a say, second side of the same coin is it risks throwing in and enforcing a sided normative.

Quick google search of term Normative gives definition as "...establishing, relating to, or deriving from a standard or norm, especially of behaviour...."

So when some thing does not fits in well with fixed normative still do we force the things there only ? The things I will be discussing here I will be discussing at WP talk:WikiProject Islam separately but reason of discussing here is to cross limiting normativity and become more inclusive in seeking inputs.

Difference between Muslim .... and Islamic ....?

An average tendency on Wikipedia seems to be of transforming word Muslim into Islam or Islamic wherever possible without visiting nuanced aspects. As a small example title Islamic feminism is nuanced and correct since it specifically refers to theory of Islam. But is it correct to redirect title Muslim women to Women in Islam those who are not exposed to nuances might think so. Some might take refuge to fallacy of Appeal to popularity, but nuanced view suggests otherwise. Pl. do read on below given copy pasted discussion from Talk:Islamic literature

Difference between Muslim literature and Islamic literature?

According to [6] Muslim is purely someone who practices Islam and Islamic is anything influenced by Islam or produced by Muslims. So I’ve done some of the (requested via women’s rights article) copyediting on that basis. Please correct my ignorances with sources if wrong. Thanks! Dakinijones (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dakinijones:, You do have an important point here. Understanding of this nuance will be very helpful. And Wikipedians need to revisit article titles to give better justice to article content and avoid mis perceptions.
One academic scholar M.M. Knight too has pointed out this aspect as below. I am in process tabulating articles word Muslim and Islam and Islamic in article titles and putting up case better before Wikipedian community.
According to M.M. Knight, when one does not speak for real Islam (i.e.'an abstracted ideal' that floats above, Muslim, human cultures but speaks for 'lived traditions') it is preferable to use the term Muslim instead of the term Islam or Islamic.[1]
M.M. Knight further says, terms 'Islam/ Islamic' imposes claim of normativity, which is distinct with lived experiences hence need not be conflated.[2] (My emphasis)
As far as this particular article is concerned I would support renaming it as Muslim literature and redirect Islamic literature to Islamic advice literature because most of Islamic literature as religion are either Tafsir or Islamic advice literature, What does not fit the bill as Tafsir or Islamic advice literature can always be included in Muslim literature .
Hope and look forward to more discussion and awareness on this aspect.
Thanks and warm regards Bookku (talk) 07:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Knight, Michael Muhammad (2016-05-24). Magic In Islam. Penguin. p. 24. ISBN 978-1-101-98349-2.
  2. ^ Knight, Michael Muhammad (2016-05-24). Magic In Islam. Penguin. p. 24. ISBN 978-1-101-98349-2.

Nuanced differences and other Wikipedia articles

Please see below given table.

List of articles With Word Muslim or Islam in title
Muslim Islam Comment
Muslim dietary laws This needs to be Islamic dietary laws
Apostasy in Islam Article Former Muslim of Ex Muslim needs to exist separately because title Apostasy in Islam has Islamic normativity that atheists don't share
Islamic culture Needs to be Muslim culture
Islamic literature Needs to be Muslim literature
Islamic architecture Needs to be Muslim architecture

Islamic Golden Age

Needs to be Muslim Golden Age
Women in Islam Need to be Muslim women
Islamophobia Need to be Anti Muslim Sentiment

What do you think ?

Thanks Bookku (talk) 11:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

"Muslim" is a noun, meaning a person of that faith; and an adjective, applied to people of that faith. Inanimate things have no faith, but may be described as "Islamic". "Muslim architecture" is clearly wrong, buildings have no faith. Some cases, such as "Islamic culture", are borderline. "Women in Islam" and "Muslim women" are both valid, and have entirely different meanings. The former refers to the teachings of Islam about women, the latter refers to women who are Muslim. Maproom (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Maproom: It seems you do have a valid point here.
  • You rightly say ".."Women in Islam" and "Muslim women" are both valid, and have entirely different meanings..."
But do you think, if at all content is to be kept together then "Muslim women" will be better one because it can cover both aspects i.e. women who are just Cultural Muslims they or their socio cultural life does not subscribe to the dogma, term "Muslim women" can take note of Islamic point of view about Muslim women. Of course I would me more for splitting the articles.
  • Can we draw a parallel, In between Your point differentiating between "Women in Islam" and "Muslim women" and Apostasy in Islam and Former muslims being both valid, and have entirely different normative directions?
  • Would term Muslim culture represent cultural diversity among Muslim communities over time and places reflect better than monolithic representation in term "Islamic culture"?
Thanks and warm regards Bookku (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "if at all content is to be kept together". I believe that content appropriate for "Women in Islam" and for "Muslim women" should not be kept together.
Thank you for drawing my attention to the article "Cultural Muslims". I had not come across the term before. I'll probably do some copy-editing there, just changing the punctuation etc., I've no wish to change any of the content.
I agree with what you say about Apostasy in Islam and Former muslims – there is a parallel.
I've no view on whether "Muslim culture" or "Islamic culture" is the better title.
Warm regards, Maproom (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I wish/hope this discussion continues a little after holidays.Bookku (talk) 07:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
"whether "Muslim culture" or "Islamic culture" is the better title". Islamic art is appropriate not only because the phrase "Muslim art" is very rare in English usage, but also because many features of Islamic art have a connection to Islamic doctrine or in the case of architecture to places of religion (decoration of mosques, rug design -- rugs being used in prayer, arabesque to compensate for ban of depiction of animate beings, etc.) But "culture" is sometimes connected to religion and sometimes not so much, so a case can be made for both "Muslim culture" or "Islamic culture" IMHO. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Blueboar --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Netflix Inc.

Wrong venue per two different editors' comments, the first one ignored by the OP. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Article Netflix should be called Netflix Inc., and Netflix, the streaming service, should be spun off into the new article. — HoneymoonAve27 (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

There's very little about the company itself that is separate from the streaming service. (It is not like, for example, NBC which also runs the Peacock streaming service in addition to numerous other divisions). But this is something you should discuss on the article's talk page. --Masem (t) 01:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
But still, the article is too long for both company and streaming service. — HoneymoonAve27 (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
That is still a discussion for the article's talk page, not here. Matt Deres (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
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.

Opinion on this old edit

See Sparring

See under "names and types"

In boxing, sparring is commonly called sparring.

If that is allowed, then perhaps the United States article should have a sentence "In the United States, the United States is called the United States". Crazy. Suggestions? Vowvo (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

In the wider context of that article the sentence makes perfect sense. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Article is an uncited mess. Perhaps that section would be better served with a chart that list the discipline, contact training name and any brief descriptors required. Slywriter (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, you're crazy. My suggestion is that if you want to not appear so, when you find a problem, instead of making snide comments at VPM, you just fix it instead. --Jayron32 20:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Some categories are spinning!

Hi guys. greetings from fawiki community. :) I found loops in some categories in our wiki which are sorted based on category sorting in enwiki. category:Data laws‎ → category:Data security‎‎ → category:Information governance → and oops! you are again at category:Data laws! this can cause problems while using the WP:AWB (the list never comes out). some subcategories of Category:Library science also have this problem. i found this when i was trying to make a list using AWB and the tool stopped working. any solutions would be appreciated. --Jeeputer (talk) 07:18, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jeeputer: Please give precise steps to reproduce problems. I guess you selected "Category (recursive)" in the Source field of AWB. You can select "Category (recurse user-defined level)" instead to limit it. Wikipedia:Categorization#Subcategorization says: "Category chains formed by parent–child relationships should never form closed loops". Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization#What are categories? says: "It is possible to construct loops in the category space, but this is discouraged." But we do have many category loops. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: Hi and thanks for your answer. no matter if i select (recurse user-defined level) option, it freezes anyways. because i need to list all the articles in subcategories and it gets stuck at the loop. i'm pointing to that closed category loop which i think needs to be resolved. WP:SUBCAT says "no category should be contained as a subcategory of one of its own subcategories". however, there is always a exception. is this one a exception or can we solve it and break the loop? --Jeeputer (talk) 15:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
@Jeeputer: Which recursion depth do you choose? 3 works for me and gives 5812 pages. It takes a while. Just break a category loop if you can think of a reasonable way to do it. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: i chose 6 and applied a filter to remove duplicates. i broke the loop locally and it still doesn't work. there might be more loops. my changes will be reverted as we have a bot which sorts categories based on enwiki on a daily basis. i'll check all these categories and subcategories later to see how can they be rearranged. thank you sir. --Jeeputer (talk) 16:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
@Jeeputer: 6 worked for me here and gave 35694 pages. I didn't monitor the window to see how long it took but it may have been quite long. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: thank you. so i have to wait much longer. it can't get longer than 2 hours (time o f this discussion). right? :D i will try. --Jeeputer (talk) 17:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
@Jeeputer: It took less than the 18 minutes between your 16:02 post and my 16:20 post. I did it here at enwiki and not fawiki. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Yes i know. categorization in fawiki is based on enwiki. it worked for me and gave about 6k pages of which 1k was duplicates. it can be caused by the breakage of the loop on fawiki. job done, thank you. :) --Jeeputer (talk) 17:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

This sounds like a case for making a fix to AWB, so that it doesn't run down alleys it's already been down while recursively searching category trees. BD2412 T 15:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_65&oldid=1085548369"