This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous).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
When did the developers make it so that admin rights were required to edit MediaWiki pages? Looking through the history of MediaWiki:Recentchangestext shows tons of vandalism; I knew that Willy on Wheels had attacked it once, but now I see that he attacked it several times, using accounts that weren't even autoconfirmed unless the autoconfirmation standads have been changed. Nyttend ( talk) 17:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
editinterface
userright to restrict the editing of MediaWiki pages, but since IPs were
editing the recent changes in 2005 (around the time Willy was vandalising it), it was clearly something everyone had.
Nyttend (
talk)
18:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey everyone!! I don't really have any reason for writing this other than to show off my kick-ass new Wikistamp. Enjoy and let me know what you think!!
-- Metsfreak (Hello!)| 00:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure where to ask this question, to find a solution, but I guess I will be advised accordingly if this is not the right place. I've been editing for a while using either a laptop or an iPad. The laptop has been used on various Wi-Fi networks, along with the iPad, which is also using 3G from the same IP supplier. Over the last few days I've noted that when using the iPad clicking on any buttons or tabs, such as Unwatch, Watchlist, Logout, Preferences, Preview, Save page, etc, now requires two presses of the item selected, before it activates. Additionally when selecting a 'Diff' or a username, such as in an edit history or my Watchlist popups and preview boxes appear, again requiring two clicks to activate the selection. This happens only when on a Wiki, IE, Wikipedia, Commons, etc, and only with the IPad, so that tends to rule out problems with preference settings and IPs. Can anyone offer a solution (NB: advice to stop using the iPad is not an option. :) or have any other editors noted the same problem ? Richard Harvey ( talk) 23:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, in the 2013 European Athletics U23 Championships article, what does the CUR mean? ChickenFalls ( talk) 09:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
On logging in just now, I got the following notice:
I didn't see any information about the review (should I have?) or any comments, so I went to that user's page.
The user was indefinitely blocked as of 04:03, 31 December 2005, and the user page was deleted 20:16, 2 September 2006. That's over twelve years ago.
Ergo, WTF?! I've been reviewed by a zombie? Can anyone tell me what is going on here?
Thnidu ( talk) 03:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to see if there is a correlation between the number of references in an article and the time it takes to load it in the visual editor. To help me it would be useful if people could suggest any articles they can think of that are either
For both, a mixture of some that a primarily plain text and others that have a higher proportion of other objects in (e.g. images, tables, templates) would be useful too. Subjects don't matter, but the pages need to be in either the article or user namespaces. Thanks. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I have made a plugin for wordpress that integrates wikipeida with the tag pages for wordpress-sites. The plugin can be downloaded from wordpress.org. This plugin shows excerpts from wikipedia articles that correspond for the tag shown on the tag page and supports multiple languages. The plugin can be seen in action on the tags for the webpage voxpublica.no
-- Haldaug ( talk) 23:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Up until July 4, the disambiguation project was making steady progress in combating disambiguation links, reaching an all-time low of only 62,419 disambiguation pages with incoming links. Since then, the number of disambiguation pages with incoming links has quickly shot up by over a thousand. I don't know why this number is suddenly increasing, whether editors are becoming more active and less careful in making links, or new articles are justifying increased numbers of disambiguation pages, or frequent disambiguators are getting discouraged and leaving the project, but we are falling behind and need help. Please make sure that the links you make point to the right articles, not to disambiguation pages. If you turn an existing page or redirect into a disambiguation page or a redirect to disambiguation page, please fix the incoming links, as your regular disambiguators are likely too swamped to get to them. If you can find and fix a handful of disambiguation links, that would be great. bd2412 T 17:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
This isn't a crisis, but simply a result of this being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It can be dealt with one edit at a time, just like anything else that's not perfect. No maintenance project will ever be complete, and if people are giving up because of that then they don't get the idea of this being a wiki. Phil Bridger ( talk) 19:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not really understanding why this is being blamed on VisualEditor. The number of dab links now is 2,700 fewer than it was a month before VisualEditor's general introduction. I checked more than a dozen pages, and not a single one showed an edit introducing a dab problem using VisualEditor. Now perhaps my sample size was odd (and it is very small), but I really don't think we have any reason to believe that this is anything other than normal variation, or perhaps even a temporary reduction in effort by the dab-solving team. (Presumably they like to go on vacation in July and August just like everyone else, right?) Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 17:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The number of disambiguation pages with incoming links continues to rise. It has now increased by about 1,400 since July 4. bd2412 T 14:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext has a message warning that it is not much watched - and it had only one thread in the last two years - so alerting a few more people here to a VE-related issue that isn't a bug in VE. See Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback#Article_creation: if new editors are getting used to editing in VE and then choose to click on a redlink to start a new article, at present they are faced with Edit Source (which they may well never have used, I guess), and need to spot the "Create" tab next to the open "Create Source" tab, and realise its significance, if they want to create their new article in VE. I suggest we should offer them more help. Pam D 19:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
This isn't really an RfC, but I was told by BAG to warn everyone about a new bot that may be going into effect soon. It's sole purpose is to tag pages, containing blacklisted external links with {{
Spam-links}}
}. So far it has found over 130,000 links on Wikipedia that are blacklisted and not whitelisted. A discussion is welcome though. Feel free to go to
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cyberbot II 4.—
cyberpower
ChatOnline
15:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Following an editing disagreement, I was looking for guidance on how to decide whether a place should be identified in the style "Chicago" or "Chicago, Illinois" or "Chicago, United States" or "Chicago, Illinois, United States" or "Chicago, Illinois, in the United States" or some other form. Specifically, the concern is which style is appropriate (or at least which information to include) for the first mention of the place in the lead section of an article about an event that occurred in that place. This could be either a general rule for all countries or a list of rules for specific countries. I'm not going to mention the specific article where this arose, because I'm looking for a general guideline if there is one, but I will say that different contributors seem to agree in this particular case that there is a common-sense choice, but disagree about which one it is.
Considerable discussion of place names can be found in the WP:MOS and linked articles, but as far as I can see, most of it is about how to decide which of several possible names to use for a place (e.g. whether a place is in Spain, España, or Tarraconensis) and how to form the titles of articles about places. These are both irrelevant; we're not naming an article and we agree on what the name of the place. Likewise, the MOS includes style advice for lead sections, but there's nothing specific about the treatment of place names in lead sections. And it includes a section on style issues in articles relating to the specific country in question, but nothing there is relevant either.
Is there a style guideline that would resolve this "Chicago, Illinois, United States" issue, or do we have to fall back on common sense after all? And if there isn't one, what's the right place to propose that there should be?
-- 174.88.134.93 ( talk) 06:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi all; my Midpoint report as Wikimedia Foundation IEGrantee working in the consolidation of wikiArS initiative is now available on Meta: meta:Grants:IEG/Consolidate wikiArS to involve art schools/Midpoint. I tryed to use it also as a reflection tool about what we learned, giving ideas for whom wanting to start similar experiences and about how to deal with next academic year. Comments & feedback are welcome. -- Dvdgmz ( talk) 15:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I recently heard of a study from a message to wikimedia-l. You can read it online here if you are interested. πr2 ( t • c) 16:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
PLease note that JJ Cale has died acording to his website. ””””
Please help develop the articles Yevgeni Kindinov and Lidiya Fedoseyeva-Shukshina. I don't want them to be deleted. Scymso ( talk) 16:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't quite sure which section of the VP to put this in, so I chose this one in case it didn't fit in one of the other ones. Anyway, I was wondering: if I have to replace bare URLs with full citations, using Template:cite web, do I have to do them one by one manually or is there a faster way? I think the latter may be the case. Jinkinson ( talk) 20:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Just a heads up: if you're looking to incorporate data from the popular film review aggregator
Rotten Tomatoes in articles, there's now a template, {{
Rotten Tomatoes score}}
, which automagically updates to include the latest data from Rotten Tomatoes, no manual updating required. Check it out, and your assistance in helping to add it to articles about new movies would be greatly appreciated. Cheers,
Theopolisme (
talk)
03:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
It hasn't received a new update since the 23rd of July. Is there a way of creating an alternative, one that doesn't rely on the goodwill of a random external contributor? Serendi pod ous 06:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Should a fairly short article (109 words) with five inline citations and "class=start" on the talk page have the {{Canada-tv-prog-stub}}? I removed this tag, and another editor put it back. I will not start an edit war on World's Weirdest Restaurants, so I seek advice or help here.-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 15:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I just read an essay that was new to me -- WP:You don't own Wikipedia.
On its talk page I expressed my concern that this essay undervalued the importance of volunteer's contributions.
In my talk page reply I suggested that since the wikipedia is one of the top ten internet sites, if it weren't a not-for-profit, if it were a site that venture capitalists could consider buying shares, during its IPO, that IPO would generate at least as much anticipation as facebook's.
I wrote that my recollection was that facebook's IPO attracted $40 billion. (Maybe the stock was initially valued at $40 a share, and fb's value was a lesser number of billions? This doesn't really matter for the fuzzy math here...)
I estimated that donors had invested somewhere between $4 million and $400 million too buy the WMF servers, and pay all its bills, from day one, until today.
I suggested that if the WMF would have been worth tens of billions, but donors had only invested millions, tens of millions, or hundreds of millions, that over 99 percent of the wikipedia's value was due to the hours of work donated by the project's volunteers.
Why is this important? It seems to me the tone of the essay is that volunteers should feel grateful the WMF allows them to volunteer, that volunteers could be easily replaced, and that volunteers should ignore any instances where they found WMF actions cryptic or high-handed.
I think the failure of Google's Knol shows that the wikipedia's volunteers could not be easily replaced.
For what it is worth the essay seems to be inspired by the need to rein in "power users" who feel a special sense of entitlement. FWIW, I am not a fan of those who feel a special sense of entitlement either, but I question the value of giving a foxtrot oscar to the other 99 percent of the project's volunteers. Geo Swan ( talk) 19:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
To address Geo Swan's comments, the problem is that "Wikipedia" is a confusing term, therefore "you don't own Wikipedia" is a confusing statement.
(Nothing to do with the immediately preceding query - rather the Passchendale reference on the MP).
Are there any proposals for WP to have a 'WWI event of the day 100 years ago' (should there be suitable ones)? Not saying there should but the anniversary bandwagon will be appearing in quite a few places. Jackiespeel ( talk) 22:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
What are the current interactive elements that readers use (ie. excluding editing), in Wikipedia articles?
Is there anything else at all?
Do we have anything like Phun, or google finance, or wolframalpha, or timeline.js, where interaction is a core-component? Anything with toggle-able layers or datapoints, like google charts or gapminder?
(I'm mostly interested in finding all examples of what we do currently have. I'm aware of the pros and cons of interactive elements, and I'm not looking to debate the philosophical or technical problems&solutions, at this moment). Thanks. – Quiddity ( talk) 06:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
title=
attribute)I missed out on an eBay listing the other day but noticed something I thought Wikipedia might like to know (though I suspect you know about it already)
Hephaestus Books already seem to be known as a rip off merchants (see http://www.lawrenceperson.com/?p=6829). I find this listing hilarious - [1] - because the "title" of that book is just a collection of Wikipedia articles that *I* created! If I'd known you could charge so much for collating Wikipedia articles through some kind of content scoop I'd've done it years ago! I suppose that now I can call myself an author given that a bound book of my content is on eBay!
I know "creative commons" means that they're not scamming anybody...or are they? What is the thoughts on something like this [2] which again seems to be a slim back collection of Wikipedia content? doktorb words deeds 10:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone know how I can force the italicisation of the title of an article about a book? Prioryman ( talk) 18:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Why is it the likes of Wilhelm II, so often referred to by their German name, having their articles named for the significantly less often used English styling? Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.75.153.67 ( talk) 06:54, July 31, 2013 (UTC)
Last month I promoted Paris to GA. It previously looked like User:Dr. Blofeld/Paris April 2013. As you can see the sourcing was diabolical, poorly sourced, most sources being dead links and shoddy websites, completely overhauled with book sources. I and several others added a wealth of new material including information on the media, healthcare, fashion, music and cuisine etc.. I felt it necessary to condense the overly long Demographics and Administration sections to balance out the article. My version of the article is endorsed by some of the experienced editors on here, including User:Tim riley and User:Schodringer's Cat who have produced dozens of GAs and FAs, but a small group of disgruntled editors from the wiki Jurassic period have since crawled out of the woodwork with nothing but unpleasant comments on the changes I've made to "their" article. It's a classic case of WP:OWN and one of the former editors is making a proposal to completely revert my additions and sourcing back to the April version. They also think the lead was better back in April and don't understand that the lead is supposed to summarize a full article. I'd greatly appreciate some input from some of the more experienced individuals here as to whether their proposals are justified or not. I'm not canvassing for support, I'm simply asking some decent editors who watch this page compare the article versions and to comment on the issue at Talk:Paris.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I have a question about Wikipedia assessments, specifically pertaining to the edits of User:Mesoderm ( contribs) who has been demoting a number of B and C class articles to start class articles for the apparent reason that there are some issues with the references (primarily not enough inline citations): some examples are [5], [6], [7]. I started a thread on the user's page. He (or she) is of the opinion that "One of the primary criteria for an article to move from Start to C class is for everything to be backed by reliable sources" (emphasis mine). This to me seems like an unsupported bright line assertion that doesn't mesh with my own view on what start class articles are. These are, in my view, generally articles that are rather poor and have advanced beyond being mere stubs, yet are still incomplete haven't begun to comply with many of our content guidelines. Whereas C class articles have begun to comply with most of our guidelines, yet might be deficient in some areas (such as possibly having insufficient references or inline citations, but not altogether lacking them). I think some outside input would be valuable. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 21:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I meant to provide also a link to the assessment scale. Here is that link. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 00:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Apologies if this is not the right forum. Ideally, I would have posted to a noticeboard but none seems relevant, and the Wikipedia assessment stuff is a bit fragmented, so I don't know if there is a Wikiproject that would be a more natural target for this discussion. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 21:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia have a policy on the inclusion of lists of victims' names in articles about accidents, terror attacks, and other disasters? -- 50.100.184.151 ( talk) 22:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
A settlement was just discovered in northern Chile (Quebrada Maní), with over 1000 pieces, including arrow heads, seashells and camelid bones, dated at 12790 years old. I don't have the article, just a press note http://www.abc.com.py/ciencia/hallan-asentamiento-humano-de-12790-anos-en-desierto-de-chile-605446.html Could anybody edit the article Settlement of the Americas? 200.90.244.143 ( talk) 16:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I posted an update on 24 July about the activities of the Wiki Education Foundation (WEF) at the education noticeboard; I should have also posted a link here (or some other very visible location), per the terms of the grant we received, but forgot to do so. I've just been reminded, so here's the link, and I will remember to post here in the future. If there's a better place to post these notices, let me know.
For those who don't know the background, the WEF is a new nonprofit. It was formed as a result of work done by a group of educators and Wikipedians, who (at the request of the WMF) spent some time over the last year or so designing a new organization that could assist with the increasing number of classes in the US and Canada that are making Wikipedia editing part of their coursework. More details on request, here or at the education noticeboard. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 21:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Imagine what Wikipedia could do in one year with one-tenth of the NSA's budget. Twang ( talk) 00:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Please have a look on the objection raised at the Kali talk page. Thanks -- आशीष भटनागर ( talk) 13:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
20 months passed, and who never thought that the article about relationships of Sam Malone and Diane Chambers of Cheers would exist? Did anybody have an idea of how to create an article about the couple, which is graded a B-class currently? -- George Ho ( talk) 01:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.
Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org.
Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.
The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 24 August 2013.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 05:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Please don't use pop-up banners. They are so annoying, they are a reason not to donate funds to Wikimedia. Everyone knows Wikipedia is a non-profit from the ".org". The least intrusive way to ask for money would be to move the "Donate to Wikipedia" link to the top of the left sidebar, calling it "Donate funds." Also, since "free" means "free of charge," click ads could be put on the left sidebar. Irritating ads would lose readers almost as fast as not being free. I don't read the London Times online because they want me to pay them. Also, since you can not easily access their articles, they are not a reliable source. For sources like that, you would need some kind of peer review maybe by email attachment of sources. -- Truexper ( talk) 04:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello all I would ❤ it a lot if you made a Klingon Wikipedia Yours sincerely Blakeleonard ( talk) 10:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Notification of commons:Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Russavia_(de-Bureaucrat) per Cecil. J Kadavoor J e e 11:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The account creation process is used by people who wish to have an account on Wikipedia but are not able to create it in the usual way. This could be due to, for example, their IP address being blocked with account creation disabled or if they are unable to read the CAPTCHA. There are regular backlogs of potential contributors waiting for an account to be created for them. If you meet the minimum requirements and want to help please consider making an application to join the team. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me or leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Request an account. Thank you, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
A couple of days ago I started a new article, Neurolytic block, with content that was too big for its "mother" article ( Interventional pain management). Within 20 minutes, the new article had attracted four maintenance tags. [8] One of these was {{refimprove}}: "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Every assertion in the article was supported by a WP:MEDRS- compliant source, so I removed the template. The templater restored it. I removed it.
I went to the templater's talk page and explained that, "careless tagging is the kind of harassment that drives away new editors. Please be more careful." They didn't see anything wrong with the tagging, and told me to get over it when they deleted my last comment from their talk page. [9]And they haven't edited since.
One of the other people who templated the article, another "page curator", has less than 100 article space edits and fewer than 150 total edits. When I pointed this out on their talk page and asked why they're reviewing the work of others when the " page curation tool" is meant for experienced editors, they stopped editing.
So, I'm worried I may have scared off two willing volunteers. And I'm worried people are being encouraged to review the work of others when they don't, yet, have the necessary experience or competence. Is anyone in charge of the page curation project? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 07:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Other than categories related to CoI warning templates, is there a category or userbox for editors who are the subject of a BLP? I'm sure there must be many, self-declared, who edit non-controversially, in unrelated areas. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I still do not know how to correctly deal with spam and Googling for an answer does not make anything more clear.
User: Tedickey seems to think that he needs to delete all minor edits by any users on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tedickey
I have already reverted his edits but he seems to think that he has the sole right to edit this article. Another user's edit has also been reverted by this malicious user but I have not yet reverted that edit.
Could someone please help me solve this problem? This is the second time I have had to report such a problem on Wikipedia, so if someone could help me report these issues correctly in the future that would be great. The first issue was resolved by removing the user who continually reverted edits unnecessarily, spat his dummy out and then started spamming. It would be nice if we could stop this user doing the same.
Thanks. KenSharp ( talk) 20:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
P.S. I'll add the link to my bookmarks I promise! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenSharp ( talk • contribs) 20:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
There's an request for comment underway at Natalie Tran. The question is about using Vidstatsx statistics to track YouTube views. Chris Troutman ( talk) 03:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
A note to any one interested in the education program; I've posted a WEF update at the Education Noticeboard. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 09:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I have requested a bot undertake a task which will have it search through all templates on Wikipedia, and look for templates with the following subpages: /doc, /sandbox, and /testcase. If the talk page for these subpages does not exist, and the talk page for the main template does exist, a redirect will be created. This prevents fragmentation of discussion between the various talk pages; particularly as documentation pages seem to be under-watched. I've been making edits like this manually for five years or more; I don't think I've ever been reverted.
It had been suggested that wider publicity would be in order; please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BlakesBot where your comments will be welcome. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm aware of WP:RX, but is there any centralized place on Wikipedia for the exchange of books for use as sources? I happen to have some too-heavy-to-ship books (including a set of fairly new science encyclopedias) that I no longer have the space for, but I'd rather give them to an editor within delivery range who'd make use of them. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 19:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
User:2600:1011:B115:215D:6D30:B23C:785F:B383 appears to support the rule that a trans woman should be referred to as he/him before the operation and she/her after the operation. I reverted this user 3 times and I don't want to violate the 3RR. Please try to think of something to do. Georgia guy ( talk) 18:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I ask you to the community regarding injustice done by a single person, so called administrator. What is his/her motivation? -- Tamil23 ( talk) 19:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Where else i can complain? //copyright status of some elements is unclear // <> //Spiff has not acted inappropriately anywhere// It seems you not clear, but come to conclusion. --
Tamil23 (
talk)
19:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:CfD/2013 August 28 - Category:Wikipedians by gender and subcats is something everyone should read. The decision to participate is all yours and I don't care one way or the other if you do or don't and if you do I don't care if you support or opposed. I'm only posting this here so that you will be aware and take any action you deem appropriate. Thank you. Technical 13 ( talk) 15:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
There is a request for comments (RfC) that may be of interest. The RfC is at
At issue is whether we should delete or keep the following text in the Lavabit article:
Your input on this question would be very much welcome. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems that an organization called FemTechNet is recruiting more women to participate on Wikipedia. That's great, although "goal being to collaboratively write feminist thinking into the site" makes me wonder. See this article in Mother Jones. If there's a male or non-feminist bias to articles, that's fine to correct them, especially if significant contributions from female scientists were neglected mention. Still, I could be wrong, but the Mother Jones article suggests a flavor of inserting feminist bias.
Not sure what noticeboard I should use to discuss this. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 07:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Given our own admitted problems of imbalanced viewpoints here, the idea that we would be getting an influx of feminist editors, especially tech-savvy ones, does not exactly fill me with fear. -- Orange Mike | Talk 18:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC) (Full disclosure: I am a feminist, and have not only been known to associate with women but to marry one and be the father of another, the son of another, the brother of two more and the uncle of more. Some he-man girlhaters may therefore consider me to be biased and pro-gurll.)
Any thoughts about this article? It seems to be pushing the line into soap, agenda, pov, and teaming up to edit and/or promote an "ism" or group. -- Light show ( talk) 21:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
So, I'm minding my own business on the Los Angeles Craigslist, when I see this ad from an unidentified "industry" seeking to hire Wikipedia editors. They want active editors only (I assume to get around various WP rules), and they want to hire them to build out a bunch of articles on their industry. Their goal is to end up with a "a quality resource guide for our industry". The pay is pretty low, too. Maybe I should not be surprised at the venality of this, but I am. I don't think anyone "can do something about" this, but I wanted to make people aware it's going on. (Shades of Gibraltar.) - Tim1965 ( talk) 09:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Osmanagić pyramid hypothesis needs some eyes on it. We have an enthusiastic new editor who is having some trouble avoiding {{ copypaste}} problems. I've just explained on his talk page, so it may be all fine now, but I'm going offline and would like to have someone else check in on the article later. Thanks, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
A simple enough question: does Wikipedia:Article feedback actually serve any useful purpose? I rarely bother to look at article feedback, since it seems to consist largely of pointless comments such as this gem for our Human article: "117.207.14.93 did not find what they were looking for. IMPROVE this page". Do other contributors actually (a) read article feedback, and (b) act on it? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Seems to me, the majority of readers aren't in the slightest interested in editing or learning about how Wikipedia works. The split between the consumerist majority and us producers has always been there. What some consumers are willing to do, is rate and especially to complain. They should get every opportunity. Of course, the complaints of the semiliterate, semithoughtful majority must be handled cautiously. They have no idea of the big picture, and we must guess and calculate how and whether their concerns should be met. Jim.henderson ( talk) 22:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Whom should I ask about getting the feedback tool put on Cancer pain ? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 07:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems that after someone "enables feedback" (in the toolbox on the left side), somebody else disables feedback, anonymously - since WMF developers forgot to log somewhere when and who enables/disables feedback... This is almost funny. ;-) At Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5#Re-enabled_on_all_pages User:Blethering Scot writes "When i enable feedback AFT5 appears at the bottom then 24 hours later i have went in to these articles and it is no longer enabled." At Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5#The_category_system_was_not_great.2C_but_the_status_quo_is_far_worse User:Altamel writes "why doesn't the Article Feedback Activity Log track who enables and disables feedback on pages? I re-enabled feedback on Laurie Island after somebody disabled it, but I wish I could discuss with that user why they disabled feedback." Currently this special AFT page Articles with feedback on English Wikipedia says that: These 125 articles have feedback enabled on English Wikipedia. ... This list is refreshed daily. But those articles that i checked all had feedback disabled. -- Atlasowa ( talk) 20:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I have the feeling that the responses here, while correct in itself as opinions, come from those people who were among the minority of users that supported it during Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article feedback, while the then rather larger group of people with other opinions no longer can be bothered about it and just ignore it. I have to admit, this thread made me look at the feedback for the first time in many months, so for me personally, the tool is totally useless, as it only serves to have comments in different places, instead of one location per article. Furthermore, looking at the general fedback page, I saw that there are 213 comments where oversight has been requested; these should either be swiftly oversighted, or changed to some other status (oversight denied, whatever), but not simply ignored (as they seem to be now). Many of them don't need to be oversighted IMO, but others (like one about an alleged love child of Vin Diesal (sic)) shouldn't be kept for 7 months. Fram ( talk) 10:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
And maybe WMF can keep their help pages up to date? [ [10]] States that you simply have to add Category:Article Feedback 5 to your page, but that category is deprecated and deleted...
As for the feedback: three hours ago, this was posted and sits at the moment unreviewed (not hidden, no oversight requested): "Hello I need your assistance ASAP before a child gets hurt. My son met a 18 yr old by the name of XXX from Cambridge Ohio. My son lives in El Paso Texas. I want to know if this person XXX is a Pedifier. I called Cambridge Police de" (I have replaced the full name with XXX here of course). This on a very high traffic page (80,000 page views a day!), not some obscure page with no viewers. Seeing that "oversight requested" is still at the same 213 pages I reported above, this seems rather useless. Just disable the thing, like most people wanted at the RfC anyway. Fram ( talk) 07:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
At about 4,500 pages use HTML tables. Check Wikipedia:CHECKWIKI/031 dump. This causes problems in rendering and to the Visual Editor. Help is needed to start cleaning/converting these tables. In most cases are just lists of players and it should be straightforward. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 07:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Anomie Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback#Deleting_a_row_from_table_has_disastrous_results. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 10:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, this bug only occurs in very one specific instance, i.e. a HTML table with a closing </tr>
tag but no corresponding opening <tr>
tag. It was reported as
T55464 where the developers quickly responded and there is a patch that should fix this awaiting a review so it should be fixed soon. There is therefore no need to deprecate html tables anywhere (although anyone can of course convert tables if they want to). Just if you happen upon one while source editing you might want to check it has properly formatted row syntax. I'd be surprised if as many as 1% of html tables have this issue though.
Thryduulf (
talk)
02:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Still working with wikitables is better in order to add/remove rows, spot unclosed tags etc. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 12:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I started Wikipedia:Wikimedia Foundation as a community information/communication directing page. Can you guess the Wikipedia shortcut? It could use links to things such as the mailing lists, grant opportunities, Bugzilla, etc. to help newcomers understand the WMF and how they might engage with the WMF, if interested. Biosthmors ( talk) 08:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear Sirs First of all congratulations for changing the whole world of Learning with Wikipedia. Whenever I go to study first i open Wikipedia in a window only then start my real topic of study. I think it must be the case with most of the learners through out the world. For me Wikipedia plays the same role in my learning process which Oxygen performs in my breathing process. I am sure in future Wikipedia is going to be revolutionise the world of learning of world.
May i dare to give some suggestions, which i think will make it even more useful. I think Wikipedia should have four levels for every search item.
1. Line Level - Information about the item should be in one line, with/without one photo.
2 Paragraph Level - Information about the item should be in one para with one photograph.
3 Page Level - Information about the item should be in one page.
4 Booklet Level - Unlimited Information about the item.
This will help the user immensely. Presently when i use wikipedia sometimes the information i need about the item can be only one paragraph and its really difficult to select the desired amount of information.
I know you have already got a very very big project and to suggest changes may be so easy for me, even than i am writing to you.
I have personally benefited so much from Wikipedia I am at your service for any technical job.
Thanking you Dr m K Pande Dehradun India — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.49.131 ( talk) 11:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I've started a userspace draft for combining diacritics for editors whose browsers don't support the toolbar, but I was wondering whether or not it would likely be deleted if I moved it to the template namespace. Thanks. — SamX‧ ☎‧ ✎‧ S 14:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
If it goes to Jimbo, who might split it with him? Albert deBroglie ( talk) 02:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Note the death of Donald Featherstone in recent deaths. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scymso ( talk • contribs) 15:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Is there a place to request for people with a HighBeam account to add information to articles? I was working with another editor whose free account expired at the beginning of the month, and he did not get the chance to do a couple of final lookups for me. In this case, is there anything that could be added to John Zeleznik [11], or Nene Thomas [12]? BOZ ( talk) 16:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey everybody, is it normal that eight articles still use the in my opinion revisionist website Scrapbookpages.com as a source? First, it's in my opinion not a quality source, as it is the personal blog of a guy like you and me, I can't remember the profession of the guy... probably not an historian, any way... Second, the website is quite revisionist, see for instance the blog of the website, http://furtherglory.wordpress.com/, or read carefully the website. Those are two good reasons not to use this website as a source... I've already told you about this problem a few years ago, but there hadn't been any true reaction then :-(( I'm concerned that Wikipedia may use other crap websites as a source... Is there any possibility to choose the sources more carefully for those types of articles, to be a bit more restrictive? 78.251.245.128 ( talk) 00:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
"Publishers may use material from this site free of charge, as long as:
I found it on the website of Johannesburg Municipality. Does it allow us to use their content?-- eh bien mon prince ( talk) 14:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Please help ad a reference to my article Larisa Kadochnikova. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scymso ( talk • contribs) 19:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I've been a Wikipedia editor since 2004, and a member of WikiProject Citation cleanup almost as long. I've made over 170,000 edits to Wikipedia, and a lot of them looked like this one. That is adding bibliographic information that was missing (e.g., journal volume, issue, etc.) and implementing citation templates for a consistent citation style within one article. I know the use of those templates is neither encouraged nor prohibited. I simply use them out of convenience, to let the templates take care of the exact layout.
Recently, it has been pointed out to me that those sorts of edits "are strongly discouraged". Some "site-wide consensus", which I am unaware of, has been cited according to which "changing from non-template references to template references" is prohibited in general, even if no contributor to a particular article objects them. Is this the case?
I have been aware of WP:CITEVAR, which discourages disputes over citation styles and offers a rule-of-thumb resolution ("keep the original style") in cases in which a group of editors of some article cannot find consensus otherwise. But I never took it for a general ban on changing citation styles in cases of no dispute.
So have I, for the past years, violated Wikipedia rules by doing this? If so, I'll stop doing it immediately, and leave. -- bender235 ( talk) 16:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the topic, User:bender235. I do a lot of this too! I think I can help here by adding a few important pieces of information I know from my experience:
None of this means that conversation for the sake of conversion should be encouraged. But in practice, such situations almost never arise as the reasons stated above suggest. As with Bender225's experience, I have never had any objections to my reference formatting edits; his 1% figure is an over-estimate compared to my experience.
Also, let's keep clear that the date formatting RfA is about date formatting. So, while some of the conclusions about that RfA make great advice for citation style formatting, they are separate issues. As citation templates can support whatever date formatting a user wants, they are also completely independent. Jason Quinn ( talk) 22:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
{{
Doi}}
, {{
PMID}}
, there are probably others. It isn't necessary to convert to CS1 to cite an article using doi or pmid.<ref name="..." >
). Duplicating the entire ref is pointless and unhelpful.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
12:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)I'd like to take a different approach to this discussion: CITEVAR is apparently unclear. For that, let me apologize. The reason I apologize is because I wrote the thing in the first place. I therefore think it not unreasonable of me to have some idea of what CITEVAR is supposed to say.
Speaking as its original author, CITEVAR is not supposed to prevent you from taking a mess of mixed-up, inconsistent citations and imposing (any) one form on it (except bare URLs). It is supposed to prevent you from taking a perfectly good citation system and changing it to some other citation system. There are three things that it tries to stop: Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style:
Let me expand on these three items, and then get back to the fundamental requirement:
Now back to that fundamental requirement: These three things only apply if any article actually has "an established citation style". If you find an article that doesn't have "an established citation style", then according to CITEVAR, you can WP:BOLDly do whatever you want to it.
So if you go over to Pain, you will find that there is an explicitly established style that does not use citation templates. You will find that 119 out of 124 current citations are plain wikitext, and the other five were added by people who didn't notice that the article doesn't use citation templates. The rejection of citation templates was discussed at length on the talk page. So if someone were to convert all of those citations to using templates, even if this is done to make it convenient to add dois, then that would violate CITEVAR.
But if you go over to Community-acquired pneumonia and figure out why the little blue superscripted "[1]" leads to two different citations marked "1", and fix it, then you've done a good thing. Ideally, you'll fix it in a way that involves the fewest number of changes/is most consistent with the dominant style, but you really are allowed to fix that mess. Similarly, you may go boldly, without a single word of discussion in advance, fix Ebastine so that it uses some kind of inline citation, rather than 100% general references. This is allowed under CITEVAR.
If this isn't clear to everyone from reading CITEVAR, then I hope you will join me on the talk page at WT:CITE to see how we can improve its clarity. I'd also be open to starting a {{ supplement}} page to give specific examples of what should be discussed in advance and what should just be boldly improved. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Much work has been done on citation template recently, adding useful features such as trapping invalid ISBNs and other errors, which seems to have been overlooked in the discussion here to date, and which advantages are not available in untemplated citations.
Furthermore, for some years our citation templates have emitted machine-readable metadata in the form of COinS markup, which is an internationally recognised and interoperable format. This means that they can be understood by citation management tools such as Zotero and Mendeley, and thus more easily and conveniently reused by editors in other articles (I do this regularly using Zotero), and by people who need to cite the same source in other works, or query their library catalogue, or whatever.
Anyone replacing an untemplated citation with one using any one of our citation templates could arguably be said not to be doing it for "personal preference", but for the added value it brings to our fellow editors and to our readers. I realise that this view may not be popular with those who object to the use of templates, or metadata, for whatever reason, and indeed may attract the kind of attempts at opprobrium which Bender235 has experienced, but the fact that such mechanisms exist is unarguable and the benefits undeniable. It's my understanding that CITEVAR pre-dates such benefits (if not, its disregard of them is lamentable) and so should be revised accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I would wager that the concerns over manual vs. template citations losing the ISBN validation and other technical benefits could be met with some program (maybe even a bot created ) to look for that. Just requires the time and ingenuity for someone to write it. And Wikipedia relies on redundant alternatives to address the needs of its varied users and contributors. The same should apply here, with WP:CITEVAR, the technical ramifications, etc. What we have here is a "six of one, half dozen of another" quandary. By making Wikipedia more machine-friendly, we make it less contributor-friendly. Forcing such a change would drive away editors that run from an article they've thought about adding to when they see template cruft (I'm one of them...just not worth my time to wade through that crap...and it keeps me away from making the contributions I prefer making and enjoy making). Wikipedia already has enough editors disappearing, the increasingly esoteric coding would just lead more of them to other hobbies, and content on Wikipedia would suffer. Machines don't contribute the quality content, whether they read it or not is incidental because Wikipedia is ultimately dependent on contribution.
In political philosophy, technocratic societies tend to exclude people who would otherwise be a benefit to it except for their technical knowledge. The increasing emphasis, as Weber and other reification scholars point out, undermines notions of community and purpose, and creates an augmented alienation and among those who might want to identify with that community or purpose. Ultimately, it is that alienation that leads them to find other things to identify with. It creates castes, and precludes mobility. That's the psychological/sociological basis for why an editor would leave or avoid contributing to Wikipedia or any similar increasingly technocratic community. People find things (hobbies, activities, etc.) that validate their worth. Making it harder for people to feel the merits of contributing make them contribute elsewhere. Wikipedia suffers. That historical and sociological lesson ought to be applied here. -- ColonelHenry ( talk) 15:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
{{
citation/core}}
, required much more time. With the transition to the Lua
Module:Citation/CS1, citations can now be processed rendered many times faster.NewPP limit report
" you will find the statistics for this page.
(I've tried looking around to see if this has been brought up before, didn't see anything. So here goes...)
Since nearly all articles about films, especially new ones, contain the films critical ratings from the review site Rotten Tomatoes, has there ever been any consideration to adding this item to the infobox? (thereby necessitating a template change).
For example, the bottom of the infobox could (sort of) look like this;
Country - United States
Language - English
Budget - $150,000,000[1]
Box office - $642,740,000[2]
RT rating - 71%[3]
This, of course, is if we just add it to the bottom of the list. The order of precedence could be debated.
Any thoughts anyone? - thewolfchild 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Not sure that this is the correct place, but editors may want to be aware of this article, written by User:Versability, in case there is an influx of self promoting editors. It may be appropriate to take sanctions against the editor in question also, since their only edits seem to be of a self-promotional nature, and the article goes against the whole ethos of Wikipedia. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 13:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The default message before one creates an article says, as the first out of five bullet points: "Before creating an article, please read Wikipedia:Your first article." WP:YFA is too long to ask people to do that, in my opinion. We should have a shorter intro, if we're really going to ask people to read it. Where's the MediaWiki page space that hosts this default message? Thanks. Biosthmors ( talk) 18:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to talk with some editors who have different levels of vision impairment, to learn what system/browser settings they use, and what other software they frequently find helpful. Things like screen-magnification levels, specific fonts, copying text into alternate text-editors, custom style-sheets, and everything else. I've started a thread at WikiProject Accessibility#Visual impairment, listing what I can find, and would appreciate any comments, or assistance in finding the relevant editors (please nudge anyone you know of who might help). Thanks! – Quiddity ( talk) 17:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
There is currently an RFC at List of new religious movements which was originally focused on a single entry, but the discussion has expanded into the general criteria for such a list. Given that the list of participants in the RFC pretty much consists of the same editors involved in the discussion that culminated in the request, and that the scope of the request is expanding somewhat to include additional "what if?" scenarios, additional opinions and commentary would be appreciated. Please note that the RfcBot was not functioning when the RFC was listed, so there was limited notification which may also explain the "closed group" participation. Thank you in advance for participating. -- Tgeairn ( talk) 18:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I noticed two pages today: [17] and [18]. This worries me a bit. Any ideas of how can we deal with it? Maybe a new filter? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 10:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Yet another one. This is plagiarism and I start blocking if I notice more cases. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 20:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
One more. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 00:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Look at Wikipedia:Gender identity. At Wikipedia talk:Manual of style, it looks like people who are against the current status quo are trying harder to reveal their thoughts than people who support it. Why?? Georgia guy ( talk) 17:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
My talk page has the hidden category Pages with missing files. How do I find what is causing this hidden category?-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 18:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
This tool provides a very detailed analysis of a user's contributions, as well as information about pages edited. It is not a server-side PHP program like some other "edit counters", but rather a client-side script getting data from the API. Its source is available on Github. Credit: User:Ricordisamoa. πr2 ( t • c) 21:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Money and politics in the United States should exist, in my opinion. A rough sketch of an outline is at User:Biosthmors/Money_and_politics_in_the_United_States. Feel free to join in or start the article yourself. Best regards. Biosthmors ( talk) 10:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello. When I was writing the page w:nl:Henry Atkins at the Dutch Wikipedia, I found at this page that he was a candidate at the 1873 elections in Seattle for being a "marshall". I didn't know and I still don't know what sort of "marshall" is ment. At the page marshal are a lot of meanings and for me all those meanings look strange. Does anybody know what is ment with "marshall"? Supercarwaar ( talk) 11:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
There is plan to use a bot to trim cruft from Google Books URLs in citations. We need someone familiar with their format, to advise on which parameters can safely be trimmed, and which, if any, should be left. Can anyone advise, at Trimming cruft from Google Books URLs, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Bgwhite created a wonderful list ( User:Bgwhite/Sandbox1) with pages that have non-straight quotes in pagetitle. Non-straight quotes are not allowed per WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS. I would like to start moving the pages in the correct place if there is not a problem with it. And yes, I would like help to do that. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Please add reference to my new articles Valentina Voilkova and Levan Gabriadze and connect them to the russian ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scymso ( talk • contribs) 14:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The Bradley Manning article has a new message at the top that I can read when I click on edit source. It is a good message because compared with the HTML comment:
<!--Per Wikipedia:Manual of style, use she/her to refer to (trans woman's name) throughout her life.-->
which can be edited by altering the pronouns the same way the article in general can, the new message cannot. I think that this new message (see the box at the Bradley Manning article for what I mean) should be at all articles about trans women. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy ( talk) 21:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
When you go here, can you see the "View Activity" tab? If so, can you see the recent activity as a result of the linked assignment from Jersey? I'm asking you if you don't have the special user rights of WP:Course coordinator, WP:Course campus volunteer, or WP:Course online volunteer (you can check here if you don't know). For what it's worth, education issues are typically discussed at WP:ENB, but perhaps we're insular over there and I'd like to see what this project space looks like for people without the specific user rights. Best. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Nevermind! One can. Biosthmorstest ( talk) 07:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Please note the death of Saye Zerbo. Thank you-- Scymso ( talk) 07:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
The RfC is here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Is_People_magazine_a_reliable_source_for_BLPs.3F -- NeilN talk to me 00:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I think there is a lot of confusion about these terms in all Wikimedia projects, in particular en.wikipedia in the page Diagram says that charts and graphs are particular diagrams, while in commons diagrams are described as a subcategory of graphs. In particular the category of commons Category:Graphs and Category:Diagrams and their subcategories look like nobody as a clear knowledge of these two terms. In Italian the meanings of "Graphs" (grafici) and "Diagrams" (diagrammi) are a little different from the English, so I think the same confusion is in the other languages, so it is necessary to explain in a correct a clear way these meanings and to correct what is wrong. -- Daniele Pugliesi ( talk) 01:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Is it possible to lookup a username given the user's email? I think I may have another old, forgotten account that was tied to my school email. Thanks — MusikAnimal talk 01:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a notice to inform English Wikipedia about the (re)start of a discussion which doesn't directly impact Wikipedia, but might be of interest to some. In short, myself and a few other Wikimedia editors decided to oppose the registration of the community logo as a trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation.
The history of the logo, the intents behind our action and our hopes for the future are described in detail at meta:Community Logo/Reclaim the Logo; to keep the discussion in one place, please leave your comments on the talk page on meta. John Vandenberg ( chat) 12:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I believe that an image is in the public domain, but I cannot find a specific date or publisher. This website has it here, and it's stated here as early '1900s'. Can I use this image under public domain or another license, or not? Thanks.-- ɱ (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I've been importing music from sites like audiotool to illustrate articles of music genres for two years ( Techstep, Oldschool jungle, Hardstyle...). Why am I almost the only one to do that and why hasn't this work been done earlier? I find very difficult to figure out what a music is like when you don't hear a single sound so it sounds very important to me and most of our articles don't feature a track. There are lots of free-licensed tracks. I don't understand. Is there a valid reason not to feature an example? I don't see such a reason. It is hard to find a free-licensed track that is notable so the tracks I've imported are not notable but the notability criteria only applies on the article subject, not on the article content. Non notable content can be featured if it helps to understand the subject and it is the case. Ftiercel ( talk) 20:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I have seen several times in edit summaries of Wikipedia history pages a "+" or "-" sign in front of a word/words. Are these symbols being used to replace the words "added" or "removed", or do they mean something else altogether? Thanks. 24.90.156.140 ( talk) 23:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
See MediaWiki_talk:Newarticletext#Cruel_and_unusual_punishment.3F. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Is there a single place to get a plain view of every default MediaWiki: space message, that also includes links to the talk page of each, if one wanted to propose revisions? Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Interesting, there was a project devoted to it that is now historical ( Wikipedia:MediaWiki messages). I thought I might generate a red link. That page needs a revamping in other words. It could actually be much more useful. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello! I am posting this message as an advertisement for some images from the Science Museum, London. This organization with assistance from Wikipedian user:Mrjohncummings is sharing 50 historical images at Wikipedia:GLAM/NHMandSM/Science Museum images. I feel that this is a significant as it is the first case of which I am aware of a general-purpose science museum trying to share its media with the Wikipedia community. I find their donation to be aligned with Wikipedia community values and without any problematic restrictions, and I would like for this to set a precedent and model for all science museums to recognize that they should be adapting media related to their collections for reuse on Wikimedia projects.
I would like to ask that anyone who is interested in promoting science please check out the gallery and consider taking any of the images and integrating them into appropriate Wikipedia articles in any language. I hope that the day comes when all educational institutions also think of pooling their resources with Wikipedia. Thanks for your attention. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Somebody created the article Hindkowans but there are no such people in the world who call self that or any reliable source which mentions a group of people called that. The people who speak Hindko language call self Pathans and are referred by that name in Pakistan. Can someone help me fix this or direct me to where this should be addressed. Thanks.-- Fareed30 ( talk) 02:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in the
2013 FLC Elections. The new delegates have been selected.
Elected delegates: Crisco 1492 and SchroCat. |
Everyone is invited to participate. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ 21 00:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The yearly Arbitration Committee Election request for comments is now open. There remain some unresolved issues from last year to discuss, and editors have also expressed a desire to propose changes. All editors are invited to participate. The way the RFC is to be conducted has been modified from previous years by a recent RFC, the changes are summarized at the top of the RFC, reviewing them may be helpful. Monty 845 00:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Please move Bob Kurland in the deaths list to september 30. Thank you-- Scymso ( talk) 12:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure I saw in the Manual of Style somewhere at some time the answer to this question, but try as I may I can't find it now. Which is the correct usage:
Or is there no MoS preference? Emeraude ( talk) 08:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I am trying to reduce my footprint online, and I would like all previous versions of my userpage to be deleted. Can an admin do that please? Bwmoll3 ( talk) 13:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Several days-old queries await response at the conflict of interest noticeboard. If any experienced Wikipedians with a basic knowledge of the guideline and a little extra time on their hands would like to help out there, the rewards would tremendous (though completely intangible). Rivertorch ( talk) 18:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to mention that vandalism seems to have taken a 30-40% leap on the articles I am watching. For the past several years, bots have been able to stop much of the vandalism. I don't know what has suddenly (last week or so) caused the uptick. Alert human editors are doing most of the reversion. Maybe random walk and just now hitting my list! I hope your watchlists are not similarly afflicted! If I had an idea to stop it, I would mention it, believe me! Student7 ( talk) 00:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Would it make sense for en.WP to have a nonprofit corporation with a bank account, CEO and staff dedicated to supporting its mission by providing legal advice, technical services, and supporting outreach, etc? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. The implication here being that some wmf:chapters might not be outgrowths of the community. So to generalize, to what extent do existing chapters reflect community desires vs. just adopting a structure to gain funding? Perhaps some are just byproducts of WMF desires—they want the "in your own language" PR to be true, so they're willing to throw money at the problem—and local desires for jobs for nice people who have volunteered on Wikipedia before but are looking to "cash out", so to speak. (I'm currently being remunerated because of having a position that resulted from people observing my wiki-networking/Wikipedia editing, kind of like how a Wikipedian in Residence might start. But I didn't want that title because I thought the position might not bring many benefits to Wikimedia platforms, so I didn't want to dilute the brand-value.) Or is the WMF desire to throw money around internationally also some sort of quasi-geo-political play? I know Jimbo has an interest in international PR/diplomacy along the lines of brand management, and he's getting paid as a political advisor in the UK. For whatever reason, the WMF is focusing on Brazil and the Arab world. So $557,863 is a recently announced potential "investment", as mentioned recently in the Signpost. (Each one of those dollars is of course meaningful.) Or is it an investment? I'm heavily involved in the education program at the WP:ENB education noticeboard, trying to pick up the pieces of a WMF project that went of the rails, in my opinion. And to get back to chapters, how would one measure whether existing chapters are true outgrowths of community desires? The German example is persuasive to me. But we might have a problem on our hands. Do some chapters represent lifeless bureacracies that exist for bureaucracies sake? When does a chapter close, and when does a chapter have WMF or community input to change staff if the mission is not being executed with value? Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I find the rosy picture of WMDE that you're painting really astonishing. I dare you to ask german Wikipedians what they think about WMDE and how WMDE contributed to the functionality of german Wikipedia. Let me warn you though, that german responses are often brutally direct ("Im Deutschen lügt man, wenn man höflich ist." Goethe, Faust). I suspect "bureaucratic waterhead" will be one of the least aggressive things you will hear. -- Atlasowa ( talk) 11:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
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
When did the developers make it so that admin rights were required to edit MediaWiki pages? Looking through the history of MediaWiki:Recentchangestext shows tons of vandalism; I knew that Willy on Wheels had attacked it once, but now I see that he attacked it several times, using accounts that weren't even autoconfirmed unless the autoconfirmation standads have been changed. Nyttend ( talk) 17:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
editinterface
userright to restrict the editing of MediaWiki pages, but since IPs were
editing the recent changes in 2005 (around the time Willy was vandalising it), it was clearly something everyone had.
Nyttend (
talk)
18:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey everyone!! I don't really have any reason for writing this other than to show off my kick-ass new Wikistamp. Enjoy and let me know what you think!!
-- Metsfreak (Hello!)| 00:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure where to ask this question, to find a solution, but I guess I will be advised accordingly if this is not the right place. I've been editing for a while using either a laptop or an iPad. The laptop has been used on various Wi-Fi networks, along with the iPad, which is also using 3G from the same IP supplier. Over the last few days I've noted that when using the iPad clicking on any buttons or tabs, such as Unwatch, Watchlist, Logout, Preferences, Preview, Save page, etc, now requires two presses of the item selected, before it activates. Additionally when selecting a 'Diff' or a username, such as in an edit history or my Watchlist popups and preview boxes appear, again requiring two clicks to activate the selection. This happens only when on a Wiki, IE, Wikipedia, Commons, etc, and only with the IPad, so that tends to rule out problems with preference settings and IPs. Can anyone offer a solution (NB: advice to stop using the iPad is not an option. :) or have any other editors noted the same problem ? Richard Harvey ( talk) 23:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, in the 2013 European Athletics U23 Championships article, what does the CUR mean? ChickenFalls ( talk) 09:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
On logging in just now, I got the following notice:
I didn't see any information about the review (should I have?) or any comments, so I went to that user's page.
The user was indefinitely blocked as of 04:03, 31 December 2005, and the user page was deleted 20:16, 2 September 2006. That's over twelve years ago.
Ergo, WTF?! I've been reviewed by a zombie? Can anyone tell me what is going on here?
Thnidu ( talk) 03:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to see if there is a correlation between the number of references in an article and the time it takes to load it in the visual editor. To help me it would be useful if people could suggest any articles they can think of that are either
For both, a mixture of some that a primarily plain text and others that have a higher proportion of other objects in (e.g. images, tables, templates) would be useful too. Subjects don't matter, but the pages need to be in either the article or user namespaces. Thanks. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I have made a plugin for wordpress that integrates wikipeida with the tag pages for wordpress-sites. The plugin can be downloaded from wordpress.org. This plugin shows excerpts from wikipedia articles that correspond for the tag shown on the tag page and supports multiple languages. The plugin can be seen in action on the tags for the webpage voxpublica.no
-- Haldaug ( talk) 23:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Up until July 4, the disambiguation project was making steady progress in combating disambiguation links, reaching an all-time low of only 62,419 disambiguation pages with incoming links. Since then, the number of disambiguation pages with incoming links has quickly shot up by over a thousand. I don't know why this number is suddenly increasing, whether editors are becoming more active and less careful in making links, or new articles are justifying increased numbers of disambiguation pages, or frequent disambiguators are getting discouraged and leaving the project, but we are falling behind and need help. Please make sure that the links you make point to the right articles, not to disambiguation pages. If you turn an existing page or redirect into a disambiguation page or a redirect to disambiguation page, please fix the incoming links, as your regular disambiguators are likely too swamped to get to them. If you can find and fix a handful of disambiguation links, that would be great. bd2412 T 17:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
This isn't a crisis, but simply a result of this being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It can be dealt with one edit at a time, just like anything else that's not perfect. No maintenance project will ever be complete, and if people are giving up because of that then they don't get the idea of this being a wiki. Phil Bridger ( talk) 19:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not really understanding why this is being blamed on VisualEditor. The number of dab links now is 2,700 fewer than it was a month before VisualEditor's general introduction. I checked more than a dozen pages, and not a single one showed an edit introducing a dab problem using VisualEditor. Now perhaps my sample size was odd (and it is very small), but I really don't think we have any reason to believe that this is anything other than normal variation, or perhaps even a temporary reduction in effort by the dab-solving team. (Presumably they like to go on vacation in July and August just like everyone else, right?) Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 17:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The number of disambiguation pages with incoming links continues to rise. It has now increased by about 1,400 since July 4. bd2412 T 14:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext has a message warning that it is not much watched - and it had only one thread in the last two years - so alerting a few more people here to a VE-related issue that isn't a bug in VE. See Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback#Article_creation: if new editors are getting used to editing in VE and then choose to click on a redlink to start a new article, at present they are faced with Edit Source (which they may well never have used, I guess), and need to spot the "Create" tab next to the open "Create Source" tab, and realise its significance, if they want to create their new article in VE. I suggest we should offer them more help. Pam D 19:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
This isn't really an RfC, but I was told by BAG to warn everyone about a new bot that may be going into effect soon. It's sole purpose is to tag pages, containing blacklisted external links with {{
Spam-links}}
}. So far it has found over 130,000 links on Wikipedia that are blacklisted and not whitelisted. A discussion is welcome though. Feel free to go to
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cyberbot II 4.—
cyberpower
ChatOnline
15:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Following an editing disagreement, I was looking for guidance on how to decide whether a place should be identified in the style "Chicago" or "Chicago, Illinois" or "Chicago, United States" or "Chicago, Illinois, United States" or "Chicago, Illinois, in the United States" or some other form. Specifically, the concern is which style is appropriate (or at least which information to include) for the first mention of the place in the lead section of an article about an event that occurred in that place. This could be either a general rule for all countries or a list of rules for specific countries. I'm not going to mention the specific article where this arose, because I'm looking for a general guideline if there is one, but I will say that different contributors seem to agree in this particular case that there is a common-sense choice, but disagree about which one it is.
Considerable discussion of place names can be found in the WP:MOS and linked articles, but as far as I can see, most of it is about how to decide which of several possible names to use for a place (e.g. whether a place is in Spain, España, or Tarraconensis) and how to form the titles of articles about places. These are both irrelevant; we're not naming an article and we agree on what the name of the place. Likewise, the MOS includes style advice for lead sections, but there's nothing specific about the treatment of place names in lead sections. And it includes a section on style issues in articles relating to the specific country in question, but nothing there is relevant either.
Is there a style guideline that would resolve this "Chicago, Illinois, United States" issue, or do we have to fall back on common sense after all? And if there isn't one, what's the right place to propose that there should be?
-- 174.88.134.93 ( talk) 06:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi all; my Midpoint report as Wikimedia Foundation IEGrantee working in the consolidation of wikiArS initiative is now available on Meta: meta:Grants:IEG/Consolidate wikiArS to involve art schools/Midpoint. I tryed to use it also as a reflection tool about what we learned, giving ideas for whom wanting to start similar experiences and about how to deal with next academic year. Comments & feedback are welcome. -- Dvdgmz ( talk) 15:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I recently heard of a study from a message to wikimedia-l. You can read it online here if you are interested. πr2 ( t • c) 16:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
PLease note that JJ Cale has died acording to his website. ””””
Please help develop the articles Yevgeni Kindinov and Lidiya Fedoseyeva-Shukshina. I don't want them to be deleted. Scymso ( talk) 16:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't quite sure which section of the VP to put this in, so I chose this one in case it didn't fit in one of the other ones. Anyway, I was wondering: if I have to replace bare URLs with full citations, using Template:cite web, do I have to do them one by one manually or is there a faster way? I think the latter may be the case. Jinkinson ( talk) 20:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Just a heads up: if you're looking to incorporate data from the popular film review aggregator
Rotten Tomatoes in articles, there's now a template, {{
Rotten Tomatoes score}}
, which automagically updates to include the latest data from Rotten Tomatoes, no manual updating required. Check it out, and your assistance in helping to add it to articles about new movies would be greatly appreciated. Cheers,
Theopolisme (
talk)
03:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
It hasn't received a new update since the 23rd of July. Is there a way of creating an alternative, one that doesn't rely on the goodwill of a random external contributor? Serendi pod ous 06:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Should a fairly short article (109 words) with five inline citations and "class=start" on the talk page have the {{Canada-tv-prog-stub}}? I removed this tag, and another editor put it back. I will not start an edit war on World's Weirdest Restaurants, so I seek advice or help here.-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 15:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I just read an essay that was new to me -- WP:You don't own Wikipedia.
On its talk page I expressed my concern that this essay undervalued the importance of volunteer's contributions.
In my talk page reply I suggested that since the wikipedia is one of the top ten internet sites, if it weren't a not-for-profit, if it were a site that venture capitalists could consider buying shares, during its IPO, that IPO would generate at least as much anticipation as facebook's.
I wrote that my recollection was that facebook's IPO attracted $40 billion. (Maybe the stock was initially valued at $40 a share, and fb's value was a lesser number of billions? This doesn't really matter for the fuzzy math here...)
I estimated that donors had invested somewhere between $4 million and $400 million too buy the WMF servers, and pay all its bills, from day one, until today.
I suggested that if the WMF would have been worth tens of billions, but donors had only invested millions, tens of millions, or hundreds of millions, that over 99 percent of the wikipedia's value was due to the hours of work donated by the project's volunteers.
Why is this important? It seems to me the tone of the essay is that volunteers should feel grateful the WMF allows them to volunteer, that volunteers could be easily replaced, and that volunteers should ignore any instances where they found WMF actions cryptic or high-handed.
I think the failure of Google's Knol shows that the wikipedia's volunteers could not be easily replaced.
For what it is worth the essay seems to be inspired by the need to rein in "power users" who feel a special sense of entitlement. FWIW, I am not a fan of those who feel a special sense of entitlement either, but I question the value of giving a foxtrot oscar to the other 99 percent of the project's volunteers. Geo Swan ( talk) 19:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
To address Geo Swan's comments, the problem is that "Wikipedia" is a confusing term, therefore "you don't own Wikipedia" is a confusing statement.
(Nothing to do with the immediately preceding query - rather the Passchendale reference on the MP).
Are there any proposals for WP to have a 'WWI event of the day 100 years ago' (should there be suitable ones)? Not saying there should but the anniversary bandwagon will be appearing in quite a few places. Jackiespeel ( talk) 22:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
What are the current interactive elements that readers use (ie. excluding editing), in Wikipedia articles?
Is there anything else at all?
Do we have anything like Phun, or google finance, or wolframalpha, or timeline.js, where interaction is a core-component? Anything with toggle-able layers or datapoints, like google charts or gapminder?
(I'm mostly interested in finding all examples of what we do currently have. I'm aware of the pros and cons of interactive elements, and I'm not looking to debate the philosophical or technical problems&solutions, at this moment). Thanks. – Quiddity ( talk) 06:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
title=
attribute)I missed out on an eBay listing the other day but noticed something I thought Wikipedia might like to know (though I suspect you know about it already)
Hephaestus Books already seem to be known as a rip off merchants (see http://www.lawrenceperson.com/?p=6829). I find this listing hilarious - [1] - because the "title" of that book is just a collection of Wikipedia articles that *I* created! If I'd known you could charge so much for collating Wikipedia articles through some kind of content scoop I'd've done it years ago! I suppose that now I can call myself an author given that a bound book of my content is on eBay!
I know "creative commons" means that they're not scamming anybody...or are they? What is the thoughts on something like this [2] which again seems to be a slim back collection of Wikipedia content? doktorb words deeds 10:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone know how I can force the italicisation of the title of an article about a book? Prioryman ( talk) 18:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Why is it the likes of Wilhelm II, so often referred to by their German name, having their articles named for the significantly less often used English styling? Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.75.153.67 ( talk) 06:54, July 31, 2013 (UTC)
Last month I promoted Paris to GA. It previously looked like User:Dr. Blofeld/Paris April 2013. As you can see the sourcing was diabolical, poorly sourced, most sources being dead links and shoddy websites, completely overhauled with book sources. I and several others added a wealth of new material including information on the media, healthcare, fashion, music and cuisine etc.. I felt it necessary to condense the overly long Demographics and Administration sections to balance out the article. My version of the article is endorsed by some of the experienced editors on here, including User:Tim riley and User:Schodringer's Cat who have produced dozens of GAs and FAs, but a small group of disgruntled editors from the wiki Jurassic period have since crawled out of the woodwork with nothing but unpleasant comments on the changes I've made to "their" article. It's a classic case of WP:OWN and one of the former editors is making a proposal to completely revert my additions and sourcing back to the April version. They also think the lead was better back in April and don't understand that the lead is supposed to summarize a full article. I'd greatly appreciate some input from some of the more experienced individuals here as to whether their proposals are justified or not. I'm not canvassing for support, I'm simply asking some decent editors who watch this page compare the article versions and to comment on the issue at Talk:Paris.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I have a question about Wikipedia assessments, specifically pertaining to the edits of User:Mesoderm ( contribs) who has been demoting a number of B and C class articles to start class articles for the apparent reason that there are some issues with the references (primarily not enough inline citations): some examples are [5], [6], [7]. I started a thread on the user's page. He (or she) is of the opinion that "One of the primary criteria for an article to move from Start to C class is for everything to be backed by reliable sources" (emphasis mine). This to me seems like an unsupported bright line assertion that doesn't mesh with my own view on what start class articles are. These are, in my view, generally articles that are rather poor and have advanced beyond being mere stubs, yet are still incomplete haven't begun to comply with many of our content guidelines. Whereas C class articles have begun to comply with most of our guidelines, yet might be deficient in some areas (such as possibly having insufficient references or inline citations, but not altogether lacking them). I think some outside input would be valuable. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 21:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I meant to provide also a link to the assessment scale. Here is that link. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 00:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Apologies if this is not the right forum. Ideally, I would have posted to a noticeboard but none seems relevant, and the Wikipedia assessment stuff is a bit fragmented, so I don't know if there is a Wikiproject that would be a more natural target for this discussion. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 21:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia have a policy on the inclusion of lists of victims' names in articles about accidents, terror attacks, and other disasters? -- 50.100.184.151 ( talk) 22:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
A settlement was just discovered in northern Chile (Quebrada Maní), with over 1000 pieces, including arrow heads, seashells and camelid bones, dated at 12790 years old. I don't have the article, just a press note http://www.abc.com.py/ciencia/hallan-asentamiento-humano-de-12790-anos-en-desierto-de-chile-605446.html Could anybody edit the article Settlement of the Americas? 200.90.244.143 ( talk) 16:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I posted an update on 24 July about the activities of the Wiki Education Foundation (WEF) at the education noticeboard; I should have also posted a link here (or some other very visible location), per the terms of the grant we received, but forgot to do so. I've just been reminded, so here's the link, and I will remember to post here in the future. If there's a better place to post these notices, let me know.
For those who don't know the background, the WEF is a new nonprofit. It was formed as a result of work done by a group of educators and Wikipedians, who (at the request of the WMF) spent some time over the last year or so designing a new organization that could assist with the increasing number of classes in the US and Canada that are making Wikipedia editing part of their coursework. More details on request, here or at the education noticeboard. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 21:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Imagine what Wikipedia could do in one year with one-tenth of the NSA's budget. Twang ( talk) 00:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Please have a look on the objection raised at the Kali talk page. Thanks -- आशीष भटनागर ( talk) 13:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
20 months passed, and who never thought that the article about relationships of Sam Malone and Diane Chambers of Cheers would exist? Did anybody have an idea of how to create an article about the couple, which is graded a B-class currently? -- George Ho ( talk) 01:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.
Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org.
Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.
The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 24 August 2013.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 05:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Please don't use pop-up banners. They are so annoying, they are a reason not to donate funds to Wikimedia. Everyone knows Wikipedia is a non-profit from the ".org". The least intrusive way to ask for money would be to move the "Donate to Wikipedia" link to the top of the left sidebar, calling it "Donate funds." Also, since "free" means "free of charge," click ads could be put on the left sidebar. Irritating ads would lose readers almost as fast as not being free. I don't read the London Times online because they want me to pay them. Also, since you can not easily access their articles, they are not a reliable source. For sources like that, you would need some kind of peer review maybe by email attachment of sources. -- Truexper ( talk) 04:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello all I would ❤ it a lot if you made a Klingon Wikipedia Yours sincerely Blakeleonard ( talk) 10:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Notification of commons:Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Russavia_(de-Bureaucrat) per Cecil. J Kadavoor J e e 11:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The account creation process is used by people who wish to have an account on Wikipedia but are not able to create it in the usual way. This could be due to, for example, their IP address being blocked with account creation disabled or if they are unable to read the CAPTCHA. There are regular backlogs of potential contributors waiting for an account to be created for them. If you meet the minimum requirements and want to help please consider making an application to join the team. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me or leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Request an account. Thank you, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
A couple of days ago I started a new article, Neurolytic block, with content that was too big for its "mother" article ( Interventional pain management). Within 20 minutes, the new article had attracted four maintenance tags. [8] One of these was {{refimprove}}: "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Every assertion in the article was supported by a WP:MEDRS- compliant source, so I removed the template. The templater restored it. I removed it.
I went to the templater's talk page and explained that, "careless tagging is the kind of harassment that drives away new editors. Please be more careful." They didn't see anything wrong with the tagging, and told me to get over it when they deleted my last comment from their talk page. [9]And they haven't edited since.
One of the other people who templated the article, another "page curator", has less than 100 article space edits and fewer than 150 total edits. When I pointed this out on their talk page and asked why they're reviewing the work of others when the " page curation tool" is meant for experienced editors, they stopped editing.
So, I'm worried I may have scared off two willing volunteers. And I'm worried people are being encouraged to review the work of others when they don't, yet, have the necessary experience or competence. Is anyone in charge of the page curation project? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 07:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Other than categories related to CoI warning templates, is there a category or userbox for editors who are the subject of a BLP? I'm sure there must be many, self-declared, who edit non-controversially, in unrelated areas. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I still do not know how to correctly deal with spam and Googling for an answer does not make anything more clear.
User: Tedickey seems to think that he needs to delete all minor edits by any users on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tedickey
I have already reverted his edits but he seems to think that he has the sole right to edit this article. Another user's edit has also been reverted by this malicious user but I have not yet reverted that edit.
Could someone please help me solve this problem? This is the second time I have had to report such a problem on Wikipedia, so if someone could help me report these issues correctly in the future that would be great. The first issue was resolved by removing the user who continually reverted edits unnecessarily, spat his dummy out and then started spamming. It would be nice if we could stop this user doing the same.
Thanks. KenSharp ( talk) 20:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
P.S. I'll add the link to my bookmarks I promise! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenSharp ( talk • contribs) 20:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
There's an request for comment underway at Natalie Tran. The question is about using Vidstatsx statistics to track YouTube views. Chris Troutman ( talk) 03:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
A note to any one interested in the education program; I've posted a WEF update at the Education Noticeboard. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 09:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I have requested a bot undertake a task which will have it search through all templates on Wikipedia, and look for templates with the following subpages: /doc, /sandbox, and /testcase. If the talk page for these subpages does not exist, and the talk page for the main template does exist, a redirect will be created. This prevents fragmentation of discussion between the various talk pages; particularly as documentation pages seem to be under-watched. I've been making edits like this manually for five years or more; I don't think I've ever been reverted.
It had been suggested that wider publicity would be in order; please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BlakesBot where your comments will be welcome. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm aware of WP:RX, but is there any centralized place on Wikipedia for the exchange of books for use as sources? I happen to have some too-heavy-to-ship books (including a set of fairly new science encyclopedias) that I no longer have the space for, but I'd rather give them to an editor within delivery range who'd make use of them. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 19:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
User:2600:1011:B115:215D:6D30:B23C:785F:B383 appears to support the rule that a trans woman should be referred to as he/him before the operation and she/her after the operation. I reverted this user 3 times and I don't want to violate the 3RR. Please try to think of something to do. Georgia guy ( talk) 18:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I ask you to the community regarding injustice done by a single person, so called administrator. What is his/her motivation? -- Tamil23 ( talk) 19:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Where else i can complain? //copyright status of some elements is unclear // <> //Spiff has not acted inappropriately anywhere// It seems you not clear, but come to conclusion. --
Tamil23 (
talk)
19:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:CfD/2013 August 28 - Category:Wikipedians by gender and subcats is something everyone should read. The decision to participate is all yours and I don't care one way or the other if you do or don't and if you do I don't care if you support or opposed. I'm only posting this here so that you will be aware and take any action you deem appropriate. Thank you. Technical 13 ( talk) 15:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
There is a request for comments (RfC) that may be of interest. The RfC is at
At issue is whether we should delete or keep the following text in the Lavabit article:
Your input on this question would be very much welcome. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems that an organization called FemTechNet is recruiting more women to participate on Wikipedia. That's great, although "goal being to collaboratively write feminist thinking into the site" makes me wonder. See this article in Mother Jones. If there's a male or non-feminist bias to articles, that's fine to correct them, especially if significant contributions from female scientists were neglected mention. Still, I could be wrong, but the Mother Jones article suggests a flavor of inserting feminist bias.
Not sure what noticeboard I should use to discuss this. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 07:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Given our own admitted problems of imbalanced viewpoints here, the idea that we would be getting an influx of feminist editors, especially tech-savvy ones, does not exactly fill me with fear. -- Orange Mike | Talk 18:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC) (Full disclosure: I am a feminist, and have not only been known to associate with women but to marry one and be the father of another, the son of another, the brother of two more and the uncle of more. Some he-man girlhaters may therefore consider me to be biased and pro-gurll.)
Any thoughts about this article? It seems to be pushing the line into soap, agenda, pov, and teaming up to edit and/or promote an "ism" or group. -- Light show ( talk) 21:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
So, I'm minding my own business on the Los Angeles Craigslist, when I see this ad from an unidentified "industry" seeking to hire Wikipedia editors. They want active editors only (I assume to get around various WP rules), and they want to hire them to build out a bunch of articles on their industry. Their goal is to end up with a "a quality resource guide for our industry". The pay is pretty low, too. Maybe I should not be surprised at the venality of this, but I am. I don't think anyone "can do something about" this, but I wanted to make people aware it's going on. (Shades of Gibraltar.) - Tim1965 ( talk) 09:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Osmanagić pyramid hypothesis needs some eyes on it. We have an enthusiastic new editor who is having some trouble avoiding {{ copypaste}} problems. I've just explained on his talk page, so it may be all fine now, but I'm going offline and would like to have someone else check in on the article later. Thanks, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
A simple enough question: does Wikipedia:Article feedback actually serve any useful purpose? I rarely bother to look at article feedback, since it seems to consist largely of pointless comments such as this gem for our Human article: "117.207.14.93 did not find what they were looking for. IMPROVE this page". Do other contributors actually (a) read article feedback, and (b) act on it? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Seems to me, the majority of readers aren't in the slightest interested in editing or learning about how Wikipedia works. The split between the consumerist majority and us producers has always been there. What some consumers are willing to do, is rate and especially to complain. They should get every opportunity. Of course, the complaints of the semiliterate, semithoughtful majority must be handled cautiously. They have no idea of the big picture, and we must guess and calculate how and whether their concerns should be met. Jim.henderson ( talk) 22:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Whom should I ask about getting the feedback tool put on Cancer pain ? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 07:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems that after someone "enables feedback" (in the toolbox on the left side), somebody else disables feedback, anonymously - since WMF developers forgot to log somewhere when and who enables/disables feedback... This is almost funny. ;-) At Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5#Re-enabled_on_all_pages User:Blethering Scot writes "When i enable feedback AFT5 appears at the bottom then 24 hours later i have went in to these articles and it is no longer enabled." At Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5#The_category_system_was_not_great.2C_but_the_status_quo_is_far_worse User:Altamel writes "why doesn't the Article Feedback Activity Log track who enables and disables feedback on pages? I re-enabled feedback on Laurie Island after somebody disabled it, but I wish I could discuss with that user why they disabled feedback." Currently this special AFT page Articles with feedback on English Wikipedia says that: These 125 articles have feedback enabled on English Wikipedia. ... This list is refreshed daily. But those articles that i checked all had feedback disabled. -- Atlasowa ( talk) 20:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I have the feeling that the responses here, while correct in itself as opinions, come from those people who were among the minority of users that supported it during Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article feedback, while the then rather larger group of people with other opinions no longer can be bothered about it and just ignore it. I have to admit, this thread made me look at the feedback for the first time in many months, so for me personally, the tool is totally useless, as it only serves to have comments in different places, instead of one location per article. Furthermore, looking at the general fedback page, I saw that there are 213 comments where oversight has been requested; these should either be swiftly oversighted, or changed to some other status (oversight denied, whatever), but not simply ignored (as they seem to be now). Many of them don't need to be oversighted IMO, but others (like one about an alleged love child of Vin Diesal (sic)) shouldn't be kept for 7 months. Fram ( talk) 10:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
And maybe WMF can keep their help pages up to date? [ [10]] States that you simply have to add Category:Article Feedback 5 to your page, but that category is deprecated and deleted...
As for the feedback: three hours ago, this was posted and sits at the moment unreviewed (not hidden, no oversight requested): "Hello I need your assistance ASAP before a child gets hurt. My son met a 18 yr old by the name of XXX from Cambridge Ohio. My son lives in El Paso Texas. I want to know if this person XXX is a Pedifier. I called Cambridge Police de" (I have replaced the full name with XXX here of course). This on a very high traffic page (80,000 page views a day!), not some obscure page with no viewers. Seeing that "oversight requested" is still at the same 213 pages I reported above, this seems rather useless. Just disable the thing, like most people wanted at the RfC anyway. Fram ( talk) 07:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
At about 4,500 pages use HTML tables. Check Wikipedia:CHECKWIKI/031 dump. This causes problems in rendering and to the Visual Editor. Help is needed to start cleaning/converting these tables. In most cases are just lists of players and it should be straightforward. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 07:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Anomie Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback#Deleting_a_row_from_table_has_disastrous_results. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 10:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, this bug only occurs in very one specific instance, i.e. a HTML table with a closing </tr>
tag but no corresponding opening <tr>
tag. It was reported as
T55464 where the developers quickly responded and there is a patch that should fix this awaiting a review so it should be fixed soon. There is therefore no need to deprecate html tables anywhere (although anyone can of course convert tables if they want to). Just if you happen upon one while source editing you might want to check it has properly formatted row syntax. I'd be surprised if as many as 1% of html tables have this issue though.
Thryduulf (
talk)
02:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Still working with wikitables is better in order to add/remove rows, spot unclosed tags etc. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 12:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I started Wikipedia:Wikimedia Foundation as a community information/communication directing page. Can you guess the Wikipedia shortcut? It could use links to things such as the mailing lists, grant opportunities, Bugzilla, etc. to help newcomers understand the WMF and how they might engage with the WMF, if interested. Biosthmors ( talk) 08:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear Sirs First of all congratulations for changing the whole world of Learning with Wikipedia. Whenever I go to study first i open Wikipedia in a window only then start my real topic of study. I think it must be the case with most of the learners through out the world. For me Wikipedia plays the same role in my learning process which Oxygen performs in my breathing process. I am sure in future Wikipedia is going to be revolutionise the world of learning of world.
May i dare to give some suggestions, which i think will make it even more useful. I think Wikipedia should have four levels for every search item.
1. Line Level - Information about the item should be in one line, with/without one photo.
2 Paragraph Level - Information about the item should be in one para with one photograph.
3 Page Level - Information about the item should be in one page.
4 Booklet Level - Unlimited Information about the item.
This will help the user immensely. Presently when i use wikipedia sometimes the information i need about the item can be only one paragraph and its really difficult to select the desired amount of information.
I know you have already got a very very big project and to suggest changes may be so easy for me, even than i am writing to you.
I have personally benefited so much from Wikipedia I am at your service for any technical job.
Thanking you Dr m K Pande Dehradun India — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.49.131 ( talk) 11:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I've started a userspace draft for combining diacritics for editors whose browsers don't support the toolbar, but I was wondering whether or not it would likely be deleted if I moved it to the template namespace. Thanks. — SamX‧ ☎‧ ✎‧ S 14:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
If it goes to Jimbo, who might split it with him? Albert deBroglie ( talk) 02:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Note the death of Donald Featherstone in recent deaths. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scymso ( talk • contribs) 15:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Is there a place to request for people with a HighBeam account to add information to articles? I was working with another editor whose free account expired at the beginning of the month, and he did not get the chance to do a couple of final lookups for me. In this case, is there anything that could be added to John Zeleznik [11], or Nene Thomas [12]? BOZ ( talk) 16:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey everybody, is it normal that eight articles still use the in my opinion revisionist website Scrapbookpages.com as a source? First, it's in my opinion not a quality source, as it is the personal blog of a guy like you and me, I can't remember the profession of the guy... probably not an historian, any way... Second, the website is quite revisionist, see for instance the blog of the website, http://furtherglory.wordpress.com/, or read carefully the website. Those are two good reasons not to use this website as a source... I've already told you about this problem a few years ago, but there hadn't been any true reaction then :-(( I'm concerned that Wikipedia may use other crap websites as a source... Is there any possibility to choose the sources more carefully for those types of articles, to be a bit more restrictive? 78.251.245.128 ( talk) 00:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
"Publishers may use material from this site free of charge, as long as:
I found it on the website of Johannesburg Municipality. Does it allow us to use their content?-- eh bien mon prince ( talk) 14:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Please help ad a reference to my article Larisa Kadochnikova. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scymso ( talk • contribs) 19:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I've been a Wikipedia editor since 2004, and a member of WikiProject Citation cleanup almost as long. I've made over 170,000 edits to Wikipedia, and a lot of them looked like this one. That is adding bibliographic information that was missing (e.g., journal volume, issue, etc.) and implementing citation templates for a consistent citation style within one article. I know the use of those templates is neither encouraged nor prohibited. I simply use them out of convenience, to let the templates take care of the exact layout.
Recently, it has been pointed out to me that those sorts of edits "are strongly discouraged". Some "site-wide consensus", which I am unaware of, has been cited according to which "changing from non-template references to template references" is prohibited in general, even if no contributor to a particular article objects them. Is this the case?
I have been aware of WP:CITEVAR, which discourages disputes over citation styles and offers a rule-of-thumb resolution ("keep the original style") in cases in which a group of editors of some article cannot find consensus otherwise. But I never took it for a general ban on changing citation styles in cases of no dispute.
So have I, for the past years, violated Wikipedia rules by doing this? If so, I'll stop doing it immediately, and leave. -- bender235 ( talk) 16:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the topic, User:bender235. I do a lot of this too! I think I can help here by adding a few important pieces of information I know from my experience:
None of this means that conversation for the sake of conversion should be encouraged. But in practice, such situations almost never arise as the reasons stated above suggest. As with Bender225's experience, I have never had any objections to my reference formatting edits; his 1% figure is an over-estimate compared to my experience.
Also, let's keep clear that the date formatting RfA is about date formatting. So, while some of the conclusions about that RfA make great advice for citation style formatting, they are separate issues. As citation templates can support whatever date formatting a user wants, they are also completely independent. Jason Quinn ( talk) 22:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
{{
Doi}}
, {{
PMID}}
, there are probably others. It isn't necessary to convert to CS1 to cite an article using doi or pmid.<ref name="..." >
). Duplicating the entire ref is pointless and unhelpful.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
12:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)I'd like to take a different approach to this discussion: CITEVAR is apparently unclear. For that, let me apologize. The reason I apologize is because I wrote the thing in the first place. I therefore think it not unreasonable of me to have some idea of what CITEVAR is supposed to say.
Speaking as its original author, CITEVAR is not supposed to prevent you from taking a mess of mixed-up, inconsistent citations and imposing (any) one form on it (except bare URLs). It is supposed to prevent you from taking a perfectly good citation system and changing it to some other citation system. There are three things that it tries to stop: Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style:
Let me expand on these three items, and then get back to the fundamental requirement:
Now back to that fundamental requirement: These three things only apply if any article actually has "an established citation style". If you find an article that doesn't have "an established citation style", then according to CITEVAR, you can WP:BOLDly do whatever you want to it.
So if you go over to Pain, you will find that there is an explicitly established style that does not use citation templates. You will find that 119 out of 124 current citations are plain wikitext, and the other five were added by people who didn't notice that the article doesn't use citation templates. The rejection of citation templates was discussed at length on the talk page. So if someone were to convert all of those citations to using templates, even if this is done to make it convenient to add dois, then that would violate CITEVAR.
But if you go over to Community-acquired pneumonia and figure out why the little blue superscripted "[1]" leads to two different citations marked "1", and fix it, then you've done a good thing. Ideally, you'll fix it in a way that involves the fewest number of changes/is most consistent with the dominant style, but you really are allowed to fix that mess. Similarly, you may go boldly, without a single word of discussion in advance, fix Ebastine so that it uses some kind of inline citation, rather than 100% general references. This is allowed under CITEVAR.
If this isn't clear to everyone from reading CITEVAR, then I hope you will join me on the talk page at WT:CITE to see how we can improve its clarity. I'd also be open to starting a {{ supplement}} page to give specific examples of what should be discussed in advance and what should just be boldly improved. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Much work has been done on citation template recently, adding useful features such as trapping invalid ISBNs and other errors, which seems to have been overlooked in the discussion here to date, and which advantages are not available in untemplated citations.
Furthermore, for some years our citation templates have emitted machine-readable metadata in the form of COinS markup, which is an internationally recognised and interoperable format. This means that they can be understood by citation management tools such as Zotero and Mendeley, and thus more easily and conveniently reused by editors in other articles (I do this regularly using Zotero), and by people who need to cite the same source in other works, or query their library catalogue, or whatever.
Anyone replacing an untemplated citation with one using any one of our citation templates could arguably be said not to be doing it for "personal preference", but for the added value it brings to our fellow editors and to our readers. I realise that this view may not be popular with those who object to the use of templates, or metadata, for whatever reason, and indeed may attract the kind of attempts at opprobrium which Bender235 has experienced, but the fact that such mechanisms exist is unarguable and the benefits undeniable. It's my understanding that CITEVAR pre-dates such benefits (if not, its disregard of them is lamentable) and so should be revised accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I would wager that the concerns over manual vs. template citations losing the ISBN validation and other technical benefits could be met with some program (maybe even a bot created ) to look for that. Just requires the time and ingenuity for someone to write it. And Wikipedia relies on redundant alternatives to address the needs of its varied users and contributors. The same should apply here, with WP:CITEVAR, the technical ramifications, etc. What we have here is a "six of one, half dozen of another" quandary. By making Wikipedia more machine-friendly, we make it less contributor-friendly. Forcing such a change would drive away editors that run from an article they've thought about adding to when they see template cruft (I'm one of them...just not worth my time to wade through that crap...and it keeps me away from making the contributions I prefer making and enjoy making). Wikipedia already has enough editors disappearing, the increasingly esoteric coding would just lead more of them to other hobbies, and content on Wikipedia would suffer. Machines don't contribute the quality content, whether they read it or not is incidental because Wikipedia is ultimately dependent on contribution.
In political philosophy, technocratic societies tend to exclude people who would otherwise be a benefit to it except for their technical knowledge. The increasing emphasis, as Weber and other reification scholars point out, undermines notions of community and purpose, and creates an augmented alienation and among those who might want to identify with that community or purpose. Ultimately, it is that alienation that leads them to find other things to identify with. It creates castes, and precludes mobility. That's the psychological/sociological basis for why an editor would leave or avoid contributing to Wikipedia or any similar increasingly technocratic community. People find things (hobbies, activities, etc.) that validate their worth. Making it harder for people to feel the merits of contributing make them contribute elsewhere. Wikipedia suffers. That historical and sociological lesson ought to be applied here. -- ColonelHenry ( talk) 15:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
{{
citation/core}}
, required much more time. With the transition to the Lua
Module:Citation/CS1, citations can now be processed rendered many times faster.NewPP limit report
" you will find the statistics for this page.
(I've tried looking around to see if this has been brought up before, didn't see anything. So here goes...)
Since nearly all articles about films, especially new ones, contain the films critical ratings from the review site Rotten Tomatoes, has there ever been any consideration to adding this item to the infobox? (thereby necessitating a template change).
For example, the bottom of the infobox could (sort of) look like this;
Country - United States
Language - English
Budget - $150,000,000[1]
Box office - $642,740,000[2]
RT rating - 71%[3]
This, of course, is if we just add it to the bottom of the list. The order of precedence could be debated.
Any thoughts anyone? - thewolfchild 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Not sure that this is the correct place, but editors may want to be aware of this article, written by User:Versability, in case there is an influx of self promoting editors. It may be appropriate to take sanctions against the editor in question also, since their only edits seem to be of a self-promotional nature, and the article goes against the whole ethos of Wikipedia. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 13:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The default message before one creates an article says, as the first out of five bullet points: "Before creating an article, please read Wikipedia:Your first article." WP:YFA is too long to ask people to do that, in my opinion. We should have a shorter intro, if we're really going to ask people to read it. Where's the MediaWiki page space that hosts this default message? Thanks. Biosthmors ( talk) 18:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to talk with some editors who have different levels of vision impairment, to learn what system/browser settings they use, and what other software they frequently find helpful. Things like screen-magnification levels, specific fonts, copying text into alternate text-editors, custom style-sheets, and everything else. I've started a thread at WikiProject Accessibility#Visual impairment, listing what I can find, and would appreciate any comments, or assistance in finding the relevant editors (please nudge anyone you know of who might help). Thanks! – Quiddity ( talk) 17:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
There is currently an RFC at List of new religious movements which was originally focused on a single entry, but the discussion has expanded into the general criteria for such a list. Given that the list of participants in the RFC pretty much consists of the same editors involved in the discussion that culminated in the request, and that the scope of the request is expanding somewhat to include additional "what if?" scenarios, additional opinions and commentary would be appreciated. Please note that the RfcBot was not functioning when the RFC was listed, so there was limited notification which may also explain the "closed group" participation. Thank you in advance for participating. -- Tgeairn ( talk) 18:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I noticed two pages today: [17] and [18]. This worries me a bit. Any ideas of how can we deal with it? Maybe a new filter? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 10:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Yet another one. This is plagiarism and I start blocking if I notice more cases. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 20:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
One more. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 00:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Look at Wikipedia:Gender identity. At Wikipedia talk:Manual of style, it looks like people who are against the current status quo are trying harder to reveal their thoughts than people who support it. Why?? Georgia guy ( talk) 17:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
My talk page has the hidden category Pages with missing files. How do I find what is causing this hidden category?-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 18:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
This tool provides a very detailed analysis of a user's contributions, as well as information about pages edited. It is not a server-side PHP program like some other "edit counters", but rather a client-side script getting data from the API. Its source is available on Github. Credit: User:Ricordisamoa. πr2 ( t • c) 21:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Money and politics in the United States should exist, in my opinion. A rough sketch of an outline is at User:Biosthmors/Money_and_politics_in_the_United_States. Feel free to join in or start the article yourself. Best regards. Biosthmors ( talk) 10:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello. When I was writing the page w:nl:Henry Atkins at the Dutch Wikipedia, I found at this page that he was a candidate at the 1873 elections in Seattle for being a "marshall". I didn't know and I still don't know what sort of "marshall" is ment. At the page marshal are a lot of meanings and for me all those meanings look strange. Does anybody know what is ment with "marshall"? Supercarwaar ( talk) 11:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
There is plan to use a bot to trim cruft from Google Books URLs in citations. We need someone familiar with their format, to advise on which parameters can safely be trimmed, and which, if any, should be left. Can anyone advise, at Trimming cruft from Google Books URLs, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Bgwhite created a wonderful list ( User:Bgwhite/Sandbox1) with pages that have non-straight quotes in pagetitle. Non-straight quotes are not allowed per WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS. I would like to start moving the pages in the correct place if there is not a problem with it. And yes, I would like help to do that. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 19:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Please add reference to my new articles Valentina Voilkova and Levan Gabriadze and connect them to the russian ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scymso ( talk • contribs) 14:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The Bradley Manning article has a new message at the top that I can read when I click on edit source. It is a good message because compared with the HTML comment:
<!--Per Wikipedia:Manual of style, use she/her to refer to (trans woman's name) throughout her life.-->
which can be edited by altering the pronouns the same way the article in general can, the new message cannot. I think that this new message (see the box at the Bradley Manning article for what I mean) should be at all articles about trans women. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy ( talk) 21:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
When you go here, can you see the "View Activity" tab? If so, can you see the recent activity as a result of the linked assignment from Jersey? I'm asking you if you don't have the special user rights of WP:Course coordinator, WP:Course campus volunteer, or WP:Course online volunteer (you can check here if you don't know). For what it's worth, education issues are typically discussed at WP:ENB, but perhaps we're insular over there and I'd like to see what this project space looks like for people without the specific user rights. Best. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Nevermind! One can. Biosthmorstest ( talk) 07:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Please note the death of Saye Zerbo. Thank you-- Scymso ( talk) 07:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
The RfC is here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Is_People_magazine_a_reliable_source_for_BLPs.3F -- NeilN talk to me 00:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I think there is a lot of confusion about these terms in all Wikimedia projects, in particular en.wikipedia in the page Diagram says that charts and graphs are particular diagrams, while in commons diagrams are described as a subcategory of graphs. In particular the category of commons Category:Graphs and Category:Diagrams and their subcategories look like nobody as a clear knowledge of these two terms. In Italian the meanings of "Graphs" (grafici) and "Diagrams" (diagrammi) are a little different from the English, so I think the same confusion is in the other languages, so it is necessary to explain in a correct a clear way these meanings and to correct what is wrong. -- Daniele Pugliesi ( talk) 01:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Is it possible to lookup a username given the user's email? I think I may have another old, forgotten account that was tied to my school email. Thanks — MusikAnimal talk 01:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a notice to inform English Wikipedia about the (re)start of a discussion which doesn't directly impact Wikipedia, but might be of interest to some. In short, myself and a few other Wikimedia editors decided to oppose the registration of the community logo as a trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation.
The history of the logo, the intents behind our action and our hopes for the future are described in detail at meta:Community Logo/Reclaim the Logo; to keep the discussion in one place, please leave your comments on the talk page on meta. John Vandenberg ( chat) 12:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I believe that an image is in the public domain, but I cannot find a specific date or publisher. This website has it here, and it's stated here as early '1900s'. Can I use this image under public domain or another license, or not? Thanks.-- ɱ (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I've been importing music from sites like audiotool to illustrate articles of music genres for two years ( Techstep, Oldschool jungle, Hardstyle...). Why am I almost the only one to do that and why hasn't this work been done earlier? I find very difficult to figure out what a music is like when you don't hear a single sound so it sounds very important to me and most of our articles don't feature a track. There are lots of free-licensed tracks. I don't understand. Is there a valid reason not to feature an example? I don't see such a reason. It is hard to find a free-licensed track that is notable so the tracks I've imported are not notable but the notability criteria only applies on the article subject, not on the article content. Non notable content can be featured if it helps to understand the subject and it is the case. Ftiercel ( talk) 20:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I have seen several times in edit summaries of Wikipedia history pages a "+" or "-" sign in front of a word/words. Are these symbols being used to replace the words "added" or "removed", or do they mean something else altogether? Thanks. 24.90.156.140 ( talk) 23:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
See MediaWiki_talk:Newarticletext#Cruel_and_unusual_punishment.3F. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Is there a single place to get a plain view of every default MediaWiki: space message, that also includes links to the talk page of each, if one wanted to propose revisions? Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Interesting, there was a project devoted to it that is now historical ( Wikipedia:MediaWiki messages). I thought I might generate a red link. That page needs a revamping in other words. It could actually be much more useful. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello! I am posting this message as an advertisement for some images from the Science Museum, London. This organization with assistance from Wikipedian user:Mrjohncummings is sharing 50 historical images at Wikipedia:GLAM/NHMandSM/Science Museum images. I feel that this is a significant as it is the first case of which I am aware of a general-purpose science museum trying to share its media with the Wikipedia community. I find their donation to be aligned with Wikipedia community values and without any problematic restrictions, and I would like for this to set a precedent and model for all science museums to recognize that they should be adapting media related to their collections for reuse on Wikimedia projects.
I would like to ask that anyone who is interested in promoting science please check out the gallery and consider taking any of the images and integrating them into appropriate Wikipedia articles in any language. I hope that the day comes when all educational institutions also think of pooling their resources with Wikipedia. Thanks for your attention. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Somebody created the article Hindkowans but there are no such people in the world who call self that or any reliable source which mentions a group of people called that. The people who speak Hindko language call self Pathans and are referred by that name in Pakistan. Can someone help me fix this or direct me to where this should be addressed. Thanks.-- Fareed30 ( talk) 02:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in the
2013 FLC Elections. The new delegates have been selected.
Elected delegates: Crisco 1492 and SchroCat. |
Everyone is invited to participate. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ 21 00:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The yearly Arbitration Committee Election request for comments is now open. There remain some unresolved issues from last year to discuss, and editors have also expressed a desire to propose changes. All editors are invited to participate. The way the RFC is to be conducted has been modified from previous years by a recent RFC, the changes are summarized at the top of the RFC, reviewing them may be helpful. Monty 845 00:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Please move Bob Kurland in the deaths list to september 30. Thank you-- Scymso ( talk) 12:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure I saw in the Manual of Style somewhere at some time the answer to this question, but try as I may I can't find it now. Which is the correct usage:
Or is there no MoS preference? Emeraude ( talk) 08:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I am trying to reduce my footprint online, and I would like all previous versions of my userpage to be deleted. Can an admin do that please? Bwmoll3 ( talk) 13:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Several days-old queries await response at the conflict of interest noticeboard. If any experienced Wikipedians with a basic knowledge of the guideline and a little extra time on their hands would like to help out there, the rewards would tremendous (though completely intangible). Rivertorch ( talk) 18:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to mention that vandalism seems to have taken a 30-40% leap on the articles I am watching. For the past several years, bots have been able to stop much of the vandalism. I don't know what has suddenly (last week or so) caused the uptick. Alert human editors are doing most of the reversion. Maybe random walk and just now hitting my list! I hope your watchlists are not similarly afflicted! If I had an idea to stop it, I would mention it, believe me! Student7 ( talk) 00:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Would it make sense for en.WP to have a nonprofit corporation with a bank account, CEO and staff dedicated to supporting its mission by providing legal advice, technical services, and supporting outreach, etc? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. The implication here being that some wmf:chapters might not be outgrowths of the community. So to generalize, to what extent do existing chapters reflect community desires vs. just adopting a structure to gain funding? Perhaps some are just byproducts of WMF desires—they want the "in your own language" PR to be true, so they're willing to throw money at the problem—and local desires for jobs for nice people who have volunteered on Wikipedia before but are looking to "cash out", so to speak. (I'm currently being remunerated because of having a position that resulted from people observing my wiki-networking/Wikipedia editing, kind of like how a Wikipedian in Residence might start. But I didn't want that title because I thought the position might not bring many benefits to Wikimedia platforms, so I didn't want to dilute the brand-value.) Or is the WMF desire to throw money around internationally also some sort of quasi-geo-political play? I know Jimbo has an interest in international PR/diplomacy along the lines of brand management, and he's getting paid as a political advisor in the UK. For whatever reason, the WMF is focusing on Brazil and the Arab world. So $557,863 is a recently announced potential "investment", as mentioned recently in the Signpost. (Each one of those dollars is of course meaningful.) Or is it an investment? I'm heavily involved in the education program at the WP:ENB education noticeboard, trying to pick up the pieces of a WMF project that went of the rails, in my opinion. And to get back to chapters, how would one measure whether existing chapters are true outgrowths of community desires? The German example is persuasive to me. But we might have a problem on our hands. Do some chapters represent lifeless bureacracies that exist for bureaucracies sake? When does a chapter close, and when does a chapter have WMF or community input to change staff if the mission is not being executed with value? Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I find the rosy picture of WMDE that you're painting really astonishing. I dare you to ask german Wikipedians what they think about WMDE and how WMDE contributed to the functionality of german Wikipedia. Let me warn you though, that german responses are often brutally direct ("Im Deutschen lügt man, wenn man höflich ist." Goethe, Faust). I suspect "bureaucratic waterhead" will be one of the least aggressive things you will hear. -- Atlasowa ( talk) 11:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)