This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous).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
Undo the vandalism-- 77.66.234.102 ( talk) 21:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi all
Today is African World Heritage Day and I have created a small project to help improve knowledge of African World Heritage Sites on Wikipedia in all languages. Please get involved and also share the link to encourage more people to take part. Whilst all of the sites have an article in English I'm sure there are sites that could be improved.
Many thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 11:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I strongly suspect it was printed in 1940 as it has the quote from Churchill on the backside: This is the time for everyone to stand together and hold firm. However the pictures could have been from before, as this doesnt look like wartime. On Google I find similar postcards. Smiley.toerist ( talk) 09:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I sometimes come across people reverting something on the basis of a consensus and I recently came across one who seems to think one is obliged to do it even if they disagree with the consensus. Actually I think they agree with the consensus but I think their 'consensus' is inapplicable, but disregarding that, how do people feel about the idea? I think one should only revert a change based on some consensus if one agrees with the consensus, after all a consensus can always change and we are all free to opt out of doing things we don't agree with. At most I think one should just warn on the talk page and point to the discussion. If there is a real consensus then some other people will come along and say so. Dmcq ( talk) 14:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone. The Community Tech team at the Wikimedia Foundation was asked to help out with copyright detection in last year's wishlist survey. There are suggestions on Phabricator that would benefit from your feedback, if this is a subject close to your heart and you'd be willing to go there and tell us what works and what doesn't work. /16:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan (WMF) ( talk • contribs)
Hi folks, The Core Contest is on again, running from May 15 to June 30. Enter at Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries. Cheers! Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I have come across two soccer/football-season pages that are exactly the same except an extra hyphen separating the two. I don't know where this belongs or how to go about deleting one of the articles. 2016-17 Ekstraklasa and 2016–17 Ekstraklasa are two different pages about the same exact topic. Much thanks! -- Matt918 ( talk) 04:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi all
I'm very happy to say that UNESCO has made the official descriptions of all Biosphere Reserve sites available under a Wikipedia compatible license. Currently around 440 (out of 670) of the Biosphere Reserves do not have an English language Wikipedia article.
These descriptions can be used as the missing Wikipedia articles with very little adaption. I have created a Wikidata query and a set of instructions to help people create the missing articles. I hope that this is useful for other people interested in using Wikidata to organise writing projects etc.
meta:WikiProject UNESCO/Create Biosphere Reserve Wikipedia articles from UNESCO descriptions
If you like you can retweet my tweet about it as well https://twitter.com/mrjohnc/status/733623393233346560
Thanks very much to Navino Evans who did all the data importing into Wikidata (a herculean effort) and Andy Mabbett for helping me with the instructions.
Cheers
John Cummings ( talk) 12:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello everyone.
This is a heads-up about a change which is going to be announced in Tech News: Add the "welcome" dialog (with button to switch) to the wikitext editor (in case you haven't read about it already at VPT).
In a nutshell, this will provide a one-time "Welcome" message in the wikitext editor which explains that anyone can edit, and every improvement helps. The user can then start editing in the wikitext editor right away, or switch to the visual editor. (This is the equivalent of an already existing welcome message for visual editor users, which suggests the option to switch to the wikitext editor. If you have already seen this dialog in the visual editor, you will not see the new one in the wikitext editor.)
If you want to learn more, please see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T133800; if you have feedback or think you need to report a bug with the dialog, you can post in that task ( or at mediawiki.org if you prefer).
Thanks for your attention and happy editing, -- Elitre (WMF) ( talk) 15:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
After two highly successful years, we have drafted the grant request for Wiki Loves Africa 2016. We need your help in two ways:
Main changes this year (which will impact on numbers of participants and levels of entires) are:
Any questions or suggestions, please let us know! Anthere and Isla Haddow ( talk) 12:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Hey all,
I've frequently noticed that the text in several graphical timelines is quite blurry. Some examples being:
1,
2, &
3.
Is there anyway to improve the text of these templates?
Houdinipeter (
talk)
15:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Would someone else chime in? Sunekit turned out to be a sockpuppet. The issue seems to affect math templates as well.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Houdinipeter ( talk • contribs) 03:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
I've never seen this template before, and to be frank, I'm not crazy about it. See Wicked Tuna. Does this look okay? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 20:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
And what about others reading this? TfD? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 22:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
There's now a second discussion of its sister template at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 May 21#Template:Must include -- Tagishsimon (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I have repeatedly required some scientifical sources for the claims on this page and tried to discuss with the opponent user, but he/she only continues his harassment and edition war. What can be done? -- Cupido1234 ( talk) 23:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
A pity we don't have a copyright village pump like Commons, or this would go there.
Until 2009 at least, Wikipedia:Copyrights stated If you contribute material to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public under the GFDL (with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). Nowadays, it states If you contribute text directly to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public for reuse under CC BY-SA and GFDL (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). Note the difference: the old version addressed all materials, not just text. Because all material contributed to Wikipedia was originally covered under GFDL, not just text, in our early years all images were considered to be under GFDL, and just as we accept text without licenses unless there's reason to suspect that it's a copyvio, images were accepted unless copyvio was suspected. However, the increasing number of users wanting to use licenses other than GFDL eventually prompted the creation of the system of license tags, but until virtually all of the old untagged images were tagged with GFDL, license tags weren't absolutely required. Nowadays, those old images occasionally get nominated for deletion because they don't have license tags added by their uploaders (e.g. see the discussion for File:LGATasmania Hobart.png at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 26, which prompted this whole issue), even though they were uploaded in compliance with policy with their rights released under a license that's still acceptable.
With this in mind, Sfan00 IMG and I have developed {{ Assumed license}}, with the goal of adding it to images of this sort, so that people understand what was going on and don't nominate them for deletion merely because the license was added by someone other than the uploader. As noted in the template's collapsed usage notes, it's not meant to prevent deletion of copyvio images or images that are simply useless; it's just meant to explain the licensing policy as of when these images were uploaded. I'm confident that it's a good idea, but we're just two editors, not the whole community, so I'm asking for your input, ruthless editing, etc., especially in the collapsed usage notes. Nyttend ( talk) 22:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate that someone is writing this very much tounge in cheek, but it would be appreciated if anyone here that knew of people on Wikipedia that would be able to help make these 'translations' work better, as well as possibly tidying up the commentary a little, if you could encourage them gently to help. Expertise with the academic analysis of historical/theological themes would also be appreciated XD Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
On the matter I came to post about:
re: this edit and this stub page creation: Hortonville_Joint_School_District_No._1._v._Hortonville_Education_Ass’n
, specificallyNot being a lawyer, I stumbled over this page title as a redlink dealing with another needed clarification edit this morning. While I've some familiarity with the law, and know this case was a Landmark precedent that has impacted my entire adult life.
• Since I don't have the time to do this justice, nor the interest in the law, nor on the MOS, and formatting of legal articles, those on Law and other linkable Legal articles, Law templates, etcetera...
• After looking for a Law and Legal task force, etc. like the Military History group to no avail, I've no recourse to remanding the matter I created as a stub (with my expansion of the case in Hortonville's section) to interested parties with the right credentials.
• So I strongly suggest some qualified individuals please follow up the
many web citable sources and make this a good article per our MOS standards. Best regards
Fra
nkB
16:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Citations to web sites go out of date, and then we have ones which have been rescues by Wayback - but they go out of date too due to robots.txt. I was just looking at [3] where two old links have disappeared due to this but it happens frequently everywhere. What do people feel about this? I can see some sense in sometimes hiding old material using a new robots.txt but very often it just strikes me as wrong. What should the policy be about material that was public in the past but for instance the site goes down and then somebody buys it up to put up ads and sticks a robots.txt on it saying don't cache anything? Dmcq ( talk) 12:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Years back, I suggested on some talk page that the solution for this, as well as the ambiguity of citations in general without quotations giving context would be to have a subpage (always linked), where a cite can be posted with a quote. Among other things, this would make it plain when & where a cite ending a long sentence applies and supports a subordinate clause or phrase. In some of the history articles I add context to, this would be awfully handy--the quote supports the sense of the material, or it doesn't and it sure beats wasting half an hour finding a reference, that may or not be available online in any case. Note, a template page with the same Title would be off public space, further, a Wikimarkup {#switch|...} by named reference might allow an inclusion of the references by moving them out of article space save for the link (we'd want to code the template namespace page by hash code or other short link to the template subsection (named case) given long article titles need the offloading most of all!). Point here is a template which includes a reference block <ref name=something> ... </ref>
can be included via template, the cites can unjunk the articles, and the quotes can be included in noinclude blocks (<noinclude> '| quote=blah, blah, blah ...' </noinclude>
) so they don't manifest when not wanted in the article. Alternatively, the article namespace '/doc' (or '/cites') subpage would be easy to find and maintain place where an original context and turn of phrase should be legal under fair use and sidestep this loss of webpage referenced cites. We've all had them, and they do suck! Restating the obvious, the offloading of a cite with quote would solve several matters besides vanishing citations, and editing being easier would be a nice benefit. //
Fra
nkB
16:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Here's an interesting conundrum.
An article
Gerwyn John, was redirected some time ago, to another, after an AfD. I noticed that recently and thought we should have an article on the subject. I boldly undid the redirect, with an edit summary of "Bold restoration, per WP:SSEFAR
".
WP:SSEFAR says:
In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items.
and Gerwyn John was indeed one of "a finite number of entries where most are notable" (in this case: people with Midland Metro trams named after them).
However,
User:Necrothesp reverted me, with an edit summary of "rv; already decided at WP:Afd"
.
My question is, leaving aside the specifics of this case, but noting that " consensus can change", where is the correct venue to decide whether such an article should be recreated? The talk page is likely unwatched; and this is clearly not an issue for WP:Deletion review. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
"Deletion Review should not be used... because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi all
I'm very happy to say that Wiki Loves Earth Biosphere Reserves is running in 120 countries throughout June covering all 699 Biosphere Reserves, the website is available in in English, French, Spanish and Russian but you can help to translate it into other languages.
I would really appreciate it if you could tell groups and individuals who may be interested in taking part, we can't run banners because of the number of countries involved. UNESCO is promoting the project so I hope this will encourage people from outside the Wikimedia movement to take part. You can also promote the project on social media by sharing any of these message from UNESCO on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, French, Spanish and Russian messages are linked to from the site. You can also contact Biosphere Reserves directly to encourage them to share their photos.
UNESCO have also made descriptions of their Biosphere Reserves available under CC-BY-SA so they can be used to start missing Wikipedia articles, I have created a simple to use guide to help.
Thanks very much and please feel free to contact me or ask questions here.
-- John Cummings ( talk) 19:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Would love some feedback and suggestions.
I have released a first preview of a free Android app idea I've been toying with for Commons.
The idea is to provide a simple-to-use image gallery for Commons. You can tap on an image to view more details and to zoom into a full resolution image, which is something I personally love doing for photography and artwork. I would like to make it search through all categories on commons, but for now I've implemented only a selection of 5 interesting categories, including Commons' Pictures of the Day and Wikipedia's Featured Pictures (currently only fetching 50 images from each).
I intend to keep working this and improving it in my spare time over the coming months. It's a hobby, not a commercial project, and I will likely open source it once it is a little more mature.
Google Play link - Available for Android 4.4+ phones. Ktcher ( talk) 03:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello all.
I’m not sure if that is the right place: If not, please move it to the right place.
There will be two PGP-/GPG-key-signing-parties at the Wikimania. One will be at Thursday (during the preconference), the other will be at Saturday – both at 17:30. The goal of the parties is to strengthen the connections between the different languages of Wikipedia. So if you have a key, please add yourself to the
list (to make our organizing easier) and come to one of the parties; you can of course also come without adding yourself to the list. --
DaB. (
talk)
22:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
From 6 June to 6 July we are holding a writing challenge about TED speakers. Everyone can participate by writing about people who have held a TED talk. For an overview of TED speakers in the in competition see here: User:Jane023/TED speakers. For an overview of all the TED talks that these people have held, see here: User:Jane023/TED talks. More information about the challenge, the points, the prizes, and the sign-up is here: TED speakers challenge. Jane ( talk) 15:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Why, even though, it is written as "Bahasa Indo...," Indonesian is alphabetized as if it began "Indo..."? This seems inconsistent and obstructing of searches. Kdammers ( talk) 13:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Just a reminder that in just over a week at Wikimania there's going to be a discussion about the systems of control of new pages. Anyone who is going to Italy and would like to take part, please check out the conference schedule, and I look forward to seeing you there. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The
Peace Treaties in Art 30 x 30 Challenge now on! We are very much looking forward to your participation in this inspirational contest aimed at creating, improving and translating articles on Peace Treaties in Art in the context of
Donostia-San Seastián 2016 European Capital of Culture, aspiring to provide by dint of collaboration (quality!) material available in the Wikipedia about this compelling topic, both present and timeless.
The project, promoted by the Basque Wikimedians User Group, originates in the Peace Treaty exhibitions project taking place in Donostia-San Sebastián 2016 European Capital of Culture due open on June 17. The Wikipedia challenge extends from June 17 (starting 12 pm CET) to July 17, including a Wikimarathon to be held on 9 July, everyone is invited! Leave your imprint along with other fellow wikipedians, you will win awards (and our eternal gratitude!) in the form of Barnstars and Donostia-San Sebastián stays! Thanks and see you there Iñaki LL ( talk) 01:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Maybe this is the sort of question that would be better asked at Reddit... it does affect the Wikipedia, including me, directly, though. Here's what I'm wondering:
I'm asking because I translate stuff, and I wonder if I'm wasting my time if there's a fair chance that within 5 to 20 years there's likely to be machine translation of text which (while it won't be perfect) will usually be good enough for most everyday use? Google Translate already gives a good enough rendition for most paragraphs that you can already kind-sorta get the gist accurately. Have we hit a wall where the art of translation cannot much grow until there's a true revolution in AI, or will incremental improvements be sufficient to render human text translation more and more obsolete?
Jimbo on his talk page is talking about possibly putting major WMF efforts into aiding translation efforts for some of the smaller languages. I'm for that, but I'm just wondering if we're perfecting the buggy-whip here? Anybody know anything about this? Herostratus ( talk) 16:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Note that Vasily Bochkaryov has died. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 ( talk) 15:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Attempts are being made to restart the inactive Maintenance collaboration of the week, which attempts to clear Wikipedia's lingering backlogs. If you are interested in this project, please sign up! Chickadee46 ( talk| contribs) 15:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Someone on the Reference Desk just asked a question about the use of the prefix "USS" with the ship USS Bonhomme Richard (1765).
It turns out that this is seriously anachronistic: the ship was not part of the US Navy, but of the earlier Continental Navy, and the use of USS with US Navy ships didn't become standard until much later, in the era of Theodore Roosevelt.
Possibly this means that the article should be renamed—but possibly not, as WP:AT#Use commonly recognizable names specifies that "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used". I am no expert on 18th century US naval history who would know what name is most commonly used in reliable sources [added later: or even if the addition of "USS" was retroactive"], so I'm just posting the question here for possible consideration.
And the reason I'm posting it here rather than on the article's talk page is that if it should be named, then quite likely there are other articles about pre-20th-century ships whose titles start with "USS" and which should also be renamed. If there is a better place for this suggestion, then I invite someone else to copy this posting there; for me, this is just a drive-by comment. -- 69.159.9.187 ( talk) 23:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Please note that Ernesto Maceda has died. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 ( talk) 11:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments from experienced editors with an interest in military history are kindly requested at the talk page of this article. Thank you. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
When died George Forrester, born 1934? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.106.146.91 ( talk) 12:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
I've finished a French academic work named Ethical drift with in Wikimedia movement and I will finish soon a other one named For a better economic justice with in the Wikimedia movement. I would like to translate this two works in English before Wikimania for sharing the contain with the whole community and maybe inspire discussion during the week. I didn't have time and competence to do it my self before Wikimania. Is that in this forum any person who can help me, starting translation or pointing a place where I can found this kind of help ? Thanks in advance Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Contact (French native speaker) 15:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, never mine. I've found a trick system to present my works in english thanks to google : For a Fair Economy in the Wikimedia movement and Ethical Drifts in the Wikimedia movement. A nice day for every one. Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Contact (French native speaker) 21:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
It has been suggested to me by the editor Coretheapple in the Discussion area of a current GA reassessment that the review be brought to the attention of a wider audience. The issues above are included in the review, so I hope there's enough of a cross-functional applicability. The article in question is Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz.
At the WP:FTN, the article was deemed as needing more attention from uninvolved editors:
The article has so far been commented on mainly by editors who write military biographies, which seems to have its own separate standards regarding sourcing and details such as I have never seen before.-- diff.
What we're not saying is that this is a GAR for a 10,000+ word essay full of WP:FANCRUFT that apparently seems to meet the GA criteria of a wikiproject with its own set of rules for what's encyclopedic.-- diff.
I would welcome feedback or a review of the article to see if it still meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria and whether it should be retained or delisted as a Good article. Specialist knowledge of the subject is not required. Thank you and happy editing. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I added a new section, at /info/en/?search=Talk:Larceny_by_trick#Idea_for_changing_the_redirect
I apologize if, in so doing, I inadvertently did something "incorrectly". It seems to have created a brand new "Talk:" page (for the corresponding article-space page, which is a redirect page), where no "Talk:" page previously existed. Please [feel free to] tell me if that new section should have gone somewhere else, instead -- "such as", into the (already existing) "Talk:" page of the article [about] " Larceny". (...which [article] is the current "target" of the redirect page, that I was Talk:ing about.)
Also, Please feel free to answer any questions asked in that new section -- "such as" this question:
(Is it possible for a redirect to point directly to a specific section of an article-space article?)
Thanks for any help / answers / advice. -- Mike Schwartz ( talk) 21:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Hallo all there, I am glad to point out a new functionality-ability. There is "now" a user-script, see Signing (with 10 years development ^^). It is open for testing and feedback. ToDo next week: Functionality in Mobile version! → User: Perhelion 12:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
importScript
indeed works only on the local Wikipedia (or MediaWiki page). Replace your code and use this instead:
meta:User_talk:Perhelion/signing.js You must see below the editfield a new checkbox. →
User: Perhelion
09:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
{{
ping}}
and for outdent use {{
od}}
? --
Anarchyte (
work |
talk)
09:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
The Netherlands Institute for Sound and Vision and the Dutch public broadcaster VPRO have joined forces in the initiative “Mind of the Universe: open video commons”. The Mind of the Universe is a unique international open source project based on the rapid evolution of our knowledge. The ten-part television series from Dutch public broadcaster, VPRO will show tomorrow's world through the eyes of the greatest thinkers and scientists of our time. The “open video commons”-component will (1) make a content donation of high-quality broadcast content, available in English (2) actively encourage the use of this material by the Wikipedia community and (3) highlight potential and provide practical support for setting up collaborations between public broadcasters and the Wikipedia community. In order to make this possible a Wikimedia Projects and Event Grant has been requested. Your support for this groundbreaking initiative would be much appreciated. You can read the full proposal and give your endorsement on the PEG Grant Application Page. Many thanks! 85jesse ( talk) 15:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
As is required by the BAG membership procedure I am placing this notification at WP:AN, WP:VPM, WT:BOT, and WP:BON. I am requesting to join the Bot Approvals Group and my request can be found here: Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/HighInBC. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 20:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User Ulafme asked me to ask here for help. User Jetstreamer is continuously reverting his properly cited and sourced edits about airplane specifications. The first problem there is, that it looks like the sources he use are blocked here, but maybe completely valid. Could you review the validity of sources like this or this and in case of being valid, then remove them from blocked URLs? The second problem, Ulafme told me, is, that user Jetstreamer maybe breaks content ownership policy on articles in airplane industry. Could somebody check out his activity? The third problem are continuous arguments and disputes between those two users (sometimes vulgar) on their talk pages, talk pages for articles, and so. Could somebody take a look at their disputes and maybe ask arbitrary commitee for some action? -- Dvorapa ( talk) 12:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Dear users of the English Wikipedia,
As (maybe) a lot of you know the English Vikidia started a few years ago. Vikidia is a kind of Wikipedia, but than for and by children. Of course adults (like Wikipedians, parents, teachers...) can join Vikidia too. Since a few months we started a project to promote the English Vikidia in several English-speaking countries, that's not the problem at all. Only we have one big problem. We haven't got many users at this time. That's why we started this project, to break the visual circle. I ask the community of the English Wikipedia to join Vikidia, like I did on the Simple English Wikipedia too. Everybody is needed, from users who can write articles to people who can help users.
Of course there also some advantages for Wikipedia. If this plan is worked out, Vikidia has a own community and is popular is English-speaking countries. I see at other Vikidia's (and WikiKids) that much children join Wikipedia as well and contribute on Wikipedia as well. If children find themselves too old for Vikidia, most of them start at Wikipedia. You can see Vikidia as a kind of training for children to become a Wikipedian on an older age. I'm even prepared that Vikidia become a wiki to educate Wikipedians that too young for Wikipedia self. So Vikidia can be more than a wiki alone.
Here is a link: en.vikidia.org. Questions? I've also a mail address. On Vikidia I'm active under the name Mike1023. Please, don't misunderstand me, I don't want to make any advertisement. I just want to help children, who find Wikipedia too difficult, and help Wikipedia as well with users.
Yours sincerely, Mike.Helden ( talk) 08:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
In Template_talk:Coat_of_arms#Erroneous_COAs.3F User:Gryffindor has introduced an edit protection for the template, after edit-warring through a disputed change of the status quo, without participating in the discussion. This must surely breach wikipedia policy, and the edit protecion should rather have been applied for this version, i.e. the status quo before the discussion was started. Please make this change. - Ssolbergj ( talk) 12:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Greetings! The Project Grants program is accepting proposals from July 1st to August 2nd to fund new tools, research, offline outreach (including editathon series, workshops, etc), online organizing (including contests), and other experiments that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Whether you need a small or large amount of funds, Project Grants can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.
Also accepting candidates to join the Project Grants Committee through July 15.
With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 15:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Is there an award for Today's Removal of Oldest and Weirdest BLP Violation? I'm claiming it. Drmies ( talk) 01:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I know there used to be a feature in google maps where Wikipedia articles are visible. But nowadays, is there a Wikipedia app or what programs/websites are available to display this information? Thanks much! Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out what's going on with Category:Articles in Wikipedia Primary School Project SSAJRP. It looks a bit like a WikiProject page but instead it looks like the actual pages are tagged and not the talk pages. It links to a project at meta which I can't even figure out how's it is related to here. The parent category looks like it was some sort of educational project, again from meta, that seems to pick some major pages here for alleged improvement including by so-called experts. Is there some project here to bring in "experts" to identify and I guess fix projects based on the views of those experts? Is there a project here to identify those experts at meta and bring them here from that place without any involvement of the pages here? -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
In the months July and August 2016 Wikimedia Belgium organises the photo contest Wiki Loves Art. In this period spread over Belgium some museums open their doors for Wikipedians who want to photograph art and upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Wiki Loves Art is organised because we noticed that Belgian art is less well described on Wikipedia in comparison with neighbouring countries and less images are available. To stimulate the knowledge and images about these subjects in Wikipedia, we organise a photo contest, similar to Wiki Loves Monuments.
Participation to Wiki Loves Art is possible by making photos in participating museums of the museum and/or the artworks that are designated by the museum. Some museums are open for two months for photographers, other museums only on certain days and times.
Participating museums are:
More information about participation can be found at our website: http://www.wiki-loves-art.be/
Romaine ( talk) 10:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The writing challenge about TED speakers, originally scheduled to end 6 July, has been extended to Wednesday 13 July. Everyone can participate by writing about people who have held a TED talk posted on TED.com. For an overview of TED speakers in the in competition see here: User:Jane023/TED speakers. For an overview of all the TED talks that these people have held, see here: User:Jane023/TED talks. More information about the challenge, the points, the prizes, and the sign-up is here: TED speakers challenge. Jane ( talk) 06:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
By mere coincidence, I found two cases of self-promotional reference spam within the past two months: Jojojava and 151.72.6.77, both adding numerous references to published articles of J. Benchimol and F. G. Santeramo, respectively, to various Wikipedia articles. I doubt that those two are the only cases out there, so I wondered if we could think of a way to automatically detect this sort of edit behavior: IPs or single-purpose accounts adding identical references to numerous articles (while adding no content). Maybe we could have a bot flagging this type of edits, because it is very hard to spot for the human eye. -- bender235 ( talk) 23:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Why do we have Category:All Wikipedia articles written in American English, Category:All Wikipedia articles written in Australian English, etc. but not Category:All Wikipedia articles written in British English? – nyuszika7h ( talk) 13:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
{{
Progress box}}
does just fine. The "hidden categories" list at the bottom of the page (if you have it enabled) is full enough without having two items for each maintenance issue.If anybody would like to win up to £250 ($330) in August for improving articles on SouthWest England sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge. All participants are welcome! Just a bit of fun, there will be three days allocated to each country such as Devon, and Cornwall and something to win daily.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
How are general readers defined? Are they rich or poor? Intelligent or broad? Curious or ignorant? I spent my time figuring out who qualify as general readers. So far, I end up more concerned about quality more than about quantity. Still, do readers usually go for the introduction of an article and then shift to another article? Do readers go for statistics? Plot summaries? Are they curious enough to read further after reading the lead? How do I find out who is a general reader without generalizing people? -- George Ho ( talk) 19:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Can you explain exactly why you are asking this remarkably unfocused question? I can't help but feel that if we understood what actual issue you were trying to address here it might save an awful lot of wasted time. As the question stands there is no way to give a meaningful answer. I'll close it if you can't clarify. Begoon talk 14:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi all
I would like to know if there is a way to find all the instances of a template that use a particiular website in at least one field. Specifically I want to know how many of the uses of Template:Open-source_attribution have a url that includes unesco.org in at least one field. Currently this is possible to do by hand but I expect it will be used a lot more in the near future.
Many thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 09:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
unesco.org
within it --
samtar
talk or
stalk
11:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Hi
I've been doing some work on creating guidance and a VE and Source editor compatible template for importing open license text into English Wikipedia. Currently there is a bug with VE meaning it cannot use nested templates so we have created a workaround, once this bug has been fixed then a better technical solution will be found. I'm more looking for suggestions for additions to the guidance page at the moment and how the attribution is displayed. If you would like to try it out I've created some guidance on using open license text from UNESCO publications and descriptions in Wikipedia.
Many thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 10:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't intend do post this as a proposal, but only a report. Since October 2012 pt-Wikipedia non-admin rollbackers have been allowed to make low risk level blocks, what means a block of a maximum of 24 hours on an ip or a non-confirmed account. This has been beta-implemented and the test was successful, without further problems, despite the initial fear of increasing mistakes. This tool is still "on", has reduced the backlog of blocks and also has been a very important help in fighting against vandalism. Perhaps The reality here doesn't recommend the same policy implementation, but I think somebody would like to know this at least as a curiosity. Millbug talk 04:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I get a query and made lists which shows there are some articles with two deaths or two births categories. some of the articles are correct and some of them should be solve please help me to correcting them.
the queries are the their talk page. Yamaha5 ( talk) 13:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Gutenberg we all remember as one of the pioneer open knowledge sites. However pages such as this are copyvios of Wikipedia. I have previously emailed Project Gutenberg about this sort of thing, and have made no progress.
What can we do?
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
21:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC).
-- Tagishsimon (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll go look for where to contact the WMF about this, and I'll post a followup. Alsee ( talk) 10:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC) Email sent to WMF legal. Alsee ( talk) 12:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The gutenberg.org page for History of Wikipedia also says the author is World Heritage, and has the same insane content quoted above. Alsee ( talk) 12:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, Alsee asked me to reply here rather than to the email. So I wanted to say thanks for passing this along and let you all know we're looking into it. - Jrogers (WMF) ( talk) 23:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm curious as to how many registered users have actually made at least one edit. Is such a statistic available anywhere? Biblio ( talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 00:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
There's an effort to collect information about smaller Wikipedias at m:Tell us about your Wikipedia. If you are involved in some other Wikipedias, please look through the list there and see if you can provide more information about other Wikipedias. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I've started a draft essay on the problems with using negative claims, statements that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something and depend on the absence of evidence to prove its validity, with regards to WP:Verifiability and especially WP:BURDEN. I would like to present the essay for further expansion and provide examples of negative claims. One example I have encounter are claims that assert a television series or film has not been released for home video. However, I'm not exactly sure how to best present that example. The draft can be found at User:TheFarix/Avoid negative claims. — Farix ( t | c) 13:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Please note that Eleuterio Fernández Huidobro has died. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 ( talk) 09:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm a journalist and looking for any Wikipedia statistics related to India, for the purpose of writing some article. Thanks, fredericknoronha ( talk) 05:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I expect that many contributors here know that there is another community at Wikimedia Commons which solicits for all sorts of individuals and organizations to provide media files like images for reuse in various language Wikipedias and beyond. When an organization shares their media collection at Commons, there is no standard way for them to do that. Perhaps all of their files are in a certain category, and the organization manages their activity at the top-level category for their organization. Another way they might do this is to set up a project page on Commons, which can be something like a WikiProject here. Commons often encourages anyone who uploads content to integrate that content into various language Wikipedias and other Wikimedia projects when relevant.
There is an organization at Commons which donated a media collection. It is generous of anyone to apply free licenses to a media collection and share it. The media collection is in this category, and the category also seems to be the hub for organizing a project to engage with the media.
On WP:OTRS in the private ticket:2016071010007208, a user wrote in to request that the use of images from this project be checked. They suggested that the project might be posting pictures in various Wikipedia articles even when the pictures were not the sort that Wikipedia usually uses for illustrating concepts. This pictures might be related to a single individual or family. Here are the images that the user questioned. The text under them is links to Wikipedia articles where the pictures are inserted.
I am not sure. I did not check these and the other uploaded images, but I thought I would raise the issue here to see if anyone else wanted to take this one. I am directing the person who wrote to OTRS to check here for updates. I am not following this further. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Please be renamed with Greek Nikolas if possible. Thanks in advance.-- Νικόλας Παπαποστόλου ( talk) 12:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
With the changes (last month and today) to the ping system the information at the Wikipedia:Notifications and Wikipedia:Notifications/FAQ pages is now out of date and, in some cases, misleading or wrong. I had posted a request for updating here Wikipedia talk:Notifications#Update needed that Quiddity (WMF) kindly responded to. I haven't seen any changes to either page though so I thought I would ask here to see if those who understand the ins and outs of the changes could work out the new wording and pictures that both pages require. If this is not the proper place for this question please feel free to move it to a better spot. MarnetteD| Talk 23:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
When you make an infobox template, it is not uncommon to have a section with optional data fields, where you want the section header to disappear when no data fields are present. This is described in Template:Infobox/doc#Hiding headers when all data fields are hidden. The infobox documentation suggests that there should be a way to make a header row autohideable by detecting if there is at least one non-empty data row after that header row.
I read that and agreed, so I made a proposal for a change in Module:Infobox to implement that. My changed code is in Module:Infobox/sandbox, and here is a diff from the current version.
It works by introducing a new series of parameters, called condheader(n) for conditional header. A condheader will work exactly as a normal header if it is followed immediately by a data row in the infobox. But if the next row is not a data row, the condheader will be suppressed. The new version should not change anything at all for current infoboxes with no condheader(n) parameters.
I have tested the condheader(n) parameter with a modified Template:Infobox bridge in my personal sandbox, and it seems to work fine. I have also tested the new code with several existing infoboxes, and seen no chance at all.
This change could make many infoboxes simpler to code and maintain. Please give your opinion at Template talk:Infobox#Conditional header. Thank you, Dipsacus fullonum ( talk) 07:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
It might not be relevant, but last night I had an interesting dream that a top YouTube commentator (it might have been a Wikipedia visitor) wrote this:
This article is about the ancient Egyptian goddess. For the jihadist militant group sometimes abbreviated as ISIS, see Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
For other uses, see Isis (disambiguation). Is this a Wikipedia article or just two cats playing?
So, I'm just wondering why do we need this article to be our main article for those characters? In my opinion, we are just distracting potential viewers or users. 91.185.109.142 ( talk) 17:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Approximately two weeks ago, I uploaded a fair-use logo on English Wikipedia for an article on a non-profit organization. When I finally submitted it for review, a message said that there was a significant backlog and it would take days to complete the review. I've been waiting for about 10 days, and meanwhile Twinkle has removed the "orphaned" image. Wouldn't it be better if Twinkle checked the queue of articles waited review, and delayed removal in circumstances like mine? Illuminer2 ( talk) 12:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
What's the deal with edits like this? I started reverting things, but I'm wondering if there was ever a community-wide discussion on the issue. (Basically, people are changing birthplaces to read "Lithuania", instead of "Lithuanian SSR". And so forth with other Baltic states.) Thanks! Zagalejo ^^^ 04:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
A discussion has been started at Template talk:Citation needed regarding an apparent conflict between the documentation for the tags {{ citation needed}} and {{ dubious}} – namely, which to use for statements in articles that are both unsourced and of questionable validity. — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 23:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Note that Midget Farrelly has died on 7 august according to Google. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 ( talk) 17:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Could someone who reads German please check {{ Brueckenweb}}? Some of the links it generates, like [9], are returning blank pages for me. The site's home page works, so maybe the link structure has changed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
We have the same issue with {{ Aeiou}}, also for a German site. @ Jo-Jo Eumerus: can you oblige, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Starten Sie eine Suche nach dieser Seite im neuen AEIOU durch einen Klick hiersentence there is a search result page which seems to usually point to the replacement article. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk:SIG MCX# RFC: Is the Orlando shooting relevant? Please comment there if you have an opinion. Felsic2 ( talk) 01:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello.
I noticed recently that periods (.) seem to have now replace bullet points on Wikipedia pages in all places where the latter used to be used - e.g. disambig pages and other places with lists.
I personally find the new standard to be less intuitive, and in fact a bit annoying.
I tried to google for more info about this recent change, but couldn't seem to find anything relevant.
If somebody here knows more about this and could share, or at least post a link or two to where this change was discussed prior to its adoption then this would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance! - 2003:CA:83D1:4E00:98B6:71:B8E6:D4A4 ( talk) 14:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I have started a discussion about the use of Google translate links in citations and external links sections. Please comment there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I just wondered how we deal with source code messages like this one aimed at preventing editors from a certain modification or addition to an article. This particular case is a curious one because Giano II ( talk · contribs) decided this one 8 years ago unilaterally without prior discussion anywhere, but even if the message is softened to a suggestion for prior discussion before adding an infobox as modified by SchroCat ( talk · contribs), is this really how we want it? Especially since, in that particular case it turned out that the suggestion was just a sugar-coated way of saying "suggest an infobox on the talk page so that we can tell you they are not mandatory by Wikipedia guidelines which entirely nullifies all your arguments instantly and chokes the discussion."
Anyhow, my point is that we should not have these discouraging messages in the first place. Rather than have to seek new consensus in a week-long discussion, editors should simply edit. If lets say over a several weeks a different editors repeatedly attempt to add an infobox to a certain article, then that's a sign of new consensus. Messages like the one added to this particular article have quite probably discouraged any attempt to add an infobox over the past 8 years. -- bender235 ( talk) 01:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Off topic and moving towards the tendentious. – SchroCat ( talk) 20:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Policies ... Guidelines ... Essays ... Other pages that can be found in the Wikipedia: namespace include community process pages (which facilitate application of the policies and guidelines), historical pages, WikiProject pages, or help pages (also found in the Help namespace), community discussion pages and noticeboards." Stop making things up. -- RexxS ( talk) 23:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
This is an issue which is, practically, not going to be easy to solve. There are many essays, some clearly-stated as essays, some not, which are "see also'ed" or equivalent from policy or guideline pages. Whether those references/links give them some weight more than mere essays (as referred to by WP:ADVICEPAGE) is a question which, as far as I know, has never been addressed. Since I spend a lot of time monitoring some policy pages, I would note that on the core policies the addition of such links generally doesn't get by without consensus and, thus, at least some blessing as something more than just essays, but on other non-core policies I'd be willing to wager they don't get nearly as much attention. The practical problem is that I don't think that any one answer will work: In some cases they probably are "junior policies" or "policy by reference" but in others not. The problem is compounded by the fact that since they're not identified as policy or guidelines, that editors coming onto them from places other than the links in the policy feel much freer to edit them than they would a policy and since others may not think of them as policy-by-reference, they may not come under the same degree of scrutiny as designated policies or guidelines. Frankly, with all that in play my thought is that as a general rule they cannot be given any more weight than ordinary essays and that editors who wish for them to be given weight as guidelines or policies should be required to formally propose them for that status. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 23:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
We have started WikiProject Unsourced Article Rescue, as there are thousands of older unsourced articles. We will be holding article rescue drives, with rewards. Sign up today! ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what's the best place to post this, so I'm just posting here. Feel free to move or place a notification on other relevant talk pages. {{ Split from}} and {{ Split to}} were subject to a TfD discussion back in March, and it was closed with a consensus to merge, but all that was done is {{ Split article}} created as a copy of {{ Split from}}. It does not appear to be usable as a replacement for {{ Split to}}. Honestly, {{ copied}} can do the job fine and it may be best to convert transclusions to that, but I'll leave the details to someone else. Pinging Izkala as the closer and BU Rob13 as the creator of {{ Split article}}. – nyuszika7h ( talk) 14:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Why do so many irrelevant random posts end up at Wikipedia talk:Shortcut ( history)? Is it linked from somewhere that it shouldn't be? Or is Wikipedia:Shortcut linked from many pages? I can understand Wikipedia talk:About ( history), Wikipedia talk:General disclaimer ( history), Wikipedia talk:Contact us ( history) etc. getting a lot of attention, since Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:General disclaimer, Wikipedia:Contact us etc. are linked at the bottom of every single page. But why should WT:Shortcut get an even higher level of noise? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 08:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I am not sure if wikipedia needs 2 pages for Zechariah as 1 and 2? Or there is a difference between them or they are the same but titles are different? Thanks. Gharouni Talk 07:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello Wikimedians!
The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for free, full-access, accounts to published research as part of our publisher donation program. You can now sign up for new accounts and research materials from:
Many other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page, including Project MUSE, EBSCO, DeGruyter, Gale and Newspaperarchive.com.
Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--
The Wikipedia Library Team 18:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd be grateful for help in identifying one or more categories for two articles, Allen Confluence Gravels and Beltingham River Shingle. Both are Sites of Special Scientific Interest in the UK and categorised as such. I'm looking for a category which covers the sort of landforms they represent - river shingles or gravels in which flora grows. It's possible that we don't have an applicable category, in which case suggestions for a new category are welcomed ... there are probably other examples of such landforms within the large collection of UK SSSIs. thanks -- Tagishsimon (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I suggest we sort through this list and do a mass move to add hypens like "most watched" --> "most-watched".
If you think this is a good plan, please consider sorting the list into those that need the move and those that do not. (A quick way is to dump the list into a notepad and add ` at the left of the entries needing the move, and then alphasort the list to get them to float to the top.)
So, should this be done? Is this necessary? If so, I can post at all the talks directing them here for input.
FYI: There was another one like this about superlatives. See here.
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 08:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I guess File:Kiev poly logo.png have to be deleted from the English wikipedia because there is the same free file on Commons commons:File:NTUU KPI logo.png-- Tohaomg ( talk) 21:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
If you are interested in future list generation using Wikidata, please consider taking a look at d:Wikidata:List generation input and providing any comments on d:Wikidata talk:List generation input. -- Izno ( talk) 11:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Od Mishehu ( talk • contribs) 17:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Category:Pages using deprecated coordinates format is being applied (to 14,801 pages, at the time of writing) by coordinate templates, despite there having been no discussion about deprecating the formats concerned. My proposal to delete the category was - after a low traffic discussion - closed, with the comment "Mayhaps you may want to have a discussion at the Village pump so that it's available for a broader forum."
. In that discussion, I asked
User:Jackmcbarn for a list of the edits where he applied the category, but he did not provide one.
An example of a page placed in this category, whose coordinates are applied in a manner to be expected, which was arrived at after long discussion and which has long-standing consensus, is Aiguille Aqueduct.
I will place a pointer to this discussion, at other VPs and relevant talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
|coordinates=
parameter to find text such as 43.2304°N 2.6086°E
, <span class="latitude">43°13′49″N</span> <span class="longitude">2°36′31″E</span>
or 43.2304_N_2.6086_E
/43_13_49_N_2_36_31_E
, all of which {{
Coord}} outputs; and the values could then be put into the infobox map.
Jc86035 (
talk •
contribs) Use {{
re|Jc86035}} to reply to me
14:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
|region:
etc. - I did both of those in
this edit four years ago. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
14:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
{{Main other| <!-- causes following to work only if in an article, not any other namespace -->
{{#if:{{{clearance|}}}|
[[Category:Articles using Template:Infobox bridge with clearance]]}}
{{#if:{{{coordinates|}}}|
[[Category:Pages using deprecated coordinates format]]}}
{{#if:{{{extra|}}}|
[[Category:Pages using Infobox bridge with extra]]}}
{{#if:{{{map_cue|}}}{{{map_text|}}}|
[[Category:Pages using Infobox bridge with deprecated parameters]]}}
}}
coordinates=
parameter is apparently deprecated. This test
was added 2014-09-23 by
Frietjes (
talk ·
contribs). Perhaps she will join in this discussion. —
EncMstr (
talk)
17:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
{{{coordinates|...coord...}}}
if I do not want a map, and {{{latd}}}
etc if I do want a map. That's editor's choice at the article level. I generally would not include the coordinates twice, nor find the "don't show the map" parameter if I use the parameters that make it appear. --
Scott Davis
Talk
13:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
{{#invoke:Coordinates/sandbox|coord2text|{{Coord|24|56|35|N|101|3|26|W}}|long}}
returns "-101.05722". ({{
Coord}} always returns coordinates in both formats, one of them invisible.)
Jc86035 (
talk •
contribs) Use {{
re|Jc86035}} to reply to me
14:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll say again what I said before: the deprecated coordinates format has no advantages (if I'm wrong about this, please tell me what the advantages are), but it has the major disadvantage that it doesn't support location maps. I see no reason to not deprecate an option in favor of a completely superior one. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 01:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
{{
coord}}
but have never worked with location maps. Works in all articles including those that do not have infoboxes. "Doesn't support location maps" was a good argument until it was shown that it could support them, and without an excessive effort. Now it's largely a non-argument. I don't think "completely superior" is accurate. ―
Mandruss
☎
03:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
|coordinates=
parameter and {{
Location map}}
(like
Template:Infobox building), then replace (for example – from Infobox building) |lat = {{#if:{{{latm|}}}{{{latNS|}}}| | {{#if:{{{latitude|}}}|{{{latitude}}}|{{{latd|}}}}} }}
|long = {{#if:{{{longm|}}}{{{longEW|}}}| | {{#if:{{{longitude|}}}|{{{longitude}}}|{{{longd|}}}}} }}
|lat = {{#if:{{{latm|}}}{{{latNS|}}}| | {{#if:{{{latitude|}}}|{{{latitude}}}|{{{latd|{{#invoke:Coordinates|lat|{{{coordinates|}}}}} }}}}} }}
|long = {{#if:{{{longm|}}}{{{longEW|}}}| | {{#if:{{{longitude|}}}|{{{longitude}}}|{{{longd|{{#invoke:Coordinates|long|{{{coordinates|}}}}} }}}}} }}
|coordinates=
only if parameters |latitude=
, |longitude=
, |latd=
and |longd=
aren't present.) —
Jc86035 (
talk •
contribs) Use {{
re|Jc86035}} to reply to me
16:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)@ Mandruss: To answer your question of 15:54 (UTC), it is quite clear that the format in question has never been deprecated. I have not wavered from my intention to revert Jackmcbarn's edits categorising it as such, so that the community can discuss the way forward, from a position of status quo, per WP:BRD, but he has failed to acknowledge my request that he reveal where he made those edits (it would appear that multiple infoboxes are involved), thereby presenting us with a fait acompli (rather, several of them). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
{{
Coord}}
in infoboxes. Such a highly-public proposal will eventually be needed, lest we repeat the failure to collaborate that we're complaining about. Just not sure we're ready for it yet. I could sandbox it if anyone wants to look at it. ―
Mandruss
☎
19:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC){{
Coord}}
. I would propose to deprecate those named parameters and use only |coordinates=
{{
Coord}}
, even when there is a {{
Location map}}
. ―
Mandruss
☎
20:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)|coordinates=
parameter? So that the other parameters (e.g |lat_degrees=
) are instead passed on to {{
Coord}}?
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
20:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
|coordinates=
, deprecate |latd=
and all the other named parameters that have equivalent positional parameters in {{
Coord}}
(roughly ten parameters). Modify {{
Coord}}
and the infoboxes to pass latitude and longitude from {{
Coord}}
to {{
Location map}}
. From above discussion, it seems
Jc86035 has already sandboxed the changes to
Module:Coordinates, and they have detailed the necessary changes to infoboxes above. In other words, one common way to code all coordinates-related data in any article, whether the article has an infobox or not, and whether the infobox uses {{
Location map}}
or not. ―
Mandruss
☎
20:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
|coordinates=
to toggle on/off Wikidata info based on a yes/no value (displaying all other values as usual).
Jc86035 (
talk •
contribs) Use {{
re|Jc86035}} to reply to me
07:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
{{
coord}}
directly (perhaps in a |coordinates=
infobox param) or whether it uses three or more separate infobox parameters like |latitude=
|longitude=
|coord_region=
, so long as both methods are not used in the same article (a tracking category for detecting such duplication is useful). Where there are two methods in use on the same article, you have two latitudes and two longitudes, which should be the same, but can easily become different. Perhaps an article starts off with two identical sets, but both are wrong in some way; somebody notices that the title coord link goes to the wrong place, corrects the title coords, but doesn't notice that there is also a set of pushpin map coords which must be fixed in synch. This is what I meant by "there should be one set of coordinates" above, which some people seem to assume meant that I was taking one side. I am a supporter of pushpin maps, and for so long as the coordinates for such maps cannot be extracted from {{
coord}}
, I am using the separate infobox parameters method - but that doesn't mean that I always will. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
10:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)@
Mandruss: So Wikidata's out of the question then. For the infobox templates, I'm not entirely sure how to phrase it but it'd probably be something like "in parameter |lat=
/|long=
of {{
Location map}} insert [module code] inside {{{latd|}}}
after the vertical bar, so it replaces both |latitude=
and |latd=
if both are empty" (repeated twice for latitude and longitude). Most of the parameter names should be the same throughout the infobox templates, except possibly a few |coordinatesN=
/|coordinatesE=
.
Jc86035 (
talk •
contribs) Use {{
re|Jc86035}} to reply to me
05:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I have presented the proposal as an RfC, at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Deprecate named coordinates-related infobox parameters. ― Mandruss ☎ 02:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
The RfC at Talk:Eritrea#Location has turned circular and unresolveable, with about half a dozen parties sticking to their positions immovably no matter what is offered. I would suggest that an influx of fresh eyes on the matter would be of great benefit before it gets any more WP:LAME. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think the title of this article is rather odd, but I'm not quite sure what to change it to; the only slight change I can think of is from "Columbine massacre" to Columbine High School massacre, as that is where the school's article is located. (I normally would have posted this on the article's talk page, but that place is a ghost town.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 20:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
The Discovery Search Team wants to enable search results that will include articles across all wiki projects – within the same language.
We'd like your feedback on the specifics of how this new functionality might work, and feedback or alternative ideas for the possible design options.
Thank you for your time. DTankersley (WMF) ( talk) 15:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
{{Myspace}}
was deleted (after substututuon) after
a TfD discussion in January 2015. We nonetheless still have
over 3400 links to MySpace.
We should never delete an external link template, when we have so many links to the external site. They should only be deleted if and when they are unused (or have trivially low usage)
I've tried to recreate deleted templates in the past, but had them speedily deleted "per previous TfD".
We apparently have no forum specifically to discuss such recreations, so I'm suggesting here that we do so.
We can then convert those 3400-odd links, so that the benefits of the template - ease of tracking, wrapping {{ Cite web}} so that we benefit from its machine readable metadata, single change if the site goes offline or changes its URL structure - can be realised.
@ Magioladitis, Green Cardamom, Martijn Hoekstra, Lady Lotus, TenPoundHammer, and JohnBlackburne:, @ ATS, Davey2010, Fredddie, Christian75, Mashaunix, and NinjaRobotPirate:, @ Beetstra and Daniel Case: - as people involved in the TfD, or recent discussion at BOTREQ. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I wonder too. The problem is over these two discussions no-one has come up with even one example of a band or other act using MySpace at all, never mind using it as their primary web presence. My own limited investigations suggest that Myspace is to all effects dead.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 07:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: I rather fear some people here are missing the point (and I was not seeking a re-run of the previous TfD): deletion is not cleanup. We have lots of links to MySpace. That is irrefutable. So long as we do, they should be in a template, for the reasons stated (and this is regularly done without drama, once we have a dozen or more links to a single site). The template should be deleted when and only when the links have already been removed. "Endorsing deletion" won't remove a single link. Having the template will not prevent removal of links where they should not be present. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to echo Andy's general statement: "We should never delete an external link template, when we have so many links to the external site." We probably should not have 3400 links to MySpace, but 3400 dead links to MySpace would be a worse situation than 3400 working links to MySpace. Working social media links are better than dead social media links, even when we agree that many of them ought to be removed. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 10:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Note that K. R. Vijaya has died according to Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 ( talk) 05:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello!! I hope that someone is able to help me. For a project page I want to put 4 text boxes side by side - 2 across, 2 down. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the project, I have to do it without using a template. I have tried to figure it out with other codes (looking at other pages), but I cannot get the two boxes to sit next to each other within the grey box. Please help!! I currently prefer the top two boxes on this link: User:Islahaddow/sandbox/WikiFundi_Mainpage - but I need to sit the one next to the other, with two similar boxes aligned underneath. Is this possible? Isla Haddow ( talk) 08:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I need the superpowers of regular editors to determine if a Wikipedia entry has been entirely manufactured or not.
Here is a link to my findings: https://www.reddit.com/r/actualconspiracies/comments/51sq7n/any_proof_that_the_wikipedia_entry_classical
It might be a revisionist attempt to link the history of liberalism to economics. But nothing from 1600s to 1990s reveals such a connection. So far.
Its entry in Wikipedia has plenty of "citations", but they all are after the year 2000. Kind of self-referencing.
All citations on the Wikipedia entry that refer to "liberalism" defined as "free" market ideology, are conveniently from books and articles dating after 2000.
If "Classical Liberalism" meant anything other than what it means today, wouldn't it show up in old books of etymology and in old books? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grassvoter ( talk • contribs) 22:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I have started Wikipedia:Spellcheck dictionary, with the intention of compiling a list of Wikipedia-related words, terms, abbreviations, and acronyms that people can add to their software's local dictionary. It's far from complete - please add to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Greetings! The Project Grants program is accepting proposals from September 12 to October 11 to fund new tools, research, offline outreach (including editathon series, workshops, etc), online organizing (including contests), and other experiments that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Project Grants can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.
Also accepting candidates to join the Project Grants Committee through October 1.
With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) ( talk) 14:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi all
I'm working on the Connected Open Heritage project which plans to upload national built heritage registers to Wikidata (these are often the lists that WLM is based upon in each country). The first step is to create a worldwide list of built heritage registers on Wikipedia, we would really like your help in completing this list with your local knowledge. It should only take a few minutes to fill the information in for each country if you know who produces the information.
Thanks very much
John Cummings ( talk) 12:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm wondering why it's taken over three days to get a response to a speedy deletion. 117Avenue ( talk) 01:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the title says it.
HandsomeFella ( talk) 18:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the title says it.
HandsomeFella ( talk) 18:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi all,
Your neighbour, French Wiktionary, is quite proud to publish every month an online magazine with fresh news about the project, Actualités. It is quite like a small brother of The Signpost. It is not targeting contributors but visitors and people interested into words. After 17 editions, we decided to translate our last edition of August into English, to make this publication available for you. It was quite a long job, so we are not sure if it worth it, so let us know if you have so interest for it. Feel free to comments on any aspects of this publication, we are very open to improve it and our translation - as English is not my mother tongue. Also, thanks to Andrew Sheedy ( talk · contribs) and Pamputt ( talk · contribs) for supporting this translation! hope you'll like this! Noé ( talk) 14:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Please note that Hovhannes Tcholakian has died. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 ( talk) 12:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
This RFC covers two automotive articles with similar disputed material.
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Request for Comment: Inclusion of vehicle use in crimes as part of vehicle articles. Felsic2 ( talk) 15:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I really doubt that this will be of any help but an example where I came across this is at Bhagat Singh. Besides archives to all the GB books links (just the general link using ids not the page) in the Bibliography part of the References section, there is one use of it on a page link: "Louis E. Fenech; W. H. McLeod (11 June 2014). Historical Dictionary of Sikhism. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 64. ISBN 978-1-4422-3601-1. Archived from the original on 1 October 2015."
Just to confirm, it's pretty much useless right? Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 15:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I thought this would be a simple question to answer, but so far I've come up with 5 different answers:
Any idea which of those (if any) is the correct answer? Kaldari ( talk) 22:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
A suggestion. Since this appears to be a question that is destined to be asked again, perhaps the fact of where the canonical list/number of Featured Articles can be found ought to be recorded on one of the related pages. (I didn't know that answer until now, & wouldn't know where to look to find it.) -- llywrch ( talk) 16:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Category talk:Violence against men#Which version is better?. jps ( talk) 18:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Why is "Wiki loves monument" banner displayed on top of every page links to a Spanish web site http://www.wikilm.es/?pk_campaign=Centralnotice ? I don't speak this language Mascarponette ( talk) 10:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm new to this section so please redirect me if it's the wrong place for this query. I've been puzzling over the fact that Welsh isn't as varied as English in terms of place names so a disambiguation page seems to meld into becoming a content page. See, for example, Llanarmon. This is a village name that refers to a prominent local feature, the church. It literally means St Garmon's Church. There are lots of Llanarmons, all meaning the same thing, just in different places. Similarly, Pentre means village, though Wikipedia currently only seems to refer to one of the numerous places with that name. It is possible to repeat the origin of a name on every single page that is an instance of that name, but it seems to make more sense to have a single source of truth on a central page, especially if it is slightly controversial. (An example of such a controversy might be where an early saint went on a stomp around Wales founding churches, but nobody documented exactly who he was so there are two or three candidates.) But is that then a disambiguation page or a content page? Or does it not matter! Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tessthepuppy ( talk • contribs) 19:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
A discussion had been started at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking § Linking to sections of articles about whether to use the link formats [[Article#Section]]
or [[Article#Section|name of link]]
in articles, as opposed to a separate redirect page to the desired section. —
Coconutporkpie (
talk)
09:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Greetings! The Project Grants program is currently accepting proposals for funding. There is just over a week left to submit before the October 11 deadline. If you have ideas for software, offline outreach, research, online community organizing, or other projects that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers, start your proposal today! Please encourage others who have great ideas to apply as well. Support is available if you want help turning your idea into a grant request.
I JethroBT (WMF) ( talk) 19:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
For at least ten years, sources and external links to NNDB have been around on Wikipedia. NNDB is the Notable Names Database, which has various (though unsourced) kinds of informatiom on people. WP:RS has ruled NNDB an unreliable source many times, and Jimmy Wales said as much himself ten years ago ( Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive 3#nndb is not a reliable source). NNDB does provide a bibliography, but these are merely sources which show that the person was important, so the information on the pages is practically unsourced. The presence of these links has led some to declare NNDB as link spammers, as there are 4375 external links to NNDB. This overlaps many noticeboards, so what do you think should be done? Should all NNDB links be purged? -- Alexschmidt711 ( talk) 20:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
People often talk about governments or political groups infiltrating Wikipedia and editing it to promote their agendas, but are there any verified examples of this happening?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 03:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
On English Wikipedia, guidelines such WP:Harassment are very helpful in our trying to prevent users from stalking and harassing other users and creating contentious debates (always detrimental to constructive work and good article content), just because of real or imagined political differences. We should perhaps be aware that there are other language projects which have no such guidelines at all, and that some political-agenda users who come here from them, whether to infiltrate articles and discussions with their POV or just to pick fights, may not be accustomed to the stricter policies of English Wikipedia. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 14:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
≤I know there was a spate of British Tory MPs editing their entries just before the last general election (May 2015) to obviously remove anything that portrayed them In a less-than-favourable light or, in some cases to add things that weren't true to boost their image. I know this because the computer network at Westminster logs everything and one paper - think it was either the Guardian or the Independent - made a FoIA request as they're been rumours circulating - I think Wikipedia is now blocked at Westminster!
Margo (
talk)
22:35, 3 October 2016 (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
Undo the vandalism-- 77.66.234.102 ( talk) 21:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi all
Today is African World Heritage Day and I have created a small project to help improve knowledge of African World Heritage Sites on Wikipedia in all languages. Please get involved and also share the link to encourage more people to take part. Whilst all of the sites have an article in English I'm sure there are sites that could be improved.
Many thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 11:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I strongly suspect it was printed in 1940 as it has the quote from Churchill on the backside: This is the time for everyone to stand together and hold firm. However the pictures could have been from before, as this doesnt look like wartime. On Google I find similar postcards. Smiley.toerist ( talk) 09:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I sometimes come across people reverting something on the basis of a consensus and I recently came across one who seems to think one is obliged to do it even if they disagree with the consensus. Actually I think they agree with the consensus but I think their 'consensus' is inapplicable, but disregarding that, how do people feel about the idea? I think one should only revert a change based on some consensus if one agrees with the consensus, after all a consensus can always change and we are all free to opt out of doing things we don't agree with. At most I think one should just warn on the talk page and point to the discussion. If there is a real consensus then some other people will come along and say so. Dmcq ( talk) 14:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone. The Community Tech team at the Wikimedia Foundation was asked to help out with copyright detection in last year's wishlist survey. There are suggestions on Phabricator that would benefit from your feedback, if this is a subject close to your heart and you'd be willing to go there and tell us what works and what doesn't work. /16:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan (WMF) ( talk • contribs)
Hi folks, The Core Contest is on again, running from May 15 to June 30. Enter at Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries. Cheers! Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I have come across two soccer/football-season pages that are exactly the same except an extra hyphen separating the two. I don't know where this belongs or how to go about deleting one of the articles. 2016-17 Ekstraklasa and 2016–17 Ekstraklasa are two different pages about the same exact topic. Much thanks! -- Matt918 ( talk) 04:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi all
I'm very happy to say that UNESCO has made the official descriptions of all Biosphere Reserve sites available under a Wikipedia compatible license. Currently around 440 (out of 670) of the Biosphere Reserves do not have an English language Wikipedia article.
These descriptions can be used as the missing Wikipedia articles with very little adaption. I have created a Wikidata query and a set of instructions to help people create the missing articles. I hope that this is useful for other people interested in using Wikidata to organise writing projects etc.
meta:WikiProject UNESCO/Create Biosphere Reserve Wikipedia articles from UNESCO descriptions
If you like you can retweet my tweet about it as well https://twitter.com/mrjohnc/status/733623393233346560
Thanks very much to Navino Evans who did all the data importing into Wikidata (a herculean effort) and Andy Mabbett for helping me with the instructions.
Cheers
John Cummings ( talk) 12:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello everyone.
This is a heads-up about a change which is going to be announced in Tech News: Add the "welcome" dialog (with button to switch) to the wikitext editor (in case you haven't read about it already at VPT).
In a nutshell, this will provide a one-time "Welcome" message in the wikitext editor which explains that anyone can edit, and every improvement helps. The user can then start editing in the wikitext editor right away, or switch to the visual editor. (This is the equivalent of an already existing welcome message for visual editor users, which suggests the option to switch to the wikitext editor. If you have already seen this dialog in the visual editor, you will not see the new one in the wikitext editor.)
If you want to learn more, please see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T133800; if you have feedback or think you need to report a bug with the dialog, you can post in that task ( or at mediawiki.org if you prefer).
Thanks for your attention and happy editing, -- Elitre (WMF) ( talk) 15:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
After two highly successful years, we have drafted the grant request for Wiki Loves Africa 2016. We need your help in two ways:
Main changes this year (which will impact on numbers of participants and levels of entires) are:
Any questions or suggestions, please let us know! Anthere and Isla Haddow ( talk) 12:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Hey all,
I've frequently noticed that the text in several graphical timelines is quite blurry. Some examples being:
1,
2, &
3.
Is there anyway to improve the text of these templates?
Houdinipeter (
talk)
15:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Would someone else chime in? Sunekit turned out to be a sockpuppet. The issue seems to affect math templates as well.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Houdinipeter ( talk • contribs) 03:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
I've never seen this template before, and to be frank, I'm not crazy about it. See Wicked Tuna. Does this look okay? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 20:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
And what about others reading this? TfD? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 22:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
There's now a second discussion of its sister template at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 May 21#Template:Must include -- Tagishsimon (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I have repeatedly required some scientifical sources for the claims on this page and tried to discuss with the opponent user, but he/she only continues his harassment and edition war. What can be done? -- Cupido1234 ( talk) 23:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
A pity we don't have a copyright village pump like Commons, or this would go there.
Until 2009 at least, Wikipedia:Copyrights stated If you contribute material to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public under the GFDL (with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). Nowadays, it states If you contribute text directly to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public for reuse under CC BY-SA and GFDL (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). Note the difference: the old version addressed all materials, not just text. Because all material contributed to Wikipedia was originally covered under GFDL, not just text, in our early years all images were considered to be under GFDL, and just as we accept text without licenses unless there's reason to suspect that it's a copyvio, images were accepted unless copyvio was suspected. However, the increasing number of users wanting to use licenses other than GFDL eventually prompted the creation of the system of license tags, but until virtually all of the old untagged images were tagged with GFDL, license tags weren't absolutely required. Nowadays, those old images occasionally get nominated for deletion because they don't have license tags added by their uploaders (e.g. see the discussion for File:LGATasmania Hobart.png at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 26, which prompted this whole issue), even though they were uploaded in compliance with policy with their rights released under a license that's still acceptable.
With this in mind, Sfan00 IMG and I have developed {{ Assumed license}}, with the goal of adding it to images of this sort, so that people understand what was going on and don't nominate them for deletion merely because the license was added by someone other than the uploader. As noted in the template's collapsed usage notes, it's not meant to prevent deletion of copyvio images or images that are simply useless; it's just meant to explain the licensing policy as of when these images were uploaded. I'm confident that it's a good idea, but we're just two editors, not the whole community, so I'm asking for your input, ruthless editing, etc., especially in the collapsed usage notes. Nyttend ( talk) 22:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate that someone is writing this very much tounge in cheek, but it would be appreciated if anyone here that knew of people on Wikipedia that would be able to help make these 'translations' work better, as well as possibly tidying up the commentary a little, if you could encourage them gently to help. Expertise with the academic analysis of historical/theological themes would also be appreciated XD Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
On the matter I came to post about:
re: this edit and this stub page creation: Hortonville_Joint_School_District_No._1._v._Hortonville_Education_Ass’n
, specificallyNot being a lawyer, I stumbled over this page title as a redlink dealing with another needed clarification edit this morning. While I've some familiarity with the law, and know this case was a Landmark precedent that has impacted my entire adult life.
• Since I don't have the time to do this justice, nor the interest in the law, nor on the MOS, and formatting of legal articles, those on Law and other linkable Legal articles, Law templates, etcetera...
• After looking for a Law and Legal task force, etc. like the Military History group to no avail, I've no recourse to remanding the matter I created as a stub (with my expansion of the case in Hortonville's section) to interested parties with the right credentials.
• So I strongly suggest some qualified individuals please follow up the
many web citable sources and make this a good article per our MOS standards. Best regards
Fra
nkB
16:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Citations to web sites go out of date, and then we have ones which have been rescues by Wayback - but they go out of date too due to robots.txt. I was just looking at [3] where two old links have disappeared due to this but it happens frequently everywhere. What do people feel about this? I can see some sense in sometimes hiding old material using a new robots.txt but very often it just strikes me as wrong. What should the policy be about material that was public in the past but for instance the site goes down and then somebody buys it up to put up ads and sticks a robots.txt on it saying don't cache anything? Dmcq ( talk) 12:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Years back, I suggested on some talk page that the solution for this, as well as the ambiguity of citations in general without quotations giving context would be to have a subpage (always linked), where a cite can be posted with a quote. Among other things, this would make it plain when & where a cite ending a long sentence applies and supports a subordinate clause or phrase. In some of the history articles I add context to, this would be awfully handy--the quote supports the sense of the material, or it doesn't and it sure beats wasting half an hour finding a reference, that may or not be available online in any case. Note, a template page with the same Title would be off public space, further, a Wikimarkup {#switch|...} by named reference might allow an inclusion of the references by moving them out of article space save for the link (we'd want to code the template namespace page by hash code or other short link to the template subsection (named case) given long article titles need the offloading most of all!). Point here is a template which includes a reference block <ref name=something> ... </ref>
can be included via template, the cites can unjunk the articles, and the quotes can be included in noinclude blocks (<noinclude> '| quote=blah, blah, blah ...' </noinclude>
) so they don't manifest when not wanted in the article. Alternatively, the article namespace '/doc' (or '/cites') subpage would be easy to find and maintain place where an original context and turn of phrase should be legal under fair use and sidestep this loss of webpage referenced cites. We've all had them, and they do suck! Restating the obvious, the offloading of a cite with quote would solve several matters besides vanishing citations, and editing being easier would be a nice benefit. //
Fra
nkB
16:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Here's an interesting conundrum.
An article
Gerwyn John, was redirected some time ago, to another, after an AfD. I noticed that recently and thought we should have an article on the subject. I boldly undid the redirect, with an edit summary of "Bold restoration, per WP:SSEFAR
".
WP:SSEFAR says:
In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items.
and Gerwyn John was indeed one of "a finite number of entries where most are notable" (in this case: people with Midland Metro trams named after them).
However,
User:Necrothesp reverted me, with an edit summary of "rv; already decided at WP:Afd"
.
My question is, leaving aside the specifics of this case, but noting that " consensus can change", where is the correct venue to decide whether such an article should be recreated? The talk page is likely unwatched; and this is clearly not an issue for WP:Deletion review. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
"Deletion Review should not be used... because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi all
I'm very happy to say that Wiki Loves Earth Biosphere Reserves is running in 120 countries throughout June covering all 699 Biosphere Reserves, the website is available in in English, French, Spanish and Russian but you can help to translate it into other languages.
I would really appreciate it if you could tell groups and individuals who may be interested in taking part, we can't run banners because of the number of countries involved. UNESCO is promoting the project so I hope this will encourage people from outside the Wikimedia movement to take part. You can also promote the project on social media by sharing any of these message from UNESCO on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, French, Spanish and Russian messages are linked to from the site. You can also contact Biosphere Reserves directly to encourage them to share their photos.
UNESCO have also made descriptions of their Biosphere Reserves available under CC-BY-SA so they can be used to start missing Wikipedia articles, I have created a simple to use guide to help.
Thanks very much and please feel free to contact me or ask questions here.
-- John Cummings ( talk) 19:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Would love some feedback and suggestions.
I have released a first preview of a free Android app idea I've been toying with for Commons.
The idea is to provide a simple-to-use image gallery for Commons. You can tap on an image to view more details and to zoom into a full resolution image, which is something I personally love doing for photography and artwork. I would like to make it search through all categories on commons, but for now I've implemented only a selection of 5 interesting categories, including Commons' Pictures of the Day and Wikipedia's Featured Pictures (currently only fetching 50 images from each).
I intend to keep working this and improving it in my spare time over the coming months. It's a hobby, not a commercial project, and I will likely open source it once it is a little more mature.
Google Play link - Available for Android 4.4+ phones. Ktcher ( talk) 03:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello all.
I’m not sure if that is the right place: If not, please move it to the right place.
There will be two PGP-/GPG-key-signing-parties at the Wikimania. One will be at Thursday (during the preconference), the other will be at Saturday – both at 17:30. The goal of the parties is to strengthen the connections between the different languages of Wikipedia. So if you have a key, please add yourself to the
list (to make our organizing easier) and come to one of the parties; you can of course also come without adding yourself to the list. --
DaB. (
talk)
22:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
From 6 June to 6 July we are holding a writing challenge about TED speakers. Everyone can participate by writing about people who have held a TED talk. For an overview of TED speakers in the in competition see here: User:Jane023/TED speakers. For an overview of all the TED talks that these people have held, see here: User:Jane023/TED talks. More information about the challenge, the points, the prizes, and the sign-up is here: TED speakers challenge. Jane ( talk) 15:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Why, even though, it is written as "Bahasa Indo...," Indonesian is alphabetized as if it began "Indo..."? This seems inconsistent and obstructing of searches. Kdammers ( talk) 13:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Just a reminder that in just over a week at Wikimania there's going to be a discussion about the systems of control of new pages. Anyone who is going to Italy and would like to take part, please check out the conference schedule, and I look forward to seeing you there. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The
Peace Treaties in Art 30 x 30 Challenge now on! We are very much looking forward to your participation in this inspirational contest aimed at creating, improving and translating articles on Peace Treaties in Art in the context of
Donostia-San Seastián 2016 European Capital of Culture, aspiring to provide by dint of collaboration (quality!) material available in the Wikipedia about this compelling topic, both present and timeless.
The project, promoted by the Basque Wikimedians User Group, originates in the Peace Treaty exhibitions project taking place in Donostia-San Sebastián 2016 European Capital of Culture due open on June 17. The Wikipedia challenge extends from June 17 (starting 12 pm CET) to July 17, including a Wikimarathon to be held on 9 July, everyone is invited! Leave your imprint along with other fellow wikipedians, you will win awards (and our eternal gratitude!) in the form of Barnstars and Donostia-San Sebastián stays! Thanks and see you there Iñaki LL ( talk) 01:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Maybe this is the sort of question that would be better asked at Reddit... it does affect the Wikipedia, including me, directly, though. Here's what I'm wondering:
I'm asking because I translate stuff, and I wonder if I'm wasting my time if there's a fair chance that within 5 to 20 years there's likely to be machine translation of text which (while it won't be perfect) will usually be good enough for most everyday use? Google Translate already gives a good enough rendition for most paragraphs that you can already kind-sorta get the gist accurately. Have we hit a wall where the art of translation cannot much grow until there's a true revolution in AI, or will incremental improvements be sufficient to render human text translation more and more obsolete?
Jimbo on his talk page is talking about possibly putting major WMF efforts into aiding translation efforts for some of the smaller languages. I'm for that, but I'm just wondering if we're perfecting the buggy-whip here? Anybody know anything about this? Herostratus ( talk) 16:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Note that Vasily Bochkaryov has died. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 ( talk) 15:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Attempts are being made to restart the inactive Maintenance collaboration of the week, which attempts to clear Wikipedia's lingering backlogs. If you are interested in this project, please sign up! Chickadee46 ( talk| contribs) 15:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Someone on the Reference Desk just asked a question about the use of the prefix "USS" with the ship USS Bonhomme Richard (1765).
It turns out that this is seriously anachronistic: the ship was not part of the US Navy, but of the earlier Continental Navy, and the use of USS with US Navy ships didn't become standard until much later, in the era of Theodore Roosevelt.
Possibly this means that the article should be renamed—but possibly not, as WP:AT#Use commonly recognizable names specifies that "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used". I am no expert on 18th century US naval history who would know what name is most commonly used in reliable sources [added later: or even if the addition of "USS" was retroactive"], so I'm just posting the question here for possible consideration.
And the reason I'm posting it here rather than on the article's talk page is that if it should be named, then quite likely there are other articles about pre-20th-century ships whose titles start with "USS" and which should also be renamed. If there is a better place for this suggestion, then I invite someone else to copy this posting there; for me, this is just a drive-by comment. -- 69.159.9.187 ( talk) 23:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Please note that Ernesto Maceda has died. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 ( talk) 11:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments from experienced editors with an interest in military history are kindly requested at the talk page of this article. Thank you. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
When died George Forrester, born 1934? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.106.146.91 ( talk) 12:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
I've finished a French academic work named Ethical drift with in Wikimedia movement and I will finish soon a other one named For a better economic justice with in the Wikimedia movement. I would like to translate this two works in English before Wikimania for sharing the contain with the whole community and maybe inspire discussion during the week. I didn't have time and competence to do it my self before Wikimania. Is that in this forum any person who can help me, starting translation or pointing a place where I can found this kind of help ? Thanks in advance Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Contact (French native speaker) 15:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, never mine. I've found a trick system to present my works in english thanks to google : For a Fair Economy in the Wikimedia movement and Ethical Drifts in the Wikimedia movement. A nice day for every one. Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Contact (French native speaker) 21:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
It has been suggested to me by the editor Coretheapple in the Discussion area of a current GA reassessment that the review be brought to the attention of a wider audience. The issues above are included in the review, so I hope there's enough of a cross-functional applicability. The article in question is Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz.
At the WP:FTN, the article was deemed as needing more attention from uninvolved editors:
The article has so far been commented on mainly by editors who write military biographies, which seems to have its own separate standards regarding sourcing and details such as I have never seen before.-- diff.
What we're not saying is that this is a GAR for a 10,000+ word essay full of WP:FANCRUFT that apparently seems to meet the GA criteria of a wikiproject with its own set of rules for what's encyclopedic.-- diff.
I would welcome feedback or a review of the article to see if it still meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria and whether it should be retained or delisted as a Good article. Specialist knowledge of the subject is not required. Thank you and happy editing. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I added a new section, at /info/en/?search=Talk:Larceny_by_trick#Idea_for_changing_the_redirect
I apologize if, in so doing, I inadvertently did something "incorrectly". It seems to have created a brand new "Talk:" page (for the corresponding article-space page, which is a redirect page), where no "Talk:" page previously existed. Please [feel free to] tell me if that new section should have gone somewhere else, instead -- "such as", into the (already existing) "Talk:" page of the article [about] " Larceny". (...which [article] is the current "target" of the redirect page, that I was Talk:ing about.)
Also, Please feel free to answer any questions asked in that new section -- "such as" this question:
(Is it possible for a redirect to point directly to a specific section of an article-space article?)
Thanks for any help / answers / advice. -- Mike Schwartz ( talk) 21:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Hallo all there, I am glad to point out a new functionality-ability. There is "now" a user-script, see Signing (with 10 years development ^^). It is open for testing and feedback. ToDo next week: Functionality in Mobile version! → User: Perhelion 12:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
importScript
indeed works only on the local Wikipedia (or MediaWiki page). Replace your code and use this instead:
meta:User_talk:Perhelion/signing.js You must see below the editfield a new checkbox. →
User: Perhelion
09:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
{{
ping}}
and for outdent use {{
od}}
? --
Anarchyte (
work |
talk)
09:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
The Netherlands Institute for Sound and Vision and the Dutch public broadcaster VPRO have joined forces in the initiative “Mind of the Universe: open video commons”. The Mind of the Universe is a unique international open source project based on the rapid evolution of our knowledge. The ten-part television series from Dutch public broadcaster, VPRO will show tomorrow's world through the eyes of the greatest thinkers and scientists of our time. The “open video commons”-component will (1) make a content donation of high-quality broadcast content, available in English (2) actively encourage the use of this material by the Wikipedia community and (3) highlight potential and provide practical support for setting up collaborations between public broadcasters and the Wikipedia community. In order to make this possible a Wikimedia Projects and Event Grant has been requested. Your support for this groundbreaking initiative would be much appreciated. You can read the full proposal and give your endorsement on the PEG Grant Application Page. Many thanks! 85jesse ( talk) 15:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
As is required by the BAG membership procedure I am placing this notification at WP:AN, WP:VPM, WT:BOT, and WP:BON. I am requesting to join the Bot Approvals Group and my request can be found here: Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/HighInBC. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 20:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User Ulafme asked me to ask here for help. User Jetstreamer is continuously reverting his properly cited and sourced edits about airplane specifications. The first problem there is, that it looks like the sources he use are blocked here, but maybe completely valid. Could you review the validity of sources like this or this and in case of being valid, then remove them from blocked URLs? The second problem, Ulafme told me, is, that user Jetstreamer maybe breaks content ownership policy on articles in airplane industry. Could somebody check out his activity? The third problem are continuous arguments and disputes between those two users (sometimes vulgar) on their talk pages, talk pages for articles, and so. Could somebody take a look at their disputes and maybe ask arbitrary commitee for some action? -- Dvorapa ( talk) 12:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Dear users of the English Wikipedia,
As (maybe) a lot of you know the English Vikidia started a few years ago. Vikidia is a kind of Wikipedia, but than for and by children. Of course adults (like Wikipedians, parents, teachers...) can join Vikidia too. Since a few months we started a project to promote the English Vikidia in several English-speaking countries, that's not the problem at all. Only we have one big problem. We haven't got many users at this time. That's why we started this project, to break the visual circle. I ask the community of the English Wikipedia to join Vikidia, like I did on the Simple English Wikipedia too. Everybody is needed, from users who can write articles to people who can help users.
Of course there also some advantages for Wikipedia. If this plan is worked out, Vikidia has a own community and is popular is English-speaking countries. I see at other Vikidia's (and WikiKids) that much children join Wikipedia as well and contribute on Wikipedia as well. If children find themselves too old for Vikidia, most of them start at Wikipedia. You can see Vikidia as a kind of training for children to become a Wikipedian on an older age. I'm even prepared that Vikidia become a wiki to educate Wikipedians that too young for Wikipedia self. So Vikidia can be more than a wiki alone.
Here is a link: en.vikidia.org. Questions? I've also a mail address. On Vikidia I'm active under the name Mike1023. Please, don't misunderstand me, I don't want to make any advertisement. I just want to help children, who find Wikipedia too difficult, and help Wikipedia as well with users.
Yours sincerely, Mike.Helden ( talk) 08:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
In Template_talk:Coat_of_arms#Erroneous_COAs.3F User:Gryffindor has introduced an edit protection for the template, after edit-warring through a disputed change of the status quo, without participating in the discussion. This must surely breach wikipedia policy, and the edit protecion should rather have been applied for this version, i.e. the status quo before the discussion was started. Please make this change. - Ssolbergj ( talk) 12:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Greetings! The Project Grants program is accepting proposals from July 1st to August 2nd to fund new tools, research, offline outreach (including editathon series, workshops, etc), online organizing (including contests), and other experiments that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Whether you need a small or large amount of funds, Project Grants can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.
Also accepting candidates to join the Project Grants Committee through July 15.
With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 15:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Is there an award for Today's Removal of Oldest and Weirdest BLP Violation? I'm claiming it. Drmies ( talk) 01:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I know there used to be a feature in google maps where Wikipedia articles are visible. But nowadays, is there a Wikipedia app or what programs/websites are available to display this information? Thanks much! Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out what's going on with Category:Articles in Wikipedia Primary School Project SSAJRP. It looks a bit like a WikiProject page but instead it looks like the actual pages are tagged and not the talk pages. It links to a project at meta which I can't even figure out how's it is related to here. The parent category looks like it was some sort of educational project, again from meta, that seems to pick some major pages here for alleged improvement including by so-called experts. Is there some project here to bring in "experts" to identify and I guess fix projects based on the views of those experts? Is there a project here to identify those experts at meta and bring them here from that place without any involvement of the pages here? -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
In the months July and August 2016 Wikimedia Belgium organises the photo contest Wiki Loves Art. In this period spread over Belgium some museums open their doors for Wikipedians who want to photograph art and upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Wiki Loves Art is organised because we noticed that Belgian art is less well described on Wikipedia in comparison with neighbouring countries and less images are available. To stimulate the knowledge and images about these subjects in Wikipedia, we organise a photo contest, similar to Wiki Loves Monuments.
Participation to Wiki Loves Art is possible by making photos in participating museums of the museum and/or the artworks that are designated by the museum. Some museums are open for two months for photographers, other museums only on certain days and times.
Participating museums are:
More information about participation can be found at our website: http://www.wiki-loves-art.be/
Romaine ( talk) 10:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The writing challenge about TED speakers, originally scheduled to end 6 July, has been extended to Wednesday 13 July. Everyone can participate by writing about people who have held a TED talk posted on TED.com. For an overview of TED speakers in the in competition see here: User:Jane023/TED speakers. For an overview of all the TED talks that these people have held, see here: User:Jane023/TED talks. More information about the challenge, the points, the prizes, and the sign-up is here: TED speakers challenge. Jane ( talk) 06:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
By mere coincidence, I found two cases of self-promotional reference spam within the past two months: Jojojava and 151.72.6.77, both adding numerous references to published articles of J. Benchimol and F. G. Santeramo, respectively, to various Wikipedia articles. I doubt that those two are the only cases out there, so I wondered if we could think of a way to automatically detect this sort of edit behavior: IPs or single-purpose accounts adding identical references to numerous articles (while adding no content). Maybe we could have a bot flagging this type of edits, because it is very hard to spot for the human eye. -- bender235 ( talk) 23:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Why do we have Category:All Wikipedia articles written in American English, Category:All Wikipedia articles written in Australian English, etc. but not Category:All Wikipedia articles written in British English? – nyuszika7h ( talk) 13:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
{{
Progress box}}
does just fine. The "hidden categories" list at the bottom of the page (if you have it enabled) is full enough without having two items for each maintenance issue.If anybody would like to win up to £250 ($330) in August for improving articles on SouthWest England sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge. All participants are welcome! Just a bit of fun, there will be three days allocated to each country such as Devon, and Cornwall and something to win daily.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
How are general readers defined? Are they rich or poor? Intelligent or broad? Curious or ignorant? I spent my time figuring out who qualify as general readers. So far, I end up more concerned about quality more than about quantity. Still, do readers usually go for the introduction of an article and then shift to another article? Do readers go for statistics? Plot summaries? Are they curious enough to read further after reading the lead? How do I find out who is a general reader without generalizing people? -- George Ho ( talk) 19:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Can you explain exactly why you are asking this remarkably unfocused question? I can't help but feel that if we understood what actual issue you were trying to address here it might save an awful lot of wasted time. As the question stands there is no way to give a meaningful answer. I'll close it if you can't clarify. Begoon talk 14:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi all
I would like to know if there is a way to find all the instances of a template that use a particiular website in at least one field. Specifically I want to know how many of the uses of Template:Open-source_attribution have a url that includes unesco.org in at least one field. Currently this is possible to do by hand but I expect it will be used a lot more in the near future.
Many thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 09:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
unesco.org
within it --
samtar
talk or
stalk
11:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Hi
I've been doing some work on creating guidance and a VE and Source editor compatible template for importing open license text into English Wikipedia. Currently there is a bug with VE meaning it cannot use nested templates so we have created a workaround, once this bug has been fixed then a better technical solution will be found. I'm more looking for suggestions for additions to the guidance page at the moment and how the attribution is displayed. If you would like to try it out I've created some guidance on using open license text from UNESCO publications and descriptions in Wikipedia.
Many thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 10:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't intend do post this as a proposal, but only a report. Since October 2012 pt-Wikipedia non-admin rollbackers have been allowed to make low risk level blocks, what means a block of a maximum of 24 hours on an ip or a non-confirmed account. This has been beta-implemented and the test was successful, without further problems, despite the initial fear of increasing mistakes. This tool is still "on", has reduced the backlog of blocks and also has been a very important help in fighting against vandalism. Perhaps The reality here doesn't recommend the same policy implementation, but I think somebody would like to know this at least as a curiosity. Millbug talk 04:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I get a query and made lists which shows there are some articles with two deaths or two births categories. some of the articles are correct and some of them should be solve please help me to correcting them.
the queries are the their talk page. Yamaha5 ( talk) 13:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Gutenberg we all remember as one of the pioneer open knowledge sites. However pages such as this are copyvios of Wikipedia. I have previously emailed Project Gutenberg about this sort of thing, and have made no progress.
What can we do?
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
21:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC).
-- Tagishsimon (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll go look for where to contact the WMF about this, and I'll post a followup. Alsee ( talk) 10:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC) Email sent to WMF legal. Alsee ( talk) 12:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The gutenberg.org page for History of Wikipedia also says the author is World Heritage, and has the same insane content quoted above. Alsee ( talk) 12:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, Alsee asked me to reply here rather than to the email. So I wanted to say thanks for passing this along and let you all know we're looking into it. - Jrogers (WMF) ( talk) 23:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm curious as to how many registered users have actually made at least one edit. Is such a statistic available anywhere? Biblio ( talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 00:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
There's an effort to collect information about smaller Wikipedias at m:Tell us about your Wikipedia. If you are involved in some other Wikipedias, please look through the list there and see if you can provide more information about other Wikipedias. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I've started a draft essay on the problems with using negative claims, statements that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something and depend on the absence of evidence to prove its validity, with regards to WP:Verifiability and especially WP:BURDEN. I would like to present the essay for further expansion and provide examples of negative claims. One example I have encounter are claims that assert a television series or film has not been released for home video. However, I'm not exactly sure how to best present that example. The draft can be found at User:TheFarix/Avoid negative claims. — Farix ( t | c) 13:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Please note that Eleuterio Fernández Huidobro has died. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 ( talk) 09:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm a journalist and looking for any Wikipedia statistics related to India, for the purpose of writing some article. Thanks, fredericknoronha ( talk) 05:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I expect that many contributors here know that there is another community at Wikimedia Commons which solicits for all sorts of individuals and organizations to provide media files like images for reuse in various language Wikipedias and beyond. When an organization shares their media collection at Commons, there is no standard way for them to do that. Perhaps all of their files are in a certain category, and the organization manages their activity at the top-level category for their organization. Another way they might do this is to set up a project page on Commons, which can be something like a WikiProject here. Commons often encourages anyone who uploads content to integrate that content into various language Wikipedias and other Wikimedia projects when relevant.
There is an organization at Commons which donated a media collection. It is generous of anyone to apply free licenses to a media collection and share it. The media collection is in this category, and the category also seems to be the hub for organizing a project to engage with the media.
On WP:OTRS in the private ticket:2016071010007208, a user wrote in to request that the use of images from this project be checked. They suggested that the project might be posting pictures in various Wikipedia articles even when the pictures were not the sort that Wikipedia usually uses for illustrating concepts. This pictures might be related to a single individual or family. Here are the images that the user questioned. The text under them is links to Wikipedia articles where the pictures are inserted.
I am not sure. I did not check these and the other uploaded images, but I thought I would raise the issue here to see if anyone else wanted to take this one. I am directing the person who wrote to OTRS to check here for updates. I am not following this further. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Please be renamed with Greek Nikolas if possible. Thanks in advance.-- Νικόλας Παπαποστόλου ( talk) 12:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
With the changes (last month and today) to the ping system the information at the Wikipedia:Notifications and Wikipedia:Notifications/FAQ pages is now out of date and, in some cases, misleading or wrong. I had posted a request for updating here Wikipedia talk:Notifications#Update needed that Quiddity (WMF) kindly responded to. I haven't seen any changes to either page though so I thought I would ask here to see if those who understand the ins and outs of the changes could work out the new wording and pictures that both pages require. If this is not the proper place for this question please feel free to move it to a better spot. MarnetteD| Talk 23:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
When you make an infobox template, it is not uncommon to have a section with optional data fields, where you want the section header to disappear when no data fields are present. This is described in Template:Infobox/doc#Hiding headers when all data fields are hidden. The infobox documentation suggests that there should be a way to make a header row autohideable by detecting if there is at least one non-empty data row after that header row.
I read that and agreed, so I made a proposal for a change in Module:Infobox to implement that. My changed code is in Module:Infobox/sandbox, and here is a diff from the current version.
It works by introducing a new series of parameters, called condheader(n) for conditional header. A condheader will work exactly as a normal header if it is followed immediately by a data row in the infobox. But if the next row is not a data row, the condheader will be suppressed. The new version should not change anything at all for current infoboxes with no condheader(n) parameters.
I have tested the condheader(n) parameter with a modified Template:Infobox bridge in my personal sandbox, and it seems to work fine. I have also tested the new code with several existing infoboxes, and seen no chance at all.
This change could make many infoboxes simpler to code and maintain. Please give your opinion at Template talk:Infobox#Conditional header. Thank you, Dipsacus fullonum ( talk) 07:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
It might not be relevant, but last night I had an interesting dream that a top YouTube commentator (it might have been a Wikipedia visitor) wrote this:
This article is about the ancient Egyptian goddess. For the jihadist militant group sometimes abbreviated as ISIS, see Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
For other uses, see Isis (disambiguation). Is this a Wikipedia article or just two cats playing?
So, I'm just wondering why do we need this article to be our main article for those characters? In my opinion, we are just distracting potential viewers or users. 91.185.109.142 ( talk) 17:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Approximately two weeks ago, I uploaded a fair-use logo on English Wikipedia for an article on a non-profit organization. When I finally submitted it for review, a message said that there was a significant backlog and it would take days to complete the review. I've been waiting for about 10 days, and meanwhile Twinkle has removed the "orphaned" image. Wouldn't it be better if Twinkle checked the queue of articles waited review, and delayed removal in circumstances like mine? Illuminer2 ( talk) 12:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
What's the deal with edits like this? I started reverting things, but I'm wondering if there was ever a community-wide discussion on the issue. (Basically, people are changing birthplaces to read "Lithuania", instead of "Lithuanian SSR". And so forth with other Baltic states.) Thanks! Zagalejo ^^^ 04:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
A discussion has been started at Template talk:Citation needed regarding an apparent conflict between the documentation for the tags {{ citation needed}} and {{ dubious}} – namely, which to use for statements in articles that are both unsourced and of questionable validity. — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 23:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Note that Midget Farrelly has died on 7 august according to Google. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 ( talk) 17:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Could someone who reads German please check {{ Brueckenweb}}? Some of the links it generates, like [9], are returning blank pages for me. The site's home page works, so maybe the link structure has changed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
We have the same issue with {{ Aeiou}}, also for a German site. @ Jo-Jo Eumerus: can you oblige, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Starten Sie eine Suche nach dieser Seite im neuen AEIOU durch einen Klick hiersentence there is a search result page which seems to usually point to the replacement article. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk:SIG MCX# RFC: Is the Orlando shooting relevant? Please comment there if you have an opinion. Felsic2 ( talk) 01:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello.
I noticed recently that periods (.) seem to have now replace bullet points on Wikipedia pages in all places where the latter used to be used - e.g. disambig pages and other places with lists.
I personally find the new standard to be less intuitive, and in fact a bit annoying.
I tried to google for more info about this recent change, but couldn't seem to find anything relevant.
If somebody here knows more about this and could share, or at least post a link or two to where this change was discussed prior to its adoption then this would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance! - 2003:CA:83D1:4E00:98B6:71:B8E6:D4A4 ( talk) 14:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I have started a discussion about the use of Google translate links in citations and external links sections. Please comment there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I just wondered how we deal with source code messages like this one aimed at preventing editors from a certain modification or addition to an article. This particular case is a curious one because Giano II ( talk · contribs) decided this one 8 years ago unilaterally without prior discussion anywhere, but even if the message is softened to a suggestion for prior discussion before adding an infobox as modified by SchroCat ( talk · contribs), is this really how we want it? Especially since, in that particular case it turned out that the suggestion was just a sugar-coated way of saying "suggest an infobox on the talk page so that we can tell you they are not mandatory by Wikipedia guidelines which entirely nullifies all your arguments instantly and chokes the discussion."
Anyhow, my point is that we should not have these discouraging messages in the first place. Rather than have to seek new consensus in a week-long discussion, editors should simply edit. If lets say over a several weeks a different editors repeatedly attempt to add an infobox to a certain article, then that's a sign of new consensus. Messages like the one added to this particular article have quite probably discouraged any attempt to add an infobox over the past 8 years. -- bender235 ( talk) 01:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Off topic and moving towards the tendentious. – SchroCat ( talk) 20:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Policies ... Guidelines ... Essays ... Other pages that can be found in the Wikipedia: namespace include community process pages (which facilitate application of the policies and guidelines), historical pages, WikiProject pages, or help pages (also found in the Help namespace), community discussion pages and noticeboards." Stop making things up. -- RexxS ( talk) 23:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
This is an issue which is, practically, not going to be easy to solve. There are many essays, some clearly-stated as essays, some not, which are "see also'ed" or equivalent from policy or guideline pages. Whether those references/links give them some weight more than mere essays (as referred to by WP:ADVICEPAGE) is a question which, as far as I know, has never been addressed. Since I spend a lot of time monitoring some policy pages, I would note that on the core policies the addition of such links generally doesn't get by without consensus and, thus, at least some blessing as something more than just essays, but on other non-core policies I'd be willing to wager they don't get nearly as much attention. The practical problem is that I don't think that any one answer will work: In some cases they probably are "junior policies" or "policy by reference" but in others not. The problem is compounded by the fact that since they're not identified as policy or guidelines, that editors coming onto them from places other than the links in the policy feel much freer to edit them than they would a policy and since others may not think of them as policy-by-reference, they may not come under the same degree of scrutiny as designated policies or guidelines. Frankly, with all that in play my thought is that as a general rule they cannot be given any more weight than ordinary essays and that editors who wish for them to be given weight as guidelines or policies should be required to formally propose them for that status. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 23:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
We have started WikiProject Unsourced Article Rescue, as there are thousands of older unsourced articles. We will be holding article rescue drives, with rewards. Sign up today! ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what's the best place to post this, so I'm just posting here. Feel free to move or place a notification on other relevant talk pages. {{ Split from}} and {{ Split to}} were subject to a TfD discussion back in March, and it was closed with a consensus to merge, but all that was done is {{ Split article}} created as a copy of {{ Split from}}. It does not appear to be usable as a replacement for {{ Split to}}. Honestly, {{ copied}} can do the job fine and it may be best to convert transclusions to that, but I'll leave the details to someone else. Pinging Izkala as the closer and BU Rob13 as the creator of {{ Split article}}. – nyuszika7h ( talk) 14:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Why do so many irrelevant random posts end up at Wikipedia talk:Shortcut ( history)? Is it linked from somewhere that it shouldn't be? Or is Wikipedia:Shortcut linked from many pages? I can understand Wikipedia talk:About ( history), Wikipedia talk:General disclaimer ( history), Wikipedia talk:Contact us ( history) etc. getting a lot of attention, since Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:General disclaimer, Wikipedia:Contact us etc. are linked at the bottom of every single page. But why should WT:Shortcut get an even higher level of noise? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 08:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I am not sure if wikipedia needs 2 pages for Zechariah as 1 and 2? Or there is a difference between them or they are the same but titles are different? Thanks. Gharouni Talk 07:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello Wikimedians!
The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for free, full-access, accounts to published research as part of our publisher donation program. You can now sign up for new accounts and research materials from:
Many other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page, including Project MUSE, EBSCO, DeGruyter, Gale and Newspaperarchive.com.
Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--
The Wikipedia Library Team 18:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd be grateful for help in identifying one or more categories for two articles, Allen Confluence Gravels and Beltingham River Shingle. Both are Sites of Special Scientific Interest in the UK and categorised as such. I'm looking for a category which covers the sort of landforms they represent - river shingles or gravels in which flora grows. It's possible that we don't have an applicable category, in which case suggestions for a new category are welcomed ... there are probably other examples of such landforms within the large collection of UK SSSIs. thanks -- Tagishsimon (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I suggest we sort through this list and do a mass move to add hypens like "most watched" --> "most-watched".
If you think this is a good plan, please consider sorting the list into those that need the move and those that do not. (A quick way is to dump the list into a notepad and add ` at the left of the entries needing the move, and then alphasort the list to get them to float to the top.)
So, should this be done? Is this necessary? If so, I can post at all the talks directing them here for input.
FYI: There was another one like this about superlatives. See here.
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 08:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I guess File:Kiev poly logo.png have to be deleted from the English wikipedia because there is the same free file on Commons commons:File:NTUU KPI logo.png-- Tohaomg ( talk) 21:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
If you are interested in future list generation using Wikidata, please consider taking a look at d:Wikidata:List generation input and providing any comments on d:Wikidata talk:List generation input. -- Izno ( talk) 11:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Od Mishehu ( talk • contribs) 17:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Category:Pages using deprecated coordinates format is being applied (to 14,801 pages, at the time of writing) by coordinate templates, despite there having been no discussion about deprecating the formats concerned. My proposal to delete the category was - after a low traffic discussion - closed, with the comment "Mayhaps you may want to have a discussion at the Village pump so that it's available for a broader forum."
. In that discussion, I asked
User:Jackmcbarn for a list of the edits where he applied the category, but he did not provide one.
An example of a page placed in this category, whose coordinates are applied in a manner to be expected, which was arrived at after long discussion and which has long-standing consensus, is Aiguille Aqueduct.
I will place a pointer to this discussion, at other VPs and relevant talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
|coordinates=
parameter to find text such as 43.2304°N 2.6086°E
, <span class="latitude">43°13′49″N</span> <span class="longitude">2°36′31″E</span>
or 43.2304_N_2.6086_E
/43_13_49_N_2_36_31_E
, all of which {{
Coord}} outputs; and the values could then be put into the infobox map.
Jc86035 (
talk •
contribs) Use {{
re|Jc86035}} to reply to me
14:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
|region:
etc. - I did both of those in
this edit four years ago. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
14:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
{{Main other| <!-- causes following to work only if in an article, not any other namespace -->
{{#if:{{{clearance|}}}|
[[Category:Articles using Template:Infobox bridge with clearance]]}}
{{#if:{{{coordinates|}}}|
[[Category:Pages using deprecated coordinates format]]}}
{{#if:{{{extra|}}}|
[[Category:Pages using Infobox bridge with extra]]}}
{{#if:{{{map_cue|}}}{{{map_text|}}}|
[[Category:Pages using Infobox bridge with deprecated parameters]]}}
}}
coordinates=
parameter is apparently deprecated. This test
was added 2014-09-23 by
Frietjes (
talk ·
contribs). Perhaps she will join in this discussion. —
EncMstr (
talk)
17:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
{{{coordinates|...coord...}}}
if I do not want a map, and {{{latd}}}
etc if I do want a map. That's editor's choice at the article level. I generally would not include the coordinates twice, nor find the "don't show the map" parameter if I use the parameters that make it appear. --
Scott Davis
Talk
13:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
{{#invoke:Coordinates/sandbox|coord2text|{{Coord|24|56|35|N|101|3|26|W}}|long}}
returns "-101.05722". ({{
Coord}} always returns coordinates in both formats, one of them invisible.)
Jc86035 (
talk •
contribs) Use {{
re|Jc86035}} to reply to me
14:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll say again what I said before: the deprecated coordinates format has no advantages (if I'm wrong about this, please tell me what the advantages are), but it has the major disadvantage that it doesn't support location maps. I see no reason to not deprecate an option in favor of a completely superior one. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 01:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
{{
coord}}
but have never worked with location maps. Works in all articles including those that do not have infoboxes. "Doesn't support location maps" was a good argument until it was shown that it could support them, and without an excessive effort. Now it's largely a non-argument. I don't think "completely superior" is accurate. ―
Mandruss
☎
03:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
|coordinates=
parameter and {{
Location map}}
(like
Template:Infobox building), then replace (for example – from Infobox building) |lat = {{#if:{{{latm|}}}{{{latNS|}}}| | {{#if:{{{latitude|}}}|{{{latitude}}}|{{{latd|}}}}} }}
|long = {{#if:{{{longm|}}}{{{longEW|}}}| | {{#if:{{{longitude|}}}|{{{longitude}}}|{{{longd|}}}}} }}
|lat = {{#if:{{{latm|}}}{{{latNS|}}}| | {{#if:{{{latitude|}}}|{{{latitude}}}|{{{latd|{{#invoke:Coordinates|lat|{{{coordinates|}}}}} }}}}} }}
|long = {{#if:{{{longm|}}}{{{longEW|}}}| | {{#if:{{{longitude|}}}|{{{longitude}}}|{{{longd|{{#invoke:Coordinates|long|{{{coordinates|}}}}} }}}}} }}
|coordinates=
only if parameters |latitude=
, |longitude=
, |latd=
and |longd=
aren't present.) —
Jc86035 (
talk •
contribs) Use {{
re|Jc86035}} to reply to me
16:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)@ Mandruss: To answer your question of 15:54 (UTC), it is quite clear that the format in question has never been deprecated. I have not wavered from my intention to revert Jackmcbarn's edits categorising it as such, so that the community can discuss the way forward, from a position of status quo, per WP:BRD, but he has failed to acknowledge my request that he reveal where he made those edits (it would appear that multiple infoboxes are involved), thereby presenting us with a fait acompli (rather, several of them). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
{{
Coord}}
in infoboxes. Such a highly-public proposal will eventually be needed, lest we repeat the failure to collaborate that we're complaining about. Just not sure we're ready for it yet. I could sandbox it if anyone wants to look at it. ―
Mandruss
☎
19:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC){{
Coord}}
. I would propose to deprecate those named parameters and use only |coordinates=
{{
Coord}}
, even when there is a {{
Location map}}
. ―
Mandruss
☎
20:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)|coordinates=
parameter? So that the other parameters (e.g |lat_degrees=
) are instead passed on to {{
Coord}}?
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
20:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
|coordinates=
, deprecate |latd=
and all the other named parameters that have equivalent positional parameters in {{
Coord}}
(roughly ten parameters). Modify {{
Coord}}
and the infoboxes to pass latitude and longitude from {{
Coord}}
to {{
Location map}}
. From above discussion, it seems
Jc86035 has already sandboxed the changes to
Module:Coordinates, and they have detailed the necessary changes to infoboxes above. In other words, one common way to code all coordinates-related data in any article, whether the article has an infobox or not, and whether the infobox uses {{
Location map}}
or not. ―
Mandruss
☎
20:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
|coordinates=
to toggle on/off Wikidata info based on a yes/no value (displaying all other values as usual).
Jc86035 (
talk •
contribs) Use {{
re|Jc86035}} to reply to me
07:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
{{
coord}}
directly (perhaps in a |coordinates=
infobox param) or whether it uses three or more separate infobox parameters like |latitude=
|longitude=
|coord_region=
, so long as both methods are not used in the same article (a tracking category for detecting such duplication is useful). Where there are two methods in use on the same article, you have two latitudes and two longitudes, which should be the same, but can easily become different. Perhaps an article starts off with two identical sets, but both are wrong in some way; somebody notices that the title coord link goes to the wrong place, corrects the title coords, but doesn't notice that there is also a set of pushpin map coords which must be fixed in synch. This is what I meant by "there should be one set of coordinates" above, which some people seem to assume meant that I was taking one side. I am a supporter of pushpin maps, and for so long as the coordinates for such maps cannot be extracted from {{
coord}}
, I am using the separate infobox parameters method - but that doesn't mean that I always will. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
10:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)@
Mandruss: So Wikidata's out of the question then. For the infobox templates, I'm not entirely sure how to phrase it but it'd probably be something like "in parameter |lat=
/|long=
of {{
Location map}} insert [module code] inside {{{latd|}}}
after the vertical bar, so it replaces both |latitude=
and |latd=
if both are empty" (repeated twice for latitude and longitude). Most of the parameter names should be the same throughout the infobox templates, except possibly a few |coordinatesN=
/|coordinatesE=
.
Jc86035 (
talk •
contribs) Use {{
re|Jc86035}} to reply to me
05:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I have presented the proposal as an RfC, at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Deprecate named coordinates-related infobox parameters. ― Mandruss ☎ 02:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
The RfC at Talk:Eritrea#Location has turned circular and unresolveable, with about half a dozen parties sticking to their positions immovably no matter what is offered. I would suggest that an influx of fresh eyes on the matter would be of great benefit before it gets any more WP:LAME. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think the title of this article is rather odd, but I'm not quite sure what to change it to; the only slight change I can think of is from "Columbine massacre" to Columbine High School massacre, as that is where the school's article is located. (I normally would have posted this on the article's talk page, but that place is a ghost town.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 20:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
The Discovery Search Team wants to enable search results that will include articles across all wiki projects – within the same language.
We'd like your feedback on the specifics of how this new functionality might work, and feedback or alternative ideas for the possible design options.
Thank you for your time. DTankersley (WMF) ( talk) 15:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
{{Myspace}}
was deleted (after substututuon) after
a TfD discussion in January 2015. We nonetheless still have
over 3400 links to MySpace.
We should never delete an external link template, when we have so many links to the external site. They should only be deleted if and when they are unused (or have trivially low usage)
I've tried to recreate deleted templates in the past, but had them speedily deleted "per previous TfD".
We apparently have no forum specifically to discuss such recreations, so I'm suggesting here that we do so.
We can then convert those 3400-odd links, so that the benefits of the template - ease of tracking, wrapping {{ Cite web}} so that we benefit from its machine readable metadata, single change if the site goes offline or changes its URL structure - can be realised.
@ Magioladitis, Green Cardamom, Martijn Hoekstra, Lady Lotus, TenPoundHammer, and JohnBlackburne:, @ ATS, Davey2010, Fredddie, Christian75, Mashaunix, and NinjaRobotPirate:, @ Beetstra and Daniel Case: - as people involved in the TfD, or recent discussion at BOTREQ. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I wonder too. The problem is over these two discussions no-one has come up with even one example of a band or other act using MySpace at all, never mind using it as their primary web presence. My own limited investigations suggest that Myspace is to all effects dead.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 07:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: I rather fear some people here are missing the point (and I was not seeking a re-run of the previous TfD): deletion is not cleanup. We have lots of links to MySpace. That is irrefutable. So long as we do, they should be in a template, for the reasons stated (and this is regularly done without drama, once we have a dozen or more links to a single site). The template should be deleted when and only when the links have already been removed. "Endorsing deletion" won't remove a single link. Having the template will not prevent removal of links where they should not be present. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to echo Andy's general statement: "We should never delete an external link template, when we have so many links to the external site." We probably should not have 3400 links to MySpace, but 3400 dead links to MySpace would be a worse situation than 3400 working links to MySpace. Working social media links are better than dead social media links, even when we agree that many of them ought to be removed. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 10:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Note that K. R. Vijaya has died according to Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 ( talk) 05:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello!! I hope that someone is able to help me. For a project page I want to put 4 text boxes side by side - 2 across, 2 down. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the project, I have to do it without using a template. I have tried to figure it out with other codes (looking at other pages), but I cannot get the two boxes to sit next to each other within the grey box. Please help!! I currently prefer the top two boxes on this link: User:Islahaddow/sandbox/WikiFundi_Mainpage - but I need to sit the one next to the other, with two similar boxes aligned underneath. Is this possible? Isla Haddow ( talk) 08:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I need the superpowers of regular editors to determine if a Wikipedia entry has been entirely manufactured or not.
Here is a link to my findings: https://www.reddit.com/r/actualconspiracies/comments/51sq7n/any_proof_that_the_wikipedia_entry_classical
It might be a revisionist attempt to link the history of liberalism to economics. But nothing from 1600s to 1990s reveals such a connection. So far.
Its entry in Wikipedia has plenty of "citations", but they all are after the year 2000. Kind of self-referencing.
All citations on the Wikipedia entry that refer to "liberalism" defined as "free" market ideology, are conveniently from books and articles dating after 2000.
If "Classical Liberalism" meant anything other than what it means today, wouldn't it show up in old books of etymology and in old books? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grassvoter ( talk • contribs) 22:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I have started Wikipedia:Spellcheck dictionary, with the intention of compiling a list of Wikipedia-related words, terms, abbreviations, and acronyms that people can add to their software's local dictionary. It's far from complete - please add to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Greetings! The Project Grants program is accepting proposals from September 12 to October 11 to fund new tools, research, offline outreach (including editathon series, workshops, etc), online organizing (including contests), and other experiments that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Project Grants can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.
Also accepting candidates to join the Project Grants Committee through October 1.
With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) ( talk) 14:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi all
I'm working on the Connected Open Heritage project which plans to upload national built heritage registers to Wikidata (these are often the lists that WLM is based upon in each country). The first step is to create a worldwide list of built heritage registers on Wikipedia, we would really like your help in completing this list with your local knowledge. It should only take a few minutes to fill the information in for each country if you know who produces the information.
Thanks very much
John Cummings ( talk) 12:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm wondering why it's taken over three days to get a response to a speedy deletion. 117Avenue ( talk) 01:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the title says it.
HandsomeFella ( talk) 18:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the title says it.
HandsomeFella ( talk) 18:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi all,
Your neighbour, French Wiktionary, is quite proud to publish every month an online magazine with fresh news about the project, Actualités. It is quite like a small brother of The Signpost. It is not targeting contributors but visitors and people interested into words. After 17 editions, we decided to translate our last edition of August into English, to make this publication available for you. It was quite a long job, so we are not sure if it worth it, so let us know if you have so interest for it. Feel free to comments on any aspects of this publication, we are very open to improve it and our translation - as English is not my mother tongue. Also, thanks to Andrew Sheedy ( talk · contribs) and Pamputt ( talk · contribs) for supporting this translation! hope you'll like this! Noé ( talk) 14:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Please note that Hovhannes Tcholakian has died. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 ( talk) 12:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
This RFC covers two automotive articles with similar disputed material.
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Request for Comment: Inclusion of vehicle use in crimes as part of vehicle articles. Felsic2 ( talk) 15:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I really doubt that this will be of any help but an example where I came across this is at Bhagat Singh. Besides archives to all the GB books links (just the general link using ids not the page) in the Bibliography part of the References section, there is one use of it on a page link: "Louis E. Fenech; W. H. McLeod (11 June 2014). Historical Dictionary of Sikhism. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 64. ISBN 978-1-4422-3601-1. Archived from the original on 1 October 2015."
Just to confirm, it's pretty much useless right? Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 15:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I thought this would be a simple question to answer, but so far I've come up with 5 different answers:
Any idea which of those (if any) is the correct answer? Kaldari ( talk) 22:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
A suggestion. Since this appears to be a question that is destined to be asked again, perhaps the fact of where the canonical list/number of Featured Articles can be found ought to be recorded on one of the related pages. (I didn't know that answer until now, & wouldn't know where to look to find it.) -- llywrch ( talk) 16:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Category talk:Violence against men#Which version is better?. jps ( talk) 18:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Why is "Wiki loves monument" banner displayed on top of every page links to a Spanish web site http://www.wikilm.es/?pk_campaign=Centralnotice ? I don't speak this language Mascarponette ( talk) 10:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm new to this section so please redirect me if it's the wrong place for this query. I've been puzzling over the fact that Welsh isn't as varied as English in terms of place names so a disambiguation page seems to meld into becoming a content page. See, for example, Llanarmon. This is a village name that refers to a prominent local feature, the church. It literally means St Garmon's Church. There are lots of Llanarmons, all meaning the same thing, just in different places. Similarly, Pentre means village, though Wikipedia currently only seems to refer to one of the numerous places with that name. It is possible to repeat the origin of a name on every single page that is an instance of that name, but it seems to make more sense to have a single source of truth on a central page, especially if it is slightly controversial. (An example of such a controversy might be where an early saint went on a stomp around Wales founding churches, but nobody documented exactly who he was so there are two or three candidates.) But is that then a disambiguation page or a content page? Or does it not matter! Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tessthepuppy ( talk • contribs) 19:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
A discussion had been started at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking § Linking to sections of articles about whether to use the link formats [[Article#Section]]
or [[Article#Section|name of link]]
in articles, as opposed to a separate redirect page to the desired section. —
Coconutporkpie (
talk)
09:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Greetings! The Project Grants program is currently accepting proposals for funding. There is just over a week left to submit before the October 11 deadline. If you have ideas for software, offline outreach, research, online community organizing, or other projects that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers, start your proposal today! Please encourage others who have great ideas to apply as well. Support is available if you want help turning your idea into a grant request.
I JethroBT (WMF) ( talk) 19:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
For at least ten years, sources and external links to NNDB have been around on Wikipedia. NNDB is the Notable Names Database, which has various (though unsourced) kinds of informatiom on people. WP:RS has ruled NNDB an unreliable source many times, and Jimmy Wales said as much himself ten years ago ( Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive 3#nndb is not a reliable source). NNDB does provide a bibliography, but these are merely sources which show that the person was important, so the information on the pages is practically unsourced. The presence of these links has led some to declare NNDB as link spammers, as there are 4375 external links to NNDB. This overlaps many noticeboards, so what do you think should be done? Should all NNDB links be purged? -- Alexschmidt711 ( talk) 20:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
People often talk about governments or political groups infiltrating Wikipedia and editing it to promote their agendas, but are there any verified examples of this happening?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 03:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
On English Wikipedia, guidelines such WP:Harassment are very helpful in our trying to prevent users from stalking and harassing other users and creating contentious debates (always detrimental to constructive work and good article content), just because of real or imagined political differences. We should perhaps be aware that there are other language projects which have no such guidelines at all, and that some political-agenda users who come here from them, whether to infiltrate articles and discussions with their POV or just to pick fights, may not be accustomed to the stricter policies of English Wikipedia. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 14:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
≤I know there was a spate of British Tory MPs editing their entries just before the last general election (May 2015) to obviously remove anything that portrayed them In a less-than-favourable light or, in some cases to add things that weren't true to boost their image. I know this because the computer network at Westminster logs everything and one paper - think it was either the Guardian or the Independent - made a FoIA request as they're been rumours circulating - I think Wikipedia is now blocked at Westminster!
Margo (
talk)
22:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)