This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous).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
I don't think many Wikipedians know this, but we have Press coverage pages. I'd welcome your input at Wikipedia talk:Press coverage 2018#Social Science Computer Review at Wikipedia:Press coverage 2017. It's a little more interesting than it sounds, ANI is mentioned. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 11:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The article was nominated for deletion, so I'm posting notice of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ideological bias on Wikipedia here for wider community input. Atsme 📞 📧 15:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
There is a Request for Comment regarding a controversy at the White Helmets page. Any editor reading this is welcome to chime in. Best, GPRamirez5 ( talk) 15:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello Wikimedians!
The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for free, full-access, accounts to research and tools as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for new accounts and research materials on the Library Card platform:
Expansions
Many other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page, including Baylor University Press, Loeb Classical Library, Cairn, Gale and Bloomsbury.
Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--
The Wikipedia Library Team 18:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
The Anti-Harassment Tools team enlisted the assistance of Alex Hollender, a User Experience designer at Wikimedia Foundation to create wireframe designs of the Special:Block with the Granular block feature included. Our first wireframes are based on the discussions on the Granular block talk page, Wishlist proposal, and Phabricator to date.
Because the Special:Block page is already at its limits with its current layout and we would like to propose a new organized layout for Special:Block. This will make it easier to add the granular blocking (page, category, namespace, etc) and whatever is to come in the future. All of the same functionality is available on this new layout, but in a more organized, step-by-step process.
Take a look at the wireframe and leave us your feedback. For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative ( talk) 19:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
This question has been reposted at WP:Village pump (technical) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It seems now, Wikipedia's display goes out of wack, when one zooms to over 150% size. GoodDay ( talk) 22:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
|
WP:Tag/ WP:TAG redirect somewhere else besides WP:Tags. None of these disambiguate nearly as many things as are necessary. I mean, I was trying to remember what way of putting parameters into <graph> would be equivalent to {{#tag:graph|etc}}, and looking up [[WP:#tag]] is hopeless because "#" wasn't a valid index character in 1980 and it won't be searchable in the year 198,000 either. But none of those redirects will get you to Help:Magic words, I can assure you. We need a super-duper disambiguation page to cover what I think must be hundreds of incompatible but similar-sounding meanings for the word "tag". I don't even understand all the uses of the word over at MediaWiki and how many are irrelevant to Wikipedia, they have ways of adding custom tags by which I mean stuff in < > and all sorts of fun stuff. I thought I should ask if anyone had suggestions for a way to organize it all. Wnt ( talk) 23:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The EU parliament is voting on proposed new copyright law (in 2 weeks no less) that may impact Wikipedia's ability to link to news websites (a proposed 'link tax' among other things such as "Making platforms directly liable for all copyright infringements by their users"). Could anyone with a background in law please review this and come back whether there is a concern for Wikipedia and if we should be worried? SoWhy? [1] [2] — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 07:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
France, Italy, Spain and Portugal want to force upload filters on not-for-profit platforms (like Wikipedia) and on platforms that host only small amounts of copyrighted content (like startups). Even if platforms filter, they should still be liable for copyright infringements of their users under civil law, just not under criminal law.
hello
the article of Dome of the Rock is protected and Some images & vector are waiting in the talk page to place in article gallery. Can anyone help me?
Seyyedalith ( talk) 22:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello,
until recently, there was a language filter extension for Wikipedia: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/language-filter-for-wikip/ibgceajjjioihilfcdppneoljcaofokk?hl=ru&gl=CZ Unfortunately, its development has been stopped.
This filter was absolutely indispensable. Lots (probably hundreds of millions) of users are bilingual and want switch between two languages, or want to switch to English because articles in their mother tongue are not as good. Examples of both/either of these conditions would be: English-Swedish, English-Latvian, English-German, English-French, English-Chinese, English-Spanish, ...
The Wikipedia language bar has lots of entries that are of no relevance to 99.99% of users. E.g. even though I grew up in South-West Germany, Wikipedia articles in the local dialect (Alemannic) are of no user to me whatsoever. Same goes for dozens of official languages that are simpliy irrelevant to 99%. The Chrome extension allowed users to define languages that would subsequently show up at the top of the list, and clearly emphasized visually. This was very very helpful and one of the most frequent clicks I did on Wikipedia.
Please implement this into Wikipedia ASAP. __________
PS. On a side not, I would also like to mention that in mobile view, it would be really helpful if at any point the user had access to a menu of the contents/headlines/sub-headlines of any given article - instead of having to scroll down for minutes in the hopes of searching what he is looking for.
-- 80.187.105.82 ( talk) 13:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I watch changes to pages using my watchlist, but can I review changes that have been made to the watchlist itself? I removed some temporarily high-traffic pages from my watchlist planning to add them back later, but lost my list of which pages they were. Daask ( talk) 14:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
There is a need to make an article about the most massive black hole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 ( talk) 15:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi all. This is Leila from WMF Research team. I'm reaching out to you to notify you about two experiments that we intend to run on enwiki over the course of the next 2 weeks (start time will likely be in the week of 2018-06-18, I will update this thread once we know if it can happen in that week from our end). Both experiments are on newcomers with the broad goal of helping a more diverse newcomer pool to stay on the projects for longer to contribute (each experiment has specific measurements). I'll explain them in some more depth below along with pointers:
Given the design of these experiments and the target audience, we do not expect them to negatively affect active editor workflows. If you have questions or comments about these experiments, please let me know. Thank you! -- LZia (WMF) ( talk) 00:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I note that I have been contributing regularly for 14 years come the end of the month - who else has been around for 'a long time' (whether on a regular or occasional basis)? Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
For the purpose of increasing the number of Yerevan related content in the Internet, Wikimedia Armenia announces international one-month edit-a-thon from June 15 – July 15, 2018. You are kindly invited to get involved and start editing and improving articles about Yerevan.
Hope you'll enjoy editing and have fun during this interesting process.
One participant from the first 15 most written language Wikipedias with the most points will be invited to Yerevan to join the events organized in the frames of Yerevan 2800th anniversary. For more details please visit the edit-a-thon page on Meta.
See you soon in sunny Yerevan!-- Lilit (WM AM) ( talk) 12:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
The Anti-Harassment Tools team built the Interaction Timeline to make it easier to understand how two people interact and converse across multiple pages on a wiki. The tool shows a chronological list of edits made by two users, only on pages where they have both made edits within the provided time range. Our goals are to assist users to make well informed decisions in incidents of user misconduct and to keep on-wiki discussions civil and focused on evidence.
We're looking to add a feature to the Interaction Timeline that makes it easy to post statistics and information to an on-wiki discussion about user misconduct. We're discussing possible wikitext output on the project talk page, and we invite you to participate! Thank you, For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative ( talk) 21:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I recently became aware of the contributions to Commons by ACTVR. I haven't examined all of them, but those I have seen are carefully edited versions of older (but nevertheless presumably copyright) British company logos. I think that many, perhaps all, have their ("fair use"!) place in en:WP articles -- but not in Commons. I've put up one for deletion, and, in my nomination, mentioned the others. I think it would be beneficial if, for most (all?) of these files, somebody would upload it to en:WP with a different filename, switch the link in the article to this new upload, provide a fair use rationale, and perhaps do a couple of other things that I can't immediately think of. However, I cannot be that body: my "RL" has deadlines looming.
Alternatively, perhaps there already exists help for moving stuff such as this from Commons to en:WP; I don't know, and sorry but I lack the time needed to investigate. -- Hoary ( talk) 13:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
The logo of Micro Precision Products, in a JPEG edited by User:ACTVR, who in 2013 uploaded it to Commons as File:MPP logo.jpg, stating that it, together with a score of other logos was ACTVR's "Own work". Surely it instead should be presumed to be copyright, and should not be at Commons (and I am about to ask for its deletion).
Fair use rationale: The image is used to identify the company Micro Precision Products. Use of the logo is intended to help readers identify the company, assure readers that they have reached the relevant article containing critical commentary about the company, and illustrate the company's intended branding message in a way that would be laborious or impossible to express via words alone.
Source: Wikimedia Commons ( File:MPP logo.jpg). User:ACTVR did not specify their source for this. The logo is identical to that shown on the back cover of Basil Skinner, Micro Precision Products: The MPP Story and the Products (Newquay, Cornwall: MPP Publications, 2004), to that shown in the advertisement for the MPP Monorail Camera that is reproduced on page 42 of this book, and also to that on the MPP Monorail Camera as shown in this advertisement.
Hi. I read a Wikipedia essay a short while ago detailing how to avoid repetition. One of the things it detailed was that editors should avoid using different synonyms in repetetive text and instead shorten it. It mentioned that “title” shouldn’t be used as a synonym for “game” due to its ambiguity.
Could somebody please help me find this essay? I couldn’t find it at Wikipedia:Essay directory as I don’t remember what it is called. Interqwark talk contribs 06:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not shure if I must report this here, but I could not find another place. Since early this year IP-users 110.169.nnn.mmm, where nnn=13 and nnn=12 were the busiest, have been contributing many times with "not existing template arguments". The pattern is always on one day many contributions are made, and only on that one day. Next time such a thing happens, it is the same pattern, but another address. Some examples: 110.169.13.23, 110.169.12.191. I could not find all edits by all 110.169.nnn.mmm addresses, but there must be more than those I noticed. -- FredTC ( talk) 14:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
The Wikimedia Foundation Research team is starting a project on understanding the role of external citations in Wikipedia reading. This project aims to understand how Wikipedia readers use the citations, which in turn can inform the editor and tool developer communities about the usage (or not) of citations by Wikipedia readers. Some more information about this research on the project page: m:Research:Characterizing Wikipedia Citation Usage.
To be able to do this, we will collect data on readers’ citation usage, starting 2018-06-25. We will collect data that captures the interactions of readers (not logged-in users) with references and footnotes. We will initially sample 1–15% of the traffic to validate the quality of the data. Once that’s verified, we intend to do data collection at 100% sampling rate for a period of one week. Please note that given that we do not know the frequency of citation usage, we may have to change this plan based on the initial validation steps. We will keep this thread posted with changes if they occur, and we will update our project page.
To follow the progress of the project and monitor our research results, please also look at this task. If you are interested to know more, or if you have any question, or any observation, please ping me! Miriam (WMF) ( talk) 15:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
To whom it may concern. I am astonished at @ Randykitty:'s act because I think she is not right but we are human beings and to err is human. I think she has not paid enough attention to the fact that I am an CONFIRMED editor and I am aware of the facts of notability guideline for academics and the rule of WP:SCHOLAR and the article in question is highly suitable for creating a wikipedia article. So These articles ARE NOT an Unambiguous ADVERTISING or PROMOTION. Her nomination for delation was pretty husty and unreasoned, I think, and I understand her intention to defend the interests of Wikipedia but on the one hand the article was about a famous and notable scientist, scholar, professor of linguistics from Hungary who teaches and researches not only in Hungary but in the universities of Japan, Taiwan, Russia, Germany and Romania, so she is known worldwide and his scientific efforts were honored with lotsa awarded eg. Order of the Rising Sun 3rd Class, Gold Rays with Neck Ribbon by HM Akihito, Emperor of Japan on 8 November 2005 in Tokyo
so it was an unfriendly act to offend these articles but on the other hand if this Hungarian scholar were not a notable scholar, she would not have been invited to teach and research to the notable universities of the world therefore this article was abouut a notable woman, scientist who is respected in my country and in Western Europe (Germany) and Eastern Europe (Romania, Russia) and in the Far East (Japan, Taiwan).
Her article has been existing for two years and I do not understand why it were an un unambiguous advertising or promotion??!!!! If her own article were an advertising or promotion then all living scholars' articles would be advertisings or promotions and you all might think she (who will be 70 years old on 11 July) should die if her article were rightful??!!! And it is pretty weird that @ Randykitty: has nominated the article for delation at 13:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC) and it have been delated in five hours, at 18:47, 23 June 2018 by @ Swarm: this is nonsense!!!! There WASN'T any time to revise it, to defend it for me, to explain my opinion.
@ Randykitty: is not right, both articles Judit Hidasi and Judit Hidasi bibliography own several secondary sources and not only in Hngarian but in English, too. I think if a person can be found in a book of the Biographies of the Contemporary Hungarian Linguists, that person can also deserve the article on wikipedia. A biography has been written about Judit Hidasi in Hungary:
{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)
ISBN
978-963-9559-44-8I understand @ Randykitty: does not know this linguist in her own country but the scientists who research the communication in the world, they know her name. She is among the respected and notable linguists.
I hope I have managed to prove my arguments and standpoint that the articles in question should be kept on English wikipedia and now the admins of enwiki will give up the idea to delate
Judit Hidasi bibliography as @
Randykitty: has written it to me, and the article of
Judit Hidasi will be restored without delay and I can remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
and you all will accept this, you all agree with me and you all won't change my editing and you would no longer like to delate both of them.
Please Ask the opinion of the Hungarian administrators and workshops that deal with Hungarian topics. I DO NOT accept that the delation of the article of this Hungarian scholar was well substantiated and that two admins can make a decision about this important topic without any discussions, diputes, debates so the decision of delation was hasty and unreasoned. Best regards.
Borgatya (
talk) 21:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind attention @ Headbomb: and @ Swarm:but I MUST emphasize that you're not right because the aricle Judit Hidasi was neither an advertising nor a promotion. Judit Hidasi is a respected scholar in the world, I cannot understand whether her article might exist in 9 languages: Japanese, Chinese, German, Russian, French, Romanian, Irish, Korean and Hungarian why they do not consider her articles as an advertising or promotion because maybe they are more informed, open-minded, cooperative and friendly, and her bibliography belongs to her aricle as a filmography to an actor or list of plays and works to a writer or a list of paintings to a painter, it is not prohibited that there exists a separate list of works among the other scholars or artists. E.g. Noam Chomsky is a famous American linguist, he is the most famous linguist in the world and though he is more famous than Professor Judit Hidasi but I think, this is not a mistake, pity because each linguists are less famous than Noam Chomsky but they DO have even own wikipedia aricles and Noam Chomsky is also a living scholar who has an own aricle about his works: Noam Chomsky bibliography and filmography but nobody think that it would be a mistake so this bibliographic article is not considered as an advertising or promotion but he is a living person, too for whom that list is also useful. The bibliograpy can prove that he or she a respected and notable scholar and they who debate the existence of a list of scientific works, do not understand the scientific research and they cannot judge the existence of a wikipedia article because they can prove their incompetence in wikipedia cases. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND why Judit Hidasi's article would be worst than Noam Chomsky's beacaue both of them are respected scholars in their fields. And Noam Chomsky's article is much more longer than Ms. Judit Hidasi's was and Ms. Judit Hidasi's article have not contained any prohibited things, fact and it was pretty neutral, more neutral than Noam Chomsky's article. And I have NOT received any concrete answer what is exact problem with Ms. Judit Hidasi's article. Neither @ Randykitty: who has nominated it nor @ Swarm: who has delated it, have not pointed out the exact, concrete problemes, mistakes that would have justified their rights to delate this article and the only answer was from them that JUST BECAUSE but it ain't an exact reply so I can say that their acts were unrightful and I strongly urge you to restore Ms. Judit Hidasi's article becase the reason that they have justified their motivations was nonsense and causeless and they cannot have proved their opinions thoroughly. I have been an active, respected, confirmed editor on English wikipedia for 10 years, I have registered in 2008 and until now I have been creating lotsa articles and my articles are always were suitable for the high level of wikipedia and I can have always been fulfilling the criterions of wikipedia, I know the rules of creating new articles well so it was VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY unfriendly to delate Ms Judit Hidasi's article and you must know the wikipedia is nobody's own property and wikipedia is a public ownership so it is prohibited to delate an article which can belong to the public attention. Please Restore Ms Judit Hidasi's article and I do not have to rewrite it because I have already written it well. Borgatya ( talk) 21:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
In the course of my researches I have come across a number of cases where 'topic X' is covered on a number of different language WPs #but not on the English Wikipedia# (for a variety of reasons). Jackiespeel ( talk) 12:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I've noticed strange spikes in the number of page views, according to the statistics. For instance, on the Talk:Checkmate talk page are the daily stats. Most days are consistently about 400-500 but there is a spike to nearly 8,000. Are these spikes real and what causes them? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Please note that Harlan Ellison died on 28 june according to Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 ( talk) 23:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I discovered today that we've got contests which offer cash prizes. For example, WP:WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest. This seems rather contrary to the volunteer ethic which has been behind wikipedia since day one. I'm all for the goal of creating new biographies of women. It just surprises me that cash prizes are involved. Are these contests legit? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
There are tons of free photos of Lee Harvey Oswald on Commons ( c:Category:Lee Harvey Oswald), which contradicts the claim "and for whom there is no known representation under a 'free' license" in the Licensing section of File:OswaldinMinsk.jpg, as well as "Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" under Non-free use rationale. -- fireattack ( talk) 05:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello, the Wiki4MediaFreedom contest is running and will last until the 15th of July. You can either improve or update articles in English or translate articles from English to Italian, Albanian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian or Montenegrin (see the rules. The prizes are online gift voucher. See Meta for more information. -- Niccolò Caranti (OBC) ( talk) 07:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I know various bots automatically replace dead URLs with archived pages. I'm looking for a way to manually trigger a replacement of dead URLs with archives. While I'm open to purely automated solutions, I'm imagining an interface similar to
Refill, which would assist me in replacing the URL with an archive in cases where bots cannot, eg. when |access-date=
is missing.
Daask (
talk) 20:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
As I (and no doubt others) have come across the banner about the legislation - if it passed how would it directly affect WP - and how could WP adapt to accommodate the changes?
Is any cooperation with other websites who are likely to be affected (eg fanfiction) being pursued? Jackiespeel ( talk) 12:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm from Spanish Wikipedia. The template BillboardID uses these other templates for store the IDs of the artists. In eswiki we use the same system. Now, Billboard website doesn't use anymore the artist ID, but uses a link like www.billboard.com/music/jodi-benson, using simply the artist name. This causes problems with the chart templates, like some user said here. In eswiki we discussed about move all data to Wikidata (where only 600 items have this property), but the fact is that there are over 30000 artists, and it's nedeed a bot for move data. I make this request here, because in enwiki these templates have more info than ours, and I think this would benefit both wikis. Thanks. -- Giovanni Alfredo Garciliano Díaz ★ talk 00:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this could more experienced editors please take a look at Category:Coptic_calendar and articles like Pashons 25 (Coptic Orthodox liturgics) and Pashons 17 (Coptic Orthodox liturgics) — I know we have WP:DOTY but I don't know which notability guideline would cover the creation of "day" articles for different calender systems...has there been previous discussion about this? Seraphim System ( talk) 16:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market says: "English Wikipedia added a banner asking the readers to contact their representatives in the European parliament." Did it? I haven't seen one. -- Espoo ( talk) 21:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
This sort of thing is caused by not giving the WMF enough time to set up a test page or test wiki and allow us to confirm that everything works properly. We really need to start earlier when making proposals that require even minor modifications to the Wiki software.
Mistakes happen. The other day someone at Sony was supposed to upload a trailer for an upcoming movie to YouTube, but accidentally uploaded the entire movie. And who can forget the time that Anthony Weiner tried to send a picture of his penis to a woman through Twitter, and accidentally sent it to everyone who was following him on Twitter. The WMF is really quite good at having someone else double check things like banners and thus catching the errors before they go live -- but we need to give them time to do that. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Just Fyi. It was not meant to run in the US Canada India South Africa etc, anywhere outside the EU. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 16:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I have a n00b question; how can I directly show the title in Italics, wihout actually dropping the "italic title" template into the article? Such as Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium. Thanks in advance guys, - LouisAragon ( talk) 20:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
{{
italic title}}
? --
Pipetricker (
talk) 21:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Article Dragovic (disambiguation) should be renamed in only Dragovic
Article Ilija Janković should should be deleted, since there should be a special article, see: hr:Ilija Janković
-- SrpskiAnonimac ( talk) 17:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Global preferences are now available, you can set them by visiting your new global preferences page. Visit mediawiki.org for information on how to use them and leave feedback. -- Keegan (WMF) ( talk)
19:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
The Anti-Harassment Tools team expanded cookie blocking to IP blocks and this week it will be deployed on all wiki after successful testing on Italian Wikipedia. ( phab:T152462) SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative ( talk) 22:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Here is the first revision of Procedural texture (from 2004). At the bottom you can see "This article was written by Enrique Flouret from The Photoshop Roadmap". Note that the contributor is User:Eflouret himself (who has been inactive since 2004).
There appears to be a few separate issues here, and they haven't been corrected even up to the latest revision:
I'm pretty sure Wikipedia doesn't allow copyrighted text in the first place, even if we assume that we have permission to use it in this case. If that is the case, what should be done about Procedural texture? It's very first revision is a copyright violation. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/) [ᴛ] 17:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
At first in mobile site the infobox is placed before the 1st paragraph and then it placed between the 1st and the 2nd paragraph and now it placed before the 1st paragraph again, what's happened? -- Hddty. ( talk) 01:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi!
I'm Tar Lócesilion, a Polish Wikipedia admin and a member of Wikimedia Polska. Last year, I worked for Wikimedia Foundation as a liaison between communities and the Movement Strategy core team. My task was to ensure that all online communities were aware of the movement-wide strategy discussion. This year, my task similar. Phase II of the strategy process was launched in April. Currently, future Working Groups members are being selected, and related pages on Meta-Wiki are being designed.
I’d like to learn what questions concerning the strategy process would you like to be answered on the FAQ page? Please answer here, on my talk page, or on a dedicated talk page on Meta-Wiki. Thanks!
If you have any questions or concerns, please, do ask!
Thanks, SGrabarczuk (WMF) ( talk) 18:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
A new watchlist system was introduced. Does this make control on the edits of the pages in the wathlist more efficient? Does this give more control on bot edits on the pages and more control on checking revisions? Wat are the actual differences? Is still using tools to make minor changes on a page a problem (if this was ever a problem)? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 23:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Recently I've been wandering around and saw the Category:Peru district templates may have some duplicates such as Template:Districts of Huánuco Province and Template:Districts of Huánuco Region. As both templates are created by the same person, I wonder if this is intentional or not. As the creator may have left Wikipedia, I think it might be suitable to ask here. If they are indeed duplicates, should we do a mass redirect or mass delink + delete? JC1 ( talk) 15:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
{{Districts of Huánuco Region}} [[Category:Districts of the Huánuco Province]]
I am not sure why (though I have my suspicions, see below) but it seems that Facebook is deleting posts that contain Wikipedia links. For example two different people posted the following link in comments only to have the comment be automatically deleted with seconds.
Would some other editors who are willing please log onto WP and try to post that link or some other WP article, preferably in some sort of political group, wait about 15 seconds, and then try to reply their own post. I think this is a malfunction of FB trying to "catch" fake news and maybe some over eager beaver coded that WP is "fake" ... just s theory. Of course you can delete the comments when done if they are not auto-deleted. I do NOT need to see your FB post, I just would like to know if the problem is affecting WP links for others. Let me know please by posting your experience here. Thank you. 172.88.134.103 ( talk) 05:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Putting this here for your possible enjoyment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 18:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone know if there are essays or other resources discussing what are appropriate uses of quotes within a citation? My general understanding is quotes in a citation would be used when the fact in the article might need more explanation without interfering with the readability of the article itself. As a hypothetical, if an article contains a fact may seem odd or incorrect at first read, the quote in the citation could provide additional text for the interested reader.
At the same time I would assume it shouldn't be used if the quote doesn't directly relate to the text the citation supports
In the first case the quote helps clarify for those who were taught there are 9 planets in the solar system and is thus directly related to/supports the article text. In the second case the material is only indirectly related and in no way clarifies the article text. I would presume in this case the quote shouldn't be used. However, that is only my opinion. Does Wikipedia have any resources talking about this? Thanks! Springee ( talk) 17:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
In most cases it is sufficient for a citation footnote simply to identify the source (as described in the sections above); readers can then consult the source to see how it supports the information in the article. Sometimes, however, it is useful to include additional annotation in the footnote, for example to indicate precisely which information the source is supporting (particularly when a single footnote lists more than one source – see § Bundling citations and § Text–source integrity, below). A footnote may also contain a relevant exact quotation from the source. This is especially helpful when the cited text is long or dense. A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference. Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible.– dlthewave ☎ 17:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
References
Looking at a list of Wikipedias by language, there are some outliers, and I recall some Wikipedias had had tens if not hundred of thousands of articles created by some bot. Is there any place that lists such cases? Do you recall which Wikipedias has significant article-creation-by-bot initiatives? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Please note that Gopaldas Neeraj died on thursday 19 july according to Google. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 ( talk) 15:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The new filters are cluttering up my Watchlist so I decided to opt out. I turned off "Hide the improved version of Recent Changes" on my "Recent changes" preferences page, but the Watchlist clutter is still there. I'm using Chrome and I tried an f5 reload but no luck. Is this feature broken? Praemonitus ( talk) 01:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
This is more of a comment than anything, but anyone else have noticed piped links where the left side consists of the correctly spelt actual title of the article and the right side of a misspelling? I find it simply baffling that this is a thing that exists.
One particularly blatant example I just corrected was [[artificial vagina|artificial-vagina]]
. Like, what the hell, dude? Obviously you saw the title of the article already. In contrast,
artificial-vagina is a redlink. Applying simple everyday logic, you can deduce that the article title is the/a correct spelling and your own spelling is incorrect. Why go to the length to create a piped link instead of simply writing [[artificial vagina]]
? I'm not sure that even the VE can fully explain this phenomenon. And I'm pretty sure I encountered this phenomenon already before the VE was rolled out by default. --
Florian Blaschke (
talk) 13:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
[[Barack Obama|Barock Obama]]
. (Or, even better: "Baroque Osama".) It just makes no sense. It can't happen accidentally. It feels like an editor who does this wants to prank and annoy wikignomes like me. --
Florian Blaschke (
talk) 23:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)Please put Ian Stanley (golfer) on july 28 in the deaths list. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 ( talk) 06:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Is it safe to assume that readers would recognize Jack as a nickname for John? Also, where should this question be asked? — 151.132.206.26 ( talk) 14:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone have an english word for these occupations? They are used for occupations With respect to mining both in Norway and in Germany. Breg Pmt ( talk) 17:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I was going to update the article Gifford Lectures to include recent lectures and then noticed that the article is essentially always going to be mainly a list. There are several things that could be done:
The problem with leaving it as-is is that the article is always going to comprise mainly of the list, as there just isn't that much you can say about a lecture series in prose form (well, I suspect there actually is, but most of it isn't going to be notable, and it certainly isn't going to be sourceable).
This is also the problem with just separating the list out – it just leaves a perpetual stub – hence considering the possibility of perhaps just renaming the whole thing to "List of Gifford Lectures". Thought I'd come here to get some second opinions!
-- Newbiepedian ( talk · C · X! · L) 13:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi all!
To improve the security of our readers and editors, permission handling for CSS/JS pages has changed. (These are pages like MediaWiki:Common.css
and MediaWiki:Vector.js
which contain code that is executed in the browsers of users of the site.)
A new user group,
interface-admin
, has been created.
Starting four weeks from now, only members of this group will be able edit CSS/JS pages that they do not own (that is, any page ending with .css
or .js
that is either in the MediaWiki:
namespace or is another user's user subpage).
You can learn more about the motivation behind the change here.
Please add users who need to edit CSS/JS to the new group (this can be done the same way new administrators are added, by stewards or local bureaucrats). This is a dangerous permission; a malicious user or a hacker taking over the account of a careless interface-admin can abuse it in far worse ways than admin permissions could be abused. Please only assign it to users who need it, who are trusted by the community, and who follow common basic password and computer security practices (use strong passwords, do not reuse passwords, use two-factor authentication if possible, do not install software of questionable origin on your machine, use antivirus software if that's a standard thing in your environment).
Thanks!
Tgr (
talk) 13:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC) (via
global message delivery)
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.
Per the above section, only interface administrators will be able to edit sitewide and user CSS and Javascript soon. Please take a moment to review the above (as well as the linked items) and then leave a comment: who should have access to this permission, and how should we go about grandfathering existing administrators (if at all?). -- Izno ( talk) 14:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Anyone who runs for RFA and is successful should have access to this user group. He should be required to disclose this intent during RFA so that users may assess the administrator's need for it.
I think we should also have a separate process to establish access to this right. While I expect most administrators who apply for this right will be granted the right, there will be some non-administrator users who may be experienced with Javascript and CSS to whom it would also be reasonable to provide access to this user group. -- Izno ( talk) 14:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Anyone who runs for RFA and is successful should have access to this user groupThis is exactly the opposite of the intention of why this new user group was introduced.
there will be some non-administrator users who may be experienced with Javascript and CSSNo. Again, this is against the entire point. Non-admins should not ever have access to site-wide JS/CSS. They didn't before, and they shouldn't now. In fact, only a very small percentage of admins should be able to edit site JS/CSS. That is, the admins who actually would need to, which is, in fact, a very small percentage. To put it in perspective, you can put "interface admin" up there with CheckUser, if not above it. — MusikAnimal talk 15:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Anyone who runs for RfA, requests this userright in their RfA, and is successful should have access to this user group. There's no reason why the evaluation for this userright can't be done simultaiously with evaluation for the other admin tools. I think you may have been trying to say this, but it comes across that all new admins will get this userright. I don't think this should be given to non-adminsitrators, as it could be abused to hijack admin accounts and perform admin actions. -- Ahecht ( TALK
user-space CSS and Javascript. Many admins (probably the majority), or any prolific user for that matter, has edited their own userspace JS/CSS. I think we could run a query to exclude edits to their own userspace, but we're not talking about the userspace anyway, so let's not focus on that. — MusikAnimal talk 15:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Currently active administrators (30 edits in the last 2 months) who have edited site-wide CSS or Javascript within the past X days/months. Per MusikAnimal, editing user-space CSS and Javascript requires a far lesser level of trust. -- Ahecht ( TALK
abusefilter-modify
: Every admin can assign the right to themselves but shouldn't do so unless they really know what they are doing. That seems to work for the edit filter, so it should also work for this user right. Regards
So
Why 15:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I've added {{ automated tools}} to {{ Draft article}} and {{ AFC submission/helptools}}. It will add the following links to the templates:
You can see them (as of writing) in action at Draft:Scafida#See_also (expand the "How to improve your article" section) or at Draft:Shell Pernis Refinery).
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 14:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello guys. I'm a regular contributor in the Indonesian Wikipedia. Recently there, someone brought up whether a political slogan should have its own article. The slogan is coming from the opponent of the current President of Indonesia. I decided to look for slogans here and I found Category:American political catchphrases. There, a slogan can be a redirect page (such as Feel the Bern or I am not a crook) or an article (such as Make America Great Again and We are the 99%). Is there any considerations as to why some are articles while the others are only redirect pages? Thank you. Sersan Mayor Kururu ( talk) 06:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Could someone (presumably in the US, or at least outside the EU) please check that this link works okay, and that the source is indeed a WP:RS. It's blocked for me, due to their GDPR angst. -- Finlay McWalter··–· Talk 14:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Wiki Education is hiring an experienced Wikipedian for a part-time (20 hours/week) position. The focus of this position is to help new editors (students and other academics) learn to edit Wikipedia. The main focus of the position is monitoring and tracking contributions by Wiki Education program participants, answering questions, and providing feedback. We're looking for a friendly, helpful editor who like to focus on article content, but also with a deep knowledge of policies and guidelines and the ability to explain them in simple, concise ways to new editors. They will be the third member of a team of expert Wikipedians, joining Ian (Wiki Ed) and Shalor (Wiki Ed). This is a part-time, U.S. based, remote or San Francisco based position.
See our Careers page for more information. Ian (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 20:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi all. A while back, I wrote a post here to tell you about two experiments related to enwiki newcomers the Research team at Wikimedia Foundation has set up to run. We had some delays for running those experiments, but as of a couple of hours ago we've started one of them. We will run this iteration for a period of 1-2 weeks and after that is completed, will move to the second one. If you have any questions, please reach out to us at the task in Phabricator or the talk page of the research. Thanks! -- LZia (WMF) ( talk) 23:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
JY Yang is a writer who goes by the pronoun "they". I'm not sure which of the following article versions is preferable:
Any advice from MOS experts? @ YarLucebith: you may want to comment also. Sandstein 08:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello all. I'm currently developing a Wikipedia TriviaBot for use in the IRC channels on freenode. The intent and spirit of this bot is to help new editors learn crucial knowledge as well as expand veteran editor's general knowledge of Wikipedia. The bot is currently functional, though I'd still say it's in its beta phase. The reason for this post is to request community's assistance with expanding the database of Wikipedia related trivia questions from 80 total questions to thousands. This page has been created as a place for the community to submit questions for addition to bot's database. All contributions will be credited to the editor who submitted the question. I thank all who get involved. Anyone who is regularly on IRC are also welcomed to contact me to test the bot. Operator873 talk connect 02:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
The article about the actor Victor Banerjee lists all the western directors that he has worked with first, and then the Indian ones. (Based on their names.) Given that he has worked with Indian directors of the status of Satyajit Ray, I'm not sure about this ordering. Does anyone have any thoughts about this? Ross-c ( talk) 10:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
These articles need to be renamed:
-- SrpskiAnonimac ( talk) 15:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
There seems to be some usage in English of "Vrljika River" and "Kobilja river".
"Around Vidovište, from Kobilja river (south-west) to Ilomska's canyon (north-east) there are the hamlets, as follows..." Bus stop ( talk) 10:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Why is an article such as Ćehotina named that way? Why isn't it titled Ćehotina River? Are there different naming conventions in Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina for rivers than there are in the United States? The United States of course has Mississippi River and Missouri River. I find "Our Rafting club promotes and is one of the organizers of permanent open championship of Bosnia and Herzegovina R6 rafting on the Ćehotina river, World Cup rafting on the Tara River and other events such as school rafting, etc." Wikipedia titles that article Tara (river). Bus stop ( talk) 00:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
40,000 scientists identified by Quicksilver AI as missing from Wikipedia.
-- Green C 18:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Kosovo Pomoravlje#Title -- SrpskiAnonimac ( talk) 22:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I would ask one of the admina to lock the article so that they can only be edited by registered users, the vandal mi non stop cancels the change, and the change has sources -- SrpskiAnonimac ( talk) 11:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone find sufficient sourcing to prove to me whether or not Marcel·lí Perelló i Domingo is a hoax? I got nothing on GBooks. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 00:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I've been reading Wikipedia:RFT, but cannot figure out which procedure to follow when text on an image (not an article) needs to be translated. I just uploaded File:Tape Ball Color Space, Itten, 1919-20.jpg and cannot read the handwriting well enough to figure out what is written. Where do I go for such a translation? Do I go to the reference desk instead? Thanks. SharkD ☎ 17:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
This is kind of "meta" but why is there a unified search box for all the village pump pages? It would be better in my view if each page had its own search box. Sure a "search all Village Pumps" option would be nice, but having the "all" as the default brings in tons of clutter to already apparently random results... Jytdog ( talk) 13:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
By my reckoning these five illustrations are in public domain, but I would really appreciate a person knowledgeable in copyright confirming this.
The images are by illustrator Ellen Gertrude Cohen, created in 1891 and appear to be published in Britain in that year, but it is unclear of the publication. They are on a site that implies copyright, but they are not marked. May I upload all five images to the commons? If so, which tag? "in public domain in U.S."?
Thanks for taking a look. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 15:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
The appeal only appears when one is not signed in - rather than for registered users (who are going to be more supportive of WP than non-signers), who if they are on computers where they have ticked the 'Keep me signed in' box may never see the appeals.
Possibly there could be different types of appeal: for example would it be possible to make the 'Donate to Wikipedia' link on the side more noticeable? Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:18, 15 August 2018 (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.
Word has come to me of feminists, who are going to storm Wikipedia. So people, there’s going to be more vandalism on this page. Just a quick reminder that you should never be afraid to edit a vandalised Article. I’m not against women, I just like Wikipedia. ScRiptED ( talk) 17:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
According to WP:JCW/W8 and WP:JCW/W9, the following circular references to Wikipedia are made
Journal 1 | Type 2 | Target 1 | Type 2 | Citations | Articles | Citations/article | Search |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wikipedia | Web | Wikipedia | Web | 2921 | 1644 | 1.777 | |
Wikipedia bahasa Indonesia, ensiklopedia bebas | ? | — | ? | 10 | 9 | 1.111 | |
Wikipedia tiếng Việt | ? | — | ? | 4 | 1, 2, 3 | 1.333 | |
Wikipedia, den frie encyklopædi | ? | — | ? | 4 | 1, 2, 3, 4 | 1.000 | |
Wikipedia, entziklopedia askea | ? | — | ? | 1 | 1 | 1.000 | |
Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre | ? | — | ? | 62 | 50 | 1.240 | |
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia | Book | Wikipedia | Web | 8 | 7 | 1.143 | |
Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia | ? | — | ? | 12 | 12 | 1.000 | |
Wikipedie | ? | Czech Wikipedia | Web | 2 | 1, 2 | 1.000 | |
Wicipedia | ? | Welsh Wikipedia | Web | 4 | 1, 2, 3 | 1.333 | |
Wikipedija | ? | Wikipedia | Web | 2 | 1, 2 | 1.000 | |
Wikipedija, prosta enciklopedija | ? | — | ? | 2 | 1, 2 | 1.000 | |
Wikipédia | ? | Wikipedia | Web | 66 | 58 | 1.138 | |
Wikipédia, a enciclopédia livre | ? | — | ? | 10 | 8 | 1.250 |
If you could ensure that things from the journal column point to the correct target, that would be great. Thanks. Ignore the 'type' column. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 14:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Unnecessary redirections, Serbo-Croatia and Serbo–Croatia -- SrpskiAnonimac ( talk) 13:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
As you might already know, there is currently a copyright reform going on in the European Union, which will affect Wikipedia and other free knowledge projects. In July, the European Parliament debated a proposal that would have been harmful for freedom of expression and collaboration online. Many Wikimedia organisations and communities took action in June and July to oppose it and contributed to the rejection of this version of the proposal.
After its summer break, the European Parliament will vote on new amendments to the European Commission’s original proposal on 12 September. Members of the European Parliament can submit such new amendments by 5 September. The European Wikimedia organisations, members of the Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU, and the Wikimedia Foundation are working on making sure amendments that protect and grow free knowledge will be on the table. These include a new approach to Article 13, but also safeguarding the public domain, freedom of panorama and user generated content.
Over the coming weeks, it will be important for Wikimedia to promote our vision of a copyright framework that helps us share the sum of all knowledge online. Should your community wish to engage in further public policy actions around this we would greatly appreciate if you coordinate with us to make sure our message is coherent across countries. We want to promote sensible copyright rules that advance access to information and knowledge instead merely stopping a bad proposal.
You can help by translating and sharing information materials in your language, sending an opinion piece to media in your country, contacting MEPs from your region with suggestions to support positive amendments, or participating in events in Brussels and Strasbourg (on 6 and 11 September, tbc).
We will provide updates soon about the community activities. In addition, we will share information and guidance on important amendments to the copyright proposal in due time.-- dimi_z ( talk) 09:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi all. An update about the experiment for eliciting new editor interests mentioned here earlier. The first phase of the experiment is completed. We have received 382 responses from new editors. We have applied the matching algorithm to the responses received and we are getting ready for the second stage. This means we have stopped emailing newly registered users. We continue to expect that the second and third stages of the experiment not have negative impact on active editor workflows. This being said, we are actively monitoring the space. If you have questions, please ping here or on the project's talk page. Thank you! -- LZia (WMF) ( talk) 14:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
{{ Expert needed}} seems to be a very underused template.
So is there any proof that use of this template actually gets anything done? I've seen uses dating back to 2008 that have gone completely unanswered. FoxTrot used to have it for several years, without response from anyone anywhere despite multiple alerts. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 07:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I have just opened an RFC on the above subject here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Rfc_on_the_inclusion_of_the_Erdős–Bacon_number_in_biographies.. feel free to particpate. -- Dom from Paris ( talk) 16:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
{{
Infobox building}}
now automatically displays dynamic <mapframe>
maps by default, if available. If you are interested in any articles using this infobox, please review how the map displays in those articles: you can adjust the size, frame center point, initial zoom level, and marker icon using
various optional parameters; the mapframe map may also be turned off using |mapframe=no
.
See Template talk:Infobox building for further information and discussions. - Evad37 [ talk 05:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
{{
Infobox shopping mall}}
now similarly displays automatic mapframe maps. -
Evad37 [
talk 05:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)On behalf of (at least part of, I can't speak for all) the Commons community I apologize for this deletion of 117 Huntington images that were used here. Many, probably most (but that's a bit harder to check now..) are properly licensed.
It's not the first time this happens, nor will it be the last. Another DR with 90 images (49 used here, 23 on ruwiki, 12 or less on various others) is also about to be executed. I'm not linking it now because that might cause it to be deleted faster and I haven't saved all the pictures yet.
Undeletion is feasible for a few in case of The Huntington (the deletion was so careless even PD-old works have been deleted), but for most undeletion is probably not possible on the short term.
Now my question. Would enwiki appreciate it if I upload the images that are properly licensed locally? And is there a tool to upload Flickr images to enwiki? Alexis Jazz ( talk) 22:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
If one goes to the History section of an article, one can click on "Number of watchers" (in case any one is curious, I shall say that Wikipedia: Village pump had 954 viewers last time I looked). My question is this. How many days is this a record of the watchers that an article has had? Perhaps it might be an idea to change "Number of watchers" to "Number of watchers in past x days". Vorbee ( talk) 19:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I just gave this page a major revamp. It could look a fresh pair of eyes, especially from users that never used User:Citation bot before. Please give feedback at User talk:Citation bot/use. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Around the population of 30000, the situation is quite chaotic (the numbers are the rank in population):
23. Dunakeszi city. 24. Szigetszentmiklós city. 25. Salgótarján city. 26. Cegléd city. 27. Baja city. 28. Ózd town. 29. Vác town. 30. Szekszárd city. 31. Mosonmagyaróvár town. 32. Gödöllő town. 33. Hajdúböszörmény town. 34. Pápa town. 35. Gyula town. 36. Kiskunfélegyháza city. 37. Budaörs town. 38. Esztergom city. 39. Gyöngyös town. 40. Ajka city. 41. Orosháza city. 42. Kiskunhalas city. 43. Kazincbarcika town. 44. Szentes city. 45. Szentendre town. 46. Jászberény city. 63. (!!!) Keszthely city.
I know population isn't the only criteria in being a town or a city, but I don't understand why Szentes is more of a city than Siófok. -- 194.37.90.250 ( talk) 12:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
There is a tool, which allows to compare how popular is the same article in different wikipedias.
I am looking for a similar tool to compare the actual size of the same article in different wikipedias. -- Perohanych ( talk) 17:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
For example, see [6].
This doesn't work with all bare urls, but it will work with urls to Google Books, arXiv, bibcode, JSTOR, doi, PMID and several other identifiers. If you see such bare urls in an article, you can activate Citation bot here or use the one-click citation expander gadget in your preferences. The Google Books output in particular will need to be reviewed, as sometimes Google Books links to magazine, rather than books proper. It shouldn't give anything egregiously wrong, but the citation might not have the full details, list a publisher for author, or might need to be converted to {{ cite magazine}} or something.
Many thanks to User:AManWithNoPlan for this. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 15:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi all,
as
announced previously, permission handling for CSS/JS pages has changed: only members of the
interface-admin
(Interface administrators) group, and a few highly privileged global groups such as stewards, can edit CSS/JS pages that they do not own (that is, any page ending with .css or .js that is either in the MediaWiki: namespace or is another user's user subpage). This is done to improve the security of readers and editors of Wikimedia projects. More information is available at
Creation of separate user group for editing sitewide CSS/JS. If you encounter any unexpected problems, please contact me or file a bug.
Thanks!
Tgr (
talk) 12:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC) (via
global message delivery)
She's a pretty famous pornstar and Wikipedia in other languages has article for her.
Sorry if I mistaken section but I think this is the more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unvers ( talk • contribs) 13:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok, the fact is that the page that responds to the name of Lana Rhodes is a page of redirection that has the protection with the blue lock and that I being new user can not change, I noticed that on Italian Wikipedia that is that of my native language the article is there and also in some other language, I do not know if it is allowed to cite porn sites here but I saw that in one of these sites she is first for popularity and has 500 million views, of course this is not enough to get her on Wikipedia, if the community has decided, however, that she should not have a personal page since I'm a novice I do not feel like going against the decision because I physically can not create the page because it's protected by a blue lock that requires 500 changes and 90 days of inscription it seems to me, I will have to wait a while. Unvers ( talk) 23:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Read this message in another language • Please help translate to other languages.
The Wikimedia Foundation will be testing its secondary data centre. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to do a planned test. This test will show if they can reliably switch from one data centre to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.
They will switch all traffic to the secondary data center on Wednesday, 12 September 2018. On Wednesday, 10 October 2018, they will switch back to the primary data center.
Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop when we switch. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.
You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.
Other effects:
This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule. There will be more notifications about this. Please share this information with your community. / User:Johan(WMF) ( talk)
13:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
OK, I am not sure where, or whom to ask about the recent changes.
Until recently (that is, a few days ago), you could look at a page history, then up to the left was a button which gave info about who had edited the page (by number of edits, and by added text).
It was basically this tool: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/index.php with the info about the article automatically filled in.
Why has that been removed? (Ok, you can still find it, but now you have to look around, while before it was right there, easily available.) Huldra ( talk) 21:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia ads | file info – #14 |
Wikipedia peer review needs more reviewers. Please join us and contribute some reviews, or add yourself to our volunteers list to get regular updates of unanswered reviews.
Peer review provides a way for new and experienced editors alike to ask for and provide input into an article that is being developed. It's often a stepping stone for new editors, or for articles on their way to featured article status. It's a great way to help new editors become experienced with our wiki ways, improve articles, and learn about completely new subject areas.
We usually have between 10 - 20 unanswered reviews, often waiting for months, that only require a pair of eyes and some kind advice. We look forward to seeing you around!
Hi everyone,
Please find the results of our first analysis about readers' interactions with references in English Wikipedia in our project page. This is work from the Wikimedia Foundation Research team, in the context of the "Citation Usage" project. This project aims to understand how Wikipedia readers use the citations, and the role of external citations in Wikipedia reading, which in turn can inform the editor and tool developer communities about the usage (or not) of citations by Wikipedia readers.
After a first round of data collection, which ended on 2018-07-08, we analyzed the data and identified a number of issues. We have modified our instrumentation to address these issues, and we will start a second round of data collection next week. We will collect data that captures readers' (not logged-in users) page views, as well as their interactions with references and footnotes. We will initially sample 1–15% of the traffic to validate the data quality, then turn at 100% sampling rate for a period of one month. All details can be found here. We may have to change this plan based on the initial validation steps, and we will keep this thread and our project page posted with changes if they occur.
To follow the progress of the project and monitor our research results, please also look at this task. If you are interested to know more, or if you have any question, or any observation, please ping me or leave a message on the project page! Miriam (WMF) ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Update: due to the overload of events, we temporarily stopped the data collection. We are making changes to the schema to sample page load events at 50%, and will start it again next week. We will keep this thread informed with all news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miriam (WMF) ( talk • contribs) 15:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the correct procedure but I read that an RfC can be published at the Village pump. I'd like to hear a wider opinion on this question
/info/en/?search=Talk:Francis_Beaufort#RfC_on_National_Origins Centuryofconfusion ( talk) 01:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello all,
If you’re interested in changes to how Special:Block works, then see the discussion about Partial blocks. Your thoughts are greatly appreciated.
Please spread the word to others (especially administrators) who might be interested in helping re-design Special:Block's layout. Cheers, For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative ( talk) 15:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I noted the Short description of "Azərbaycan" page with purple color in the following picture.
My first question: how to add such descriptions to pages? Second question: If the article contains more than 1 photo, how to define which photo will be shown in search (for examle Azerbaijan's flag in "Azərbaycan" page)? For both questions, give universal methods for all languages. Ki999 ( talk) 11:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
shortdesc
, meaning that feature exists here. It is not at
az:Special:Version#mw-version-parser-function-hooks. See
mw:Extension:PageImages#Image choice. It is not possible to specify the image directly.
PrimeHunter (
talk) 12:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
In hindsight, this is better suited for Meta as other projects are affected as well: m:Wikimedia Forum#Commons will soon stop accepting some GFDL-only media. Alexis Jazz ( talk) 13:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Per the comments on the closure of a TfD here Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_July_23#Template:Media_by_uploader it was suggested that a VP discussion be had. I've marked this template as deprecated as an amended wording was implemented in {{ Img-unclaimed}} and {{ img-claimed}}, but given the wording of those templates is related to the one at the closed TFD, this discussion also concerns them.
The problem is essentially that before Wikipedia developed the upload policies it currently now has and to some extent the structure imposed by the {{ information}} template, some media was uploaded under a set of assumptions that whilst in good faith at the time, aren't necessarily the same assumptions that would be made when evaluating media that would be uploaded under the current policies. One of these assumptions being that where the uploader said something like "I made this" on the file description page, the file was implicitly considered own work, (One of the current recommend approach is for the uploader to use Own work as the Source: field and to use a license like {{ Self}} or {{ Self2}} at the time of upload.
Why does this matter? Currently a query at WMF Quarry ( https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/29651) lists at least 27,000 uploads (an expanded query listed at least 50,000) for which a source couldn't be recognised. The actual number of uploads that don't have a source is certainly going to be considerably smaller. In many instances the source for older images will be a statement to the effect "I made this" or " Photo taken by username", but NOT as it didn't exist the time an explicitly included {{ own}}tag or {{ information}} block. Some contributors in the past have added these in good faith, but I was advised against off-wiki (more than once) about automatically adding own work (or {{ own}} without some kind of confirmation (either from the original uploader or by other means). Whilst assumption of good faith is a key Wikipedia trait, taking it on trust that something is own work based on limited meta-data is not necessarily a long-term approach.
{{ media by uploader}}, {{ img-unclaimed}},{{ img-claimed}} were intended as part of a pragmatic approach, as by asking uploader to more actively confirm 'own' work status, without needing to take media through the FFD or PROD process which would be inappropriate given that many of the affected uploads are sourced, and are (implied or not) indeed own work by their uploaders.
ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 11:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
If interested, please comment here. petrarchan47 คุ ก 04:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
OP blocked until he can convince another admin that he can edit without attacking other editors again. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I have done over 200,000 edits to Wikipedia articles while logged in, and a similar number (but I don't know what it is) while not logged in. And as in all cases, there are some aspects of Wikipedia that I am familiar with and others that I am not.
Before Wikipedia existed, I was aware of the International Workshop on Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering, an annual conference at which persons, most of whom are professors in physical sciences, assemble to present their research findings to others in attendance. I attended this particular conference in 1991. Those who attend this conference take an unconventional view, outside the mainstream, of the role of probability theory in the sciences. There are many conferences at which professors in many fields, who are interested in a particular topic that attracts a small number of their colleagues, annually assemble to present to each other their latest findings or creations. Some of these are gathering of those who take some non-mainstream view, and many are not, but either way, it is not considered grounds for suspicion about one's competence or honesty that one participates in such a thing, and I never expected that anyone would think it is until I encountered a dozen-or-so Wikipedian who told me I was stupid or dishonest or otherwise deeply flawed because I couldn't see that such a conference is a scam.
It was asserted on a Wikipedia page about professors in health-related fields, one of them a surgeon in the medical school at Johns Hopkins University and one a professor of psychology at UCLA, and various others, that their reason for using the standard terminology of their fields was only to create a false impression of legitimacy (this is absurd and clearly dishonest), that they don't publish, or at least not on the topic of their common interest, outside of a journal that their group had founded (this is false, as may be quickly verified), and that they do not collaborate in research with others outside their group (this is false, as may be quickly verified).
I objected to those assertions as clearly libelous and I was told that I was wrong without any attempt of six persons asserting this to tell me why I was wrong or to argue or discuss this with me. There is supposed to be collegiality among Wikipedians, and merely issuing a definitive ruling on a matter about which one disagrees with a fellow Wikipedian while refusing to discuss or argue, is inconsistent with that.
One person wrote that professors in health fields were "using sciencey-sounding language to advocate something that is unquestionably commercially lucrative but which does not appear to have significant academic support". Note that:
And now to the point: I want to know who these people are (not their names, and not individually). Their refusal to argue or discuss the issues with fellow Wikipedians is an occasion for suspicion. I have heard it asserted that a lot of mudslinging happens on Wikipedia on politically charged issues or other controversial things, but only asserted; I have not seen that sort of thing, probably because my stomping grounds within Wikipedia have not included certain areas very much. The person who made the assertion about the "unquestionably" lucrative nature of organizing conferences among professors declined to answer my request for the specifics about that. His assertions about the amount of academic support not being "significant" is also something about which he declined to be specific after being asked.
A Wikipedian and his followers (apparently there actually are such things as followers; I don't know how that happens) who gather to simultaneously oppose the position taken by one Wikipedian should assume good faith and should be willing either to argue or discuss or instruct their interlocutor, rather than just giving orders. But it is not so. Is there something that should be done about this? Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Forgive and please advise if this is the wrong place to bring this up. Wikisource has only the first few chapters of the vulgate. This seems like a serious oversight that could be easily mended. Couldn’t any of many copies be uploaded? I regret if I’m being naive about the factors involved. Temerarius ( talk) 02:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
— billinghurst sDrewth 08:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
This redirect " Legally Blondes 2" is unnecessary, it needs to be deleted...." Legally Blonde 2" is correct -- SrpskiAnonimac ( talk) 10:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Is there anyone out there who can guide me through a few simple questions regarding my efforts to open a fold3 account, with Wikipedia permissions? - Broichmore ( talk) 11:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
This has been posted here because your wiki allows local file uploads. Please help translate to other languages..
Commons will no longer allow uploads of photos, paintings, drawings, audio and video that use the GFDL license and no other license. This starts after 14 October. Textbooks, manuals and logos, diagrams and screenshots from GFDL software manuals that only use the GFDL license are still allowed. Files licensed with both GFDL and an accepted license like Creative Commons BY-SA are still allowed.
There is no time limit to move files from other projects to Commons. The licensing date is all that counts. It doesn't matter when the file was uploaded or created. Every wiki that allows local uploads should check if bots, scripts and templates that are used to move files to Commons need to be updated. Also update your local policy documentation if needed.
The decision to allow files that only have a GFDL license, or not allow them, is a decision all wikis can make for themselves. Your wiki can decide to continue allowing the files that Commons will no longer allow after 14 October. If your wiki decides to continue to allow files after 14 October that Commons will no longer allow those files should not be moved to Commons. — Alexis Jazz, distributed by Johan using MassMessage
18:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi! Can someone tell me if you have any policies here regarding disclosure of personal data and conflicts between certain users that are going on outside of the wiki itself (like on Facebook - with offences, nickname disclosures and such)? Because I couldn't find any (or I didn't search thoroughly enough). If there're none, I'd like to know what are the best practices regarding these situations. -- Piramidion 05:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
When a discussion is archived, and it is requested that the discussion be closed, where does the closing statement go? Enterprisey ( talk!) 01:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
The Community health initiative is starting a project to measure the effectiveness of blocks. The first step is to discuss with the wikimedia community ideas about how to do it. To that end, the Anti-Harassment Tools team and Morten Warncke-Wang has created a page with some initial ideas and a discussion space to talk about these and your ideas.
AHT is particularly interested to learn whether the new partial blocks feature is successful as a tool or instrument. Therefore, the first part of this research will mainly focused on the short term gains in the utility of partial blocks in order to understand whether it appears to be working and if there appears to be a need for changes. These measurements will provide us with insight quickly. Currently there is not much known about how sitewide blocks affect users. This makes a comparison of the effects of the new partial block feature to sitewide blocks difficult. To provide all of us with some insight, the Anti-Harassment Tools team would like to examine historical block data across wikimedia projects to establish a baseline.
However, our list of measurements that we propose has a lot of longer term ones, e.g. surveys. These are important and should be considered to be implemented later, because they can provide all of us with insight that is otherwise hidden.
Please join us to discuss these proposed measurements. For the Anti-Harassment Tools team and Morten Warncke-Wang. SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative ( talk) 15:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello! A few months ago the Wikimedia Foundation invited contributors to take a survey about your experiences on Wikipedia. The report is now published on Meta-Wiki! We asked contributors 170 questions across many different topics like diversity, harassment, paid editing, Wikimedia events and many others.
Read the report or watch the presentation, which is available only in English. Add your thoughts and comments to the report talk page. Feel free to share the report on Wikipedia/Wikimedia or on your favorite social media. Thanks! -- EGalvez (WMF) 20:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
There's enwiki page Kerrigan, which lists people (and a character) with given surname. And there are exactly the same pages in other wikis: ru:Керриган, de:Kerrigan, fr:Kerrigan, etc. I've tried to connect them via wikidata and met a merge conflict. The problem is that in ruwiki and some other wikis this page considered as disambiguation page, while in enwiki this is an article, am I correct?
If there are several articles about people with the same surname in Russian Wikipedia, there's always a disambiguation page with the list of articles and sometimes there is an article about this surname with history, etymology, etc, but without any lists. Seems like in enwiki there's always one page with complete list and, very rarely, additional facts. IMHO, they looks more like disambigs, not like articles - there is no sources at page, there's probably no reliable sources at all, meaning that there is no notability. Which page should they connected to? I can find any variant.
What variant is correct? Facenapalm ( talk) 14:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to be a bit unclear here, and ask for some input on how best to deal with this. I'm tempted to invoke some form of WP:IAR, but I wanna see what alternatives are first.
Let's say we have a certain predatory publisher (Foobar Publications) which meets WP:N, and has article on Wikipedia. Said publisher produces a lot of crap journals, none of which meet WP:N, so the standard practice here is to redirect individual journal entries to the publisher (e.g. Scientific Research Publishing, redirects). Since we have a main article, categories, and redirects, we can easily find problematic citations to that publisher and its journals via Special:WhatLinksHere and other tools like WP:JCW or WP:CRAPWATCH.
But let's say we have a certain publisher (Foobar Publications) which doe not meet WP:N, and therefore doesn't have an article on Wikipedia. And said publisher produces a lot of crap journals (Open Foobar Journal of Bunk, Open Foobar Journal of Crap, Open Foobar Journal of Junk... ), none of which meet WP:N. As things stand now, we can have no information on Wikipedia about those journals, "Special:WhatLinksHere" is useless, and other tools like WP:JCW or WP:CRAPWATCH cannot be used to their full potential.
The question here, is how do we best deal with this? My WP:IAR instinct is
The idea is that we'd have something very similar to Category:Scientific Research Publishing academic journals, except without the main article and we could leverage our predatory publishing fighting tools to their full effect. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
The problem with those are rather large. First is the issue of sourcing. Very often, you can only give one source for predatoriness, and most of those (e.g. Beall's list) will hedge and will mix "predatory" with "potentially predatory" and "questionable" publishers/journals. So you could have a journal that's merely questionable, but not predatory, mixed with journals which are definitely predatory, and others that are only potentially predatory. But because the list doesn't distinguish between them, we can't use it to say the journals/publishers are definitely predatory, and if you throw the word "potential" around, then it becomes near-meaningless as far as an article is concerned.
However, there are other issues with such lists, assuming they could be made. For journals, there are literally tens of thousands of such crap journals out there. The lists would be too massive and too cumbersome to maintain/keep up to date, and would suffer from the problems above (what is predatory, what is only 'potentially' predatory, what has been wrongly accused of being predatory, etc...). And if we have a list of publishers instead, then we'd be redirecting tens of thousand of individual journal entries to a list of thousands of publishers, without any indication of which publisher is of relevance to individual journals. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Article " Karl Topia" needs to be renamed to "Karl Thopia", since the article about the family is called " Thopia family". All other articles about family members are called "... Thopia" (examples: George Thopia, Helena Thopia, etc.) ... Excuse in my English, I'm using Google Translate -- SrpskiAnonimac ( talk) 21:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
There seems to be an increasing use of templates on talk pages, and there is even WP:TEMPLAR which tells you not to template the regulars. It seems to me that, in the near future, talk pages will simply be a tessellation of templates. No one will be able to air a genuine issue with the article, because other editors will simply respond with a tortoise shell of templates. The problem is that, while the templates do explain Wikipedia policy, this policy is complex and nuanced and the particular issues of the article have a reality that goes beyond Wikipedia and even the Internet itself. Is it possible to restrain the Knights Templar or is Wikipedia going to buckle under a shield of templates???-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Read this message in another language • Please help translate to other languages.
The Wikimedia Foundation are testing its secondary data center. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster.
They switched all traffic to the secondary data center 12 September 2018. On Wednesday, 10 October 2018, they will switch back to the primary data center.
Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while we switch.
You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.
You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Wednesday, 10 October. The test will start a bit after 14:00 UTC (15:00 BST, 16:00 CEST, 10:00 EDT, 07:00 PDT, 23:00 JST). If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message.
This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule. Please share this information with your community. / User:Johan(WMF) ( talk)
12:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
The Anti-Harassment Tools team plans to generate baseline data to determine the effectiveness of blocks and we'd like to hear from users who interact with blocked users and participate in the blocking process to make sure these measurements will be meaningful.
The full commentary and details on how these will be measured are under § Proposed Measurements. For sake of brevity and discussion here are the seven proposed measurements for determining the effectiveness of blocks:
Sitewide blocks effect on a user
Partial block’s effect on the affected users
Partial block’s success as a tool
Are we over-simplifying anything? Forgetting anything important? Talk to us here. SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative ( talk) 15:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
In this edit, I got a warning that I was citing a predatory open-access journal, but the warning didn't indicate which of the six sources I added was the offending one. How do I get more information on that? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=81899&#abstract
is the problem source.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 16:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
4236
which is part of the SCIRP DOI is blacklisted.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 16:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)Hello! This is to announce that Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa, with which I'm working, has launched the II edition of the Wiki4MediaFreedom contest. You can participate by writing articles in the media freedom topic, with particular attention to the access to public information and killed journalists. There's time until November 30th. More information on Meta. -- Niccolò Caranti (OBC) ( talk) 10:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
At Zanzibar, someone has removed the diacritics from the spelling of the Arabic name for the territory. Do we have a guideline as to whether or not to provide the vocalized form? Largoplazo ( talk) 18:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
FYI: Donna Strickland won a Nobel Prize in Physics this week (she's now on our Main page of course). It appeared that she had no enwiki article at the time of Nobel announcement. (It was deleted in 2014 for copyright reasons). - DePiep ( talk) 20:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Kosovo Pomoravlje#Title -- SrpskiAnonimac ( talk) 21:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Why Baidu Baike ( baike.baidu.com) has 16000000 articles but English Wikipedia has 5700000 articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 ( talk • contribs) 15:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
but 16000000 is very big — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 ( talk • contribs) 09:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Does the article " Freestyle battle" need to be a redirect to the article " Battle rap", or? -- SrpskiAnonimac ( talk) 14:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Is it just me, or, are an absurd number drafts (or former drafts) being nominated for peer review recently? Regards, SshibumXZ ( talk · contribs). 03:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Media viewer 2014 the current consensus on Media Viewer? If so, the way for IPs to disable the Media Viewer is highly deceptive (burying it in something that looks like settings) and this may be a violation of consensus. pythoncoder ( talk | contribs) 22:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Dear editors:
I edit a lot of articles about Canadian music subjects, and one of the sources I use regularly is a magazine called Chart Attack. It stopped publishing last year, and now the back issues seem to have disappeared from the web. The Wayback Machine has copies of a lot of the issues, and I am hoping that there is a way to search inside the archive for text within the specific domain "www.chartattack.com".
The links I've already added will all be dead, but I put in complete citations and URLs, so those should be okay for now, and likely one of the bots will come along and link them to the archived pages. However, there are a lot more articles that could benefit from the album reviews, etc., in the magazine, and I need a way to find them. If anyone knows of a way to search the Wayback Machine in this way, please explain. Thanks.— Anne Delong ( talk) 19:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
The Community Wishlist Survey. Please help translate to other languages..
Hey everyone,
The Community Wishlist Survey is the process when the Wikimedia communities decide what the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech should work on over the next year.
The Community Tech team is focused on tools for experienced Wikimedia editors. You can post technical proposals from now until 11 November. The communities will vote on the proposals between 16 November and 30 November. You can read more on the wishlist survey page.
/ User:Johan (WMF)11:05, 30 October 2018 (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
I don't think many Wikipedians know this, but we have Press coverage pages. I'd welcome your input at Wikipedia talk:Press coverage 2018#Social Science Computer Review at Wikipedia:Press coverage 2017. It's a little more interesting than it sounds, ANI is mentioned. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 11:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The article was nominated for deletion, so I'm posting notice of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ideological bias on Wikipedia here for wider community input. Atsme 📞 📧 15:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
There is a Request for Comment regarding a controversy at the White Helmets page. Any editor reading this is welcome to chime in. Best, GPRamirez5 ( talk) 15:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello Wikimedians!
The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for free, full-access, accounts to research and tools as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for new accounts and research materials on the Library Card platform:
Expansions
Many other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page, including Baylor University Press, Loeb Classical Library, Cairn, Gale and Bloomsbury.
Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--
The Wikipedia Library Team 18:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
The Anti-Harassment Tools team enlisted the assistance of Alex Hollender, a User Experience designer at Wikimedia Foundation to create wireframe designs of the Special:Block with the Granular block feature included. Our first wireframes are based on the discussions on the Granular block talk page, Wishlist proposal, and Phabricator to date.
Because the Special:Block page is already at its limits with its current layout and we would like to propose a new organized layout for Special:Block. This will make it easier to add the granular blocking (page, category, namespace, etc) and whatever is to come in the future. All of the same functionality is available on this new layout, but in a more organized, step-by-step process.
Take a look at the wireframe and leave us your feedback. For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative ( talk) 19:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
This question has been reposted at WP:Village pump (technical) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It seems now, Wikipedia's display goes out of wack, when one zooms to over 150% size. GoodDay ( talk) 22:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
|
WP:Tag/ WP:TAG redirect somewhere else besides WP:Tags. None of these disambiguate nearly as many things as are necessary. I mean, I was trying to remember what way of putting parameters into <graph> would be equivalent to {{#tag:graph|etc}}, and looking up [[WP:#tag]] is hopeless because "#" wasn't a valid index character in 1980 and it won't be searchable in the year 198,000 either. But none of those redirects will get you to Help:Magic words, I can assure you. We need a super-duper disambiguation page to cover what I think must be hundreds of incompatible but similar-sounding meanings for the word "tag". I don't even understand all the uses of the word over at MediaWiki and how many are irrelevant to Wikipedia, they have ways of adding custom tags by which I mean stuff in < > and all sorts of fun stuff. I thought I should ask if anyone had suggestions for a way to organize it all. Wnt ( talk) 23:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The EU parliament is voting on proposed new copyright law (in 2 weeks no less) that may impact Wikipedia's ability to link to news websites (a proposed 'link tax' among other things such as "Making platforms directly liable for all copyright infringements by their users"). Could anyone with a background in law please review this and come back whether there is a concern for Wikipedia and if we should be worried? SoWhy? [1] [2] — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 07:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
France, Italy, Spain and Portugal want to force upload filters on not-for-profit platforms (like Wikipedia) and on platforms that host only small amounts of copyrighted content (like startups). Even if platforms filter, they should still be liable for copyright infringements of their users under civil law, just not under criminal law.
hello
the article of Dome of the Rock is protected and Some images & vector are waiting in the talk page to place in article gallery. Can anyone help me?
Seyyedalith ( talk) 22:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello,
until recently, there was a language filter extension for Wikipedia: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/language-filter-for-wikip/ibgceajjjioihilfcdppneoljcaofokk?hl=ru&gl=CZ Unfortunately, its development has been stopped.
This filter was absolutely indispensable. Lots (probably hundreds of millions) of users are bilingual and want switch between two languages, or want to switch to English because articles in their mother tongue are not as good. Examples of both/either of these conditions would be: English-Swedish, English-Latvian, English-German, English-French, English-Chinese, English-Spanish, ...
The Wikipedia language bar has lots of entries that are of no relevance to 99.99% of users. E.g. even though I grew up in South-West Germany, Wikipedia articles in the local dialect (Alemannic) are of no user to me whatsoever. Same goes for dozens of official languages that are simpliy irrelevant to 99%. The Chrome extension allowed users to define languages that would subsequently show up at the top of the list, and clearly emphasized visually. This was very very helpful and one of the most frequent clicks I did on Wikipedia.
Please implement this into Wikipedia ASAP. __________
PS. On a side not, I would also like to mention that in mobile view, it would be really helpful if at any point the user had access to a menu of the contents/headlines/sub-headlines of any given article - instead of having to scroll down for minutes in the hopes of searching what he is looking for.
-- 80.187.105.82 ( talk) 13:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I watch changes to pages using my watchlist, but can I review changes that have been made to the watchlist itself? I removed some temporarily high-traffic pages from my watchlist planning to add them back later, but lost my list of which pages they were. Daask ( talk) 14:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
There is a need to make an article about the most massive black hole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 ( talk) 15:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi all. This is Leila from WMF Research team. I'm reaching out to you to notify you about two experiments that we intend to run on enwiki over the course of the next 2 weeks (start time will likely be in the week of 2018-06-18, I will update this thread once we know if it can happen in that week from our end). Both experiments are on newcomers with the broad goal of helping a more diverse newcomer pool to stay on the projects for longer to contribute (each experiment has specific measurements). I'll explain them in some more depth below along with pointers:
Given the design of these experiments and the target audience, we do not expect them to negatively affect active editor workflows. If you have questions or comments about these experiments, please let me know. Thank you! -- LZia (WMF) ( talk) 00:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I note that I have been contributing regularly for 14 years come the end of the month - who else has been around for 'a long time' (whether on a regular or occasional basis)? Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
For the purpose of increasing the number of Yerevan related content in the Internet, Wikimedia Armenia announces international one-month edit-a-thon from June 15 – July 15, 2018. You are kindly invited to get involved and start editing and improving articles about Yerevan.
Hope you'll enjoy editing and have fun during this interesting process.
One participant from the first 15 most written language Wikipedias with the most points will be invited to Yerevan to join the events organized in the frames of Yerevan 2800th anniversary. For more details please visit the edit-a-thon page on Meta.
See you soon in sunny Yerevan!-- Lilit (WM AM) ( talk) 12:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
The Anti-Harassment Tools team built the Interaction Timeline to make it easier to understand how two people interact and converse across multiple pages on a wiki. The tool shows a chronological list of edits made by two users, only on pages where they have both made edits within the provided time range. Our goals are to assist users to make well informed decisions in incidents of user misconduct and to keep on-wiki discussions civil and focused on evidence.
We're looking to add a feature to the Interaction Timeline that makes it easy to post statistics and information to an on-wiki discussion about user misconduct. We're discussing possible wikitext output on the project talk page, and we invite you to participate! Thank you, For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative ( talk) 21:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I recently became aware of the contributions to Commons by ACTVR. I haven't examined all of them, but those I have seen are carefully edited versions of older (but nevertheless presumably copyright) British company logos. I think that many, perhaps all, have their ("fair use"!) place in en:WP articles -- but not in Commons. I've put up one for deletion, and, in my nomination, mentioned the others. I think it would be beneficial if, for most (all?) of these files, somebody would upload it to en:WP with a different filename, switch the link in the article to this new upload, provide a fair use rationale, and perhaps do a couple of other things that I can't immediately think of. However, I cannot be that body: my "RL" has deadlines looming.
Alternatively, perhaps there already exists help for moving stuff such as this from Commons to en:WP; I don't know, and sorry but I lack the time needed to investigate. -- Hoary ( talk) 13:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
The logo of Micro Precision Products, in a JPEG edited by User:ACTVR, who in 2013 uploaded it to Commons as File:MPP logo.jpg, stating that it, together with a score of other logos was ACTVR's "Own work". Surely it instead should be presumed to be copyright, and should not be at Commons (and I am about to ask for its deletion).
Fair use rationale: The image is used to identify the company Micro Precision Products. Use of the logo is intended to help readers identify the company, assure readers that they have reached the relevant article containing critical commentary about the company, and illustrate the company's intended branding message in a way that would be laborious or impossible to express via words alone.
Source: Wikimedia Commons ( File:MPP logo.jpg). User:ACTVR did not specify their source for this. The logo is identical to that shown on the back cover of Basil Skinner, Micro Precision Products: The MPP Story and the Products (Newquay, Cornwall: MPP Publications, 2004), to that shown in the advertisement for the MPP Monorail Camera that is reproduced on page 42 of this book, and also to that on the MPP Monorail Camera as shown in this advertisement.
Hi. I read a Wikipedia essay a short while ago detailing how to avoid repetition. One of the things it detailed was that editors should avoid using different synonyms in repetetive text and instead shorten it. It mentioned that “title” shouldn’t be used as a synonym for “game” due to its ambiguity.
Could somebody please help me find this essay? I couldn’t find it at Wikipedia:Essay directory as I don’t remember what it is called. Interqwark talk contribs 06:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not shure if I must report this here, but I could not find another place. Since early this year IP-users 110.169.nnn.mmm, where nnn=13 and nnn=12 were the busiest, have been contributing many times with "not existing template arguments". The pattern is always on one day many contributions are made, and only on that one day. Next time such a thing happens, it is the same pattern, but another address. Some examples: 110.169.13.23, 110.169.12.191. I could not find all edits by all 110.169.nnn.mmm addresses, but there must be more than those I noticed. -- FredTC ( talk) 14:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
The Wikimedia Foundation Research team is starting a project on understanding the role of external citations in Wikipedia reading. This project aims to understand how Wikipedia readers use the citations, which in turn can inform the editor and tool developer communities about the usage (or not) of citations by Wikipedia readers. Some more information about this research on the project page: m:Research:Characterizing Wikipedia Citation Usage.
To be able to do this, we will collect data on readers’ citation usage, starting 2018-06-25. We will collect data that captures the interactions of readers (not logged-in users) with references and footnotes. We will initially sample 1–15% of the traffic to validate the quality of the data. Once that’s verified, we intend to do data collection at 100% sampling rate for a period of one week. Please note that given that we do not know the frequency of citation usage, we may have to change this plan based on the initial validation steps. We will keep this thread posted with changes if they occur, and we will update our project page.
To follow the progress of the project and monitor our research results, please also look at this task. If you are interested to know more, or if you have any question, or any observation, please ping me! Miriam (WMF) ( talk) 15:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
To whom it may concern. I am astonished at @ Randykitty:'s act because I think she is not right but we are human beings and to err is human. I think she has not paid enough attention to the fact that I am an CONFIRMED editor and I am aware of the facts of notability guideline for academics and the rule of WP:SCHOLAR and the article in question is highly suitable for creating a wikipedia article. So These articles ARE NOT an Unambiguous ADVERTISING or PROMOTION. Her nomination for delation was pretty husty and unreasoned, I think, and I understand her intention to defend the interests of Wikipedia but on the one hand the article was about a famous and notable scientist, scholar, professor of linguistics from Hungary who teaches and researches not only in Hungary but in the universities of Japan, Taiwan, Russia, Germany and Romania, so she is known worldwide and his scientific efforts were honored with lotsa awarded eg. Order of the Rising Sun 3rd Class, Gold Rays with Neck Ribbon by HM Akihito, Emperor of Japan on 8 November 2005 in Tokyo
so it was an unfriendly act to offend these articles but on the other hand if this Hungarian scholar were not a notable scholar, she would not have been invited to teach and research to the notable universities of the world therefore this article was abouut a notable woman, scientist who is respected in my country and in Western Europe (Germany) and Eastern Europe (Romania, Russia) and in the Far East (Japan, Taiwan).
Her article has been existing for two years and I do not understand why it were an un unambiguous advertising or promotion??!!!! If her own article were an advertising or promotion then all living scholars' articles would be advertisings or promotions and you all might think she (who will be 70 years old on 11 July) should die if her article were rightful??!!! And it is pretty weird that @ Randykitty: has nominated the article for delation at 13:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC) and it have been delated in five hours, at 18:47, 23 June 2018 by @ Swarm: this is nonsense!!!! There WASN'T any time to revise it, to defend it for me, to explain my opinion.
@ Randykitty: is not right, both articles Judit Hidasi and Judit Hidasi bibliography own several secondary sources and not only in Hngarian but in English, too. I think if a person can be found in a book of the Biographies of the Contemporary Hungarian Linguists, that person can also deserve the article on wikipedia. A biography has been written about Judit Hidasi in Hungary:
{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)
ISBN
978-963-9559-44-8I understand @ Randykitty: does not know this linguist in her own country but the scientists who research the communication in the world, they know her name. She is among the respected and notable linguists.
I hope I have managed to prove my arguments and standpoint that the articles in question should be kept on English wikipedia and now the admins of enwiki will give up the idea to delate
Judit Hidasi bibliography as @
Randykitty: has written it to me, and the article of
Judit Hidasi will be restored without delay and I can remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
and you all will accept this, you all agree with me and you all won't change my editing and you would no longer like to delate both of them.
Please Ask the opinion of the Hungarian administrators and workshops that deal with Hungarian topics. I DO NOT accept that the delation of the article of this Hungarian scholar was well substantiated and that two admins can make a decision about this important topic without any discussions, diputes, debates so the decision of delation was hasty and unreasoned. Best regards.
Borgatya (
talk) 21:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind attention @ Headbomb: and @ Swarm:but I MUST emphasize that you're not right because the aricle Judit Hidasi was neither an advertising nor a promotion. Judit Hidasi is a respected scholar in the world, I cannot understand whether her article might exist in 9 languages: Japanese, Chinese, German, Russian, French, Romanian, Irish, Korean and Hungarian why they do not consider her articles as an advertising or promotion because maybe they are more informed, open-minded, cooperative and friendly, and her bibliography belongs to her aricle as a filmography to an actor or list of plays and works to a writer or a list of paintings to a painter, it is not prohibited that there exists a separate list of works among the other scholars or artists. E.g. Noam Chomsky is a famous American linguist, he is the most famous linguist in the world and though he is more famous than Professor Judit Hidasi but I think, this is not a mistake, pity because each linguists are less famous than Noam Chomsky but they DO have even own wikipedia aricles and Noam Chomsky is also a living scholar who has an own aricle about his works: Noam Chomsky bibliography and filmography but nobody think that it would be a mistake so this bibliographic article is not considered as an advertising or promotion but he is a living person, too for whom that list is also useful. The bibliograpy can prove that he or she a respected and notable scholar and they who debate the existence of a list of scientific works, do not understand the scientific research and they cannot judge the existence of a wikipedia article because they can prove their incompetence in wikipedia cases. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND why Judit Hidasi's article would be worst than Noam Chomsky's beacaue both of them are respected scholars in their fields. And Noam Chomsky's article is much more longer than Ms. Judit Hidasi's was and Ms. Judit Hidasi's article have not contained any prohibited things, fact and it was pretty neutral, more neutral than Noam Chomsky's article. And I have NOT received any concrete answer what is exact problem with Ms. Judit Hidasi's article. Neither @ Randykitty: who has nominated it nor @ Swarm: who has delated it, have not pointed out the exact, concrete problemes, mistakes that would have justified their rights to delate this article and the only answer was from them that JUST BECAUSE but it ain't an exact reply so I can say that their acts were unrightful and I strongly urge you to restore Ms. Judit Hidasi's article becase the reason that they have justified their motivations was nonsense and causeless and they cannot have proved their opinions thoroughly. I have been an active, respected, confirmed editor on English wikipedia for 10 years, I have registered in 2008 and until now I have been creating lotsa articles and my articles are always were suitable for the high level of wikipedia and I can have always been fulfilling the criterions of wikipedia, I know the rules of creating new articles well so it was VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY unfriendly to delate Ms Judit Hidasi's article and you must know the wikipedia is nobody's own property and wikipedia is a public ownership so it is prohibited to delate an article which can belong to the public attention. Please Restore Ms Judit Hidasi's article and I do not have to rewrite it because I have already written it well. Borgatya ( talk) 21:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
In the course of my researches I have come across a number of cases where 'topic X' is covered on a number of different language WPs #but not on the English Wikipedia# (for a variety of reasons). Jackiespeel ( talk) 12:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I've noticed strange spikes in the number of page views, according to the statistics. For instance, on the Talk:Checkmate talk page are the daily stats. Most days are consistently about 400-500 but there is a spike to nearly 8,000. Are these spikes real and what causes them? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Please note that Harlan Ellison died on 28 june according to Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 ( talk) 23:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I discovered today that we've got contests which offer cash prizes. For example, WP:WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest. This seems rather contrary to the volunteer ethic which has been behind wikipedia since day one. I'm all for the goal of creating new biographies of women. It just surprises me that cash prizes are involved. Are these contests legit? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
There are tons of free photos of Lee Harvey Oswald on Commons ( c:Category:Lee Harvey Oswald), which contradicts the claim "and for whom there is no known representation under a 'free' license" in the Licensing section of File:OswaldinMinsk.jpg, as well as "Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" under Non-free use rationale. -- fireattack ( talk) 05:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello, the Wiki4MediaFreedom contest is running and will last until the 15th of July. You can either improve or update articles in English or translate articles from English to Italian, Albanian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian or Montenegrin (see the rules. The prizes are online gift voucher. See Meta for more information. -- Niccolò Caranti (OBC) ( talk) 07:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I know various bots automatically replace dead URLs with archived pages. I'm looking for a way to manually trigger a replacement of dead URLs with archives. While I'm open to purely automated solutions, I'm imagining an interface similar to
Refill, which would assist me in replacing the URL with an archive in cases where bots cannot, eg. when |access-date=
is missing.
Daask (
talk) 20:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
As I (and no doubt others) have come across the banner about the legislation - if it passed how would it directly affect WP - and how could WP adapt to accommodate the changes?
Is any cooperation with other websites who are likely to be affected (eg fanfiction) being pursued? Jackiespeel ( talk) 12:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm from Spanish Wikipedia. The template BillboardID uses these other templates for store the IDs of the artists. In eswiki we use the same system. Now, Billboard website doesn't use anymore the artist ID, but uses a link like www.billboard.com/music/jodi-benson, using simply the artist name. This causes problems with the chart templates, like some user said here. In eswiki we discussed about move all data to Wikidata (where only 600 items have this property), but the fact is that there are over 30000 artists, and it's nedeed a bot for move data. I make this request here, because in enwiki these templates have more info than ours, and I think this would benefit both wikis. Thanks. -- Giovanni Alfredo Garciliano Díaz ★ talk 00:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this could more experienced editors please take a look at Category:Coptic_calendar and articles like Pashons 25 (Coptic Orthodox liturgics) and Pashons 17 (Coptic Orthodox liturgics) — I know we have WP:DOTY but I don't know which notability guideline would cover the creation of "day" articles for different calender systems...has there been previous discussion about this? Seraphim System ( talk) 16:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market says: "English Wikipedia added a banner asking the readers to contact their representatives in the European parliament." Did it? I haven't seen one. -- Espoo ( talk) 21:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
This sort of thing is caused by not giving the WMF enough time to set up a test page or test wiki and allow us to confirm that everything works properly. We really need to start earlier when making proposals that require even minor modifications to the Wiki software.
Mistakes happen. The other day someone at Sony was supposed to upload a trailer for an upcoming movie to YouTube, but accidentally uploaded the entire movie. And who can forget the time that Anthony Weiner tried to send a picture of his penis to a woman through Twitter, and accidentally sent it to everyone who was following him on Twitter. The WMF is really quite good at having someone else double check things like banners and thus catching the errors before they go live -- but we need to give them time to do that. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Just Fyi. It was not meant to run in the US Canada India South Africa etc, anywhere outside the EU. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 16:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I have a n00b question; how can I directly show the title in Italics, wihout actually dropping the "italic title" template into the article? Such as Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium. Thanks in advance guys, - LouisAragon ( talk) 20:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
{{
italic title}}
? --
Pipetricker (
talk) 21:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Article Dragovic (disambiguation) should be renamed in only Dragovic
Article Ilija Janković should should be deleted, since there should be a special article, see: hr:Ilija Janković
-- SrpskiAnonimac ( talk) 17:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Global preferences are now available, you can set them by visiting your new global preferences page. Visit mediawiki.org for information on how to use them and leave feedback. -- Keegan (WMF) ( talk)
19:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
The Anti-Harassment Tools team expanded cookie blocking to IP blocks and this week it will be deployed on all wiki after successful testing on Italian Wikipedia. ( phab:T152462) SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative ( talk) 22:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Here is the first revision of Procedural texture (from 2004). At the bottom you can see "This article was written by Enrique Flouret from The Photoshop Roadmap". Note that the contributor is User:Eflouret himself (who has been inactive since 2004).
There appears to be a few separate issues here, and they haven't been corrected even up to the latest revision:
I'm pretty sure Wikipedia doesn't allow copyrighted text in the first place, even if we assume that we have permission to use it in this case. If that is the case, what should be done about Procedural texture? It's very first revision is a copyright violation. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/) [ᴛ] 17:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
At first in mobile site the infobox is placed before the 1st paragraph and then it placed between the 1st and the 2nd paragraph and now it placed before the 1st paragraph again, what's happened? -- Hddty. ( talk) 01:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi!
I'm Tar Lócesilion, a Polish Wikipedia admin and a member of Wikimedia Polska. Last year, I worked for Wikimedia Foundation as a liaison between communities and the Movement Strategy core team. My task was to ensure that all online communities were aware of the movement-wide strategy discussion. This year, my task similar. Phase II of the strategy process was launched in April. Currently, future Working Groups members are being selected, and related pages on Meta-Wiki are being designed.
I’d like to learn what questions concerning the strategy process would you like to be answered on the FAQ page? Please answer here, on my talk page, or on a dedicated talk page on Meta-Wiki. Thanks!
If you have any questions or concerns, please, do ask!
Thanks, SGrabarczuk (WMF) ( talk) 18:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
A new watchlist system was introduced. Does this make control on the edits of the pages in the wathlist more efficient? Does this give more control on bot edits on the pages and more control on checking revisions? Wat are the actual differences? Is still using tools to make minor changes on a page a problem (if this was ever a problem)? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 23:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Recently I've been wandering around and saw the Category:Peru district templates may have some duplicates such as Template:Districts of Huánuco Province and Template:Districts of Huánuco Region. As both templates are created by the same person, I wonder if this is intentional or not. As the creator may have left Wikipedia, I think it might be suitable to ask here. If they are indeed duplicates, should we do a mass redirect or mass delink + delete? JC1 ( talk) 15:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
{{Districts of Huánuco Region}} [[Category:Districts of the Huánuco Province]]
I am not sure why (though I have my suspicions, see below) but it seems that Facebook is deleting posts that contain Wikipedia links. For example two different people posted the following link in comments only to have the comment be automatically deleted with seconds.
Would some other editors who are willing please log onto WP and try to post that link or some other WP article, preferably in some sort of political group, wait about 15 seconds, and then try to reply their own post. I think this is a malfunction of FB trying to "catch" fake news and maybe some over eager beaver coded that WP is "fake" ... just s theory. Of course you can delete the comments when done if they are not auto-deleted. I do NOT need to see your FB post, I just would like to know if the problem is affecting WP links for others. Let me know please by posting your experience here. Thank you. 172.88.134.103 ( talk) 05:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Putting this here for your possible enjoyment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 18:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone know if there are essays or other resources discussing what are appropriate uses of quotes within a citation? My general understanding is quotes in a citation would be used when the fact in the article might need more explanation without interfering with the readability of the article itself. As a hypothetical, if an article contains a fact may seem odd or incorrect at first read, the quote in the citation could provide additional text for the interested reader.
At the same time I would assume it shouldn't be used if the quote doesn't directly relate to the text the citation supports
In the first case the quote helps clarify for those who were taught there are 9 planets in the solar system and is thus directly related to/supports the article text. In the second case the material is only indirectly related and in no way clarifies the article text. I would presume in this case the quote shouldn't be used. However, that is only my opinion. Does Wikipedia have any resources talking about this? Thanks! Springee ( talk) 17:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
In most cases it is sufficient for a citation footnote simply to identify the source (as described in the sections above); readers can then consult the source to see how it supports the information in the article. Sometimes, however, it is useful to include additional annotation in the footnote, for example to indicate precisely which information the source is supporting (particularly when a single footnote lists more than one source – see § Bundling citations and § Text–source integrity, below). A footnote may also contain a relevant exact quotation from the source. This is especially helpful when the cited text is long or dense. A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference. Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible.– dlthewave ☎ 17:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
References
Looking at a list of Wikipedias by language, there are some outliers, and I recall some Wikipedias had had tens if not hundred of thousands of articles created by some bot. Is there any place that lists such cases? Do you recall which Wikipedias has significant article-creation-by-bot initiatives? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Please note that Gopaldas Neeraj died on thursday 19 july according to Google. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 ( talk) 15:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The new filters are cluttering up my Watchlist so I decided to opt out. I turned off "Hide the improved version of Recent Changes" on my "Recent changes" preferences page, but the Watchlist clutter is still there. I'm using Chrome and I tried an f5 reload but no luck. Is this feature broken? Praemonitus ( talk) 01:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
This is more of a comment than anything, but anyone else have noticed piped links where the left side consists of the correctly spelt actual title of the article and the right side of a misspelling? I find it simply baffling that this is a thing that exists.
One particularly blatant example I just corrected was [[artificial vagina|artificial-vagina]]
. Like, what the hell, dude? Obviously you saw the title of the article already. In contrast,
artificial-vagina is a redlink. Applying simple everyday logic, you can deduce that the article title is the/a correct spelling and your own spelling is incorrect. Why go to the length to create a piped link instead of simply writing [[artificial vagina]]
? I'm not sure that even the VE can fully explain this phenomenon. And I'm pretty sure I encountered this phenomenon already before the VE was rolled out by default. --
Florian Blaschke (
talk) 13:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
[[Barack Obama|Barock Obama]]
. (Or, even better: "Baroque Osama".) It just makes no sense. It can't happen accidentally. It feels like an editor who does this wants to prank and annoy wikignomes like me. --
Florian Blaschke (
talk) 23:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)Please put Ian Stanley (golfer) on july 28 in the deaths list. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 ( talk) 06:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Is it safe to assume that readers would recognize Jack as a nickname for John? Also, where should this question be asked? — 151.132.206.26 ( talk) 14:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone have an english word for these occupations? They are used for occupations With respect to mining both in Norway and in Germany. Breg Pmt ( talk) 17:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I was going to update the article Gifford Lectures to include recent lectures and then noticed that the article is essentially always going to be mainly a list. There are several things that could be done:
The problem with leaving it as-is is that the article is always going to comprise mainly of the list, as there just isn't that much you can say about a lecture series in prose form (well, I suspect there actually is, but most of it isn't going to be notable, and it certainly isn't going to be sourceable).
This is also the problem with just separating the list out – it just leaves a perpetual stub – hence considering the possibility of perhaps just renaming the whole thing to "List of Gifford Lectures". Thought I'd come here to get some second opinions!
-- Newbiepedian ( talk · C · X! · L) 13:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi all!
To improve the security of our readers and editors, permission handling for CSS/JS pages has changed. (These are pages like MediaWiki:Common.css
and MediaWiki:Vector.js
which contain code that is executed in the browsers of users of the site.)
A new user group,
interface-admin
, has been created.
Starting four weeks from now, only members of this group will be able edit CSS/JS pages that they do not own (that is, any page ending with .css
or .js
that is either in the MediaWiki:
namespace or is another user's user subpage).
You can learn more about the motivation behind the change here.
Please add users who need to edit CSS/JS to the new group (this can be done the same way new administrators are added, by stewards or local bureaucrats). This is a dangerous permission; a malicious user or a hacker taking over the account of a careless interface-admin can abuse it in far worse ways than admin permissions could be abused. Please only assign it to users who need it, who are trusted by the community, and who follow common basic password and computer security practices (use strong passwords, do not reuse passwords, use two-factor authentication if possible, do not install software of questionable origin on your machine, use antivirus software if that's a standard thing in your environment).
Thanks!
Tgr (
talk) 13:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC) (via
global message delivery)
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.
Per the above section, only interface administrators will be able to edit sitewide and user CSS and Javascript soon. Please take a moment to review the above (as well as the linked items) and then leave a comment: who should have access to this permission, and how should we go about grandfathering existing administrators (if at all?). -- Izno ( talk) 14:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Anyone who runs for RFA and is successful should have access to this user group. He should be required to disclose this intent during RFA so that users may assess the administrator's need for it.
I think we should also have a separate process to establish access to this right. While I expect most administrators who apply for this right will be granted the right, there will be some non-administrator users who may be experienced with Javascript and CSS to whom it would also be reasonable to provide access to this user group. -- Izno ( talk) 14:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Anyone who runs for RFA and is successful should have access to this user groupThis is exactly the opposite of the intention of why this new user group was introduced.
there will be some non-administrator users who may be experienced with Javascript and CSSNo. Again, this is against the entire point. Non-admins should not ever have access to site-wide JS/CSS. They didn't before, and they shouldn't now. In fact, only a very small percentage of admins should be able to edit site JS/CSS. That is, the admins who actually would need to, which is, in fact, a very small percentage. To put it in perspective, you can put "interface admin" up there with CheckUser, if not above it. — MusikAnimal talk 15:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Anyone who runs for RfA, requests this userright in their RfA, and is successful should have access to this user group. There's no reason why the evaluation for this userright can't be done simultaiously with evaluation for the other admin tools. I think you may have been trying to say this, but it comes across that all new admins will get this userright. I don't think this should be given to non-adminsitrators, as it could be abused to hijack admin accounts and perform admin actions. -- Ahecht ( TALK
user-space CSS and Javascript. Many admins (probably the majority), or any prolific user for that matter, has edited their own userspace JS/CSS. I think we could run a query to exclude edits to their own userspace, but we're not talking about the userspace anyway, so let's not focus on that. — MusikAnimal talk 15:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Currently active administrators (30 edits in the last 2 months) who have edited site-wide CSS or Javascript within the past X days/months. Per MusikAnimal, editing user-space CSS and Javascript requires a far lesser level of trust. -- Ahecht ( TALK
abusefilter-modify
: Every admin can assign the right to themselves but shouldn't do so unless they really know what they are doing. That seems to work for the edit filter, so it should also work for this user right. Regards
So
Why 15:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I've added {{ automated tools}} to {{ Draft article}} and {{ AFC submission/helptools}}. It will add the following links to the templates:
You can see them (as of writing) in action at Draft:Scafida#See_also (expand the "How to improve your article" section) or at Draft:Shell Pernis Refinery).
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 14:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello guys. I'm a regular contributor in the Indonesian Wikipedia. Recently there, someone brought up whether a political slogan should have its own article. The slogan is coming from the opponent of the current President of Indonesia. I decided to look for slogans here and I found Category:American political catchphrases. There, a slogan can be a redirect page (such as Feel the Bern or I am not a crook) or an article (such as Make America Great Again and We are the 99%). Is there any considerations as to why some are articles while the others are only redirect pages? Thank you. Sersan Mayor Kururu ( talk) 06:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Could someone (presumably in the US, or at least outside the EU) please check that this link works okay, and that the source is indeed a WP:RS. It's blocked for me, due to their GDPR angst. -- Finlay McWalter··–· Talk 14:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Wiki Education is hiring an experienced Wikipedian for a part-time (20 hours/week) position. The focus of this position is to help new editors (students and other academics) learn to edit Wikipedia. The main focus of the position is monitoring and tracking contributions by Wiki Education program participants, answering questions, and providing feedback. We're looking for a friendly, helpful editor who like to focus on article content, but also with a deep knowledge of policies and guidelines and the ability to explain them in simple, concise ways to new editors. They will be the third member of a team of expert Wikipedians, joining Ian (Wiki Ed) and Shalor (Wiki Ed). This is a part-time, U.S. based, remote or San Francisco based position.
See our Careers page for more information. Ian (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 20:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi all. A while back, I wrote a post here to tell you about two experiments related to enwiki newcomers the Research team at Wikimedia Foundation has set up to run. We had some delays for running those experiments, but as of a couple of hours ago we've started one of them. We will run this iteration for a period of 1-2 weeks and after that is completed, will move to the second one. If you have any questions, please reach out to us at the task in Phabricator or the talk page of the research. Thanks! -- LZia (WMF) ( talk) 23:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
JY Yang is a writer who goes by the pronoun "they". I'm not sure which of the following article versions is preferable:
Any advice from MOS experts? @ YarLucebith: you may want to comment also. Sandstein 08:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello all. I'm currently developing a Wikipedia TriviaBot for use in the IRC channels on freenode. The intent and spirit of this bot is to help new editors learn crucial knowledge as well as expand veteran editor's general knowledge of Wikipedia. The bot is currently functional, though I'd still say it's in its beta phase. The reason for this post is to request community's assistance with expanding the database of Wikipedia related trivia questions from 80 total questions to thousands. This page has been created as a place for the community to submit questions for addition to bot's database. All contributions will be credited to the editor who submitted the question. I thank all who get involved. Anyone who is regularly on IRC are also welcomed to contact me to test the bot. Operator873 talk connect 02:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
The article about the actor Victor Banerjee lists all the western directors that he has worked with first, and then the Indian ones. (Based on their names.) Given that he has worked with Indian directors of the status of Satyajit Ray, I'm not sure about this ordering. Does anyone have any thoughts about this? Ross-c ( talk) 10:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
These articles need to be renamed:
-- SrpskiAnonimac ( talk) 15:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
There seems to be some usage in English of "Vrljika River" and "Kobilja river".
"Around Vidovište, from Kobilja river (south-west) to Ilomska's canyon (north-east) there are the hamlets, as follows..." Bus stop ( talk) 10:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Why is an article such as Ćehotina named that way? Why isn't it titled Ćehotina River? Are there different naming conventions in Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina for rivers than there are in the United States? The United States of course has Mississippi River and Missouri River. I find "Our Rafting club promotes and is one of the organizers of permanent open championship of Bosnia and Herzegovina R6 rafting on the Ćehotina river, World Cup rafting on the Tara River and other events such as school rafting, etc." Wikipedia titles that article Tara (river). Bus stop ( talk) 00:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
40,000 scientists identified by Quicksilver AI as missing from Wikipedia.
-- Green C 18:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Kosovo Pomoravlje#Title -- SrpskiAnonimac ( talk) 22:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I would ask one of the admina to lock the article so that they can only be edited by registered users, the vandal mi non stop cancels the change, and the change has sources -- SrpskiAnonimac ( talk) 11:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone find sufficient sourcing to prove to me whether or not Marcel·lí Perelló i Domingo is a hoax? I got nothing on GBooks. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 00:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I've been reading Wikipedia:RFT, but cannot figure out which procedure to follow when text on an image (not an article) needs to be translated. I just uploaded File:Tape Ball Color Space, Itten, 1919-20.jpg and cannot read the handwriting well enough to figure out what is written. Where do I go for such a translation? Do I go to the reference desk instead? Thanks. SharkD ☎ 17:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
This is kind of "meta" but why is there a unified search box for all the village pump pages? It would be better in my view if each page had its own search box. Sure a "search all Village Pumps" option would be nice, but having the "all" as the default brings in tons of clutter to already apparently random results... Jytdog ( talk) 13:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
By my reckoning these five illustrations are in public domain, but I would really appreciate a person knowledgeable in copyright confirming this.
The images are by illustrator Ellen Gertrude Cohen, created in 1891 and appear to be published in Britain in that year, but it is unclear of the publication. They are on a site that implies copyright, but they are not marked. May I upload all five images to the commons? If so, which tag? "in public domain in U.S."?
Thanks for taking a look. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 15:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
The appeal only appears when one is not signed in - rather than for registered users (who are going to be more supportive of WP than non-signers), who if they are on computers where they have ticked the 'Keep me signed in' box may never see the appeals.
Possibly there could be different types of appeal: for example would it be possible to make the 'Donate to Wikipedia' link on the side more noticeable? Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:18, 15 August 2018 (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.
Word has come to me of feminists, who are going to storm Wikipedia. So people, there’s going to be more vandalism on this page. Just a quick reminder that you should never be afraid to edit a vandalised Article. I’m not against women, I just like Wikipedia. ScRiptED ( talk) 17:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
According to WP:JCW/W8 and WP:JCW/W9, the following circular references to Wikipedia are made
Journal 1 | Type 2 | Target 1 | Type 2 | Citations | Articles | Citations/article | Search |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wikipedia | Web | Wikipedia | Web | 2921 | 1644 | 1.777 | |
Wikipedia bahasa Indonesia, ensiklopedia bebas | ? | — | ? | 10 | 9 | 1.111 | |
Wikipedia tiếng Việt | ? | — | ? | 4 | 1, 2, 3 | 1.333 | |
Wikipedia, den frie encyklopædi | ? | — | ? | 4 | 1, 2, 3, 4 | 1.000 | |
Wikipedia, entziklopedia askea | ? | — | ? | 1 | 1 | 1.000 | |
Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre | ? | — | ? | 62 | 50 | 1.240 | |
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia | Book | Wikipedia | Web | 8 | 7 | 1.143 | |
Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia | ? | — | ? | 12 | 12 | 1.000 | |
Wikipedie | ? | Czech Wikipedia | Web | 2 | 1, 2 | 1.000 | |
Wicipedia | ? | Welsh Wikipedia | Web | 4 | 1, 2, 3 | 1.333 | |
Wikipedija | ? | Wikipedia | Web | 2 | 1, 2 | 1.000 | |
Wikipedija, prosta enciklopedija | ? | — | ? | 2 | 1, 2 | 1.000 | |
Wikipédia | ? | Wikipedia | Web | 66 | 58 | 1.138 | |
Wikipédia, a enciclopédia livre | ? | — | ? | 10 | 8 | 1.250 |
If you could ensure that things from the journal column point to the correct target, that would be great. Thanks. Ignore the 'type' column. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 14:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Unnecessary redirections, Serbo-Croatia and Serbo–Croatia -- SrpskiAnonimac ( talk) 13:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
As you might already know, there is currently a copyright reform going on in the European Union, which will affect Wikipedia and other free knowledge projects. In July, the European Parliament debated a proposal that would have been harmful for freedom of expression and collaboration online. Many Wikimedia organisations and communities took action in June and July to oppose it and contributed to the rejection of this version of the proposal.
After its summer break, the European Parliament will vote on new amendments to the European Commission’s original proposal on 12 September. Members of the European Parliament can submit such new amendments by 5 September. The European Wikimedia organisations, members of the Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU, and the Wikimedia Foundation are working on making sure amendments that protect and grow free knowledge will be on the table. These include a new approach to Article 13, but also safeguarding the public domain, freedom of panorama and user generated content.
Over the coming weeks, it will be important for Wikimedia to promote our vision of a copyright framework that helps us share the sum of all knowledge online. Should your community wish to engage in further public policy actions around this we would greatly appreciate if you coordinate with us to make sure our message is coherent across countries. We want to promote sensible copyright rules that advance access to information and knowledge instead merely stopping a bad proposal.
You can help by translating and sharing information materials in your language, sending an opinion piece to media in your country, contacting MEPs from your region with suggestions to support positive amendments, or participating in events in Brussels and Strasbourg (on 6 and 11 September, tbc).
We will provide updates soon about the community activities. In addition, we will share information and guidance on important amendments to the copyright proposal in due time.-- dimi_z ( talk) 09:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi all. An update about the experiment for eliciting new editor interests mentioned here earlier. The first phase of the experiment is completed. We have received 382 responses from new editors. We have applied the matching algorithm to the responses received and we are getting ready for the second stage. This means we have stopped emailing newly registered users. We continue to expect that the second and third stages of the experiment not have negative impact on active editor workflows. This being said, we are actively monitoring the space. If you have questions, please ping here or on the project's talk page. Thank you! -- LZia (WMF) ( talk) 14:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
{{ Expert needed}} seems to be a very underused template.
So is there any proof that use of this template actually gets anything done? I've seen uses dating back to 2008 that have gone completely unanswered. FoxTrot used to have it for several years, without response from anyone anywhere despite multiple alerts. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 07:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I have just opened an RFC on the above subject here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Rfc_on_the_inclusion_of_the_Erdős–Bacon_number_in_biographies.. feel free to particpate. -- Dom from Paris ( talk) 16:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
{{
Infobox building}}
now automatically displays dynamic <mapframe>
maps by default, if available. If you are interested in any articles using this infobox, please review how the map displays in those articles: you can adjust the size, frame center point, initial zoom level, and marker icon using
various optional parameters; the mapframe map may also be turned off using |mapframe=no
.
See Template talk:Infobox building for further information and discussions. - Evad37 [ talk 05:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
{{
Infobox shopping mall}}
now similarly displays automatic mapframe maps. -
Evad37 [
talk 05:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)On behalf of (at least part of, I can't speak for all) the Commons community I apologize for this deletion of 117 Huntington images that were used here. Many, probably most (but that's a bit harder to check now..) are properly licensed.
It's not the first time this happens, nor will it be the last. Another DR with 90 images (49 used here, 23 on ruwiki, 12 or less on various others) is also about to be executed. I'm not linking it now because that might cause it to be deleted faster and I haven't saved all the pictures yet.
Undeletion is feasible for a few in case of The Huntington (the deletion was so careless even PD-old works have been deleted), but for most undeletion is probably not possible on the short term.
Now my question. Would enwiki appreciate it if I upload the images that are properly licensed locally? And is there a tool to upload Flickr images to enwiki? Alexis Jazz ( talk) 22:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
If one goes to the History section of an article, one can click on "Number of watchers" (in case any one is curious, I shall say that Wikipedia: Village pump had 954 viewers last time I looked). My question is this. How many days is this a record of the watchers that an article has had? Perhaps it might be an idea to change "Number of watchers" to "Number of watchers in past x days". Vorbee ( talk) 19:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I just gave this page a major revamp. It could look a fresh pair of eyes, especially from users that never used User:Citation bot before. Please give feedback at User talk:Citation bot/use. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Around the population of 30000, the situation is quite chaotic (the numbers are the rank in population):
23. Dunakeszi city. 24. Szigetszentmiklós city. 25. Salgótarján city. 26. Cegléd city. 27. Baja city. 28. Ózd town. 29. Vác town. 30. Szekszárd city. 31. Mosonmagyaróvár town. 32. Gödöllő town. 33. Hajdúböszörmény town. 34. Pápa town. 35. Gyula town. 36. Kiskunfélegyháza city. 37. Budaörs town. 38. Esztergom city. 39. Gyöngyös town. 40. Ajka city. 41. Orosháza city. 42. Kiskunhalas city. 43. Kazincbarcika town. 44. Szentes city. 45. Szentendre town. 46. Jászberény city. 63. (!!!) Keszthely city.
I know population isn't the only criteria in being a town or a city, but I don't understand why Szentes is more of a city than Siófok. -- 194.37.90.250 ( talk) 12:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
There is a tool, which allows to compare how popular is the same article in different wikipedias.
I am looking for a similar tool to compare the actual size of the same article in different wikipedias. -- Perohanych ( talk) 17:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
For example, see [6].
This doesn't work with all bare urls, but it will work with urls to Google Books, arXiv, bibcode, JSTOR, doi, PMID and several other identifiers. If you see such bare urls in an article, you can activate Citation bot here or use the one-click citation expander gadget in your preferences. The Google Books output in particular will need to be reviewed, as sometimes Google Books links to magazine, rather than books proper. It shouldn't give anything egregiously wrong, but the citation might not have the full details, list a publisher for author, or might need to be converted to {{ cite magazine}} or something.
Many thanks to User:AManWithNoPlan for this. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 15:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi all,
as
announced previously, permission handling for CSS/JS pages has changed: only members of the
interface-admin
(Interface administrators) group, and a few highly privileged global groups such as stewards, can edit CSS/JS pages that they do not own (that is, any page ending with .css or .js that is either in the MediaWiki: namespace or is another user's user subpage). This is done to improve the security of readers and editors of Wikimedia projects. More information is available at
Creation of separate user group for editing sitewide CSS/JS. If you encounter any unexpected problems, please contact me or file a bug.
Thanks!
Tgr (
talk) 12:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC) (via
global message delivery)
She's a pretty famous pornstar and Wikipedia in other languages has article for her.
Sorry if I mistaken section but I think this is the more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unvers ( talk • contribs) 13:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok, the fact is that the page that responds to the name of Lana Rhodes is a page of redirection that has the protection with the blue lock and that I being new user can not change, I noticed that on Italian Wikipedia that is that of my native language the article is there and also in some other language, I do not know if it is allowed to cite porn sites here but I saw that in one of these sites she is first for popularity and has 500 million views, of course this is not enough to get her on Wikipedia, if the community has decided, however, that she should not have a personal page since I'm a novice I do not feel like going against the decision because I physically can not create the page because it's protected by a blue lock that requires 500 changes and 90 days of inscription it seems to me, I will have to wait a while. Unvers ( talk) 23:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Read this message in another language • Please help translate to other languages.
The Wikimedia Foundation will be testing its secondary data centre. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to do a planned test. This test will show if they can reliably switch from one data centre to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.
They will switch all traffic to the secondary data center on Wednesday, 12 September 2018. On Wednesday, 10 October 2018, they will switch back to the primary data center.
Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop when we switch. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.
You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.
Other effects:
This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule. There will be more notifications about this. Please share this information with your community. / User:Johan(WMF) ( talk)
13:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
OK, I am not sure where, or whom to ask about the recent changes.
Until recently (that is, a few days ago), you could look at a page history, then up to the left was a button which gave info about who had edited the page (by number of edits, and by added text).
It was basically this tool: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/index.php with the info about the article automatically filled in.
Why has that been removed? (Ok, you can still find it, but now you have to look around, while before it was right there, easily available.) Huldra ( talk) 21:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia ads | file info – #14 |
Wikipedia peer review needs more reviewers. Please join us and contribute some reviews, or add yourself to our volunteers list to get regular updates of unanswered reviews.
Peer review provides a way for new and experienced editors alike to ask for and provide input into an article that is being developed. It's often a stepping stone for new editors, or for articles on their way to featured article status. It's a great way to help new editors become experienced with our wiki ways, improve articles, and learn about completely new subject areas.
We usually have between 10 - 20 unanswered reviews, often waiting for months, that only require a pair of eyes and some kind advice. We look forward to seeing you around!
Hi everyone,
Please find the results of our first analysis about readers' interactions with references in English Wikipedia in our project page. This is work from the Wikimedia Foundation Research team, in the context of the "Citation Usage" project. This project aims to understand how Wikipedia readers use the citations, and the role of external citations in Wikipedia reading, which in turn can inform the editor and tool developer communities about the usage (or not) of citations by Wikipedia readers.
After a first round of data collection, which ended on 2018-07-08, we analyzed the data and identified a number of issues. We have modified our instrumentation to address these issues, and we will start a second round of data collection next week. We will collect data that captures readers' (not logged-in users) page views, as well as their interactions with references and footnotes. We will initially sample 1–15% of the traffic to validate the data quality, then turn at 100% sampling rate for a period of one month. All details can be found here. We may have to change this plan based on the initial validation steps, and we will keep this thread and our project page posted with changes if they occur.
To follow the progress of the project and monitor our research results, please also look at this task. If you are interested to know more, or if you have any question, or any observation, please ping me or leave a message on the project page! Miriam (WMF) ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Update: due to the overload of events, we temporarily stopped the data collection. We are making changes to the schema to sample page load events at 50%, and will start it again next week. We will keep this thread informed with all news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miriam (WMF) ( talk • contribs) 15:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the correct procedure but I read that an RfC can be published at the Village pump. I'd like to hear a wider opinion on this question
/info/en/?search=Talk:Francis_Beaufort#RfC_on_National_Origins Centuryofconfusion ( talk) 01:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello all,
If you’re interested in changes to how Special:Block works, then see the discussion about Partial blocks. Your thoughts are greatly appreciated.
Please spread the word to others (especially administrators) who might be interested in helping re-design Special:Block's layout. Cheers, For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative ( talk) 15:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I noted the Short description of "Azərbaycan" page with purple color in the following picture.
My first question: how to add such descriptions to pages? Second question: If the article contains more than 1 photo, how to define which photo will be shown in search (for examle Azerbaijan's flag in "Azərbaycan" page)? For both questions, give universal methods for all languages. Ki999 ( talk) 11:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
shortdesc
, meaning that feature exists here. It is not at
az:Special:Version#mw-version-parser-function-hooks. See
mw:Extension:PageImages#Image choice. It is not possible to specify the image directly.
PrimeHunter (
talk) 12:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
In hindsight, this is better suited for Meta as other projects are affected as well: m:Wikimedia Forum#Commons will soon stop accepting some GFDL-only media. Alexis Jazz ( talk) 13:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Per the comments on the closure of a TfD here Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_July_23#Template:Media_by_uploader it was suggested that a VP discussion be had. I've marked this template as deprecated as an amended wording was implemented in {{ Img-unclaimed}} and {{ img-claimed}}, but given the wording of those templates is related to the one at the closed TFD, this discussion also concerns them.
The problem is essentially that before Wikipedia developed the upload policies it currently now has and to some extent the structure imposed by the {{ information}} template, some media was uploaded under a set of assumptions that whilst in good faith at the time, aren't necessarily the same assumptions that would be made when evaluating media that would be uploaded under the current policies. One of these assumptions being that where the uploader said something like "I made this" on the file description page, the file was implicitly considered own work, (One of the current recommend approach is for the uploader to use Own work as the Source: field and to use a license like {{ Self}} or {{ Self2}} at the time of upload.
Why does this matter? Currently a query at WMF Quarry ( https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/29651) lists at least 27,000 uploads (an expanded query listed at least 50,000) for which a source couldn't be recognised. The actual number of uploads that don't have a source is certainly going to be considerably smaller. In many instances the source for older images will be a statement to the effect "I made this" or " Photo taken by username", but NOT as it didn't exist the time an explicitly included {{ own}}tag or {{ information}} block. Some contributors in the past have added these in good faith, but I was advised against off-wiki (more than once) about automatically adding own work (or {{ own}} without some kind of confirmation (either from the original uploader or by other means). Whilst assumption of good faith is a key Wikipedia trait, taking it on trust that something is own work based on limited meta-data is not necessarily a long-term approach.
{{ media by uploader}}, {{ img-unclaimed}},{{ img-claimed}} were intended as part of a pragmatic approach, as by asking uploader to more actively confirm 'own' work status, without needing to take media through the FFD or PROD process which would be inappropriate given that many of the affected uploads are sourced, and are (implied or not) indeed own work by their uploaders.
ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 11:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
If interested, please comment here. petrarchan47 คุ ก 04:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
OP blocked until he can convince another admin that he can edit without attacking other editors again. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I have done over 200,000 edits to Wikipedia articles while logged in, and a similar number (but I don't know what it is) while not logged in. And as in all cases, there are some aspects of Wikipedia that I am familiar with and others that I am not.
Before Wikipedia existed, I was aware of the International Workshop on Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering, an annual conference at which persons, most of whom are professors in physical sciences, assemble to present their research findings to others in attendance. I attended this particular conference in 1991. Those who attend this conference take an unconventional view, outside the mainstream, of the role of probability theory in the sciences. There are many conferences at which professors in many fields, who are interested in a particular topic that attracts a small number of their colleagues, annually assemble to present to each other their latest findings or creations. Some of these are gathering of those who take some non-mainstream view, and many are not, but either way, it is not considered grounds for suspicion about one's competence or honesty that one participates in such a thing, and I never expected that anyone would think it is until I encountered a dozen-or-so Wikipedian who told me I was stupid or dishonest or otherwise deeply flawed because I couldn't see that such a conference is a scam.
It was asserted on a Wikipedia page about professors in health-related fields, one of them a surgeon in the medical school at Johns Hopkins University and one a professor of psychology at UCLA, and various others, that their reason for using the standard terminology of their fields was only to create a false impression of legitimacy (this is absurd and clearly dishonest), that they don't publish, or at least not on the topic of their common interest, outside of a journal that their group had founded (this is false, as may be quickly verified), and that they do not collaborate in research with others outside their group (this is false, as may be quickly verified).
I objected to those assertions as clearly libelous and I was told that I was wrong without any attempt of six persons asserting this to tell me why I was wrong or to argue or discuss this with me. There is supposed to be collegiality among Wikipedians, and merely issuing a definitive ruling on a matter about which one disagrees with a fellow Wikipedian while refusing to discuss or argue, is inconsistent with that.
One person wrote that professors in health fields were "using sciencey-sounding language to advocate something that is unquestionably commercially lucrative but which does not appear to have significant academic support". Note that:
And now to the point: I want to know who these people are (not their names, and not individually). Their refusal to argue or discuss the issues with fellow Wikipedians is an occasion for suspicion. I have heard it asserted that a lot of mudslinging happens on Wikipedia on politically charged issues or other controversial things, but only asserted; I have not seen that sort of thing, probably because my stomping grounds within Wikipedia have not included certain areas very much. The person who made the assertion about the "unquestionably" lucrative nature of organizing conferences among professors declined to answer my request for the specifics about that. His assertions about the amount of academic support not being "significant" is also something about which he declined to be specific after being asked.
A Wikipedian and his followers (apparently there actually are such things as followers; I don't know how that happens) who gather to simultaneously oppose the position taken by one Wikipedian should assume good faith and should be willing either to argue or discuss or instruct their interlocutor, rather than just giving orders. But it is not so. Is there something that should be done about this? Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Forgive and please advise if this is the wrong place to bring this up. Wikisource has only the first few chapters of the vulgate. This seems like a serious oversight that could be easily mended. Couldn’t any of many copies be uploaded? I regret if I’m being naive about the factors involved. Temerarius ( talk) 02:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
— billinghurst sDrewth 08:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
This redirect " Legally Blondes 2" is unnecessary, it needs to be deleted...." Legally Blonde 2" is correct -- SrpskiAnonimac ( talk) 10:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Is there anyone out there who can guide me through a few simple questions regarding my efforts to open a fold3 account, with Wikipedia permissions? - Broichmore ( talk) 11:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
This has been posted here because your wiki allows local file uploads. Please help translate to other languages..
Commons will no longer allow uploads of photos, paintings, drawings, audio and video that use the GFDL license and no other license. This starts after 14 October. Textbooks, manuals and logos, diagrams and screenshots from GFDL software manuals that only use the GFDL license are still allowed. Files licensed with both GFDL and an accepted license like Creative Commons BY-SA are still allowed.
There is no time limit to move files from other projects to Commons. The licensing date is all that counts. It doesn't matter when the file was uploaded or created. Every wiki that allows local uploads should check if bots, scripts and templates that are used to move files to Commons need to be updated. Also update your local policy documentation if needed.
The decision to allow files that only have a GFDL license, or not allow them, is a decision all wikis can make for themselves. Your wiki can decide to continue allowing the files that Commons will no longer allow after 14 October. If your wiki decides to continue to allow files after 14 October that Commons will no longer allow those files should not be moved to Commons. — Alexis Jazz, distributed by Johan using MassMessage
18:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi! Can someone tell me if you have any policies here regarding disclosure of personal data and conflicts between certain users that are going on outside of the wiki itself (like on Facebook - with offences, nickname disclosures and such)? Because I couldn't find any (or I didn't search thoroughly enough). If there're none, I'd like to know what are the best practices regarding these situations. -- Piramidion 05:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
When a discussion is archived, and it is requested that the discussion be closed, where does the closing statement go? Enterprisey ( talk!) 01:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
The Community health initiative is starting a project to measure the effectiveness of blocks. The first step is to discuss with the wikimedia community ideas about how to do it. To that end, the Anti-Harassment Tools team and Morten Warncke-Wang has created a page with some initial ideas and a discussion space to talk about these and your ideas.
AHT is particularly interested to learn whether the new partial blocks feature is successful as a tool or instrument. Therefore, the first part of this research will mainly focused on the short term gains in the utility of partial blocks in order to understand whether it appears to be working and if there appears to be a need for changes. These measurements will provide us with insight quickly. Currently there is not much known about how sitewide blocks affect users. This makes a comparison of the effects of the new partial block feature to sitewide blocks difficult. To provide all of us with some insight, the Anti-Harassment Tools team would like to examine historical block data across wikimedia projects to establish a baseline.
However, our list of measurements that we propose has a lot of longer term ones, e.g. surveys. These are important and should be considered to be implemented later, because they can provide all of us with insight that is otherwise hidden.
Please join us to discuss these proposed measurements. For the Anti-Harassment Tools team and Morten Warncke-Wang. SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative ( talk) 15:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello! A few months ago the Wikimedia Foundation invited contributors to take a survey about your experiences on Wikipedia. The report is now published on Meta-Wiki! We asked contributors 170 questions across many different topics like diversity, harassment, paid editing, Wikimedia events and many others.
Read the report or watch the presentation, which is available only in English. Add your thoughts and comments to the report talk page. Feel free to share the report on Wikipedia/Wikimedia or on your favorite social media. Thanks! -- EGalvez (WMF) 20:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
There's enwiki page Kerrigan, which lists people (and a character) with given surname. And there are exactly the same pages in other wikis: ru:Керриган, de:Kerrigan, fr:Kerrigan, etc. I've tried to connect them via wikidata and met a merge conflict. The problem is that in ruwiki and some other wikis this page considered as disambiguation page, while in enwiki this is an article, am I correct?
If there are several articles about people with the same surname in Russian Wikipedia, there's always a disambiguation page with the list of articles and sometimes there is an article about this surname with history, etymology, etc, but without any lists. Seems like in enwiki there's always one page with complete list and, very rarely, additional facts. IMHO, they looks more like disambigs, not like articles - there is no sources at page, there's probably no reliable sources at all, meaning that there is no notability. Which page should they connected to? I can find any variant.
What variant is correct? Facenapalm ( talk) 14:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to be a bit unclear here, and ask for some input on how best to deal with this. I'm tempted to invoke some form of WP:IAR, but I wanna see what alternatives are first.
Let's say we have a certain predatory publisher (Foobar Publications) which meets WP:N, and has article on Wikipedia. Said publisher produces a lot of crap journals, none of which meet WP:N, so the standard practice here is to redirect individual journal entries to the publisher (e.g. Scientific Research Publishing, redirects). Since we have a main article, categories, and redirects, we can easily find problematic citations to that publisher and its journals via Special:WhatLinksHere and other tools like WP:JCW or WP:CRAPWATCH.
But let's say we have a certain publisher (Foobar Publications) which doe not meet WP:N, and therefore doesn't have an article on Wikipedia. And said publisher produces a lot of crap journals (Open Foobar Journal of Bunk, Open Foobar Journal of Crap, Open Foobar Journal of Junk... ), none of which meet WP:N. As things stand now, we can have no information on Wikipedia about those journals, "Special:WhatLinksHere" is useless, and other tools like WP:JCW or WP:CRAPWATCH cannot be used to their full potential.
The question here, is how do we best deal with this? My WP:IAR instinct is
The idea is that we'd have something very similar to Category:Scientific Research Publishing academic journals, except without the main article and we could leverage our predatory publishing fighting tools to their full effect. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
The problem with those are rather large. First is the issue of sourcing. Very often, you can only give one source for predatoriness, and most of those (e.g. Beall's list) will hedge and will mix "predatory" with "potentially predatory" and "questionable" publishers/journals. So you could have a journal that's merely questionable, but not predatory, mixed with journals which are definitely predatory, and others that are only potentially predatory. But because the list doesn't distinguish between them, we can't use it to say the journals/publishers are definitely predatory, and if you throw the word "potential" around, then it becomes near-meaningless as far as an article is concerned.
However, there are other issues with such lists, assuming they could be made. For journals, there are literally tens of thousands of such crap journals out there. The lists would be too massive and too cumbersome to maintain/keep up to date, and would suffer from the problems above (what is predatory, what is only 'potentially' predatory, what has been wrongly accused of being predatory, etc...). And if we have a list of publishers instead, then we'd be redirecting tens of thousand of individual journal entries to a list of thousands of publishers, without any indication of which publisher is of relevance to individual journals. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Article " Karl Topia" needs to be renamed to "Karl Thopia", since the article about the family is called " Thopia family". All other articles about family members are called "... Thopia" (examples: George Thopia, Helena Thopia, etc.) ... Excuse in my English, I'm using Google Translate -- SrpskiAnonimac ( talk) 21:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
There seems to be an increasing use of templates on talk pages, and there is even WP:TEMPLAR which tells you not to template the regulars. It seems to me that, in the near future, talk pages will simply be a tessellation of templates. No one will be able to air a genuine issue with the article, because other editors will simply respond with a tortoise shell of templates. The problem is that, while the templates do explain Wikipedia policy, this policy is complex and nuanced and the particular issues of the article have a reality that goes beyond Wikipedia and even the Internet itself. Is it possible to restrain the Knights Templar or is Wikipedia going to buckle under a shield of templates???-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Read this message in another language • Please help translate to other languages.
The Wikimedia Foundation are testing its secondary data center. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster.
They switched all traffic to the secondary data center 12 September 2018. On Wednesday, 10 October 2018, they will switch back to the primary data center.
Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while we switch.
You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.
You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Wednesday, 10 October. The test will start a bit after 14:00 UTC (15:00 BST, 16:00 CEST, 10:00 EDT, 07:00 PDT, 23:00 JST). If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message.
This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule. Please share this information with your community. / User:Johan(WMF) ( talk)
12:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
The Anti-Harassment Tools team plans to generate baseline data to determine the effectiveness of blocks and we'd like to hear from users who interact with blocked users and participate in the blocking process to make sure these measurements will be meaningful.
The full commentary and details on how these will be measured are under § Proposed Measurements. For sake of brevity and discussion here are the seven proposed measurements for determining the effectiveness of blocks:
Sitewide blocks effect on a user
Partial block’s effect on the affected users
Partial block’s success as a tool
Are we over-simplifying anything? Forgetting anything important? Talk to us here. SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative ( talk) 15:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
In this edit, I got a warning that I was citing a predatory open-access journal, but the warning didn't indicate which of the six sources I added was the offending one. How do I get more information on that? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=81899&#abstract
is the problem source.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 16:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
4236
which is part of the SCIRP DOI is blacklisted.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 16:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)Hello! This is to announce that Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa, with which I'm working, has launched the II edition of the Wiki4MediaFreedom contest. You can participate by writing articles in the media freedom topic, with particular attention to the access to public information and killed journalists. There's time until November 30th. More information on Meta. -- Niccolò Caranti (OBC) ( talk) 10:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
At Zanzibar, someone has removed the diacritics from the spelling of the Arabic name for the territory. Do we have a guideline as to whether or not to provide the vocalized form? Largoplazo ( talk) 18:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
FYI: Donna Strickland won a Nobel Prize in Physics this week (she's now on our Main page of course). It appeared that she had no enwiki article at the time of Nobel announcement. (It was deleted in 2014 for copyright reasons). - DePiep ( talk) 20:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Kosovo Pomoravlje#Title -- SrpskiAnonimac ( talk) 21:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Why Baidu Baike ( baike.baidu.com) has 16000000 articles but English Wikipedia has 5700000 articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 ( talk • contribs) 15:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
but 16000000 is very big — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 ( talk • contribs) 09:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Does the article " Freestyle battle" need to be a redirect to the article " Battle rap", or? -- SrpskiAnonimac ( talk) 14:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Is it just me, or, are an absurd number drafts (or former drafts) being nominated for peer review recently? Regards, SshibumXZ ( talk · contribs). 03:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Media viewer 2014 the current consensus on Media Viewer? If so, the way for IPs to disable the Media Viewer is highly deceptive (burying it in something that looks like settings) and this may be a violation of consensus. pythoncoder ( talk | contribs) 22:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Dear editors:
I edit a lot of articles about Canadian music subjects, and one of the sources I use regularly is a magazine called Chart Attack. It stopped publishing last year, and now the back issues seem to have disappeared from the web. The Wayback Machine has copies of a lot of the issues, and I am hoping that there is a way to search inside the archive for text within the specific domain "www.chartattack.com".
The links I've already added will all be dead, but I put in complete citations and URLs, so those should be okay for now, and likely one of the bots will come along and link them to the archived pages. However, there are a lot more articles that could benefit from the album reviews, etc., in the magazine, and I need a way to find them. If anyone knows of a way to search the Wayback Machine in this way, please explain. Thanks.— Anne Delong ( talk) 19:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
The Community Wishlist Survey. Please help translate to other languages..
Hey everyone,
The Community Wishlist Survey is the process when the Wikimedia communities decide what the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech should work on over the next year.
The Community Tech team is focused on tools for experienced Wikimedia editors. You can post technical proposals from now until 11 November. The communities will vote on the proposals between 16 November and 30 November. You can read more on the wishlist survey page.
/ User:Johan (WMF)11:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)