This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous).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
Recently I've noticed an increase on the project of something odd (at least to my eyes). As an example If you go into this article City of Adelaide (1864) and open up the image in the infobox, you are taken to a Wikipedia page which holds the image. Inside that there is a link to the Commons file. The link proudly proclaims This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below. Previously you would go straight to the Commons page, giving the same information and more. Can someone tell me what purpose this interim step to Commons serves, and why it even exists? - Broichmore ( talk) 08:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
" Yet there is an inconsistency here...". No, there's no inconsistency. In as much as you've not activated that gadget, the image in that page leads to local landing page. – Ammarpad ( talk) 12:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
This file is used in a number of en.wp articles, but as a free image is hosted at Commons. The issue is that, as it involves global politics, new versions are regularly uploaded that change it, sometimes for legitimate reasons, and sometimes for POV-pushing reasons. It sees far more new versions being added and reverted than most other files on Commons. Every time it is changed for the wrong reason, a dozen Wikipedia articles display it. I'm wondering if ti wouldn't be wiser to host a stable, local version that would only be updated when there is an actual change in a country's government, as opposed to people changing it because they don't like how some of the countries are defined there. Thoughts? Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi:
An article I follow is the target of regular vandalism. I have asked the administrators to get a semi-protection on it. {{pp-pc|small=yes}} was afixed on the article on March 19th which ask for an administrator to revew before the change be visible to non-registered users but it is still visible to registred ones. However, since that time, the article has been vandalized more than 20 times by a large variety of IP and with no good edit. Shouldn't it be impossible to IP and new users to even register edits? How do I ask for better protection?
Pierre cb ( talk) 19:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
In my experience, a lot of Quality Ratings are done in a very slipshod and haphazard way. Today I finished an article Alexander Culbertson, and within a minute it was rated. Can this be the result of a well-thought-out quality review?
Most of the ratings my articles have received do not in any way specify what is missing. If I have a full list of literature, and it's still rated as "Start", I would like to know why they are not good enough.
These are the basic criteria for "Start"-level:
Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use.
I would like the rater to specify what's missing. The aim of the quality review must be to assist in the improvement of the article.
Are these raters self-appointed; many don't seem to know very much about the articles they rate. Is it possible to appeal the rating? Creuzbourg ( talk) 19:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
A new account, which has been editing very usefully with a redlink user name, has now set up a user page describing themselves as an organization. In fact it seems clear only one person is using the account. I spent 10+ minutes hunting for the page that explains why corporate accounts are not allowed, without success. Can someone a) give me the link, and b) sprinkle links to it around the obvious pages on creating accounts, so it is findable by others! Thanks, Johnbod ( talk) 10:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Whenever I come across an article for a Korean/Chinese/Japanese person, it almost always begins with Template:Korean name, Template:Chinese name, or Template:Japanese name (for example, see Xi Jinping). While the information is useful, I wonder whether it's really necessary to provide it in the form of a hatnote. For one thing, it's not really a disambiguation or something else that'd normally be presented as a hatnote. More importantly, as the first thing the reader encounters after the article title, it occupies very valuable space that I think might be better used by the article itself (in other words, it adds clutter). Do you all agree? And if so, how do you think this information should be conveyed if not as a hatnote? - Sdkb ( talk) 04:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Why are user
s given move-rootuserpages
? Without move
, which is not given to new users, they can't move anything, and move-rootuserpages
requires move
to actually work (see
mw:Manual:User rights)? --
DannyS712 (
talk) 01:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Hey! Could someone tell me how to deploy IABot on another language-version of Wikipedia or point me to a page where this process is explained? IABot would be really useful on hr.wiki. -- Hmx hmx 18:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Used correctly, the tool can save valuable time for editors building out understaffed editions — but when it goes wrong, the results can be disastrous. One global administrator pointed to a particularly atrocious translation from English to Portuguese. What is “village pump” in the English version became “bomb the village” when put through machine translation into Portuguese. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 17:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested, see Talk:Chairman#Requested move 8 May 2019. SarahSV (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask, but I'd appreciate some brief input into the discussion at Template talk:TRS-80 and Tandy computers. It's regarding the merits of the changes to the template with respect to its usability and the interpretation of our policies. Thanks.
Ubcule ( talk) 19:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi! Do you have any specific rule regarding the manifestation of disrespect to users working on a certain topic? I mean if a user openly scorns those working on, say, porno- or football-related articles, and disparagingly calls the whole Wikipedia a "pornopedia" or "footballpedia" respectively, without making their attacks any more specific so that they cannot be deemed personal, is that punishable? And if so, which policy or guideline could be applied here?-- Piramidion 14:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Men was recently created and is looking for more participants. -- Netoholic @ 03:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
On the "User contributions" page there is an option "Show contributions of new accounts only". Does anyone know how new an account has to be for its edits to appear there? I have frequently seen edits listed from accounts that have existed for quite a while, and done a significant number of edits, so they clearly don't have to be very new. JamesBWatson ( talk) 20:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
user_id
being >= 99% of the highest (being in the top 1% of newest accounts) --
DannyS712 (
talk) 20:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Genderqueer#Requested_move_1_May_2019
WanderingWanda ( talk) 12:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
As we know, Wikipedia relies (in theory) on donations, usually having an annual fundraiser and a plea for donations from Jimbo Wales to help maintain the website and the Wikimedia Foundation. It's not uncommon, however, that I will occasionally see tendentious editors or vandals threaten Wikipedia or its admins with something along the lines of "I donated to Wikipedia for the past 1/10/100 years. Because you're all treating me so poorly, I will never donate to Wikipedia again!!!". In most cases, this is obvious sour grapes, but the fact that this occurs so frequently leaves me with the impression that people legitimately believe this is a way of inducing substantive change in Wikipedia's policies or their application of them -- sort of an extension of that tired maxim of " the customer is always right", where businesses will supposedly bend over backwards to appease irate customers even if it means firing their own staff.
Do we have an essay along the lines of "Wikipedia cannot be held for ransom", to essentially discourage people from using that as a threat or means of leverage? If not, I would like to create such an essay.-- WaltCip ( talk) 14:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects.
Phase 2 of the consultation has now begun; as such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019/Phase 2. All users are invited to express their views. Individual WikiProjects, user groups and other communities may also consider creating their own requests for comment; instructions are at mw:Talk pages consultation 2019/Participant group sign-up. (To keep discussion in one place, please don't reply to this comment.) Jc86035 ( talk) 14:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I found out today while expanding Freedom of religion by country that the US State Department has reorganized their website, and most (all?) of our citations to reports hosted on that site are now broken. I repaired a bunch of the links on articles that I actively edit, and while that wasn't too difficult my impression is that writing a bot script to take care of this may not be easy, as the regexes needed to both find old broken links and figure out where they should point to now would have to be quite complicated. signed, Rosguill talk 18:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I invite editors here to share their views at Talk:Santa Claus#About Santa Claus. The question is about the community's goals for overall tone of the introduction (i.e., no specific changes have been proposed).
An editor has raised concerns about the use of the word agnostic in its non-religious sense in the RFC question, so – on the belief that I can trust all of you experienced editors not to be biased by this phrasing – please note that the two main options mean something approximately like:
Remember, we want your actual, candid views, so please come tell us what you think! WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I have a user script that displays users who have been blocked with a strikethrough the username (should be default script for everyone IMO). Recently I have been revisiting old AfDs (5+ years ago), and am amazed at how many accounts that participated in the AfD have since been blocked, most of them for sock puppetry. Typically unrelated to the AfD itself but later on justice caught up with them. What it tells me is that in any given AfD with any sort of controversy, there is a very high chance of at least one sock puppet. Not always stacking the vote with multiple accounts but someone gaming the system somewhere somehow taking part in AfD is a regular occurrence. If nothing else it could be quantified and from that perhaps some trends discovered, like what kind of article topics attract puppets or whatever the data reveals. -- Green C 15:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
I am not sure if this is the right spot to post my request. If not, please let me now where else to post it. I am doing a small survey for research purposes at the University of Cologne. It's about community guidelines in social media and collaborative projects, blogs, social networks, content communities, etc. The wiki projects and their communities are a particularly exciting aspect that we would like to investigate. I would be happy if you could find the time to take part in the survey.
NOTES:
1. there has been a recent survey as part of a master's thesis and now we just want to increase the size of the data. Nothing has changed about the survey itself.
2.Since the community guidelines for the different wikis are different, but the other wikis don't have a "bulletin board", I would be happy if you would also answer the questionnaires for other wikis, if you are also active there.
3. completely, completely big thanks in advance :)
Wikipedia-Survey on GoogleForms
-- UniKoln ( talk) 10:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)UniKoln
Our longest article is currently Opinion polling for the 2019 Spanish local elections; today it stands at 628,368 bytes (by way of comparison, the next-longest is 495,195 bytes).
And the Spanish article is still growing; one month ago it was 476,332 bytes.
Attempts to split it into smaller parts have been reverted, and discussion about that on its talk page has stalled.
What is to be done? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I have recently seen a template named Template:Infobox grapheme on English wiki. On looking at the French version of the file (from Wikidata) ( link), it was found that its actually a module and not a template. My doubt is, can a module in one language be a template in other? Adithyak1997 ( talk) 18:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I invite all editors to have their say on whether Assange should be described a journalist. This debate has been going on since 2010, so it would be good to get a decisive response.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I originally posted in the Tea House and it was suggested this belongs here. My situation is simple: I use the Brave browser and I receive Basic Attention Tokens (BAT) for viewing ads. The BAT is meant to be given to publishers and content creators to support their work. I would love to donate my BAT to the Wikimedia Project but it isn't registered with the donation program. Is there a plan to include BAT donations as a means of supporting Wikipedia? It would be great if you did. The Washington Post and VICE are just two of the many publishers already involved. I really think it's worth looking in to. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.171.14.145 ( talk) 17:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I am not against the request-for-funding banners - but why do they only appear on those computers where I am not signed in? WP-name-ians may well be more committed to supporting the institution than IP-ians. 82.44.143.26 ( talk) 16:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
'As a suggestion' a 'sponsor-an-edit-a-thon' set up (including 'minor edits' or not options). 82.44.143.26 ( talk) 15:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
After more than ten years away, I would like to reclaim my old login handle to do a little non-anonymous editing. The problem is that I have forgotten my password, and I cannot recover my password because my email address long ago changed from the one I used to use here. I don't know how you determine that I am genuine and not a troll trying to steal some old user's identity, but I would appreciate any assistance you can give. Thanks. (The system warns against leaving an email address, so I'm not sure how you contact me or I contact you, but I will watch this page. Thanks.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1D00:703:506B:D853:B9AE:1A4E ( talk) 20:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I am an editor on the Afrikaans Wikipedia and have reached the 10 year mark on 6 January 2019. How do I become a member of the Wikipedia:Ten Year Society? Regards! Oesjaar ( talk) 07:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
With the current mass deletion of portals, I have noticed thet many navboxes have links to nonexistent portals. Template:Map projections (to Portal:Map projections) is just one example. I suspect that this issue is large-scale enough that it will require multiple users to carry out. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 04:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on the discussion at WT:TFA about the Main Page for 50th anniversary of Apollo 11. --- Coffeeand crumbs 03:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I posted this suggestion to talk about the offensive usernames. I've recently seen that there are users with these usernames that are not blocked. The reason? Basically, they use these usernames that the administrators doesn't consider it offensive. If some of you search for name "Loli", there will be a lot of pornographic names. More than pornographic, these names are criminous, since they talk about pedophilia, because the word " Loli" means a young girl between 6 and 14 years old. I wish the administrators take more a look at these usernames, also the usernames that have the word "Lolicon" inserted in it. Thanks, 'anonymous user'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.233.122.1 ( talk) 17:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
A few weeks ago, I called up a survey of English Wikipedia users about community guidelines.
The survey is part of my research at the University of Cologne. It's now time to relax, but unfortunately the participation in English Wikipeida users isn't as high as I had hoped.
So if one or the other would take 5 minutes to answer the questions, it would be a great help.
Community Policy Survey
Thank you
--
UniKoln (
talk) 16:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC) UniKoln
Do we know anything about qwerty.wiki? It seems to be a mirror of several major non-English Wikipedias (including French)... is it complying? Should we have an article on it here? There isn't one at fr.wikipedia as far as I can see. Andrewa ( talk) 01:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello to you at gathered at the village pump. The request for comment I posted on the talk page of the New Albion elicited no responses. So I made certain changes to the article. As such, I do believe it is proper to remove the rfc template; however, the instructions are a little vague as to how this should be done. My inclination is to edit the talk page by deleting the template (which is encapsulated within brackets at the top of the page) and then note my actions with a comment. Is this correct? If not, what should I consider? Kind regards to all. Hu Nhu ( talk) 23:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
There is an RfC in progress that has the potential to affect how religion is treated in the infoboxes of many country articles, I urge all to participate in the discussion which is at Talk:Australia#RfC dated 23 June 2019 - Should religion be removed from the infobox?. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 21:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation Research team is planning to run a follow-up survey of Wikipedia readers. You can read more about the first two parts of the study in the meta page linked below or in the following two papers: https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.05379 and https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.00474. We expect no disruptions in the workflow of editors during this study. The survey will ask readers about their motivation for reading as well as a few demographic questions (age, gender, education, place, native language). The survey aims to improve our understanding of the diversity of readers as well as how the needs and experience of Wikipedia readers varies across different populations. We plan to run the survey for a week starting on 2019-06-26. It will sample 1 out of every 100 readers worldwide and 1 out of every 2 readers from countries in Africa (to have a large enough sample in all regions). For questions, feel free to ping Isaac (WMF) or leave a comment on the meta page. Thank you! -- Isaac (WMF) ( talk) 13:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Since "The Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill" in Hong Kong submitted to Legislative Council (LegCo) without listening to the views of the public, I am here asking if the community in Enwiki to do anything to support Hong Kong. It will be a great help and attractable for global media.
Since the unexpected asking, I would like to ask if Wikipedia could be shut down for an hour, or longer if could. If it is impossible, could enwiki have any method else to give Hong Kong people a supportive message?
For people who don't know what the Bill is, let me do a brief please:
This Bill was submitted through the Hong Kong citizen murder case happened in Taiwan (Republic of China, ROC), both of the character are Hong Kong people, and try to extradite the murderer to Taiwan. I used to be a great idea until the LegCo parliamentary found out that it also makes China (People's Republic of China, PRC, or mainland) extradition possible without any human right protection or mainland judicial independence. Any people against PRC government may be prosecuted and extradited, since LegCo was removed from the ordinance of extradition review, and Hong Kong's Court was announced they cannot protect the extradited person's human rights in the other countries.
Any Hong Kong Wikipedia Editors May Be Extradited If the Bill Adopted.
For the Statement made by Wikimedia Community User Group Hong Kong, please click here.
For more professional points of view, please read the following document made by Hong Kong Bar Association:
-- だ*ぜ ( talk) 15:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Did you read latest xkcd comic? -- Agusbou2015 ( talk) 15:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I've had a request to retrieve a deleted article so that an editor can look at the refs they remember seeing on it. However, I can't find the article! I've tried all the usual stuff, but nada. The article is either Abortion law in Mozambique or Abortion in Mozambique. Any help is appreciated! Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 00:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Please note that Vijaya Nirmala died on 27 june according to sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 ( talk) 05:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I have put in a request for local banner notices for US cities hosting the Great American Wiknic this summer at m:CentralNotice/Request/Strategy Wiknic US 2019.-- Pharos ( talk) 01:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I wish people would stop moving hopeless articles to draft space to "incubate", as seems to have become increasingly common. It seems to reflect a lack of understanding of the purpose and value of Draft space and/or a lack of understanding that no amount of "incubating" is going to overcome a lack of notability. Not only is there no benefit to this, it gives false hope to the article's creator, giving the impression that the article's defects lie in its content, and that with due diligence they can fix it up to qualify for the main space. It is terribly unfair to mislead the creator into devoting time and effort to revising and expanding an article to no end.
The latest article of this type to come under my eyes was Findomeet. It was deleted as advertising under WP:CSD#G11 on June 23, then under both G11 and WP:CSD#A7 a couple of hours ago. Less than an hour later, the article apparently having been recreated, someone moved it to Draft:Findomeet with the comment "Undersourced, incubate in draftspace".
It's undersourced because no sources exist. A Google search shows that at most one human being (in contrast to computers relentlessly generating lists) on the entire planet has made even a reference to "findomeet" on any page indexed by Google. Given that finding, it's unlikely that it has achieved coverage anywhere that would qualify the article for inclusion under WP:N. Therefore, no purpose was served in sparing it speedy deletion under A7—and creation-protecting it. While A7 can be remedied through editing, a lack of notability cannot.
Conversely, I also see articles that are reasonably well written and are about topics that will probably meet WP:N being sent to Draft space for being "undersourced". Except for BLPs subject to WP:BLPPROD, needing more sources is not a justification for removing articles from the main space! That's what maintenance tagging is for.
I see this sort of thing happening over and over. Largoplazo ( talk) 14:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
The article Alexander Fleming begins with « Sir Alexander Fleming FRS FRSE FRCS », which seems incorrect to me: as far as I remember, in English usages, "sir" should be used only with the first name (« sir Richard ») but not with the full name. So Fleming is of course entitled to a « sir Richard », but has never been called « Sir Fleming » or worse « Sir Alexander Fleming ». How come the article begins that way, is it a local editorial rule ? Micheletb ( talk) 07:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
"The prefix is used with the holder's given name or full name, but never with the surname alone. For example, whilst Sir Alexander and Sir Alexander Fleming would be correct, Sir Fleming would not."the wub "?!" 13:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
My mistake, I was mixed up with the rule for orally addressing to a "sir". The written form is indeed correct. Micheletb ( talk) 10:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I recently edited an article ( 5G) and added it to my watch list. How-ever, none of my edits (the most recent one listed as current on my contributions page) is not listed on my watch list, nor are any other entries for that page other than an older entry on the 5G talk page. Why is that? Kdammers ( talk) 13:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Talk:1992 Troy State vs. DeVry men's basketball game; Kdammers ( talk) 15:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello i have some questions
1- If an "Example Website" translates almost all articles in English Wikipedia and also almost (not quite) sources of each article at the end of the link, and even links the original article to Wikipedia, Has this "Example Website" infringed English Wikipedia's Copyright? Has something violated? Please provide a full explanation (copyright copy of your English Wikipedia as well as copyrights in general terms)
2. Can that "Example Website" use all of its translations from English Wikipedia to use it commercially (quite commercially)? Along with the precise mention of the resource, Or it is bound to not commercially use them at all?
3. If that "Example Website" that translated the entire or almost all articles in English Wikipedia , write in footer of website "All Rights Reserved, or No Website Has The Right to Use This Web Site Contents". Can its local wikipedia users copy or use "articles translated" into their own language without any permission or concern from the "Example Website" on their own Wikipedia( local wikipedia)? What if this happened, what could the That "Example Website"do for its rights? Kaataanaa ( talk) 18:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
So, can that website translate all articles and all pages (I emphasize all articles and all pages)?
Should all the translations be published under this license This License? Kaataanaa ( talk) 06:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I have created a category 'Category:Warehouses in Netherlands' recently, and soon I found there exists for example Category:Barracks in the Netherlands. As a non-native speaker I need a help:
-- CiaPan ( talk) 07:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
What is it called again when Wikipedia is referenced as a source thus changing the nature or accuracy of information? What is the WP: page for this? ~ R. T. G 17:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Please write to the administrator and tell him that he / she will be restoring the vandalism editorial. As you can see, [1] the article has been kept under discussion, but the administrator who does not accept it removes the article without discussing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.212.234.103 ( talk) 08:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Should articles say someone had a maiden flight or a first flight? See WT:WikiProject Spaceflight#Maiden flight vs. first flight. Johnuniq ( talk) 23:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
(For context: I'm an admin here.) I'm working on a project and I could use others' thoughts on whether it is suitable for a list article on Wikipedia. If not, is there somewhere else within the WMF world that might be better for this, or do people think I should do it elsewhere?
Basically, there is now about a 150-year history of piers, wharves, terminals, etc. on Elliott Bay in Seattle. A portion of this is covered in prose in Central Waterfront, Seattle. During that time, some 200-300 significant structures have come and gone on the bay, with about 50 remaining; many have had more than one name in the course of their history. I've been gathering a ton of reference material attesting the existence of certain structures at certain dates; I'll eventually also be going to newspapers etc. to try to find references for construction and demolition dates, etc. for at least a good number of these.
I want to bring all of this information together in one place. I believe it will work better as ordered list list with footnotes, in an order that more or less matches a circumnavigation of the bay, than any other format. This seems like a much better fit for Wikipedia than (in particular) for Wikidata, because Wikidata is totally unsuited to order this in any sane way.
Do people think this is likely to be acceptable as a list article? It doesn't strike me as obviously either in or out of scope. I really don't want to put days of work into this just to have it deleted. - Jmabel | Talk 01:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
These two articles appear to be duplicates: Dušan Stoiljković (investor) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Dušan Stojanović ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Semper Fi! FieldMarine ( talk) 01:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I want to propose speedy deletion for Talk:List of snooker players by number of ranking titles/Archive 1 but what I have placed there is not working. The talk page has no article. Please help.-- Dthomsen8 ( talk) 17:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Anyone know where online I can find the table of contents of Encyclopedia Britannica? I'm curious about how good our coverage is of those topics. – Anne drew 14:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi!
I religiously read Wikipedia's Main page every day and I have been looking forward to what would be posted for July 21st, 2019, the 50th anniversary of humankind first walking on the Moon.
I was not disappointed!
I want to compliment whoever designed this page because of how they managed to integrate all three of the Apollo 11 astronauts into it, including photos. This was very much a team effort and the page reflects that.
Good Job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.207.175.57 ( talk) 15:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The {{
promotional source}}
inline template contains no directions on its placement. Is it to be placed so that it's visible in the main article next to the ref tag number (e.g., [1][promotional source?) or should it be placed within the <ref> tags so that it displays next to the source's listing in the references section, similar to how dead link is done. Thanks for any info!
Spintendo 09:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Ticket:2019072110001027 informs us about that http://national.soccerhall.org/ ( usage) redirect to a porn site. What can we do? Bencemac ( talk) 08:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
|dead-url=unfit
when adding an |archive-url=
so that the original url is not linked from the rendered citation (cs1|2 templates that already have |archive-url=
should also get |dead-url=unfit
).I often review drafts which are obviously written by somebody in academia. They often suffer from a disconnect between how academics write and what we want in an encyclopedia article. They're highly technical, often carpet-bombed with references, and so on. They may in fact be notable topics, but they're written in a way that makes them unsuitable for us. Do we have a good help page I can point people to which explains how encyclopedia articles differ from research papers? Not so much a, "This is why we're rejecting your draft", but more of a, "Here's how to write a good encyclopedia article about your research interest". -- RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
These are all really good suggestions. Throwing in an additional one—if you are knowledgable in the area that has been over-described in the article, contact the writer via their user page and outline how you are going to revise the article to make it more encyclopedic. I've not done this myself (yet) but it seems like a type of mentoring which could have a positive impact. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 01:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I've stuck a "disputed content" tag on
Western approaches, with comments on the talk page. Is there anywhere that I could highlight this to informed editors who might be familiar with further sources that might clarify what the article should say?
ThoughtIdRetired (
talk) 11:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
An RfC [2] has been closed on Tulsi Gabbard by Red_Slash, yet one editor, SashiRolls, refuses to acknowledge the validity of the closure and edit-wars to remove content agreed-upon in the closure. What should be done?
If this is the wrong board for this, please point me to the correct one. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I hope I've never done this without realizing it in time, but in a few cases, when I typed text in an existing article, instead of the text to the right being pushed to the right, the text that was to the right of where I started typing disappeared, replaced by what I typed.
I guess others are aware this could happen, and it looks like vandalism, but it isn't intentional.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Please help improve the style of the article Dissolution of United States. -- Vyacheslav84 ( talk) 15:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Conduct enforcement is difficult. Certain recent discussions brought up the issue of dealing with user conduct issues from individual users who, due to reputation or status, might be difficult to judge fairly.
While it's often helpful to make judgements in the context of the individual user's history and reputation, it also may sometimes be useful to be able to view some of a user's actions in isolation, seeing only what was done without being influenced by who they are.
Over the past couple of weeks, I wrote a user script called
User:Yair rand/UserBlind.js, which creates a "UserBlind mode", which allows users to view pages with all usernames hidden and replaced with tokens like "[USER #6]". You can enable the script by adding importScript( 'User:Yair_rand/UserBlind.js' );
to your
common.js. Once enabled, you can enter UserBlind mode by going to "Special:UserBlind/" followed by the title of the page you want to view. For example, you can see ANI in userblind mode by going to
Special:UserBlind/WP:ANI.
(The code is somewhat buggy, and I'm not sure it works on all browsers.)
-- Yair rand ( talk) 17:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi! This is a notice that I have nominated myself for the Bot Approvals Group. I would appreciate your input. Thanks! Enterprisey ( talk!) 06:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Colleagues such a question, "The White Man's Burden" is a pure notion of Kipling, or was it a official slogan of the British colonialists? -- Vyacheslav84 ( talk) 12:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello all,
I’m writing to let you know about a new project, IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation, that the Wikimedia Foundation is starting.
Because people in general are increasingly technically advanced and privacy conscious, our users are now more aware of the collection and use of their personal information, and how its misuse may lead to harassment or abuse. The Foundation is starting a project to re-evaluate and enhance protections for user privacy through technical improvement to the projects. As part of this work, we will also be looking at our existing anti-vandalism and anti-abuse tools and making sure our wikis have access to the same (or better) tools to protect themselves.
The project page is on Meta. This project is currently in very early phases of discussions and we don’t have a concrete plan for it yet. We’d like your input. And please share with other people who you think would be interested. SPoore (WMF), Strategist, Community health initiative ( talk) 18:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I deleted an earlier version of User:Jolenep99/sandbox as WP:G11, but now the user is making a request that I'm not sure how to handle. I'm guessing refer them to wikibooks, but I don't want to send them on a wild goose chase if this isn't wikibooks material either. Could somebody who knows wikibooks policy take a look and respond to the user with advice? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Community conversations are an integral part of movement strategy “Wikimedia 2030”. They have been ongoing in multiple formats and in numerous languages over the last 2.5 years. Now it is possible to also contribute to the development of recommendations on structural change via an online survey. We are keeping the survey open for additional 2 weeks and post it to wikis to provide wider opportunities to participate for people interested in it.
The survey is available in 8 languages: Arabic, English, French, German, Hindi, Portuguese, Simplified Chinese, and Spanish. They contain designated questions about each of the nine thematic areas that the working groups are analyzing and drafting recommendations for. You can freely choose the thematic areas you want to contribute and respond to. The survey questions have been created and designed by the members of the working groups.
Here is the link to the survey.
Here you can find more information about the survey.
With any questions, please contact me on my meta user talk page.
Thank you for your kind attention! -- KVaidla (WMF) ( talk) 14:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Last Friday, July the 26th, a rank-and-file State Duma lawmaker of the ruling United Russia faction introduced a bill imposing certain restrictions on significant information resources, including one that the said resource's "technical means" be located in Russia, and that that foreign entities or citizens, or international organizations own no more than 20 shares in the resource owner's charter capital unless the owner obtains an increase of that limit by submitting a substantiated request; for details, see this story and the bill's page on the State Duma website containing a 16-page PDF file with copy-able Russian text.
So, does the WMF have any form of capital, or anything that Russian authorities could classify as a foreign analogue of charter capital? (If no, then Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects would likely be outside of the bill's formal scope). The current version of the bylaws seems to say nothing about this, but would like to have someone, preferably a Foundation employee or representative answer this question. I know that both houses of the Russian Federal Assembly are in summer recess until September, but I think this issue should be addressed as soon as possible. -- Синкретик ( talk) 22:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation Research and Product teams are planning to run a survey of Wikipedia editors. The survey aims to provide the Foundation and communities with better data about the balance of gender within the editor population and how on-going efforts are affecting this balance. Logged-in users who are randomly sampled will see a small box while reading articles that asks them a single question about their gender. They will have the option to dismiss the survey or answer (including the option to self-identify with their preferred terminology). No information about which specific users see or respond to the survey will be collected.
We are hoping that the simplicity of this survey and low barrier to response will result in a more representative sample than past research efforts (see links on the meta page) or from statistics based on the user-preference, which is not widely used in some languages, and help us understand biases in these complementary efforts.
We plan to run the survey for two weeks starting on 31-July-2019. It will sample 1 out of every 10 logged-in users. For questions, feel free to ping Isaac or leave a comment on the meta page. Thank you! -- Isaac (WMF) ( talk) 15:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
EXIF info of Wikimedia Commons files produce links to wikipedias (enwp when UI language is English; other wp and enwp at the same time when UI is another language). When I wanna know what camera/phone it actually is, I click. File:Mysore 1 26.jpg this file's EXIF links to A1601, which is a model number of Oppo F1s. However, iPad Mini 3 uses the same number. Is DAB suitable for this purpose?-- Roy17 ( talk) 14:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
After I cleaned up regular articles, only three articles are still using <categorytree> tags, all outlines: Outline of German language, Outline of Esperanto, and Outline of Korean language. Normally I would expect outlines to have their own content independent from categories. Klarst, who has edited all three articles, has objected on Talk:Outline of Esperanto, saying that they are useful, but it's unclear to me why or whether these particular outlines are special. How do other editors feel about this? (This tag causes the listing of pages from the category to be transcluded into the outline.) -- Beland ( talk) 18:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
This is on labeling certain models as "supermodel" in their lead paragraphs. I personally think they shouldn't be labeled as such even though their supermodel status are rock solid like Bundchen and Schiffer. Being a supermodel is not a job per se, you don't label someone a "superstar" or a "sex symbol" as form of identification in the lead paragraph. It will also lead to other models-of-the-moment to be labeled as "supermodel" based on random articles here and there. Thoughts? Maxen Embry ( talk) 10:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead. (And on the subject of Jack Upland's example of poster child, the featured article Ryan White describes White as a poster child (in the metaphorical sense) in the lead...)
When there is a discussion, editors often say "Oppose as per Smith". However, the guidelines state these discussion are not a "vote", and the numbers do not by themselves determine the outcome. Also, we are told to avoid WP:IDON'TLIKEIT responses. However, someone who says "Oppose as per Smith" is merely seconding Smith, giving his opinion a vote. And the post, given that it has no reasoning, could be called a "I don't like it" comment. So why do editors do it and is it a valid response?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I have experience closing, and here's how I handle it. I consider "Oppose as per Smith" to represent a copy-paste of whatever Smith said. If Smith gave a solid policy-based rationale, fine, you're agreeing-with-and-repeating a solid policy-based rationale. However if Smith gave a junk vote, then "Oppose as per Smith" is a copy-paste of a junk vote. Two junk votes aren't worth much more than one junk vote. As for votes with no explanation at all, most of the time it doesn't matter but it's a bad idea and you're taking a bit of a risk by doing it. It's a very fragile !vote. A closer has a lot of freedom to devalue bare votes if they have any concerns. I generally consider a bare vote to be a vague reflection of the other !votes on the same side. If that side is presenting solid arguments and validly citing policy, I'll generally accept the bare-vote as implicitly reflecting those same arguments. If a side is making junk arguments, then the bare vote is (at best) reflecting those junk arguments. If a side has nothing but bare votes, then there's nothing to reflect. If it's a trivial issue, if the proposal presented a clear rational, then the bare votes may be simple and obvious enough to accept. But if there's a genuine issue to debate, if the other side makes reasonable arguments, then a side with nothing but bare votes is at jeopardy of counting for ZERO for failing to present any argument at all. I don't frivolously throw away !votes, but my job is to serve the community and try to give the community-as-a-whole the result that it wants, in light of policy. If I have concerns that there's a problem with the RFC, a problem with the voting, a problem with the rationales, then you want to make sure that you gave a solid rationale. I once issued a strong consensus in favor of a 10 minority vs 20, because the 10 gave rationales in line with policy and the 20 were almost all canvassed SPAs with arguments that were worthless-under-Policy. Alsee ( talk) 00:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Do we have a policy of users crowdfunding for their work on Wiki? Let say I see a user who works on X topic articles, x topics for some reason have been neglected, and this user has a crowdfunding account so that people may donate to their work on X topics. Let me clarify, I have not and have no intentions of having interactions with this user. I could not find a policy on this issue. Do we have a policy? If yes, what is it and if not, should we? Thanks. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 16:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I am looking for Beethoven's variations for the piano related to the second movement of his
Piano Sonata No. 24 in F♯ major, Op. 78, nicknamed à Thérèse. Sir
András Schiff talks about the variations and performs some notes of the work
here in a lecture-recital (11:10
to 11:40).
May somebody help me find the "Variations"? —
Hamid Hassani (
talk) 09:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm new to editing on Wikipedia - been at it for a few weeks now. My primary interest (for now, at least) is to contribute to existing pages or create new pages for novels and authors that have been neglected thus far. But my question is if there is a group that I have yet to discover where Fiction-focused editors talk about ideas for pages and general contributions. I know about the Novel category Talk page, and other similar variations, however these all seem to be rather formal. I'm more interested in a less formal group for discussing page and contribution ideas. I know this might be a bit too niche, but thought I'd at least ask since I feel like the community sections of Wikipedia are extremely intricate and I've only discovered a small portion of it thus far. Honestly, I'm just looking for some editing camaraderie. Feel like I'm editing in a bubble outside a couple of users I've run into in passing. ANDROMITUS ( talk) 17:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
See User talk:Jimbo Wales#Diversity Working Group calls for the end of Wikipedia's availability as freely and openly licensed. BethNaught ( talk) 19:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Not sure where else to post this, so move it as necessary. There's a shortcut to our hatnote policy at Wikipedia:RELATED, but very confusingly there is a page Wikipedia:Related which has been marked historical since 2010 and seems to have never gained much traction. Since people keep linking to WP:Related when they mean WP:RELATED I think it's better that we turn the historical page into a redirect. Is there some pressing need to retain the page that I'm unaware of? Wug· a·po·des 22:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Good day everyone! I have a question about creating an article in Wikipedia English for a public user who does not create a Wikipedia account. Can they freely publish articles like any other Wikipedia language? Or there are:
Hoping for your responses!
CyberTroopers (
talk) 05:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
'createpagemainns'
right, so yes, the software prevents them from creating new articles. If they do wish to write articles they may request for another editor to create one at
Requested articles or submit a draft through the
Article wizard, where it is reviewed by
articles for creation volunteers.Is there a way to list the new users made after a certain date?
Say, I wanted to list the new editors on en.wp after, say, 6 October, 2018; is there any way to do that?
There is a list for "new article pages" (which, incidentally, would be much more useful if we could also search from a certain date), but I find nothing similar for new users.
Huldra ( talk) 21:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe this is a perennial discussion. If it is, I'll be happy to just get some pointers to previous discussions. Are not indefinite blocks excessive sometimes? Over time I've seen some indefinite blocks for users who did some kind of mild WP:NPA violation and in the recent heat of the block, they didn't really stay calm, which made their initial indef block appeal fail or turn a temp block into an indef one. I'm not sure if I'm just seeing anecdotical evidence here, but it seems that unblock requests are unlikely to be granted even if requested after a few years (without socking in the meantime, of course). Isn't that excessive? I see the point for indefinite blocks with recurrent sockmasters, harassers, etc, but for a lot of other cases, shouldn't we give a chance after some time? -- MarioGom ( talk) 22:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
How do I make the gender survey go away? I answered it previously, and that did it, but now it is back. I don't want to bias the results by answering every time it thinks it needs to ask me again (because I'm on a different ip, maybe?) If I am having this issue, surely others are as well, and likely some of them are responding multiple times to the survey, making the results suspect at best. Finally, there must be a better place to be discussing all this, but I don't see it on CENT or know an easy way to find where the survey discussion is happening. Ladyof Shalott 03:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
mw.storage.set('ext-quicksurvey-editor-gender-1-en', '~')
. If others are having this issue and it is not related to switching browsers or deleting browser cookies, don't hesitate to let me know as well so I might get a sense of how pervasive this is. --
Isaac (WMF) (
talk) 15:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
The survey itself serves no purpose, other then to divide editors. Now, one can't get rid of it, even if one has already answered it. Quite frustrating. GoodDay ( talk) 13:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I wrote an essay on the dangers of the supervolunteer, User:Geo Swan/The supervolunteer. I've written a bunch of userspace essays, some of which other people have linked to. But I was wondering whether this one merited being placed in the wikipedia namespace - once other people had had their say about it.
If other people looked at this, and there was some general agreement with it, could it just be moved to the wikipedia namespace? Is there a formal procedure for moving a essay to wikipedia space/
What is a supervolunteer? Short version: because they do more than their share they feel an extra sense of entitlement, entitled to blow off some rules...
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 22:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
It must be my fault that the three of you understood my key point. It seems you all think I am concerned for the well-being of volunteers who do so much they exhaust themselves. That is not my point. My point is that some volunteers, who see themselves doing more than their share, end up really damaging the project, because they rationalize doing more than their share entitles them to stop complying with some of our rules.
Can't you think of prolific contributors, who end up being bullying other contributors?
FWIW, I too would be part of the 1 percent of contributors who adds new content.
So, should I changed the title from "supervolunteers" to "extreme volunteers" or "toxic volunteers", or something like that? Geo Swan ( talk) 06:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Please take a minute to think about this? Never?
Never?
You are lucky then.
No one is claiming here that every person who does more than their share starts acting like their extra efforts justify them acting as if the rules don't apply to them. But, trust me, if you really can't think of anyone whose sense of entitlement makes them an overall negative factor for the wikipedia, these individuals do exist. And, in my opinion, it would really be a good idea if we had an essay that helped people recognize the supervolunteers who push, bend, or massively breach our policies, out of a misplaced sense of entitlement.
Neither Wikipedia:No vested contributors or Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable has any advice for those targetted by a super-entitled supervolunteer either.
You are an administrator, so you are protected from bullying from supervolunteers who feel empowered by a toxic sense of super-entitlment. Please bear in mind the difficulties of those who are not administrators. Geo Swan ( talk) 20:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
+
and -
numbers to decide how much was contributed, rather than actually parsing who wrote which words on a page. They discuss a different formula in Appendix A.)
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 04:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)@ Justlettersandnumbers and RHaworth: I'm sure neither of you meant any harm, and please pardon me for using you as an example. It's not my intent to beat you up in public, but I'm going to take this opportunity to remind people to be nice to our newest editors. We recently had User:FNH200Team8 create an account and write a draft as part of a school project. The draft wasn't in line with our guidelines, and neither was their username. But, both of these were totally innocent mistakes. Instead of getting help and support, what they got was their draft speedied and their account blocked.
I've been seeing a lot of school projects happening here on wikipedia lately. This is A Good Thing. Far from being Eternal September, the quality of work is often exceptional. Even when it's not, it's almost always a huge step above the everyday deluge of spam we see. We really should be putting more effort into encouraging these school projects, which means going out of our way to show them how things work and navigate our byzantine collection of rules and policies. That doesn't mean we accept everything they do. Indeed, that would be a poor outcome for both the encyclopedia and for their education. But, more teaching and less biting would be nice. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
All those userspace drafts need to be deleted under G5. Can you be more specific? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Many of them have stuff added that would be inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Well, that's true of the vast amount of crap that people write, especially in draft space.
I'm guessing you're more concerned about things like User:Rose08080/sandbox which do indeed duplicate existing articles. But, people work on new ideas for existing articles in their user sandboxes all the time. Most of them probably go nowhere. Some evolve into new improved versions that can replace the one in mainspace to the benefit of the encyclopedia. I'm actually impressed with the process here. I'm always telling people to start by researching sources and then write the article from the sources. And that looks like exactly what this author did. If they got that part right but messed up on every other one of our processes, I'd say they're off to a good start.
I just don't see the problem, and can't see how this comes anywhere near to a Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host. If you want to push the boundaries of blocking policy and WP:CSD, There's tons of WP:UPE, WP:PROMO, WP:POV and otherwise WP:NOTHERE in draft space that would benefit from some over-eager blocking and deleting. A bunch of students stumbling around trying to learn how to write encyclopedia articles is the wrong place to be swinging the banhammer wildly. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey Everyone,
I wanted to leave a heads up that there will be banners running for a few hours tomorrow relating to a livestream of the Wikimania Keynote. Apologies for the short notice. This banner will be low impact in design, showing every other impression and limited to 1 page view globally. This will be at a high rate in Nordic countries but limited to 5 impressions. This will be for an hour or so in the morning and the same in the afternoon. Seddon (WMF) ( talk) 02:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Think I know the answer to this question, but am going to ask anyway. Is there a way to save articles for later editing and/or reading on the site's desktop version like there is for the mobile app? ANDROMITUS ( talk) 18:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I'm requesting that the field "Yearbook" be permanently added to the school specific infobox template! Many have legacy names and I'd like to be able to update without creating a new and unlinked field each time. DogLuna ( talk) 20:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I remember 2,000,000 articles celebration at a covention. Is a 6,000,000 articles celebration planned?-- Dthomsen8 ( talk) 21:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello all! On 29 and 30 August, the Wikimedia Foundation will be conducting two experimental and short one-hour banners. These will be shown only to non-logged-in readers on the mobile web version of Wikipedia, and will help us determine which readers on mobile devices would prefer the Wikipedia app as an extension of their experience on the site. I'll be monitoring this page for any questions and/or feedback. Thank you! Ed Erhart (WMF) ( talk) 17:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I found a sentence I paraphrase as "She is a distinguished alumni from university XYZ." But alumni is plural. Is this an attempt to avoid using alumna? Should it be changed to singular? Thank you. RJFJR ( talk) 14:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
{{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=Chaud321|U1-employer=Hot Tomato Marketing|U1-client=Booster Fuels|U1-otherlinks=http://hottomato.net.}} Hi! Hope you can help me. On Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid editor help it says, "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference." Is this true? I am a PR representative (paid) who currently uses this page. Just wanted to check! Chaud321 ( talk) 18:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey all,
As I announced on the wikimediaindia-l back in June, we are planning to return to fundraising in India in 2020. Next week, in addition to our weekly Wednesday tests, we will be running some small and brief pre-tests in India to test out our payment infrastructure and to gauge response to our localized messaging.
For our India campaign, we have gathered feedback from CIS, focus groups, and community members but you can also send feedback regarding the fundraising campaign directly on my talk page. Your feedback might not make it into the banners for the 2 hour tests, but we will definitely factor it into our campaign for next year. Many Thanks Seddon (WMF) ( talk) 16:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
I am a Doctorate student studying the effect of the newly formed peer production setting and its effect on lowering unethical behavior in Economics.
My aim is to interview people who volunteer their time in open source/PP projects (Wikipedia, Git hub, bitcoin or any other open source projects using volunteers/collaborators).
I will generally ask questions related to the nature of the job/project as a volunteer compared to a contracted employee who for example is working in a similar project using normal company market settings. For example working in a 3D printing company vs. collaborating with an open source 3D design platform.
Questions will tackle: size of task, size of job description, time and resources allocated, incentives and other aspects.
The interviews will be focused on capturing your point of view, my role is a 3rd person trying to objectively capture your experience as much as possible.
Finally, I will be very grateful for any collaboration, the data from your experiences and interviews will be greatly valuable.
Hopefully, we will be able to prove that working in a peer production/open source setting reduces unethical behavior in the work environment.
MD — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayssamD ( talk • contribs) 20:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
There was a proposal, in July 2019, to deprecate webcitation. WP:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_159#RfC:_Deprecate_webcitation.org_aka_WebCite.
The major justifications for this proposal were, it had gone done, for an extended period of time, and, when the site became available, it was only serving already archived pages, and not accepting new pages.
If I am reading that archived proposal correctly, it was not passed.
If I am not mistaken, while most non-profits, for instance whoever runs webcitation.org, are cash-poor, struggle to get enough donations, the WMF is cash proud. Some years ago, when webcitation had some funding problems, I wondered whether the WMF would consider disbursing some of its funds, to make sure the archive links we counted on from webcitation.org continued to work.
In the July discussion some respondents asserted the loss of webcitation wasn't significant, because it was less frequently used than archive.org, the so-called wayback machine. Personally, while archive.org is my first choice of archiver, there are webpages that archive.org won't archive, that webcitation will archive. I don't know why this is. I've wondered about it, wondered whether archive.org complies more strictly to no-robots.
For years webcitation was the only archive service I knew about, and the only one I used. So, there may be thousands of references I created which rely on webcitation. While a robot could go searching for references to webcitation archives, and try to replace them with archive.org archives...
Presumably the WMF could be running its own archive server, so the wikipedias never had to rely on any third party archive servers. I am guessing this must have been considered, at some point, and there was a strong reason not to do so. Maybe it was so the WMF had plausible deniability if the original copyright holders complained an archive violated their copyright.
Does anyone know how common it is for copyright holders to complain archives at webcitation or archive.org violate their copyright?
Has webcitation.org had more outages, since the July discussion? Geo Swan ( talk) 01:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:OnlyOffline#Uses. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Over the past year, the Readers web team at the Wikimedia Foundation has been working on an advanced mode for editors on mobile.
This mode adds more editing and contribution functionality to the mobile website. Prior to these changes, this functionality was only available on the desktop site.
This new mode is now available on your wiki. To try it, go to your Mobile Options page and select “Advanced mode” ( picture).
Advanced mode contains the following features:
We encourage you to try out Advanced mode and give feedback on the project page.
Yours, CKoerner (WMF) ( talk) 16:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
The Wikipedia search function doesn't seem to be quite optimal. When I search on this pattern:
Catalogue of two dimentional spectral types for the HD stars 2
I get no results. However, if I search on this:
Catalogue of two dimensional spectral types for the HD stars 2
I get 539 matches. The only difference is one letter: the 't' in dimentional. Praemonitus ( talk) 20:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I have an unusual situation and can't figure out where to ask.
I asked what to do about World oil market chronology from 2003 getting too long. It appears the recommended action is to take most of the details out and put them in smaller articles covering shorter time periods. Each smaller article would have to refer back to the parent article, which would seem to be a use for the main template. At the same time, the brief summaries of each group of years would seem to need a link to the longer detailed information, which seems also to be a use for the main template.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I just WP:G11'd User:Kdashtipour/sandbox. The author went so far as to create a wikidata entry for himself, which is likewise spam. I'm not up on wikidata process, but I assume they've also got some G11-ish process to fight spam? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
I spent the last year developing a new web app called anno.wiki (backend MariaDB, Python/Flask) for annotation wikis on public domain literature. I emailed Wikimedia ten days ago about it and they pointed me here for help/advice.
The app works. It's definitely got bugs, because, well, software. But I have no idea where to go next to start attracting users to build up annotations. I posted to Reddit ( r/shakespeare) last weekend and generated all of 13ish upvotes and some complimentary comments, but my user base has gone nowhere. I understand that this will be hard, and that it might take a long time, but I don't know where to go next. Building it was hard (I learned Python on the job), but at least I knew what I had to do from one step to the next.
My first thought is to start emailing literature professors around the country with an interest in classical literature (there are some I've seen with an interest in "humanities computing" which seems perfect). But this doesn't seem likely to be received well.
My second thought is Hacker News but this seems dumb to me. It is very possible that I could blow up to the front page but the HN Hug of Death would mean bringing my one dyno down with hits but probably yield very very few users.
I'm entirely self-funded, have no way of getting donations yet (the patreon account is still sitting dormant with no donations page) and don't make a lot of money. A sustained advertising campaign is likely very outside my personal financial abilities, though I could swing a $100 campaign if I had to. Right now I'm at $26 a month for hosting with Heroku.
Any advice or help would literally be a godsend. Malan88 ( talk) 17:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello.
I made a page in the namespace 8 of en.Wikipedia in a regular fashion for a pretty routine task. A powerful functionary deleted it citing
WP:CSD#G3. What can I do to undelete the page—importantly, including both history and Special:Log/delete record—to have a publicly viewable piece? Preferably the page should be immediately
userfied. May a (very bold) volunteer having the sysop flag do the job expecting some reward from the transparency knights? I was largely out-of-touch with the site for years and may miss important caveats for cases where bosses have some stake.
Incnis Mrsi (
talk) 16:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
The recent history of the article "Ranaghat" shows a lot of additions to the lists of "Notable People", radical pruning by me of one list, and effective (although not necessarily deliberate) reversion of this pruning.
I pruned because in my experience lists of non-linked or red-linked people can easily include the very dubiously notable ("ex-bassist of [a bluelinked but obscure rock group]"), worthy but non-notable citizens ... and shading off into mere boosterism, with contributors' employers, uncles, etc. I was sure there was a guideline about this, somewhere.
When reverted, I thought: Time to find and cite that guideline! But I couldn't find it. Had I just hallucinated its existence?
Here's my own idea of a list of people: List of street photographers. Unless somebody has been fiddling with this list of mine, every person is bluelinked, and every inclusion is backed up with a reference. A list, or lists, of "Notable People" within some other article might have different standards, but I can't immediately imagine how they could be beneficial. On the other hand I appreciate that I can't simply mandate my own preferences across Wikipedia: WP:OWN, collegiality, and all that.
So, what are the (unwritten?) rules or guidelines? (Or aren't there any?) And if there aren't, should redlinked/nonlinked people be listed? -- Hoary ( talk) 12:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines.' (excuse: 'but the list is notable, it does not say that the items in the list need to be notable. The items need to be verifyable, here, I am a carpenter, it is on my LinkedIn, done, you verified it!').
A company or organization may be included in a list of companies or organizations whether or not it meets the Wikipedia notability requirement, unless a given list specifically requires this. If the company or organization does not have an existing article in Wikipedia, a citation to an independent, reliable source should be provided to establish its membership in the list's group(similarly in WP:LISTPEOPLE). Excuse is then often 'but this is not a company, this is a product', and that people do not understand the concept 'independent, reliable source': 'Look, I published it in Nature, Nature is an independent source, and it is reliable'. There is way too much wriggle space, I would strongly advocate to make that more general requirements so we can enforce what goes in a list, any list. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 13:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
For the first time in 3 years there is a drive underway to try and help and reduce the backlog of Good Article nominees. Please consider joining us. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
The University of Cambridge Project is now inactive. How could this Project, or indeed any Project become active again.-- Dthomsen8 ( talk) 15:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by the plural title of Yazidis but don't want to reinvent the wheel. The article was moved to the plural
19:31, 28 August 2014 DrKay talk contribs block 37 bytes +37 DrKiernan moved page Yazidi to Yazidis: requested move
but I cannot find the RM in question, I have looked but maybe best not to say exactly where in case I'm missing it.
A second pair of eyes would be appreciated. TIA Andrewa ( talk) 06:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey all. File:Squadron2020 rendering.jpg is currently used as a free use file. However, as I see it, it would fall under Template:PD-FinlandGov, as it is a part of a statement of a public body. What do you guys think, could it be moved to Commons? There's some talk around PD-FinlandGov on Commons, but I couldn't find anything relevant. ( talk) 13:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Dear all
C:Category:Media files produced by UNESCO: 2019-09
I’m very pleased to say that the first batch of 100 very high resolution photos (plus descriptions) from the UNESCO archives has been uploaded to Commons by our friends at Wikimedia Sweden. There are some amazing photos in this first batch including Italian National Archives material being washed and dried in a train station after a flood, and the installation of a Henry Moore sculpture. We would really appreciate it if you could take 5 minutes to add some to Wikipedia articles, Wikidata items etc so that UNESCO will be encouraged to make more images available.
C:Category:Media files produced by UNESCO: 2019-09
Thanks very much
John Cummings ( talk) 18:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm curious. Why are Category:Queen's Counsel and subcat names not plural? They are sets of people.-- Roy17 ( talk) 13:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay - I have run contests over the past 7 years: the Core Contest (which I coordinated for seven runs—twice in 2012, once each in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017), the Stub Contest (in December 2013, September 2014 and August 2015) and Take the lead! (January 2016). I get a grant of $250 and folks have a chance of winning some $25 Amazon vouchers. Thought it was time to run one again but couldn't figure out which...I keep yo-yoing so I thought I'd just throw it out there...
See User_talk:Casliber#Running_a_contest_(talk_page_watchers_welcome) Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
For the next ~24 hours the Financial Times has dropped its paywall. A great opportunity for Wikimedians needing to check sources (or submit them to the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine)! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey there. The second (September) iteration of draft recommendations ( m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Recommendations) are published at Meta-wiki. What we reviewed and discussed in the past month was the first (August) iteration. Now is your time to review the current (second) iteration of the recommendations. -- George Ho ( talk) 11:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd love some comments on this. Maybe I misunderstand the Wikipedia policies, but at least some of the content seems relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natemup ( talk • contribs) 16:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation Research team is planning to run a follow-up survey of Wikipedia readers. We ran the first iteration of this survey in June (see description on meta) and it was determined that the survey should be run for a longer period of time (but at a much lower sampling rate) to more uniformly reach infrequent readers.
We expect no disruptions in the workflow of editors during this study. The survey will ask readers about their motivation for reading as well as a few demographic questions (age, gender, education, place, native language). The survey aims to improve our understanding of the diversity of readers as well as how the needs and experience of Wikipedia readers varies across different populations. We plan to run the survey for one month starting on 2019-09-26. It will sample 1 out of every 1200 readers. For questions, feel free to ping Isaac (WMF) or leave a comment on the meta page. Thank you! -- Isaac (WMF) ( talk) 14:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Is there some way to filter just Monkbot's Task 16 busy-work out of my watchlist? It's getting in the way! Largoplazo ( talk) 23:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
The Chirac (died Thursday, Sept 26) article is deemed not fit for "Recent deaths (mainpage) linking (see WP:In_the_news discussion). Seems to do with reference issues, though not well specified. If you can improve the article references, please help. Chirac not on the mainpage is a serious omission. - DePiep ( talk) 12:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I am an editor located in mainland China where Wikipedia is blocked. I need to use proxy IP to edit English Wiki. Through the help from another editor, I got the English Wiki local IPBE 6 months ago. It is going to expire soon. The editor who helped me out sonehow is no longer active. Could anyone can tell me how to renew my English Wiki local IPBE ? Thanks! 钉钉 ( talk) 05:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. 钉钉 ( talk) 12:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Please move the content from draft about Alexandru Darie to a wikipedia article. He is notable enough because he was one of the most important theatre directors from Romania. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 ( talk) 17:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
In a recent statement, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees requested that staff hold a consultation to "re-evaluat[e] or add community input to the two new office action policy tools (temporary and partial Foundation bans)".
Accordingly, the Foundation's Trust & Safety team invites all Wikimedians to join this consultation and give their feedback from 30 September to 30 October.
How can you help?
We offer our thanks in advance for your contributions, and we hope to get as much input as possible from community members during this consultation!
-- Kbrown (WMF) 17:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
The talk page template {{WikiProject South Africa |class=Stub |importance=Mid |PSP SA=yes|PSP SA-priority=mid}} results in Stub-Class South Africa articles, Mid-importance South Africa articles, Stub-Class PSP SA articles, and Unknown-importance PSP SA articles as categories at the top of the talk page, but Unknown-importance PSP SA articles is the result, regardless of the final parameter |PSP SA-importance=mid or |PSP SA-priority=mid. Should Unknown-importance PSP SA articles not appear, or maybe there a correct parameter to produce an importance? Perhaps this is actualy a bug, or perhaps there is a correct parameter that I cannot guess. What can other editors tell me about this situation?-- Dthomsen8 ( talk) 21:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I believe it was either a prank or a test first added by 86.26.9.129 ( talk): special:diff/286460068. It has polluted other websites. special:redirect/page/22645740 should be deleted. Any geologists/historians have reliable books on Wegener to confirm?-- Roy17 ( talk) 20:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I just noticed that quite a few dab pages of saint names are in Category:Disambiguation pages with surname-holder lists (what a convoluted cat name); for example, Saint Louis and St. Jacques. While there are people whose surname is Louis, I don't think this applies to Saint Louis. It is not like, “Tell me Mr. Louis, why did your parents call you 'Saint'?"; if anything, his surname was Capet.
Is this something that ought to be fixed? If so, is Category:Disambiguation pages with given-name-holder lists the appropriate cat? -- Lambiam 23:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
While I have never to my knowledge consumed had one of these comestibles, I have read the articles both here and es:Empanadas - there seems to be a lot of content relating to the legality of empanadas in the Spanish Wikipedia that we don't have. Moreover it seems there is an Internet meme "I only came to say I am selling empanadas" which does not seem documented on either Wiki, though it is used as vandalism .
Any volunteers to improve one or both articles? All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 16:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC).
I don't know if this is the right place to post this, but the current edition of Click (TV programme) has an interesting segment on this - 5 mins or so, at the top. I expect available wherever their news channel is, & maybe online. link on UK site. Johnbod ( talk) 15:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Here is the BBC News link. It is indeed very worrisome that a state entity makes a concerted and organized effort to control WP. This will undermine WP's independence and credibility. What is the community and Wikimedia doing about this? -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
The iOS version of the Wiki mobile app has a section displaying the most read articles. According to that, the Apple Network Server is currently #1, and was #2 yesterday.
Bug in mobile version? Or is something going on on the 'net I can't find?
Maury Markowitz ( talk) 12:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
When all article titles (~ 5.9 million) are sorted alphabetically the last one in the list is 黑山 -- Green C 03:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
The folks that work on Amazon Alexa (which relies heavily on Wikipedia) have sent us some data on missing infobox parameters. Specifically, which prominent parameters are missing from high traffic articles. I've posted the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes/Missing parameters. Ryan Kaldari (WMF) ( talk) 23:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I have applied for a grant from WMF to subsidize a personal project to request digitization and upload films in the Library of Congress collection to Commons. I would appreciate your feedback and support.--- Coffeeand crumbs 02:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not shure where to report this, but this page seems to be ok. For about a month IP user 31.205.59.15 is adding a word then deleting the word, then adding the same word again, and then deleting it, ... (in another article it can be a group of words). All articles are from members of the Thai Royal Family. -- FredTC ( talk) 06:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
(Repost). Quite a few dab pages of saint names are in Category:Disambiguation pages with surname-holder lists, for example, Saint Louis and St. Jacques. While there are people whose surname is Louis, I don't think this applies to Saint Louis. I am pretty sure "Louis" was a given name; if anything, his family name was Capet. Is this something that ought to be fixed? If so, is Category:Disambiguation pages with given-name-holder lists the appropriate cat? -- Lambiam 23:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Please help translate to other languages.
Hello. The Readers Web team at the WMF will work on some improvements to the desktop interface over the next couple of years. The goal is to increase usability without removing any functionality. We have been inspired by changes made by volunteers, but that currently only exist as local gadgets and user scripts, prototypes, and volunteer-led skins. We would like to begin the process of bringing some of these changes into the default experience on all Wikimedia projects.
We are currently in the research stage of this project and are looking for ideas for improvements, as well as feedback on our current ideas and mockups. So far, we have performed interviews with community members at Wikimania. We have gathered lists of previous volunteer and WMF work in this area. We are examining possible technical approaches for such changes.
We would like individual feedback on the following:
We would also like to gather a list of wikis that would be interested in being test wikis for this project - these wikis would be the first to receive the updates once we’re ready to start building.
When giving feedback, please consider the following goals of the project:
As well as the following constraints:
Please give all feedback (in any language) at mw:Talk:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements
After this round of feedback, we plan on building a prototype of suggested changes based on the feedback we receive. You’ll hear from us again asking for feedback on this prototype.
Thank you! Quiddity (WMF) ( talk)
07:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
We could have new Pokémon based on templates and an evil team of vandals who are out to harm the integrity of the site. I call it Pokémon: Wiki! Cause if 4chan gets one, why can’t we? Derpdart56 ( talk) 23:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
okay, this was a bad idea Derpdart56 ( talk) 20:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I think we should have more eyes on a discussion at WT:WikiProject Climate change#Nomination of_Wikimedia community for award. This is about "nominating the Wikimedia community for the 2019 "Climate Change Public Outreach Award" from Climate Outreach." ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 01:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
46.211.141.13 and 46.211.152.72 have had no prior history of editing on Wikipedia, but both have come onto Template:Arianespace launches attempting to reinstate edits made by 217.30.192.8 which I had problems with, and reverted as part of the bold, revert, discuss cycle. It's extremely unlikely that two different real editors have come onto the scene out of the blue within such a short timespan on a relatively low-traffic page with the same exact, identical agenda. Thus, I'm almost certain that 217.30.192.8 is sock puppeting as 46.211.141.13 and 46.211.152.72. I'm inexperienced in dealing with sock puppets, so I've come to ask, what should my next actions be in this situation? – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 07:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Here's the fascinating discussion at this RfC, Apparently theoretically the internet is not a proper name, but the world kinda considered that it might be for a while. What do you think? -- [E.3] [chat2] [me] 13:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
Apologies if this is the wrong way to raise this.
The Stonewall (Charity) wikipedia page has been substantially rewritten over the last few days. From the edits it seems clear that there's a significant POV issue regarding the recent controversy over Trans rights in the UK, with the article being rewritten to favour the anti-Trans activists' POV. This includes a section on Stonewall's supposed "split", alleging that Anti-Transgender group LGB Alliance splintered off from Stonewall. This is clearly inaccurate
Thanks-- 130.209.157.50 ( talk) 13:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Normally, we don't capitalize the names of drinks. E.g., " strawberry milkshake" or " lemonade" aren't capitalized. Nor are some cocktail names like the margarita, gin and tonic or vodka soda.
So why would the rules be different for, say, Long Island Iced Tea? Why would it be considered a proper noun rather than being Long Island iced tea? It's true that with some branded products, like Coke, we might say, "I grabbed a Coke," but we wouldn't say, "I grabbed a Cola" because it's not a proper noun when it's generic like that.
Anyway, the {{ IBA Official Cocktails}} uses proper noun capitalization for most mixed drinks, but even there, there are exceptions, like the champagne cocktail or Irish coffee. I can understand, though, that for some cocktails like Sex on the Beach, a disambiguation purpose could be served by capitalization, so that people know what you're referring to when you say, "The Sex on the Beach I had yesterday was amazing." On the other hand, if you capitalize Irish Coffee, then people might think you're referring to Irish Coffee (band) or Irish Coffee (TV series) when you say, "I enjoy Irish Coffee."
Any thoughts on what the standard should be? Thanks, Зенитная Самоходная Установка ( talk) 20:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.This is the substantive criertia for determining the question, as arrived at by a broad community consensus. In the case of Long Island Iced Tea, by this n-gram, it does not meet the threshold to be capped in full. Others may. An arguement to follow IBA style falls to WP:SPECIALSTYLE and is even more inappropriate if that style uses all-caps. Arguements to MOS:TM have merit, where the name is a brand/trademark etc in full or part. Parts of a phrase which are themself a proper noun, tradename or like will be capitalised but it does not confer capitalisation on the whole name phrase. There is an often perceived but false equivalence between proper names and capitalisation - the former being a matter of grammar and the other, a matter of orthography. There are lots of things that might be capitalised that are not proper names. Proper names are not descriptive. Any arguement to capitalise brandy and soda (or similar) is just BS, where the name is descriptive of the ingredients. It would also be very debatable, where the name is metaphorically descriptive - ie "tequila sunrise". There is some merit in the arguement that names like Sex on the Beach are titles for the recipes and should be written in title case, where such names are not descriptive. It is quite another matter to assert that because title case is used, a title is a proper name. However, the proof whether a name is actually a title lies in usage and the guidelines - MOS:CAPS, WP:NCCAPS. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:55, 24 October 2019 (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
Recently I've noticed an increase on the project of something odd (at least to my eyes). As an example If you go into this article City of Adelaide (1864) and open up the image in the infobox, you are taken to a Wikipedia page which holds the image. Inside that there is a link to the Commons file. The link proudly proclaims This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below. Previously you would go straight to the Commons page, giving the same information and more. Can someone tell me what purpose this interim step to Commons serves, and why it even exists? - Broichmore ( talk) 08:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
" Yet there is an inconsistency here...". No, there's no inconsistency. In as much as you've not activated that gadget, the image in that page leads to local landing page. – Ammarpad ( talk) 12:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
This file is used in a number of en.wp articles, but as a free image is hosted at Commons. The issue is that, as it involves global politics, new versions are regularly uploaded that change it, sometimes for legitimate reasons, and sometimes for POV-pushing reasons. It sees far more new versions being added and reverted than most other files on Commons. Every time it is changed for the wrong reason, a dozen Wikipedia articles display it. I'm wondering if ti wouldn't be wiser to host a stable, local version that would only be updated when there is an actual change in a country's government, as opposed to people changing it because they don't like how some of the countries are defined there. Thoughts? Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi:
An article I follow is the target of regular vandalism. I have asked the administrators to get a semi-protection on it. {{pp-pc|small=yes}} was afixed on the article on March 19th which ask for an administrator to revew before the change be visible to non-registered users but it is still visible to registred ones. However, since that time, the article has been vandalized more than 20 times by a large variety of IP and with no good edit. Shouldn't it be impossible to IP and new users to even register edits? How do I ask for better protection?
Pierre cb ( talk) 19:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
In my experience, a lot of Quality Ratings are done in a very slipshod and haphazard way. Today I finished an article Alexander Culbertson, and within a minute it was rated. Can this be the result of a well-thought-out quality review?
Most of the ratings my articles have received do not in any way specify what is missing. If I have a full list of literature, and it's still rated as "Start", I would like to know why they are not good enough.
These are the basic criteria for "Start"-level:
Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use.
I would like the rater to specify what's missing. The aim of the quality review must be to assist in the improvement of the article.
Are these raters self-appointed; many don't seem to know very much about the articles they rate. Is it possible to appeal the rating? Creuzbourg ( talk) 19:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
A new account, which has been editing very usefully with a redlink user name, has now set up a user page describing themselves as an organization. In fact it seems clear only one person is using the account. I spent 10+ minutes hunting for the page that explains why corporate accounts are not allowed, without success. Can someone a) give me the link, and b) sprinkle links to it around the obvious pages on creating accounts, so it is findable by others! Thanks, Johnbod ( talk) 10:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Whenever I come across an article for a Korean/Chinese/Japanese person, it almost always begins with Template:Korean name, Template:Chinese name, or Template:Japanese name (for example, see Xi Jinping). While the information is useful, I wonder whether it's really necessary to provide it in the form of a hatnote. For one thing, it's not really a disambiguation or something else that'd normally be presented as a hatnote. More importantly, as the first thing the reader encounters after the article title, it occupies very valuable space that I think might be better used by the article itself (in other words, it adds clutter). Do you all agree? And if so, how do you think this information should be conveyed if not as a hatnote? - Sdkb ( talk) 04:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Why are user
s given move-rootuserpages
? Without move
, which is not given to new users, they can't move anything, and move-rootuserpages
requires move
to actually work (see
mw:Manual:User rights)? --
DannyS712 (
talk) 01:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Hey! Could someone tell me how to deploy IABot on another language-version of Wikipedia or point me to a page where this process is explained? IABot would be really useful on hr.wiki. -- Hmx hmx 18:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Used correctly, the tool can save valuable time for editors building out understaffed editions — but when it goes wrong, the results can be disastrous. One global administrator pointed to a particularly atrocious translation from English to Portuguese. What is “village pump” in the English version became “bomb the village” when put through machine translation into Portuguese. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 17:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested, see Talk:Chairman#Requested move 8 May 2019. SarahSV (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask, but I'd appreciate some brief input into the discussion at Template talk:TRS-80 and Tandy computers. It's regarding the merits of the changes to the template with respect to its usability and the interpretation of our policies. Thanks.
Ubcule ( talk) 19:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi! Do you have any specific rule regarding the manifestation of disrespect to users working on a certain topic? I mean if a user openly scorns those working on, say, porno- or football-related articles, and disparagingly calls the whole Wikipedia a "pornopedia" or "footballpedia" respectively, without making their attacks any more specific so that they cannot be deemed personal, is that punishable? And if so, which policy or guideline could be applied here?-- Piramidion 14:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Men was recently created and is looking for more participants. -- Netoholic @ 03:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
On the "User contributions" page there is an option "Show contributions of new accounts only". Does anyone know how new an account has to be for its edits to appear there? I have frequently seen edits listed from accounts that have existed for quite a while, and done a significant number of edits, so they clearly don't have to be very new. JamesBWatson ( talk) 20:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
user_id
being >= 99% of the highest (being in the top 1% of newest accounts) --
DannyS712 (
talk) 20:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Genderqueer#Requested_move_1_May_2019
WanderingWanda ( talk) 12:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
As we know, Wikipedia relies (in theory) on donations, usually having an annual fundraiser and a plea for donations from Jimbo Wales to help maintain the website and the Wikimedia Foundation. It's not uncommon, however, that I will occasionally see tendentious editors or vandals threaten Wikipedia or its admins with something along the lines of "I donated to Wikipedia for the past 1/10/100 years. Because you're all treating me so poorly, I will never donate to Wikipedia again!!!". In most cases, this is obvious sour grapes, but the fact that this occurs so frequently leaves me with the impression that people legitimately believe this is a way of inducing substantive change in Wikipedia's policies or their application of them -- sort of an extension of that tired maxim of " the customer is always right", where businesses will supposedly bend over backwards to appease irate customers even if it means firing their own staff.
Do we have an essay along the lines of "Wikipedia cannot be held for ransom", to essentially discourage people from using that as a threat or means of leverage? If not, I would like to create such an essay.-- WaltCip ( talk) 14:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects.
Phase 2 of the consultation has now begun; as such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019/Phase 2. All users are invited to express their views. Individual WikiProjects, user groups and other communities may also consider creating their own requests for comment; instructions are at mw:Talk pages consultation 2019/Participant group sign-up. (To keep discussion in one place, please don't reply to this comment.) Jc86035 ( talk) 14:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I found out today while expanding Freedom of religion by country that the US State Department has reorganized their website, and most (all?) of our citations to reports hosted on that site are now broken. I repaired a bunch of the links on articles that I actively edit, and while that wasn't too difficult my impression is that writing a bot script to take care of this may not be easy, as the regexes needed to both find old broken links and figure out where they should point to now would have to be quite complicated. signed, Rosguill talk 18:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I invite editors here to share their views at Talk:Santa Claus#About Santa Claus. The question is about the community's goals for overall tone of the introduction (i.e., no specific changes have been proposed).
An editor has raised concerns about the use of the word agnostic in its non-religious sense in the RFC question, so – on the belief that I can trust all of you experienced editors not to be biased by this phrasing – please note that the two main options mean something approximately like:
Remember, we want your actual, candid views, so please come tell us what you think! WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I have a user script that displays users who have been blocked with a strikethrough the username (should be default script for everyone IMO). Recently I have been revisiting old AfDs (5+ years ago), and am amazed at how many accounts that participated in the AfD have since been blocked, most of them for sock puppetry. Typically unrelated to the AfD itself but later on justice caught up with them. What it tells me is that in any given AfD with any sort of controversy, there is a very high chance of at least one sock puppet. Not always stacking the vote with multiple accounts but someone gaming the system somewhere somehow taking part in AfD is a regular occurrence. If nothing else it could be quantified and from that perhaps some trends discovered, like what kind of article topics attract puppets or whatever the data reveals. -- Green C 15:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
I am not sure if this is the right spot to post my request. If not, please let me now where else to post it. I am doing a small survey for research purposes at the University of Cologne. It's about community guidelines in social media and collaborative projects, blogs, social networks, content communities, etc. The wiki projects and their communities are a particularly exciting aspect that we would like to investigate. I would be happy if you could find the time to take part in the survey.
NOTES:
1. there has been a recent survey as part of a master's thesis and now we just want to increase the size of the data. Nothing has changed about the survey itself.
2.Since the community guidelines for the different wikis are different, but the other wikis don't have a "bulletin board", I would be happy if you would also answer the questionnaires for other wikis, if you are also active there.
3. completely, completely big thanks in advance :)
Wikipedia-Survey on GoogleForms
-- UniKoln ( talk) 10:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)UniKoln
Our longest article is currently Opinion polling for the 2019 Spanish local elections; today it stands at 628,368 bytes (by way of comparison, the next-longest is 495,195 bytes).
And the Spanish article is still growing; one month ago it was 476,332 bytes.
Attempts to split it into smaller parts have been reverted, and discussion about that on its talk page has stalled.
What is to be done? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I have recently seen a template named Template:Infobox grapheme on English wiki. On looking at the French version of the file (from Wikidata) ( link), it was found that its actually a module and not a template. My doubt is, can a module in one language be a template in other? Adithyak1997 ( talk) 18:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I invite all editors to have their say on whether Assange should be described a journalist. This debate has been going on since 2010, so it would be good to get a decisive response.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I originally posted in the Tea House and it was suggested this belongs here. My situation is simple: I use the Brave browser and I receive Basic Attention Tokens (BAT) for viewing ads. The BAT is meant to be given to publishers and content creators to support their work. I would love to donate my BAT to the Wikimedia Project but it isn't registered with the donation program. Is there a plan to include BAT donations as a means of supporting Wikipedia? It would be great if you did. The Washington Post and VICE are just two of the many publishers already involved. I really think it's worth looking in to. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.171.14.145 ( talk) 17:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I am not against the request-for-funding banners - but why do they only appear on those computers where I am not signed in? WP-name-ians may well be more committed to supporting the institution than IP-ians. 82.44.143.26 ( talk) 16:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
'As a suggestion' a 'sponsor-an-edit-a-thon' set up (including 'minor edits' or not options). 82.44.143.26 ( talk) 15:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
After more than ten years away, I would like to reclaim my old login handle to do a little non-anonymous editing. The problem is that I have forgotten my password, and I cannot recover my password because my email address long ago changed from the one I used to use here. I don't know how you determine that I am genuine and not a troll trying to steal some old user's identity, but I would appreciate any assistance you can give. Thanks. (The system warns against leaving an email address, so I'm not sure how you contact me or I contact you, but I will watch this page. Thanks.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1D00:703:506B:D853:B9AE:1A4E ( talk) 20:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I am an editor on the Afrikaans Wikipedia and have reached the 10 year mark on 6 January 2019. How do I become a member of the Wikipedia:Ten Year Society? Regards! Oesjaar ( talk) 07:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
With the current mass deletion of portals, I have noticed thet many navboxes have links to nonexistent portals. Template:Map projections (to Portal:Map projections) is just one example. I suspect that this issue is large-scale enough that it will require multiple users to carry out. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 04:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on the discussion at WT:TFA about the Main Page for 50th anniversary of Apollo 11. --- Coffeeand crumbs 03:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I posted this suggestion to talk about the offensive usernames. I've recently seen that there are users with these usernames that are not blocked. The reason? Basically, they use these usernames that the administrators doesn't consider it offensive. If some of you search for name "Loli", there will be a lot of pornographic names. More than pornographic, these names are criminous, since they talk about pedophilia, because the word " Loli" means a young girl between 6 and 14 years old. I wish the administrators take more a look at these usernames, also the usernames that have the word "Lolicon" inserted in it. Thanks, 'anonymous user'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.233.122.1 ( talk) 17:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
A few weeks ago, I called up a survey of English Wikipedia users about community guidelines.
The survey is part of my research at the University of Cologne. It's now time to relax, but unfortunately the participation in English Wikipeida users isn't as high as I had hoped.
So if one or the other would take 5 minutes to answer the questions, it would be a great help.
Community Policy Survey
Thank you
--
UniKoln (
talk) 16:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC) UniKoln
Do we know anything about qwerty.wiki? It seems to be a mirror of several major non-English Wikipedias (including French)... is it complying? Should we have an article on it here? There isn't one at fr.wikipedia as far as I can see. Andrewa ( talk) 01:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello to you at gathered at the village pump. The request for comment I posted on the talk page of the New Albion elicited no responses. So I made certain changes to the article. As such, I do believe it is proper to remove the rfc template; however, the instructions are a little vague as to how this should be done. My inclination is to edit the talk page by deleting the template (which is encapsulated within brackets at the top of the page) and then note my actions with a comment. Is this correct? If not, what should I consider? Kind regards to all. Hu Nhu ( talk) 23:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
There is an RfC in progress that has the potential to affect how religion is treated in the infoboxes of many country articles, I urge all to participate in the discussion which is at Talk:Australia#RfC dated 23 June 2019 - Should religion be removed from the infobox?. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 21:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation Research team is planning to run a follow-up survey of Wikipedia readers. You can read more about the first two parts of the study in the meta page linked below or in the following two papers: https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.05379 and https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.00474. We expect no disruptions in the workflow of editors during this study. The survey will ask readers about their motivation for reading as well as a few demographic questions (age, gender, education, place, native language). The survey aims to improve our understanding of the diversity of readers as well as how the needs and experience of Wikipedia readers varies across different populations. We plan to run the survey for a week starting on 2019-06-26. It will sample 1 out of every 100 readers worldwide and 1 out of every 2 readers from countries in Africa (to have a large enough sample in all regions). For questions, feel free to ping Isaac (WMF) or leave a comment on the meta page. Thank you! -- Isaac (WMF) ( talk) 13:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Since "The Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill" in Hong Kong submitted to Legislative Council (LegCo) without listening to the views of the public, I am here asking if the community in Enwiki to do anything to support Hong Kong. It will be a great help and attractable for global media.
Since the unexpected asking, I would like to ask if Wikipedia could be shut down for an hour, or longer if could. If it is impossible, could enwiki have any method else to give Hong Kong people a supportive message?
For people who don't know what the Bill is, let me do a brief please:
This Bill was submitted through the Hong Kong citizen murder case happened in Taiwan (Republic of China, ROC), both of the character are Hong Kong people, and try to extradite the murderer to Taiwan. I used to be a great idea until the LegCo parliamentary found out that it also makes China (People's Republic of China, PRC, or mainland) extradition possible without any human right protection or mainland judicial independence. Any people against PRC government may be prosecuted and extradited, since LegCo was removed from the ordinance of extradition review, and Hong Kong's Court was announced they cannot protect the extradited person's human rights in the other countries.
Any Hong Kong Wikipedia Editors May Be Extradited If the Bill Adopted.
For the Statement made by Wikimedia Community User Group Hong Kong, please click here.
For more professional points of view, please read the following document made by Hong Kong Bar Association:
-- だ*ぜ ( talk) 15:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Did you read latest xkcd comic? -- Agusbou2015 ( talk) 15:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I've had a request to retrieve a deleted article so that an editor can look at the refs they remember seeing on it. However, I can't find the article! I've tried all the usual stuff, but nada. The article is either Abortion law in Mozambique or Abortion in Mozambique. Any help is appreciated! Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 00:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Please note that Vijaya Nirmala died on 27 june according to sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 ( talk) 05:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I have put in a request for local banner notices for US cities hosting the Great American Wiknic this summer at m:CentralNotice/Request/Strategy Wiknic US 2019.-- Pharos ( talk) 01:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I wish people would stop moving hopeless articles to draft space to "incubate", as seems to have become increasingly common. It seems to reflect a lack of understanding of the purpose and value of Draft space and/or a lack of understanding that no amount of "incubating" is going to overcome a lack of notability. Not only is there no benefit to this, it gives false hope to the article's creator, giving the impression that the article's defects lie in its content, and that with due diligence they can fix it up to qualify for the main space. It is terribly unfair to mislead the creator into devoting time and effort to revising and expanding an article to no end.
The latest article of this type to come under my eyes was Findomeet. It was deleted as advertising under WP:CSD#G11 on June 23, then under both G11 and WP:CSD#A7 a couple of hours ago. Less than an hour later, the article apparently having been recreated, someone moved it to Draft:Findomeet with the comment "Undersourced, incubate in draftspace".
It's undersourced because no sources exist. A Google search shows that at most one human being (in contrast to computers relentlessly generating lists) on the entire planet has made even a reference to "findomeet" on any page indexed by Google. Given that finding, it's unlikely that it has achieved coverage anywhere that would qualify the article for inclusion under WP:N. Therefore, no purpose was served in sparing it speedy deletion under A7—and creation-protecting it. While A7 can be remedied through editing, a lack of notability cannot.
Conversely, I also see articles that are reasonably well written and are about topics that will probably meet WP:N being sent to Draft space for being "undersourced". Except for BLPs subject to WP:BLPPROD, needing more sources is not a justification for removing articles from the main space! That's what maintenance tagging is for.
I see this sort of thing happening over and over. Largoplazo ( talk) 14:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
The article Alexander Fleming begins with « Sir Alexander Fleming FRS FRSE FRCS », which seems incorrect to me: as far as I remember, in English usages, "sir" should be used only with the first name (« sir Richard ») but not with the full name. So Fleming is of course entitled to a « sir Richard », but has never been called « Sir Fleming » or worse « Sir Alexander Fleming ». How come the article begins that way, is it a local editorial rule ? Micheletb ( talk) 07:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
"The prefix is used with the holder's given name or full name, but never with the surname alone. For example, whilst Sir Alexander and Sir Alexander Fleming would be correct, Sir Fleming would not."the wub "?!" 13:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
My mistake, I was mixed up with the rule for orally addressing to a "sir". The written form is indeed correct. Micheletb ( talk) 10:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I recently edited an article ( 5G) and added it to my watch list. How-ever, none of my edits (the most recent one listed as current on my contributions page) is not listed on my watch list, nor are any other entries for that page other than an older entry on the 5G talk page. Why is that? Kdammers ( talk) 13:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Talk:1992 Troy State vs. DeVry men's basketball game; Kdammers ( talk) 15:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello i have some questions
1- If an "Example Website" translates almost all articles in English Wikipedia and also almost (not quite) sources of each article at the end of the link, and even links the original article to Wikipedia, Has this "Example Website" infringed English Wikipedia's Copyright? Has something violated? Please provide a full explanation (copyright copy of your English Wikipedia as well as copyrights in general terms)
2. Can that "Example Website" use all of its translations from English Wikipedia to use it commercially (quite commercially)? Along with the precise mention of the resource, Or it is bound to not commercially use them at all?
3. If that "Example Website" that translated the entire or almost all articles in English Wikipedia , write in footer of website "All Rights Reserved, or No Website Has The Right to Use This Web Site Contents". Can its local wikipedia users copy or use "articles translated" into their own language without any permission or concern from the "Example Website" on their own Wikipedia( local wikipedia)? What if this happened, what could the That "Example Website"do for its rights? Kaataanaa ( talk) 18:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
So, can that website translate all articles and all pages (I emphasize all articles and all pages)?
Should all the translations be published under this license This License? Kaataanaa ( talk) 06:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I have created a category 'Category:Warehouses in Netherlands' recently, and soon I found there exists for example Category:Barracks in the Netherlands. As a non-native speaker I need a help:
-- CiaPan ( talk) 07:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
What is it called again when Wikipedia is referenced as a source thus changing the nature or accuracy of information? What is the WP: page for this? ~ R. T. G 17:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Please write to the administrator and tell him that he / she will be restoring the vandalism editorial. As you can see, [1] the article has been kept under discussion, but the administrator who does not accept it removes the article without discussing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.212.234.103 ( talk) 08:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Should articles say someone had a maiden flight or a first flight? See WT:WikiProject Spaceflight#Maiden flight vs. first flight. Johnuniq ( talk) 23:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
(For context: I'm an admin here.) I'm working on a project and I could use others' thoughts on whether it is suitable for a list article on Wikipedia. If not, is there somewhere else within the WMF world that might be better for this, or do people think I should do it elsewhere?
Basically, there is now about a 150-year history of piers, wharves, terminals, etc. on Elliott Bay in Seattle. A portion of this is covered in prose in Central Waterfront, Seattle. During that time, some 200-300 significant structures have come and gone on the bay, with about 50 remaining; many have had more than one name in the course of their history. I've been gathering a ton of reference material attesting the existence of certain structures at certain dates; I'll eventually also be going to newspapers etc. to try to find references for construction and demolition dates, etc. for at least a good number of these.
I want to bring all of this information together in one place. I believe it will work better as ordered list list with footnotes, in an order that more or less matches a circumnavigation of the bay, than any other format. This seems like a much better fit for Wikipedia than (in particular) for Wikidata, because Wikidata is totally unsuited to order this in any sane way.
Do people think this is likely to be acceptable as a list article? It doesn't strike me as obviously either in or out of scope. I really don't want to put days of work into this just to have it deleted. - Jmabel | Talk 01:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
These two articles appear to be duplicates: Dušan Stoiljković (investor) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Dušan Stojanović ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Semper Fi! FieldMarine ( talk) 01:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I want to propose speedy deletion for Talk:List of snooker players by number of ranking titles/Archive 1 but what I have placed there is not working. The talk page has no article. Please help.-- Dthomsen8 ( talk) 17:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Anyone know where online I can find the table of contents of Encyclopedia Britannica? I'm curious about how good our coverage is of those topics. – Anne drew 14:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi!
I religiously read Wikipedia's Main page every day and I have been looking forward to what would be posted for July 21st, 2019, the 50th anniversary of humankind first walking on the Moon.
I was not disappointed!
I want to compliment whoever designed this page because of how they managed to integrate all three of the Apollo 11 astronauts into it, including photos. This was very much a team effort and the page reflects that.
Good Job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.207.175.57 ( talk) 15:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The {{
promotional source}}
inline template contains no directions on its placement. Is it to be placed so that it's visible in the main article next to the ref tag number (e.g., [1][promotional source?) or should it be placed within the <ref> tags so that it displays next to the source's listing in the references section, similar to how dead link is done. Thanks for any info!
Spintendo 09:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Ticket:2019072110001027 informs us about that http://national.soccerhall.org/ ( usage) redirect to a porn site. What can we do? Bencemac ( talk) 08:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
|dead-url=unfit
when adding an |archive-url=
so that the original url is not linked from the rendered citation (cs1|2 templates that already have |archive-url=
should also get |dead-url=unfit
).I often review drafts which are obviously written by somebody in academia. They often suffer from a disconnect between how academics write and what we want in an encyclopedia article. They're highly technical, often carpet-bombed with references, and so on. They may in fact be notable topics, but they're written in a way that makes them unsuitable for us. Do we have a good help page I can point people to which explains how encyclopedia articles differ from research papers? Not so much a, "This is why we're rejecting your draft", but more of a, "Here's how to write a good encyclopedia article about your research interest". -- RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
These are all really good suggestions. Throwing in an additional one—if you are knowledgable in the area that has been over-described in the article, contact the writer via their user page and outline how you are going to revise the article to make it more encyclopedic. I've not done this myself (yet) but it seems like a type of mentoring which could have a positive impact. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 01:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I've stuck a "disputed content" tag on
Western approaches, with comments on the talk page. Is there anywhere that I could highlight this to informed editors who might be familiar with further sources that might clarify what the article should say?
ThoughtIdRetired (
talk) 11:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
An RfC [2] has been closed on Tulsi Gabbard by Red_Slash, yet one editor, SashiRolls, refuses to acknowledge the validity of the closure and edit-wars to remove content agreed-upon in the closure. What should be done?
If this is the wrong board for this, please point me to the correct one. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I hope I've never done this without realizing it in time, but in a few cases, when I typed text in an existing article, instead of the text to the right being pushed to the right, the text that was to the right of where I started typing disappeared, replaced by what I typed.
I guess others are aware this could happen, and it looks like vandalism, but it isn't intentional.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Please help improve the style of the article Dissolution of United States. -- Vyacheslav84 ( talk) 15:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Conduct enforcement is difficult. Certain recent discussions brought up the issue of dealing with user conduct issues from individual users who, due to reputation or status, might be difficult to judge fairly.
While it's often helpful to make judgements in the context of the individual user's history and reputation, it also may sometimes be useful to be able to view some of a user's actions in isolation, seeing only what was done without being influenced by who they are.
Over the past couple of weeks, I wrote a user script called
User:Yair rand/UserBlind.js, which creates a "UserBlind mode", which allows users to view pages with all usernames hidden and replaced with tokens like "[USER #6]". You can enable the script by adding importScript( 'User:Yair_rand/UserBlind.js' );
to your
common.js. Once enabled, you can enter UserBlind mode by going to "Special:UserBlind/" followed by the title of the page you want to view. For example, you can see ANI in userblind mode by going to
Special:UserBlind/WP:ANI.
(The code is somewhat buggy, and I'm not sure it works on all browsers.)
-- Yair rand ( talk) 17:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi! This is a notice that I have nominated myself for the Bot Approvals Group. I would appreciate your input. Thanks! Enterprisey ( talk!) 06:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Colleagues such a question, "The White Man's Burden" is a pure notion of Kipling, or was it a official slogan of the British colonialists? -- Vyacheslav84 ( talk) 12:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello all,
I’m writing to let you know about a new project, IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation, that the Wikimedia Foundation is starting.
Because people in general are increasingly technically advanced and privacy conscious, our users are now more aware of the collection and use of their personal information, and how its misuse may lead to harassment or abuse. The Foundation is starting a project to re-evaluate and enhance protections for user privacy through technical improvement to the projects. As part of this work, we will also be looking at our existing anti-vandalism and anti-abuse tools and making sure our wikis have access to the same (or better) tools to protect themselves.
The project page is on Meta. This project is currently in very early phases of discussions and we don’t have a concrete plan for it yet. We’d like your input. And please share with other people who you think would be interested. SPoore (WMF), Strategist, Community health initiative ( talk) 18:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I deleted an earlier version of User:Jolenep99/sandbox as WP:G11, but now the user is making a request that I'm not sure how to handle. I'm guessing refer them to wikibooks, but I don't want to send them on a wild goose chase if this isn't wikibooks material either. Could somebody who knows wikibooks policy take a look and respond to the user with advice? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Community conversations are an integral part of movement strategy “Wikimedia 2030”. They have been ongoing in multiple formats and in numerous languages over the last 2.5 years. Now it is possible to also contribute to the development of recommendations on structural change via an online survey. We are keeping the survey open for additional 2 weeks and post it to wikis to provide wider opportunities to participate for people interested in it.
The survey is available in 8 languages: Arabic, English, French, German, Hindi, Portuguese, Simplified Chinese, and Spanish. They contain designated questions about each of the nine thematic areas that the working groups are analyzing and drafting recommendations for. You can freely choose the thematic areas you want to contribute and respond to. The survey questions have been created and designed by the members of the working groups.
Here is the link to the survey.
Here you can find more information about the survey.
With any questions, please contact me on my meta user talk page.
Thank you for your kind attention! -- KVaidla (WMF) ( talk) 14:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Last Friday, July the 26th, a rank-and-file State Duma lawmaker of the ruling United Russia faction introduced a bill imposing certain restrictions on significant information resources, including one that the said resource's "technical means" be located in Russia, and that that foreign entities or citizens, or international organizations own no more than 20 shares in the resource owner's charter capital unless the owner obtains an increase of that limit by submitting a substantiated request; for details, see this story and the bill's page on the State Duma website containing a 16-page PDF file with copy-able Russian text.
So, does the WMF have any form of capital, or anything that Russian authorities could classify as a foreign analogue of charter capital? (If no, then Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects would likely be outside of the bill's formal scope). The current version of the bylaws seems to say nothing about this, but would like to have someone, preferably a Foundation employee or representative answer this question. I know that both houses of the Russian Federal Assembly are in summer recess until September, but I think this issue should be addressed as soon as possible. -- Синкретик ( talk) 22:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation Research and Product teams are planning to run a survey of Wikipedia editors. The survey aims to provide the Foundation and communities with better data about the balance of gender within the editor population and how on-going efforts are affecting this balance. Logged-in users who are randomly sampled will see a small box while reading articles that asks them a single question about their gender. They will have the option to dismiss the survey or answer (including the option to self-identify with their preferred terminology). No information about which specific users see or respond to the survey will be collected.
We are hoping that the simplicity of this survey and low barrier to response will result in a more representative sample than past research efforts (see links on the meta page) or from statistics based on the user-preference, which is not widely used in some languages, and help us understand biases in these complementary efforts.
We plan to run the survey for two weeks starting on 31-July-2019. It will sample 1 out of every 10 logged-in users. For questions, feel free to ping Isaac or leave a comment on the meta page. Thank you! -- Isaac (WMF) ( talk) 15:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
EXIF info of Wikimedia Commons files produce links to wikipedias (enwp when UI language is English; other wp and enwp at the same time when UI is another language). When I wanna know what camera/phone it actually is, I click. File:Mysore 1 26.jpg this file's EXIF links to A1601, which is a model number of Oppo F1s. However, iPad Mini 3 uses the same number. Is DAB suitable for this purpose?-- Roy17 ( talk) 14:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
After I cleaned up regular articles, only three articles are still using <categorytree> tags, all outlines: Outline of German language, Outline of Esperanto, and Outline of Korean language. Normally I would expect outlines to have their own content independent from categories. Klarst, who has edited all three articles, has objected on Talk:Outline of Esperanto, saying that they are useful, but it's unclear to me why or whether these particular outlines are special. How do other editors feel about this? (This tag causes the listing of pages from the category to be transcluded into the outline.) -- Beland ( talk) 18:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
This is on labeling certain models as "supermodel" in their lead paragraphs. I personally think they shouldn't be labeled as such even though their supermodel status are rock solid like Bundchen and Schiffer. Being a supermodel is not a job per se, you don't label someone a "superstar" or a "sex symbol" as form of identification in the lead paragraph. It will also lead to other models-of-the-moment to be labeled as "supermodel" based on random articles here and there. Thoughts? Maxen Embry ( talk) 10:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead. (And on the subject of Jack Upland's example of poster child, the featured article Ryan White describes White as a poster child (in the metaphorical sense) in the lead...)
When there is a discussion, editors often say "Oppose as per Smith". However, the guidelines state these discussion are not a "vote", and the numbers do not by themselves determine the outcome. Also, we are told to avoid WP:IDON'TLIKEIT responses. However, someone who says "Oppose as per Smith" is merely seconding Smith, giving his opinion a vote. And the post, given that it has no reasoning, could be called a "I don't like it" comment. So why do editors do it and is it a valid response?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I have experience closing, and here's how I handle it. I consider "Oppose as per Smith" to represent a copy-paste of whatever Smith said. If Smith gave a solid policy-based rationale, fine, you're agreeing-with-and-repeating a solid policy-based rationale. However if Smith gave a junk vote, then "Oppose as per Smith" is a copy-paste of a junk vote. Two junk votes aren't worth much more than one junk vote. As for votes with no explanation at all, most of the time it doesn't matter but it's a bad idea and you're taking a bit of a risk by doing it. It's a very fragile !vote. A closer has a lot of freedom to devalue bare votes if they have any concerns. I generally consider a bare vote to be a vague reflection of the other !votes on the same side. If that side is presenting solid arguments and validly citing policy, I'll generally accept the bare-vote as implicitly reflecting those same arguments. If a side is making junk arguments, then the bare vote is (at best) reflecting those junk arguments. If a side has nothing but bare votes, then there's nothing to reflect. If it's a trivial issue, if the proposal presented a clear rational, then the bare votes may be simple and obvious enough to accept. But if there's a genuine issue to debate, if the other side makes reasonable arguments, then a side with nothing but bare votes is at jeopardy of counting for ZERO for failing to present any argument at all. I don't frivolously throw away !votes, but my job is to serve the community and try to give the community-as-a-whole the result that it wants, in light of policy. If I have concerns that there's a problem with the RFC, a problem with the voting, a problem with the rationales, then you want to make sure that you gave a solid rationale. I once issued a strong consensus in favor of a 10 minority vs 20, because the 10 gave rationales in line with policy and the 20 were almost all canvassed SPAs with arguments that were worthless-under-Policy. Alsee ( talk) 00:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Do we have a policy of users crowdfunding for their work on Wiki? Let say I see a user who works on X topic articles, x topics for some reason have been neglected, and this user has a crowdfunding account so that people may donate to their work on X topics. Let me clarify, I have not and have no intentions of having interactions with this user. I could not find a policy on this issue. Do we have a policy? If yes, what is it and if not, should we? Thanks. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 16:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I am looking for Beethoven's variations for the piano related to the second movement of his
Piano Sonata No. 24 in F♯ major, Op. 78, nicknamed à Thérèse. Sir
András Schiff talks about the variations and performs some notes of the work
here in a lecture-recital (11:10
to 11:40).
May somebody help me find the "Variations"? —
Hamid Hassani (
talk) 09:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm new to editing on Wikipedia - been at it for a few weeks now. My primary interest (for now, at least) is to contribute to existing pages or create new pages for novels and authors that have been neglected thus far. But my question is if there is a group that I have yet to discover where Fiction-focused editors talk about ideas for pages and general contributions. I know about the Novel category Talk page, and other similar variations, however these all seem to be rather formal. I'm more interested in a less formal group for discussing page and contribution ideas. I know this might be a bit too niche, but thought I'd at least ask since I feel like the community sections of Wikipedia are extremely intricate and I've only discovered a small portion of it thus far. Honestly, I'm just looking for some editing camaraderie. Feel like I'm editing in a bubble outside a couple of users I've run into in passing. ANDROMITUS ( talk) 17:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
See User talk:Jimbo Wales#Diversity Working Group calls for the end of Wikipedia's availability as freely and openly licensed. BethNaught ( talk) 19:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Not sure where else to post this, so move it as necessary. There's a shortcut to our hatnote policy at Wikipedia:RELATED, but very confusingly there is a page Wikipedia:Related which has been marked historical since 2010 and seems to have never gained much traction. Since people keep linking to WP:Related when they mean WP:RELATED I think it's better that we turn the historical page into a redirect. Is there some pressing need to retain the page that I'm unaware of? Wug· a·po·des 22:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Good day everyone! I have a question about creating an article in Wikipedia English for a public user who does not create a Wikipedia account. Can they freely publish articles like any other Wikipedia language? Or there are:
Hoping for your responses!
CyberTroopers (
talk) 05:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
'createpagemainns'
right, so yes, the software prevents them from creating new articles. If they do wish to write articles they may request for another editor to create one at
Requested articles or submit a draft through the
Article wizard, where it is reviewed by
articles for creation volunteers.Is there a way to list the new users made after a certain date?
Say, I wanted to list the new editors on en.wp after, say, 6 October, 2018; is there any way to do that?
There is a list for "new article pages" (which, incidentally, would be much more useful if we could also search from a certain date), but I find nothing similar for new users.
Huldra ( talk) 21:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe this is a perennial discussion. If it is, I'll be happy to just get some pointers to previous discussions. Are not indefinite blocks excessive sometimes? Over time I've seen some indefinite blocks for users who did some kind of mild WP:NPA violation and in the recent heat of the block, they didn't really stay calm, which made their initial indef block appeal fail or turn a temp block into an indef one. I'm not sure if I'm just seeing anecdotical evidence here, but it seems that unblock requests are unlikely to be granted even if requested after a few years (without socking in the meantime, of course). Isn't that excessive? I see the point for indefinite blocks with recurrent sockmasters, harassers, etc, but for a lot of other cases, shouldn't we give a chance after some time? -- MarioGom ( talk) 22:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
How do I make the gender survey go away? I answered it previously, and that did it, but now it is back. I don't want to bias the results by answering every time it thinks it needs to ask me again (because I'm on a different ip, maybe?) If I am having this issue, surely others are as well, and likely some of them are responding multiple times to the survey, making the results suspect at best. Finally, there must be a better place to be discussing all this, but I don't see it on CENT or know an easy way to find where the survey discussion is happening. Ladyof Shalott 03:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
mw.storage.set('ext-quicksurvey-editor-gender-1-en', '~')
. If others are having this issue and it is not related to switching browsers or deleting browser cookies, don't hesitate to let me know as well so I might get a sense of how pervasive this is. --
Isaac (WMF) (
talk) 15:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
The survey itself serves no purpose, other then to divide editors. Now, one can't get rid of it, even if one has already answered it. Quite frustrating. GoodDay ( talk) 13:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I wrote an essay on the dangers of the supervolunteer, User:Geo Swan/The supervolunteer. I've written a bunch of userspace essays, some of which other people have linked to. But I was wondering whether this one merited being placed in the wikipedia namespace - once other people had had their say about it.
If other people looked at this, and there was some general agreement with it, could it just be moved to the wikipedia namespace? Is there a formal procedure for moving a essay to wikipedia space/
What is a supervolunteer? Short version: because they do more than their share they feel an extra sense of entitlement, entitled to blow off some rules...
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 22:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
It must be my fault that the three of you understood my key point. It seems you all think I am concerned for the well-being of volunteers who do so much they exhaust themselves. That is not my point. My point is that some volunteers, who see themselves doing more than their share, end up really damaging the project, because they rationalize doing more than their share entitles them to stop complying with some of our rules.
Can't you think of prolific contributors, who end up being bullying other contributors?
FWIW, I too would be part of the 1 percent of contributors who adds new content.
So, should I changed the title from "supervolunteers" to "extreme volunteers" or "toxic volunteers", or something like that? Geo Swan ( talk) 06:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Please take a minute to think about this? Never?
Never?
You are lucky then.
No one is claiming here that every person who does more than their share starts acting like their extra efforts justify them acting as if the rules don't apply to them. But, trust me, if you really can't think of anyone whose sense of entitlement makes them an overall negative factor for the wikipedia, these individuals do exist. And, in my opinion, it would really be a good idea if we had an essay that helped people recognize the supervolunteers who push, bend, or massively breach our policies, out of a misplaced sense of entitlement.
Neither Wikipedia:No vested contributors or Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable has any advice for those targetted by a super-entitled supervolunteer either.
You are an administrator, so you are protected from bullying from supervolunteers who feel empowered by a toxic sense of super-entitlment. Please bear in mind the difficulties of those who are not administrators. Geo Swan ( talk) 20:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
+
and -
numbers to decide how much was contributed, rather than actually parsing who wrote which words on a page. They discuss a different formula in Appendix A.)
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 04:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)@ Justlettersandnumbers and RHaworth: I'm sure neither of you meant any harm, and please pardon me for using you as an example. It's not my intent to beat you up in public, but I'm going to take this opportunity to remind people to be nice to our newest editors. We recently had User:FNH200Team8 create an account and write a draft as part of a school project. The draft wasn't in line with our guidelines, and neither was their username. But, both of these were totally innocent mistakes. Instead of getting help and support, what they got was their draft speedied and their account blocked.
I've been seeing a lot of school projects happening here on wikipedia lately. This is A Good Thing. Far from being Eternal September, the quality of work is often exceptional. Even when it's not, it's almost always a huge step above the everyday deluge of spam we see. We really should be putting more effort into encouraging these school projects, which means going out of our way to show them how things work and navigate our byzantine collection of rules and policies. That doesn't mean we accept everything they do. Indeed, that would be a poor outcome for both the encyclopedia and for their education. But, more teaching and less biting would be nice. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
All those userspace drafts need to be deleted under G5. Can you be more specific? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Many of them have stuff added that would be inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Well, that's true of the vast amount of crap that people write, especially in draft space.
I'm guessing you're more concerned about things like User:Rose08080/sandbox which do indeed duplicate existing articles. But, people work on new ideas for existing articles in their user sandboxes all the time. Most of them probably go nowhere. Some evolve into new improved versions that can replace the one in mainspace to the benefit of the encyclopedia. I'm actually impressed with the process here. I'm always telling people to start by researching sources and then write the article from the sources. And that looks like exactly what this author did. If they got that part right but messed up on every other one of our processes, I'd say they're off to a good start.
I just don't see the problem, and can't see how this comes anywhere near to a Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host. If you want to push the boundaries of blocking policy and WP:CSD, There's tons of WP:UPE, WP:PROMO, WP:POV and otherwise WP:NOTHERE in draft space that would benefit from some over-eager blocking and deleting. A bunch of students stumbling around trying to learn how to write encyclopedia articles is the wrong place to be swinging the banhammer wildly. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey Everyone,
I wanted to leave a heads up that there will be banners running for a few hours tomorrow relating to a livestream of the Wikimania Keynote. Apologies for the short notice. This banner will be low impact in design, showing every other impression and limited to 1 page view globally. This will be at a high rate in Nordic countries but limited to 5 impressions. This will be for an hour or so in the morning and the same in the afternoon. Seddon (WMF) ( talk) 02:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Think I know the answer to this question, but am going to ask anyway. Is there a way to save articles for later editing and/or reading on the site's desktop version like there is for the mobile app? ANDROMITUS ( talk) 18:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I'm requesting that the field "Yearbook" be permanently added to the school specific infobox template! Many have legacy names and I'd like to be able to update without creating a new and unlinked field each time. DogLuna ( talk) 20:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I remember 2,000,000 articles celebration at a covention. Is a 6,000,000 articles celebration planned?-- Dthomsen8 ( talk) 21:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello all! On 29 and 30 August, the Wikimedia Foundation will be conducting two experimental and short one-hour banners. These will be shown only to non-logged-in readers on the mobile web version of Wikipedia, and will help us determine which readers on mobile devices would prefer the Wikipedia app as an extension of their experience on the site. I'll be monitoring this page for any questions and/or feedback. Thank you! Ed Erhart (WMF) ( talk) 17:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I found a sentence I paraphrase as "She is a distinguished alumni from university XYZ." But alumni is plural. Is this an attempt to avoid using alumna? Should it be changed to singular? Thank you. RJFJR ( talk) 14:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
{{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=Chaud321|U1-employer=Hot Tomato Marketing|U1-client=Booster Fuels|U1-otherlinks=http://hottomato.net.}} Hi! Hope you can help me. On Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid editor help it says, "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference." Is this true? I am a PR representative (paid) who currently uses this page. Just wanted to check! Chaud321 ( talk) 18:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey all,
As I announced on the wikimediaindia-l back in June, we are planning to return to fundraising in India in 2020. Next week, in addition to our weekly Wednesday tests, we will be running some small and brief pre-tests in India to test out our payment infrastructure and to gauge response to our localized messaging.
For our India campaign, we have gathered feedback from CIS, focus groups, and community members but you can also send feedback regarding the fundraising campaign directly on my talk page. Your feedback might not make it into the banners for the 2 hour tests, but we will definitely factor it into our campaign for next year. Many Thanks Seddon (WMF) ( talk) 16:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
I am a Doctorate student studying the effect of the newly formed peer production setting and its effect on lowering unethical behavior in Economics.
My aim is to interview people who volunteer their time in open source/PP projects (Wikipedia, Git hub, bitcoin or any other open source projects using volunteers/collaborators).
I will generally ask questions related to the nature of the job/project as a volunteer compared to a contracted employee who for example is working in a similar project using normal company market settings. For example working in a 3D printing company vs. collaborating with an open source 3D design platform.
Questions will tackle: size of task, size of job description, time and resources allocated, incentives and other aspects.
The interviews will be focused on capturing your point of view, my role is a 3rd person trying to objectively capture your experience as much as possible.
Finally, I will be very grateful for any collaboration, the data from your experiences and interviews will be greatly valuable.
Hopefully, we will be able to prove that working in a peer production/open source setting reduces unethical behavior in the work environment.
MD — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayssamD ( talk • contribs) 20:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
There was a proposal, in July 2019, to deprecate webcitation. WP:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_159#RfC:_Deprecate_webcitation.org_aka_WebCite.
The major justifications for this proposal were, it had gone done, for an extended period of time, and, when the site became available, it was only serving already archived pages, and not accepting new pages.
If I am reading that archived proposal correctly, it was not passed.
If I am not mistaken, while most non-profits, for instance whoever runs webcitation.org, are cash-poor, struggle to get enough donations, the WMF is cash proud. Some years ago, when webcitation had some funding problems, I wondered whether the WMF would consider disbursing some of its funds, to make sure the archive links we counted on from webcitation.org continued to work.
In the July discussion some respondents asserted the loss of webcitation wasn't significant, because it was less frequently used than archive.org, the so-called wayback machine. Personally, while archive.org is my first choice of archiver, there are webpages that archive.org won't archive, that webcitation will archive. I don't know why this is. I've wondered about it, wondered whether archive.org complies more strictly to no-robots.
For years webcitation was the only archive service I knew about, and the only one I used. So, there may be thousands of references I created which rely on webcitation. While a robot could go searching for references to webcitation archives, and try to replace them with archive.org archives...
Presumably the WMF could be running its own archive server, so the wikipedias never had to rely on any third party archive servers. I am guessing this must have been considered, at some point, and there was a strong reason not to do so. Maybe it was so the WMF had plausible deniability if the original copyright holders complained an archive violated their copyright.
Does anyone know how common it is for copyright holders to complain archives at webcitation or archive.org violate their copyright?
Has webcitation.org had more outages, since the July discussion? Geo Swan ( talk) 01:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:OnlyOffline#Uses. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Over the past year, the Readers web team at the Wikimedia Foundation has been working on an advanced mode for editors on mobile.
This mode adds more editing and contribution functionality to the mobile website. Prior to these changes, this functionality was only available on the desktop site.
This new mode is now available on your wiki. To try it, go to your Mobile Options page and select “Advanced mode” ( picture).
Advanced mode contains the following features:
We encourage you to try out Advanced mode and give feedback on the project page.
Yours, CKoerner (WMF) ( talk) 16:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
The Wikipedia search function doesn't seem to be quite optimal. When I search on this pattern:
Catalogue of two dimentional spectral types for the HD stars 2
I get no results. However, if I search on this:
Catalogue of two dimensional spectral types for the HD stars 2
I get 539 matches. The only difference is one letter: the 't' in dimentional. Praemonitus ( talk) 20:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I have an unusual situation and can't figure out where to ask.
I asked what to do about World oil market chronology from 2003 getting too long. It appears the recommended action is to take most of the details out and put them in smaller articles covering shorter time periods. Each smaller article would have to refer back to the parent article, which would seem to be a use for the main template. At the same time, the brief summaries of each group of years would seem to need a link to the longer detailed information, which seems also to be a use for the main template.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I just WP:G11'd User:Kdashtipour/sandbox. The author went so far as to create a wikidata entry for himself, which is likewise spam. I'm not up on wikidata process, but I assume they've also got some G11-ish process to fight spam? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
I spent the last year developing a new web app called anno.wiki (backend MariaDB, Python/Flask) for annotation wikis on public domain literature. I emailed Wikimedia ten days ago about it and they pointed me here for help/advice.
The app works. It's definitely got bugs, because, well, software. But I have no idea where to go next to start attracting users to build up annotations. I posted to Reddit ( r/shakespeare) last weekend and generated all of 13ish upvotes and some complimentary comments, but my user base has gone nowhere. I understand that this will be hard, and that it might take a long time, but I don't know where to go next. Building it was hard (I learned Python on the job), but at least I knew what I had to do from one step to the next.
My first thought is to start emailing literature professors around the country with an interest in classical literature (there are some I've seen with an interest in "humanities computing" which seems perfect). But this doesn't seem likely to be received well.
My second thought is Hacker News but this seems dumb to me. It is very possible that I could blow up to the front page but the HN Hug of Death would mean bringing my one dyno down with hits but probably yield very very few users.
I'm entirely self-funded, have no way of getting donations yet (the patreon account is still sitting dormant with no donations page) and don't make a lot of money. A sustained advertising campaign is likely very outside my personal financial abilities, though I could swing a $100 campaign if I had to. Right now I'm at $26 a month for hosting with Heroku.
Any advice or help would literally be a godsend. Malan88 ( talk) 17:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello.
I made a page in the namespace 8 of en.Wikipedia in a regular fashion for a pretty routine task. A powerful functionary deleted it citing
WP:CSD#G3. What can I do to undelete the page—importantly, including both history and Special:Log/delete record—to have a publicly viewable piece? Preferably the page should be immediately
userfied. May a (very bold) volunteer having the sysop flag do the job expecting some reward from the transparency knights? I was largely out-of-touch with the site for years and may miss important caveats for cases where bosses have some stake.
Incnis Mrsi (
talk) 16:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
The recent history of the article "Ranaghat" shows a lot of additions to the lists of "Notable People", radical pruning by me of one list, and effective (although not necessarily deliberate) reversion of this pruning.
I pruned because in my experience lists of non-linked or red-linked people can easily include the very dubiously notable ("ex-bassist of [a bluelinked but obscure rock group]"), worthy but non-notable citizens ... and shading off into mere boosterism, with contributors' employers, uncles, etc. I was sure there was a guideline about this, somewhere.
When reverted, I thought: Time to find and cite that guideline! But I couldn't find it. Had I just hallucinated its existence?
Here's my own idea of a list of people: List of street photographers. Unless somebody has been fiddling with this list of mine, every person is bluelinked, and every inclusion is backed up with a reference. A list, or lists, of "Notable People" within some other article might have different standards, but I can't immediately imagine how they could be beneficial. On the other hand I appreciate that I can't simply mandate my own preferences across Wikipedia: WP:OWN, collegiality, and all that.
So, what are the (unwritten?) rules or guidelines? (Or aren't there any?) And if there aren't, should redlinked/nonlinked people be listed? -- Hoary ( talk) 12:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines.' (excuse: 'but the list is notable, it does not say that the items in the list need to be notable. The items need to be verifyable, here, I am a carpenter, it is on my LinkedIn, done, you verified it!').
A company or organization may be included in a list of companies or organizations whether or not it meets the Wikipedia notability requirement, unless a given list specifically requires this. If the company or organization does not have an existing article in Wikipedia, a citation to an independent, reliable source should be provided to establish its membership in the list's group(similarly in WP:LISTPEOPLE). Excuse is then often 'but this is not a company, this is a product', and that people do not understand the concept 'independent, reliable source': 'Look, I published it in Nature, Nature is an independent source, and it is reliable'. There is way too much wriggle space, I would strongly advocate to make that more general requirements so we can enforce what goes in a list, any list. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 13:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
For the first time in 3 years there is a drive underway to try and help and reduce the backlog of Good Article nominees. Please consider joining us. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
The University of Cambridge Project is now inactive. How could this Project, or indeed any Project become active again.-- Dthomsen8 ( talk) 15:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by the plural title of Yazidis but don't want to reinvent the wheel. The article was moved to the plural
19:31, 28 August 2014 DrKay talk contribs block 37 bytes +37 DrKiernan moved page Yazidi to Yazidis: requested move
but I cannot find the RM in question, I have looked but maybe best not to say exactly where in case I'm missing it.
A second pair of eyes would be appreciated. TIA Andrewa ( talk) 06:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey all. File:Squadron2020 rendering.jpg is currently used as a free use file. However, as I see it, it would fall under Template:PD-FinlandGov, as it is a part of a statement of a public body. What do you guys think, could it be moved to Commons? There's some talk around PD-FinlandGov on Commons, but I couldn't find anything relevant. ( talk) 13:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Dear all
C:Category:Media files produced by UNESCO: 2019-09
I’m very pleased to say that the first batch of 100 very high resolution photos (plus descriptions) from the UNESCO archives has been uploaded to Commons by our friends at Wikimedia Sweden. There are some amazing photos in this first batch including Italian National Archives material being washed and dried in a train station after a flood, and the installation of a Henry Moore sculpture. We would really appreciate it if you could take 5 minutes to add some to Wikipedia articles, Wikidata items etc so that UNESCO will be encouraged to make more images available.
C:Category:Media files produced by UNESCO: 2019-09
Thanks very much
John Cummings ( talk) 18:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm curious. Why are Category:Queen's Counsel and subcat names not plural? They are sets of people.-- Roy17 ( talk) 13:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay - I have run contests over the past 7 years: the Core Contest (which I coordinated for seven runs—twice in 2012, once each in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017), the Stub Contest (in December 2013, September 2014 and August 2015) and Take the lead! (January 2016). I get a grant of $250 and folks have a chance of winning some $25 Amazon vouchers. Thought it was time to run one again but couldn't figure out which...I keep yo-yoing so I thought I'd just throw it out there...
See User_talk:Casliber#Running_a_contest_(talk_page_watchers_welcome) Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
For the next ~24 hours the Financial Times has dropped its paywall. A great opportunity for Wikimedians needing to check sources (or submit them to the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine)! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey there. The second (September) iteration of draft recommendations ( m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Recommendations) are published at Meta-wiki. What we reviewed and discussed in the past month was the first (August) iteration. Now is your time to review the current (second) iteration of the recommendations. -- George Ho ( talk) 11:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd love some comments on this. Maybe I misunderstand the Wikipedia policies, but at least some of the content seems relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natemup ( talk • contribs) 16:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation Research team is planning to run a follow-up survey of Wikipedia readers. We ran the first iteration of this survey in June (see description on meta) and it was determined that the survey should be run for a longer period of time (but at a much lower sampling rate) to more uniformly reach infrequent readers.
We expect no disruptions in the workflow of editors during this study. The survey will ask readers about their motivation for reading as well as a few demographic questions (age, gender, education, place, native language). The survey aims to improve our understanding of the diversity of readers as well as how the needs and experience of Wikipedia readers varies across different populations. We plan to run the survey for one month starting on 2019-09-26. It will sample 1 out of every 1200 readers. For questions, feel free to ping Isaac (WMF) or leave a comment on the meta page. Thank you! -- Isaac (WMF) ( talk) 14:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Is there some way to filter just Monkbot's Task 16 busy-work out of my watchlist? It's getting in the way! Largoplazo ( talk) 23:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
The Chirac (died Thursday, Sept 26) article is deemed not fit for "Recent deaths (mainpage) linking (see WP:In_the_news discussion). Seems to do with reference issues, though not well specified. If you can improve the article references, please help. Chirac not on the mainpage is a serious omission. - DePiep ( talk) 12:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I am an editor located in mainland China where Wikipedia is blocked. I need to use proxy IP to edit English Wiki. Through the help from another editor, I got the English Wiki local IPBE 6 months ago. It is going to expire soon. The editor who helped me out sonehow is no longer active. Could anyone can tell me how to renew my English Wiki local IPBE ? Thanks! 钉钉 ( talk) 05:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. 钉钉 ( talk) 12:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Please move the content from draft about Alexandru Darie to a wikipedia article. He is notable enough because he was one of the most important theatre directors from Romania. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 ( talk) 17:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
In a recent statement, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees requested that staff hold a consultation to "re-evaluat[e] or add community input to the two new office action policy tools (temporary and partial Foundation bans)".
Accordingly, the Foundation's Trust & Safety team invites all Wikimedians to join this consultation and give their feedback from 30 September to 30 October.
How can you help?
We offer our thanks in advance for your contributions, and we hope to get as much input as possible from community members during this consultation!
-- Kbrown (WMF) 17:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
The talk page template {{WikiProject South Africa |class=Stub |importance=Mid |PSP SA=yes|PSP SA-priority=mid}} results in Stub-Class South Africa articles, Mid-importance South Africa articles, Stub-Class PSP SA articles, and Unknown-importance PSP SA articles as categories at the top of the talk page, but Unknown-importance PSP SA articles is the result, regardless of the final parameter |PSP SA-importance=mid or |PSP SA-priority=mid. Should Unknown-importance PSP SA articles not appear, or maybe there a correct parameter to produce an importance? Perhaps this is actualy a bug, or perhaps there is a correct parameter that I cannot guess. What can other editors tell me about this situation?-- Dthomsen8 ( talk) 21:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I believe it was either a prank or a test first added by 86.26.9.129 ( talk): special:diff/286460068. It has polluted other websites. special:redirect/page/22645740 should be deleted. Any geologists/historians have reliable books on Wegener to confirm?-- Roy17 ( talk) 20:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I just noticed that quite a few dab pages of saint names are in Category:Disambiguation pages with surname-holder lists (what a convoluted cat name); for example, Saint Louis and St. Jacques. While there are people whose surname is Louis, I don't think this applies to Saint Louis. It is not like, “Tell me Mr. Louis, why did your parents call you 'Saint'?"; if anything, his surname was Capet.
Is this something that ought to be fixed? If so, is Category:Disambiguation pages with given-name-holder lists the appropriate cat? -- Lambiam 23:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
While I have never to my knowledge consumed had one of these comestibles, I have read the articles both here and es:Empanadas - there seems to be a lot of content relating to the legality of empanadas in the Spanish Wikipedia that we don't have. Moreover it seems there is an Internet meme "I only came to say I am selling empanadas" which does not seem documented on either Wiki, though it is used as vandalism .
Any volunteers to improve one or both articles? All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 16:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC).
I don't know if this is the right place to post this, but the current edition of Click (TV programme) has an interesting segment on this - 5 mins or so, at the top. I expect available wherever their news channel is, & maybe online. link on UK site. Johnbod ( talk) 15:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Here is the BBC News link. It is indeed very worrisome that a state entity makes a concerted and organized effort to control WP. This will undermine WP's independence and credibility. What is the community and Wikimedia doing about this? -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
The iOS version of the Wiki mobile app has a section displaying the most read articles. According to that, the Apple Network Server is currently #1, and was #2 yesterday.
Bug in mobile version? Or is something going on on the 'net I can't find?
Maury Markowitz ( talk) 12:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
When all article titles (~ 5.9 million) are sorted alphabetically the last one in the list is 黑山 -- Green C 03:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
The folks that work on Amazon Alexa (which relies heavily on Wikipedia) have sent us some data on missing infobox parameters. Specifically, which prominent parameters are missing from high traffic articles. I've posted the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes/Missing parameters. Ryan Kaldari (WMF) ( talk) 23:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I have applied for a grant from WMF to subsidize a personal project to request digitization and upload films in the Library of Congress collection to Commons. I would appreciate your feedback and support.--- Coffeeand crumbs 02:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not shure where to report this, but this page seems to be ok. For about a month IP user 31.205.59.15 is adding a word then deleting the word, then adding the same word again, and then deleting it, ... (in another article it can be a group of words). All articles are from members of the Thai Royal Family. -- FredTC ( talk) 06:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
(Repost). Quite a few dab pages of saint names are in Category:Disambiguation pages with surname-holder lists, for example, Saint Louis and St. Jacques. While there are people whose surname is Louis, I don't think this applies to Saint Louis. I am pretty sure "Louis" was a given name; if anything, his family name was Capet. Is this something that ought to be fixed? If so, is Category:Disambiguation pages with given-name-holder lists the appropriate cat? -- Lambiam 23:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Please help translate to other languages.
Hello. The Readers Web team at the WMF will work on some improvements to the desktop interface over the next couple of years. The goal is to increase usability without removing any functionality. We have been inspired by changes made by volunteers, but that currently only exist as local gadgets and user scripts, prototypes, and volunteer-led skins. We would like to begin the process of bringing some of these changes into the default experience on all Wikimedia projects.
We are currently in the research stage of this project and are looking for ideas for improvements, as well as feedback on our current ideas and mockups. So far, we have performed interviews with community members at Wikimania. We have gathered lists of previous volunteer and WMF work in this area. We are examining possible technical approaches for such changes.
We would like individual feedback on the following:
We would also like to gather a list of wikis that would be interested in being test wikis for this project - these wikis would be the first to receive the updates once we’re ready to start building.
When giving feedback, please consider the following goals of the project:
As well as the following constraints:
Please give all feedback (in any language) at mw:Talk:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements
After this round of feedback, we plan on building a prototype of suggested changes based on the feedback we receive. You’ll hear from us again asking for feedback on this prototype.
Thank you! Quiddity (WMF) ( talk)
07:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
We could have new Pokémon based on templates and an evil team of vandals who are out to harm the integrity of the site. I call it Pokémon: Wiki! Cause if 4chan gets one, why can’t we? Derpdart56 ( talk) 23:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
okay, this was a bad idea Derpdart56 ( talk) 20:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I think we should have more eyes on a discussion at WT:WikiProject Climate change#Nomination of_Wikimedia community for award. This is about "nominating the Wikimedia community for the 2019 "Climate Change Public Outreach Award" from Climate Outreach." ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 01:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
46.211.141.13 and 46.211.152.72 have had no prior history of editing on Wikipedia, but both have come onto Template:Arianespace launches attempting to reinstate edits made by 217.30.192.8 which I had problems with, and reverted as part of the bold, revert, discuss cycle. It's extremely unlikely that two different real editors have come onto the scene out of the blue within such a short timespan on a relatively low-traffic page with the same exact, identical agenda. Thus, I'm almost certain that 217.30.192.8 is sock puppeting as 46.211.141.13 and 46.211.152.72. I'm inexperienced in dealing with sock puppets, so I've come to ask, what should my next actions be in this situation? – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 07:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Here's the fascinating discussion at this RfC, Apparently theoretically the internet is not a proper name, but the world kinda considered that it might be for a while. What do you think? -- [E.3] [chat2] [me] 13:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
Apologies if this is the wrong way to raise this.
The Stonewall (Charity) wikipedia page has been substantially rewritten over the last few days. From the edits it seems clear that there's a significant POV issue regarding the recent controversy over Trans rights in the UK, with the article being rewritten to favour the anti-Trans activists' POV. This includes a section on Stonewall's supposed "split", alleging that Anti-Transgender group LGB Alliance splintered off from Stonewall. This is clearly inaccurate
Thanks-- 130.209.157.50 ( talk) 13:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Normally, we don't capitalize the names of drinks. E.g., " strawberry milkshake" or " lemonade" aren't capitalized. Nor are some cocktail names like the margarita, gin and tonic or vodka soda.
So why would the rules be different for, say, Long Island Iced Tea? Why would it be considered a proper noun rather than being Long Island iced tea? It's true that with some branded products, like Coke, we might say, "I grabbed a Coke," but we wouldn't say, "I grabbed a Cola" because it's not a proper noun when it's generic like that.
Anyway, the {{ IBA Official Cocktails}} uses proper noun capitalization for most mixed drinks, but even there, there are exceptions, like the champagne cocktail or Irish coffee. I can understand, though, that for some cocktails like Sex on the Beach, a disambiguation purpose could be served by capitalization, so that people know what you're referring to when you say, "The Sex on the Beach I had yesterday was amazing." On the other hand, if you capitalize Irish Coffee, then people might think you're referring to Irish Coffee (band) or Irish Coffee (TV series) when you say, "I enjoy Irish Coffee."
Any thoughts on what the standard should be? Thanks, Зенитная Самоходная Установка ( talk) 20:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.This is the substantive criertia for determining the question, as arrived at by a broad community consensus. In the case of Long Island Iced Tea, by this n-gram, it does not meet the threshold to be capped in full. Others may. An arguement to follow IBA style falls to WP:SPECIALSTYLE and is even more inappropriate if that style uses all-caps. Arguements to MOS:TM have merit, where the name is a brand/trademark etc in full or part. Parts of a phrase which are themself a proper noun, tradename or like will be capitalised but it does not confer capitalisation on the whole name phrase. There is an often perceived but false equivalence between proper names and capitalisation - the former being a matter of grammar and the other, a matter of orthography. There are lots of things that might be capitalised that are not proper names. Proper names are not descriptive. Any arguement to capitalise brandy and soda (or similar) is just BS, where the name is descriptive of the ingredients. It would also be very debatable, where the name is metaphorically descriptive - ie "tequila sunrise". There is some merit in the arguement that names like Sex on the Beach are titles for the recipes and should be written in title case, where such names are not descriptive. It is quite another matter to assert that because title case is used, a title is a proper name. However, the proof whether a name is actually a title lies in usage and the guidelines - MOS:CAPS, WP:NCCAPS. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)