This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78
I am not certain what to do. There have been several AFD nominations at List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters ending in no consensus, and I have serious concerns about whether the article in question isn't actually violating copyright law. I started a conversation at Talk:List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters#Is this list a copyright violation?. However, the AFDs and this conversation seem to be flooded with comments by editors who edit in this area and may be biased because they are fans. I am wanting to just get some neutral people over to this discussion to provide input or better yet experienced editors dealing with copyright concerns. I would feel a lot better knowing if I knew I was getting input from neutral people even if they disagree with me. How do I go about doing this? 4meter4 ( talk) 18:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
First, I noticed Snooganssnoogans campaigning for "dictators" to be described as such. Then, I noticed a campaign for Mao Zedong to be labelled as a mass murderer. The proposed text links "mass killing of landlords" to the under-developed Chinese Land Reform page, where there has been an incredible amount of activity lately. Clearly, Wikipedia needs to detail the bad sides of historical figures, but it also needs to be encyclopedic and neutral. I also think there seems to be evidence of a concerted campaign, which is a bit concerning.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Please help translate to other languages.
Wikipedia Asian Month is back! We wish you all the best of luck for the contest. The basic guidelines of the contest can be found on your local page of Wikipedia Asian Month. For more information, refer to our Meta page for organizers.
Looking forward to meet the next ambassadors for Wikipedia Asian Month 2019!
For additional support for organizing offline event, contact our international team on wiki or on email. We would appreciate the translation of this message in the local language by volunteer translators. Thank you!
Wikipedia Asian Month International Team.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Recently there has been an upsurge of conflicts between WP:ANIME and WP:TV on how to handle Anime television series. Here is the history 1, 2and 3. The common subjects are presented below.
The editors of WP:ANIME have agreed to open this discussion in WP:VILLAGE as the best place to find a solution.
The prominent members involved in the dispute are IJBall, Gonnym, Amaury, and AussieLegend. At this time of posting, they have not acknowledged this discussion and continue to respond here Talk:List of Toriko episodes#Requested move 26 October 2019. This statement will be revised once the respected members participate in this discussion. Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 02:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Because the editors on WP:TV's side are opting for more articles regardless of quality- Not TV editors, but en.wiki's own guidelines support WP:STUB. Feel free to to start an RfC on that and change it.
WP:ANIME isn't OK with it- since when was WP:ANIME exempt from WP:OWN? Please provide me a link to that discussion which resulted in a consensus to disregard an en.wiki policy.
There is no rule or guideline in WP:TV or WP:MOSTV or even in WP:MOSFILM that says our process is different. WP:TVSPLIT does not say that a list of episodes cannot be created unless the main article is a standalone TV series. It just says main article.- That is correct, if by that, you mean you choose to ignore the whole MoS which TVSPLIT is a small section from. Please re-read the MoS, especially WP:MOSTV#Parent, season, and episode article structure, which explains the article structure. Notice that the "parent article" should have all the sections listed.
But i do believe that WP:ANIME should have the freedom to make necessary adjustments to its own MOS and WP:TV should comply- to ignore a MoS guideline you need community consensus and not local consensus.
and we expand the adaptations in the page until proven notable on their own- just like the first point, ANIME is making up rules that contradict en.wiki. See WP:TVSHOW which clearly states
Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television station. See again WP:OWN why you don't decide what has notability.
Because the editors on WP:TV's side are opting for more articles regardless of quality, and WP:ANIME isn't OK with it (Not unless you hold yourself accountable for its quality)- This is certainly not good faith and doesn't make sense. As explained at the RM discussion, moving the article doesn't change its quality. In fact the changes that IJBall made and which were later reverted improved the quality. There is a strange belief amongst the anime editors involved that moving an article somehow turns it into a stub. This has been addressed at length at the RM discussion.
There is no rule or guideline in WP:TV or WP:MOSTV or even in WP:MOSFILM that says our process is different. WP:TVSPLIT does not say that a list of episodes cannot be created unless the main article is a standalone TV series.- The anime project sees a franchise article as being the parent article for all elements of a franchise. Neither the TV or FILM projects do this. As explained at the RM discussion, in a reply to you, [5] I wrote WP:TVSPLIT, which is part of MOS:TV, says "When making the decision to split article content from the main page to a List of Episodes page, a season page, or an individual episode page, Wikipedia's guideline for splitting content should be taken into account." It doesn't suggest splitting from an LoE page to a main page, and doesn't have to because the practice followed is the same used for every other article (5 million+ IIRC) on Wikipedia. Initially a main article is created and then, when the article starts getting large, sub-articles like the LoE page and charcters articles are split out to new articles. It's not done the other way around as you seem to prefer.
WP:ANIME creates franchise articles first before making the respected list.- Nobody has said that. What has been repeatedly said by ANIME editors is that franchise articles are the parent articles to LoE pages, for example, that Toriko (a francise article) is the parent of List of Toriko episodes. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 15:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:STUB is a guideline to help define what a stub is, it doesn't endorse their creation.- Your responses are becoming sillier. The fact that WP:STUB talks about how to manage stubs is an endorsement of their existence. We have hundreds (thousands?) of stub templates. There is even an entire stub sorting project. Your attitude seems to be that if something is not explicitly stated then it's not true and that's not the case at all. Much of what we do on Wikipedia is not explicitly stated. There are policies and guidelines that guide how things are done. Use a bit of common sense. Anyway, this discussion about stubs is irrelevant and seems to have come about because you believe that if something is moved, its quality changes. This is also something that is not true.
I've re-read MOSTV#Parent, season, and episode article structure- I bet you haven't. Throughout the two discussions you keep getting terminology wrong. You've even called the TV project WP:TVSHOW, which it is not.
i repeat that it does not explicitly state that it is required to have a standalone TV series article before having an episode list.- Again, use a bit of common sense. Look at every TV series and see how the article heirachy exists. It's always main TV series article first and then sub-articles are split out from there. That's why WP:TVSPLIT says what it does, which I've already explained both here and at the RM discussion. MOS:TV assumes that editors can use some common sense when editing and not obstinately oppose everything that they don't agree with.
"moving" is not the correct term for what you want. You want to re-purpose- Moving is most definitely the correct term. That's why the discussion is titled "Requested move", not "Repurpose proposal". The heading was placed there by the template, not the RM proposer. When articles are moved it's called a move, whether you like it or not. Wikipedia doesn't have a "repurposing thing".
A list is not the same as an article.- True, and this version of the article is clearly not a list. Even as it stands now it's not a list, which is why the move has been proposed. The lede, for example, doesn't comply with MOS:LEAD.
So to say nothing changes is absolutely not true.- That's absolutely incorrect, as has already been explained at length every time you or the other anime editors have put forth some strange misconception.
No MOS explicitly states what WP:ANIME is doing is incorrect or wrong.- MOS:ANIME is not a law unto itself and cannot ignore other pats of the MOS. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and all projects have to work together.
The Japanese entertainment industry- This is not about the Japanese entertainment industry, it's about one requested move discussion that has gotten the noses of a small group of editors out of joint.
Aussie: Your responses are becoming sillier. The fact that WP:STUB talks about how to manage stubs is an endorsement of their existence. We have hundreds (thousands?) of stub templates. There is even an entire stub sorting project. Your attitude seems to be that if something is not explicitly stated then it's not true and that's not the case at all. Much of what we do on Wikipedia is not explicitly stated. There are policies and guidelines that guide how things are done. Use a bit of common sense. Anyway, this discussion about stubs is irrelevant and seems to have come about because you believe that if something is moved, its quality changes. This is also something that is not true.
Aussie: I bet you haven't. Throughout the two discussions you keep getting terminology wrong. You've even called the TV project WP:TVSHOW, which it is not.
Aussie: Again, use a bit of common sense. Look at every TV series and see how the article heirachy exists. It's always main TV series article first and then sub-articles are split out from there. That's why WP:TVSPLIT says what it does, which I've already explained both here and at the RM discussion. MOS:TV assumes that editors can use some common sense when editing and not obstinately oppose everything that they don't agree with.
Aussie: Moving is most definitely the correct term. That's why the discussion is titled "Requested move", not "Repurpose proposal". The heading was placed there by the template, not the RM proposer. When articles are moved it's called a move, whether you like it or not. Wikipedia doesn't have a "repurposing thing".
Aussie That's absolutely incorrect, as has already been explained at length every time you or the other anime editors have put forth some strange misconception.
Aussie MOS:ANIME is not a law unto itself and cannot ignore other pats of the MOS. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and all projects have to work together.
Aussie The anime project sees a franchise article as being the parent article for all elements of a franchise. Neither the TV or FILM projects do this.
Example text
Aussie It doesn't suggest splitting from an LoE page to a main page, and doesn't have to because the practice followed is the same used for every other article (5 million+ IIRC) on Wikipedia.
Aussie Initially a main article is created and then, when the article starts getting large, sub-articles like the LoE page and charcters articles are split out to new articles. It's not done the other way around as you seem to prefer.
Please remain civil. If you believe it is objectively incorrect, you may say so in a civilized manner- I have debunked a number of your arguments, even when you've said the same thing twice. As this has happened your responses have become less and less sensible. Stating that your responses are sillier is a statement of fact.
Stubs are by definition provided Un-encyclopedic.- That doesn't mean that stubs are not acceptable. This is an example of something that you've said more than once and which has been debunked more than once. as I said earlier, you have a strange misconception that moving a list article that is not a stub to a different name will turn it into a stub. That is sa silly belief.
Your point has nothing to do with the discussion- It's entirely relevant when you keep linking to the wrong thing. You clearly haven't read what you are linking to.
This is the first time you're advocating for common sense- And???? There's been a distinct lack of it demonstrated, especially what constitutes a main article. You believe that because something isn't explicitly stated then it's not a rule. To prove that this is incorrect I challenged you to find a single LoE page in the TV project that did not have a TV series article as the main/parent. You refused to do so, which doesn't bode well for your opinion. You'd rather keep your misconception alive than prove that you are wrong.
that's because moving is a simple name change.- That's an example of the above.
not every name change creates the same outcome- That's not at all relevant to your claim that a move is not a move but a repurposing, even when Wikipedia doesn't have repuposing "thing".
May I remind you that "strange misconceptions" can be seen uncivilized too.- From your latest post it seems that you intent raising the uncivilised card every time you can't rebut a particular point. That's a very poor tactic.
There is no such thing as a stub, start, C, or B-class for lists.- This repeated argument is completely irrelevant. Your claim is that moving a list will turn it into a stub and it clearly will not.
Changing a list into an article will require it to be re-assessed and use different standards. So i dont understand why you claim this is "absolutely" incorrect.- It's absolutely incorrect to claim that moving List of Toriko episodes to Toriko (TV series) will turn it into a stub. As has been explained to you multiple times, it will be at least "start" class based on the assessment criteria.
your current statement has nothing to do with what you were responding to- actually it does. MOS:ANIME seems to think it can structure articles whichever way it wants without regard for an established process that is even linked to at MOS:AM#Scope just because MOS:TV doesn't go into intricate detail about how articles should be created. Again, I chellenged you to find this for yourself and you refused to look for articles or to read the MOS.
All i'm saying is that WP:ANIME hasn't ignored any MOS guidelines.- WP:ANIME has ignored the way that articles are normally created on Wikipedia, not just by the TV project but by every project.
I disagree with that statement.- Disagree all you want but anime editors have repeatedly said that the franchise article is the parent for the Toriko LoE page.
Yes i see the quote but i dont see the correlation or how it can be seen as a counterpoint. WP:ANIME follows the quote pressented.- without following the way that all TV articles are created, where the parent article is the main series article. You clearly haven't read the MOS, only the parts of it that suit your point of view.
WP:ANIME follows the MOS.- You claim to follow the MOS but you do not, as the Toriko LoE page demonstrates.
Hello, I have created the NHLtoGA Drive which focuses on bringing all current NHL teams to Good Article status. Any tips on how I can improve the page, promote the drive, and be successful? Any tools I could use? Also, should I move it to WikiProject/Wikipedia space when I finish the page? Thank you. AmericanAir88( talk) 19:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello
I came across
this edit recently (I've discussed it with the OP already): It raises an interesting point, ie. whether the length of the introduction in some articles are too long for mobile phone users. If so, it is going to be a problem across the project. Has this issue been raised and discussed already somewhere? ( I couldn't see anything in the archive, but that doesn't mean much...)I know we have
a size rule, which was possibly more relevant when computers had less capacity; is it time to re-visit that principle? Any thoughts?
Xyl 54 (
talk) 22:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
That's not to say that there aren't leads that are too long, there certainly are. Any article tagged with {{lead too long}} will be included at Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup. Helping out there may be the the best way to address the OP's concern. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Please look at my query about two Australian arts publications with similar names, and make suggestions on how they should be handled in Wikipedia. Bjenks ( talk) 09:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Built-up area has two very different meanings: one road related, and another one for things not related to the road.
The road related legal concept of Built-up area exists in countries members of the Vienna convention, including the United Kingdom. The road related concept of Built-up area also exists in non member countries, such as Ireland, South Africa, and Australia.
The Vienna convention provides a standard definition of road related concept of Built-up area but allows member nations to implement alternative definitions of it. UK (member), and Australia and Ireland (non members) use alternative definitions.
It looks like nowadays, within Built-up area (also named within urban area) is used for speed limit (for instance in Speed limits by country (column within town (wikipedia dialect for within Built-up area))), when previously (1968 convention) Built-up area was more focused on lightings.
Thus, I was wondering if Built-up area (Highway Code) should exclude non British countries, or deal with that concept only for United-Kingdom?
Please, talk it on Talk:Built-up_area_(Highway_Code)#British_Built-up_area_(Highway_Code)_vs_European_Built-up_area_(Highway_Code) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.208.32 ( talk) 01:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Is WP:ANIME subordinate to WP:TV, WP:FILM and WP:COMICS, and therefore should comply with the guidelines of the parent projects? -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 14:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
This manual of style applies to articles about anime, manga, and related topics, and is a topic-specific subset Manual of Style of the following Manuals of Style: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies (where applicable)and later also
Editors should also keep in mind the guidelines suggested on WikiProject Television or WikiProject Films, as those seem to work well for episodic media, including manga.-- AussieLegend ( ✉) 14:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
WP:ANIME doesn't break any of the MOS rules of WP:TV and WP:FILM or even WP:COMIC- Your continuing insistence on repeating your false claims (and I'm saying this very gently) is really annoying. You've been shown numerous guidelines, talk discussions and actual links to specific instances where ANIME's practice goes against both MoS and naming conventions. Saying otherwise does not make it true.
Making a Rising of the Shield Hero (anime)^ or Rising of the Shield Hero (manga)^ will make lower quality articles, and redundant information.- Even in your examples you are oblivious to correct naming conventions. "(anime)" should not be used as disambiguation. I've even linked to the RfC one comment above yours.
WP:ANIME decides to keep them together until substantial information is found and they can be split- Wow. Again with your WP:OWNERSHIP claims.
And they want to achieve this regardless of how low quality and redundant it is to the original main article it was attached to- You are again ignorant to the actual facts. The current and bad examples of the List of episodes articles are in essence the TV series article, whether you admit it or not. They are also, in their current state, not high quality or good articles. Some also have redirects from the base name. Changing their name via WP:RM does not change that fact. Ni ether does re-purposing those articles as the actual main TV series article create bad articles. On the contrary, now instead of a incorrectly named, disorganized TV series article, you have the an actual TV series article. -- Gonnym ( talk) 16:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Your continuing insistence on repeating your false claims (and I'm saying this very gently) is really annoying. You've been shown numerous guidelines, talk discussions and actual links to specific instances where ANIME's practice goes against both MoS and naming conventions. Saying otherwise does not make it true.All you have to do is quote an actual MOS that explicitly states "Episode lists can only be spun out from standalone TV series articles and not any other type of article". As of now, WP:MOSTV only clarifies it an be done from the main article. There is no MOS that says the franchise article can cover the TV series either.
Even in your examples you are oblivious to correct naming conventions. "(anime)" should not be used as disambiguation. I've even linked to the RfC one comment above yours.Comment disregarded due to incivility. moving onto next statement.
You are again ignorant to the actual facts. The current and bad examples of the List of episodes articles are in essence the TV series article, whether you admit it or not.No. i'm not ignorant to Facts. I'm only seeing personal opinions and personal interpretations from you. But WP:ANIME objectively did not go against any MOS. Even then, i rather use Common sense argument than Policy is law.
On the contrary, now instead of a incorrectly named, disorganized TV series article, you have the an actual TV series article.First time i hear you make this claim. But i think this is up to personal interpretation and opinion. If you say its a bad list and needs to be formatted to be a better list. Then i can understand. But trying to say a list is a incorrectly named, disorganized TV series article? I'm sorry, but you haven't given me enough time to accept an idea. To me, this is a stretch of an idea. Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 17:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
off-topic
|
---|
|
Is WP:ANIME subordinate to WP:TV, WP:FILM and WP:COMICSThis question is irrelevant to the problem. The project is clearly distinct from the others and moreover has its own participating editors.
should comply with the guidelines of the parent projects?This question is also irrelevant. Those guidelines are none of TV's, FILM's, ANIME's, COMIC's, or any other WikiProjects's. They presently live in the manual of style, which means they are Wikipedia's. If there is a display of ownership here, that's one of them. WikiProjects don't get to own guidelines. If we are actually interested in the question of the guidelines in play, the correct answer is generally "the more general guideline takes precedence". Now, however, the disputes in question seem to have been localized to certain !rules, and from that aspect I think this RFC is asking the wrong question. So all-around, close this RFC and start ones to clear the !rules up that are causing pain and misery. -- Izno ( talk) 20:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
the more general guideline takes precedence- I don't disagree with that at all. The problem is that anime editors don't seem to agree with you. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 00:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
If you believe that the two guidelines do not line up or are contradictory, you need to fix the guidelines- Again, this is not the issue. Despite what MOS:AM#Scope says, the anime editors don't seem to want to collaborate at all. MOS:TV has been updated in recent years after long discussions with many editors. While there may be some minor points that need fixing, specifically changing it to "mandate" that a TV series article and not a franchise article is the main article would likely be seen as instruction creep.
Those editors are just as experienced as you. You do not need to comment on their persons.- Please read what I wrote:
where experienced editors have tried to explain how TV articles are created (per MOS:TV and general practice)I was specifically talking about how editors experienced in TV articles, vs editors more experienced in anime aspects and less experienced in TV article aspects while talking about TV articles. This was not a criticism of their overall experience as you seem to think.
you would have moved on to fixing the problematic guidelines- I don't think the guidelines are the problem though. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 02:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
what the differences are and why they're relevant- As has been demonstrated to you several times, there is no difference in the examples we looked at in the RM.
Some editors like you, IJBall, and Gonnym are more concerned about having more TV series despite the quality.-That's completely disrespectful and it's complete garbage. Our intent is to ensure that all television articles to be consistent with each other. That's the main reason for having project MOSes.
Other editors dont want to make unnecessary splits and creating more low-quality articles to work on.- This is completely irrelevant. There were no splits necessary, that was the idea of some of the anime editors who suggested creating a separate TV series article when it wasn't at all necessary. As has also been explained to you repetedly, moving an article doesn't cause it to be of lower quality. In fact the article that IJBall demonstrated was of a higher quality LoE page. The number of times that it has been necessary to rebut the same silly claims is quite ridiculous. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 17:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
while you are right, it does change the criteria- why does this even matter? Page moves occur all the time and nobody talks about the assessment process when it happens. It was demonstrated here that List of Toriko episodes is actually a TV series article mislabelled as a List of Episodes page.
as a TV series page, it is then classified as a stub- The anime editors keep saying this but that's not the case at all. As I've had to say far too many times, it would be at least start class based on the assessment criteria.
Or worse, it would lead to the franchise page lessening in quality because a load of its content is removed to another page- There is actually very little in the franchise page for that series anyway. Moving the article would not affect the franchise article.
why do we need soooo much consistancy between pages- Quite frankly, that's a silly question. Consistency is generally acknowledged to be a good thing. That's why we have the MOS, to guide editors in producing articles that are consistent.
Or Should all biography pages have all of the bio detials split into ten year segments even when it doesn't fit?- Nowhere does the MOS say that should happen. Consistency does not mean articles have to be identical. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 00:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
this is the core problem that you, Gonnym, and IJBall have- More incivility.
46000+ TV programs you claim- Actually, the number of TV series articles using {{ Infobox television}} is 47,682 right now. [7] There may be some TV programs that don't use that infobox.
I doubt that the 46000+ TV programs you mention are all part of multimedia franchises.- They aren't, but that's not at all relevant. Whether or not they are part of a franchise, the TV series article is always the main article for a TV series, as already explained to you multiple times. Franchise articles are usually created later. For example, NCIS originally started with a single series. After other series were started, a franchise article was created to tie the franchise elements together but the individual series articles remain the main articles for each series. This is how it has always been done.
Maybe 1000-1500 articles- Where did you get that number from?
The Japanese entertainment industry- As has been explained to you previously, we're not talking about the Japanese entertainment industry.
For all these reasons, it should be acceptable without question why WP:ANIME follows the current process.- And yet it's not. Nothing you've written justifies stepping away from the article hierarchy that is standard for all TV programs. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 10:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't feel the need to respond anymore because i don't consider any of your points valid.-- And therein lies the real problem. You constantly put forward unsupportable claims and irrelevancies and when they are debunked you either attack the other editor or ignore them while presenting no valid justification yourself. Case closed. -- AussieLegend ( ✉)
The consensus here is that the projects are interconnected but not subordinate, and this has become more of just a shouting match between AussieLegend and Blue Pumpkin Pie which ultimately isn't going to lead anywhere as both users are set in there ways. So I think its time to close the Request for Comment. What does everyone else think?-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page) 22:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
The whole RM and this discussion to me is pretty much about WP:TV vs WP:ANIME which it should not be.- I completely agree and it was never meant that way. I won't go into too many specifics about what happened but the RM discussion was only ever meant to correct a problem with one article. The original discussion on this page was started by an editor who did not like the idea of moving the article and this RfC was started because no progress was being made. That the consensus is obviously that MOS:ANIME and MOS:TV are interconnected is fine with me. It demonstrates what has been said all along, i.e. that we have to collaborate. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 10:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Blue feels the same way about your Aussie.- Maybe he does. The difference is that my responses have all been based on current practices and the MOS. BPP keeps restating silly things like moving an article will turn it into a stub when anyone can see that is not the case at all. He's done very little to actually help in this issue other than attempt to confuse the matter and he's even been called out in the past 24 hours for it at Talk:List of Toriko episodes. I can't say the same for the other anime editors. At least they now seem willing to collaborate. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 03:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
There's a discussion going on at Template talk:Newsletters, please opine. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I've started seeing the following message on the mobile site:
Get the Wikipedia app this Thursday for the quickest way to check a fact, get answers to your questions and information on places nearby. Downloading is easy on your phone and only takes a minute. It’s free and ad-free.
What's happening with the app on Thursday? Wouldn't that be helpful to say, or is this one of those clickbait things and it always gives a day a few days away? --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE) 01:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm posting this here instead of at CfD / AfD because it is not (yet) a proposal to rename hundreds or thousands of categories or articles, but an inquiry as to whether this is a problem or not. Normally, we strive for consistency in category and article naming, but for sports team seasons, we seem to have two competing systems: "Year" "Team name" TEAM and "Year" "Team name" SEASON. But the parent category is always named "Team name seasons", and not "team name teams", which is confusing. Examples:
In Category:American football team seasons
but
All college football seasons (many, many articles) have "team" articles, not "season" articles.
In Category:Association football seasons by club (again, thousands of articles), everything seems to be in the format 2015–16 FC Banants season or 2019 Lansing Ignite FC season. The same goes for Category:Basketball seasons by club. Ice hockey college teams use the "season" format, but for most other college sports we get the "team" version, like 2016 Florida Gators women's gymnastics team.
Is there a need to make this consistent, or is there a good reason why some use "team" and some use "season", even if the parent categories always use "season" and never "team"? Fram ( talk) 11:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Is there any better and/or more prominent way to highlight how neglected this page is to try and attract editors to help deal with the backlog of requests listed and archived? There are requests that are over a month old and have not been addressed. Bots seem to be regularly archiving unaddressed issues, which are then going unchanged and being missed entirely. The page does have a template indicating it has a backlog but for how neglected the page is this seems inefficient. Images and maps are important topics that need maintenance at a consistent rate. Helper201 ( talk) 12:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
In order to bring in a fuller perspective, any Wikipedia editor or administrator is cordially invited to the RfC discussion proposed by administrator JzG on self-sourcing with respect to including the author's rebuttal, by way of his or her blog post, in response to negative information in a section of their article. Arguments for and against have made, including WP:BLP.
Cheers,
--
Doug Mehus
T·
C 15:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Can someone please take a look at what is causing Category:Articles with unsourced statements from October 2,019 and Category:Articles with unsourced statements from November 2,019? I figured out that this edit by @ Starship.paint caused one of the october issues, and this edit by @ WisDom-UK caused the other, but for the life of me I cannot tell why, nor can I fix it. Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 10:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
formatnum
magic word on their value to insert commas in the numbers for display. When someone includes a maintenance tag in the field, though, it also inserts commas into the year in the category title. The usual solution is to put the {{
citation needed}} into the field normally used to supply a reference for the data, rather than in the data field itself. I don't know what's the convention for {{
Infobox airport}}, putting it in |stat1-header=
or in |footnotes=
somehow. You might see also
Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 66#Strange categories due to {{fact}} tags.
Anomie
⚔ 12:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Do we have a page, like Wikipedia:Graphics Lab, for requesting IPA transcriptions? There's nothing mentioned on Help:IPA. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Resolved ia Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. There's also {{ Pronunciation needed}}, which categorizes the article under Category:Articles needing pronunciation - the latter has a backlog of almost 1,000 pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Apakah halaman Manda mempunyai referensi terpercaya? Saya perhatikan tulisannya penuh ngaco dan ngasal. Saya minta halaman Manda dihapus karena isinya mengandung iklan dan penyesatan serta informasinya tidak sepenuhnya akurat Terima kasih. -- Untuk Indonesia ( talk) 17:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I had suggested a merge of the article Radagast in August. However, before there was any resolution of that, the article was sent to AfD which has been closed as "Keep". Does that mean it is impossible to start a new merger discussion?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
{{ User:JzG/I Voted ACE19}} puts a badge on your user or talk page, Please feel free to use and improve! Guy ( help!) 18:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
By coincidence, I have created {{ Voted}} (which yields I have voted), for the more mundane look. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
module:HS listed building was today moved to Module:HS listed building row by User:Cwmhiraeth (non-admin close).
This has broken a vast number of pages, such as eg List of listed buildings in Gairloch, Highland -- essentially every page listing listed buildings in Scotland that are targeted by the Wiki Loves Monuments campaign.
Is there a quick fix for this? Will it eventually fix itself automatically? Or is some intervention needed? Jheald ( talk) 14:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Please move the article of Nicolae Botgros from draft to the main space as he is notable enough because he is one of the most important conductors from Moldova. He has articles on other wikipedias, including french. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 ( talk) 07:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
In consideration of a week-long internet block in Iran, Wikipedia Asian Month 2019 contest has been extended for a week past November. The articles submitted till 7th December 2019, 23:59 UTC will be accepted by the fountain tools of the participating wikis.
Please help us translate and spread this message in your local language.
Wikipedia Asian Month International Team
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 14:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi! Here it seems we have two articles on the very same person. Please excuse if this note is wrongly placed. -- 2.67.226.202 ( talk) 15:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Please join me in giving a very warm welcome and congratulations to User:Astro Christina ( Christina Koch) for making the very first edit to Wikipedia citation needed from outer space! [8] [9] Thank you also to Darenwelsh for his role in this helping us achieve this milestone. I think I can speak for everyone that we are very proud, and look forward to the first edit from the Moon, Mars, and beyond! — MusikAnimal talk 21:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Unbelievable. I was notified that Wikipedia is engaging Google [10]. My replies were annihilated [11]. #NoToGoogle. - DePiep ( talk) 22:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Gore (film) redirects to Kevin_Spacey#Sexual_misconduct_allegations -- Basile Morin ( talk) 01:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Please note that Mariss Jansons died on 1 december 2019 according to russian wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 ( talk) 09:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi to all Wikipedians! :) Why do we need so much time for new articles (Drafts) to be published? If you read them once, you can tell if there is something to be changed and what it is or is it already fit to be published. Alekszizovic ( talk) 10:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Hey All
Later today we will be launching our upcoming annual fundraising campaigns in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the USA, and the United Kingdom. This campaigns sees us raise approximately half of the annual funds for the Wikimedia movement. The banners form just one component and since October, our E-mail fundraising programme has already been running in these countries.
There are a number of ways you can help support the fundraiser:
As always, can I thank the community for all your help and patience over the coming weeks. It's hugely appreciated. Seddon (WMF) ( talk) 13:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi guys! I have left a message on the talk page of the above article. Can somebody please assist me? Regards. Oesjaar ( talk) 10:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
This article is about social institute in Muscovite Russia. The problem is that such social institute wasn't exist in Russia, or, at least, it doesn't have name "terem". As you can see in interwiki articles on Slavic languages, ru:Терем, uk:Терем, pl:Terem and even fr:Terem (architecture), терем is just an upper floor of old Russian buildings. As a Russian, I can confirm this. Women could live in this upper floor, and they could be limited in communicating with strangers, but this social practice definitely not called "terem". Since this enwiki article created by an one-page account and no one source in references mentions a word "terem" in title, could this article be some sort of hoax? It can describe existing practice, but under name that definitely not connected to it. MBH ( talk) 05:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
This is a hoax based on a gipsy song:
Отрада Старинная таборная песня в обр. М. Шишкина
- Живет моя отрада
- В высоком терему,
- А в терем тот высокий
- Нет ходу никому.
- .
- Я знаю, у красотки
- Есть сторож у крыльца,
- Но он не загородит
- Дороги молодца.
46.188.23.100 ( talk) 07:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I read a Kaiser Kuo article about China and its perceptions in the West. He said:
I noticed this very phenomenon with reporting on Russia, where a "Russia does this" turns out to be a municipal government. Please read past the headlines of the sources quoted and be exact with who did what.
Thanks, WhisperToMe ( talk) 15:34, 10 December 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.
Yes. I use Wikipedia regularly as a quick look-up for some kinds of information and a starting point for further research into other interests.
No. I won't contribute. So long as Wikipedia claims to be written in English when it is in American-English. So long as it gives American-English preference and priority over English and gives further insult by calling English, British English.
English, as written and spoken in England has primacy. It is the original form. It is the most widely used by number of sovereign nations that use and/or recognise English. By numbers of people who use English it is the dominant form (this includes speakers in India).
I will continue to use Wikipedia but I will not support it. It is fundamentally racist, exclusive and hostile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenniethedog ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
The more that is written on Wikipedia about mythical, fictional characters from ancient sagas & tales, more and more due to TV shows where they are portrayed as real people of history, and many excited TV viewers think they were (and want them to be), the more confusion the word "legendary" is causing. Legendary, as we know, is also often used about famous stars in many fields in our own time, actual persons who have existed. Does anyone think there might be a need for a guideline recommendation to avoid the word when describing people from old Viking stories etc. Ragnar Lothbroc was a man of legend, yes, but I think many people misunderstand it if we say about him and such persons that they are "legendary". It is then safe to assume thet he was (1) a real person and (2) greatly renowned and thus called "legendary". Mae West is a legendary movie star, but not a Viking princess. Thoughts? -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 12:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I have put in a request for local banner notices for cities in the United States (and possibly elsewhere in North America) hosting Wikipedia Day events this January and February at m:CentralNotice/Request/Wikipedia Day US + North America 2020.-- Pharos ( talk) 00:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
There is currently an RfC on the article discussion page for DC Extended Universe regarding the inclusion of the as-yet unmade Batman movie; to whit, is there notable, reliable sourcing that the film is within the subset of the DC Universe called the DC Extended Universe? More eyes and voices are always welcome. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 17:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi there,
Foreword: I am very new to Wikipedia, not very active and not very literate in online activities. I had joined because I like the cause and because, after years of only using Wikipedia as a convenient source, I realized that I could provide pieces of knowledge to make Wikipedia better. But I am only embarking on this endeavor. So please forgive if I violate rules or place this contribution wrong: just educate me gently ;-).
Now here's the issue: an email in my inbox, date stamped 'Dec 11' and seemingly coming from 'Wikipedia.org'. (It seems, though, that I cannot upload the png-file I created to show this line item; thus I describe it):
- "jimmy@wikipedia.org" is identified as the sender;
- "Nothing beats a warm welcome" is the subject line; and
- "Karin S, something only you know" is shown as the beginning of the text body on a Gmail account.
Two thing threw me off immediately (and if I don't trust an email, I don't open it): (1) When I signed up with Wikipedia, I provided nothing to address me as "Karin S"! And minor, but adding (2): the 'beginning of the text body' doesn't fill the whole line which Gmail provides in the inbox -- as if there would be no more text. (Thinking of it again: Plus, there is this touchy-feely subject line months after I had signed up; and the enticing "only you know".)
I tried to find something on Wikipedia which addresses a possible spoofing, phishing, or otherwise malignant email purportedly coming from Wikipedia.org. But I did not find anything. Then I tried to find out where such an issue might be addressed in 'back pages' like 'talk', 'help' or such... And thus I ended up here:
Is this kind of email spoofing from Wikipedia.org new? Or am I paranoid, and this is a regular enterprise of proactive member contact or such?? And: shouldn't something like this be addressed somewhere on Wikipedia's many pages??? (Or am I too stupid to find that one needle in a haystack?)
Thank you for considering my issue kindly!
-- Katheska ( talk) 04:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Are conditional RfCs binding? What I mean is something like, if X happens, then this edit should happen. This question was inspired by the Trump impeachment, but is not related to any actual proposal. I just wanted to know for future reference. My personal opinion is no.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 01:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi there,
I'd like some neutral input from a few moderately experienced (or better) editors regarding a dispute regarding what does and doesn't belong at a disambiguation page, specifically Holmes and Watson (disambiguation).
The dispute is essentially between this version and this one. Those involved are myself ( Ubcule ( talk · contribs)) and ThaddeusSholto ( talk · contribs).
The discussion is currently at User_talk:ThaddeusSholto#Changes_to_Holmes_and_Watson_(disambiguation), although it might be better moved to the talk page for reasons of neutrality.
(Apologies if the Village Pump isn't the best place to ask, but I'd rather have more input than just the single person that "thirdparty" normally gets.) Ubcule ( talk) 22:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Note that Daniel Selvaraj died on 21 december 2019 according to Google. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 ( talk) 08:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
This template doesn’t work. Did they remove link support?
E Super Maker ( 😲 shout) 01:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
{{ul|Example}}
generates [[User:Example|Example]]
. You created Template:ul but it was changed to a redirect because it was redundant.
Johnuniq (
talk) 02:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Looking through this section, there are articles that haven't seen Talk Page comments in years and/or article doesn't exist anymore. Is there any reason NOT to remove the controversial tag from stale articles? Slywriter ( talk) 16:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
The following users are members of the researchers user group which provides limited access to deleted information. These users have been contacted to see if they still require this access for whichever special project they were working on, but have not responded. As a routine cleanup, I propose we remove this flag from these accounts at this time, barring any specific objection. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 02:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I just received an e-mail saying that "someone, probably [me]" had requested a reset of my password. It wasn't me. Of course the e-mail tells me to ignore the message if someone else made the request, but I'm a bit worried. I mean, why would anyone attempt this if s/he has no access to my e-mail? Steinbach ( talk) 15:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Wikimedia received an inquiry ticket:2019120410011208 regarding an issue with a similar named organization.
While I explained that we typically used a hat note when we have two organizations with similar names in Wikipedia, it appears that in this case, one of the organizations has a Wikipedia article and the other does not. I looked at the Guidance Wikipedia:Hatnote but I didn't see clear coverage of how this should be handled.
The Wikipedia article is OpenStudio, while the similarly named organization has a website here.
Is it, or should it be acceptable to create a hat note to explained that the Wikipedia article is not about the business management site? S Philbrick (Talk) 17:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I clear junk like cookies after each session online. I contribute 2£GBP occasionally but find next session I get the begging bowl come round again. Blunt Sword WP is using. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.49.17.60 ( talk) 11:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedians! For those of you using the Gregorian calendar, what are you doing for New Years' Eve? I'm watching a TV broadcast of Vika and Linda performing a live cover of ABBA's Fernando (song), and Casey Donovan (singer) performing I Will Survive (song). And it's awesome that we have articles on all of thos things! Pelagic ( talk) 12:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC) (disclaimer: I may have been wining earlier [does anyone know the link to that page?])
Happy New Year from Sydney, Australia — UTC+11! Can't believe those peeps from New Zealand and Kiribati didn't get in first. Pelagic ( talk) 13:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Here is a story in the Washington Post about "Personal Life" sections in biographies of living persons. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/obsessed-with-wikipedia-personal-life-entries-youre-not-alone/2019/12/30/cb31a50a-2673-11ea-9c21-2c2a4d2c2166_story.html Basically, many readers like these sections, so that, as long as we are in compliance with verifiability and the requirements for reliable sources and other aspects of the policies on biographies of living persons, maybe we should remember that is The Reader for whom we are writing the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I found a number of biographies that should be moved to a sub-category. The category structure is already there and I can create a list of the articles pretty simply, it will just be tedious to do by hand. Is this eligible for a bot request? The list is User:Bri/Recat. ☆ Bri ( talk) 21:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Please see Talk:List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#RfC_on_booster_landings_graph. Some comment from editors who are not regulars of the page is requested. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 02:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Adding multiple sections to relatively short articles seems like one of the most abused acts of editing on Wikipedia. It adds virtually nothing other than clutter. There ought to be a guideline to only section an article when each of the individual sections would, by itself, be longer than a stub article (i.e. 10+ sentences). Praemonitus ( talk) 20:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place (I am not a regular contributor to the English Wikipedia), but as the original article was deleted and the discussion archived: Concerning South Front: This article was deleted in 2017 for notability-reasons. However, as the website has a clear bias and is being used in a range of citations (e.g. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]) not citing this bias: what might be the best way to inform readers that the sources have this bias? Or is this not an issue? Hardscarf ( talk) 10:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
If you've been here long enough, what was your first edit of the last decade? Mine was Special:Diff/337740563 on 04:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC) to Shakespeare's Spy. Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 17:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Any idea which of the three ISBN numbers listed on PDF page 5 is the correct one for this book?
Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 00:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
(crosspost from WP:AN)
A massive (the largest ever) Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigation, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Dr. Blofeld, was recently opened. The usual 3 people at CCI won't be able to complete it themselves, so I am asking everyone who has the time to help clean it up. No copyright knowledge is required, and instructions + further information can be found at User:Money emoji/Dr. Blofeld CCI cleanup. I will also be listing this at WP:CENT, as the last time a large scale CCI cleanup effort was conducted ( Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo), it was listed there. A big thanks to all who sign up, 💴Money💶💵emoji💷 Talk💸 Help out at CCI! 02:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I finally caught up on a Wikipedia readership survey, which you can listen to in the second half of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIko_V1k09s (The first half is about the re-use of Wikipedia's contents, with a shoutout during the questions at the end to the United Nations for re-using some content while getting the attribution/licensing correct.) See mw:Wikimedia Research/Showcase for more information and links to previous content.
Age: Most readers are under the age of 25. This survey was taken at a time when many countries were not in school, so this is pretty much a year-round baseline.
Language: Every other person reading your article is not a native speaker of English. User:Dank, I'm not sure that this should be considered at all when you're looking for WP:Brilliant Prose, but it's something that other editors, such as User:Doc James, may want to take into account for other purposes.
Identity: As for who reads what, everyone reads about religion, geography, and people, but people read about people who are like them – men read about men, women read about women, youth read about youth, etc. This means that when we don't have content on ________ people, then those readers don't find what they want. Women read about medicine, biology, and television shows more than men. Men read about sports, technology (the article about YouTube was given as an example), and military subjects more than women. (They didn't get enough numbers to make any similar statements readers who identified in other ways.)
If you want more information, please see mw:Wikimedia Research/Showcase#November 2019. Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 21:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
This article was tagged for updating in 2017 and is not only hopelessly out of date, but reflects the fake news of yesteryear. I have proposed to scrap it quite some time ago, but this was simply rejected and it is still standing there in all its ugly and biased glory. Never mind that the euro has the support of over 2/3 of Greeks today. Wikipedia is supposed to be reliable and neutral, not a collection of failed anti-European rhetoric, no matter how many Brexiteers want it otherwise. When will Wikipedia realize that this undermines its own credibility? Jcwf ( talk) 20:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello Folks,
Wiki Loves Love is back again in 2020 iteration as Wiki Loves Folklore from 1 February, 2020 - 29 February, 2020. Join us to celebrate the local cultural heritage of your region with the theme of folklore in the international photography contest at Wikimedia Commons. Images, videos and audios representing different forms of folk cultures and new forms of heritage that haven’t otherwise been documented so far are welcome submissions in Wiki Loves Folklore. Learn more about the contest at Meta-Wiki and Commons.
Kind regards,
Wiki Loves Folklore International Team
—
Tulsi Bhagat (
contribs |
talk)
sent using
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 06:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Given this and this, an RfC has been opened on meta :
-- Jheald ( talk) 21:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Wiki Loves Women is back with the 2020 edition. Join us to celebrate women and queer community in Folklore theme and enrich Wikipedia with the local culture of your region. Happening from 1 February-31 March, Wiki Loves Women South Asia welcomes the articles created on folk culture and gender. The theme of the contest includes, but is not limited to, women and queer personalities in folklore, folk culture (folk artists, folk dancers, folk singers, folk musicians, folk game athletes, women in mythology, women warriors in folklores, witches and witch hunting, fairytales and more). You can learn more about the scope and the prizes at the project page.
Best wishes,
-- ✝iѵɛɳ२२४० †ลℓк †๏ мэ 10:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Yesterday, I uploaded this historic view on the Genesee River from 1859. Unfortunately, I have no clue where it was taken exactly. I would guess somewhere in the Letchworth State Park. Does anyone here know these falls? Sorry, if this page isn't the right place to ask. If so, I would be grateful for a reference to the appropriate place. -- Zinnmann ( talk) 14:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Within the framework of a research project, we are investigating the Requests for Adminship (RfA) process on English Wikipedia. We are especially interested in learning how English Wikipedia determines who are qualified administrators. We want to understand the strengths and weaknesses of Wikipedia’s voting processes and identify factors that could distort these processes. Ideally our study helps to determine how the process can be further improved. To this end, we have already evaluated the thousands of English Wikipedia elections on RfAs held between 2004 and 2014. We would like to discuss our results with Wikipedians and discover answers to our unanswered questions.
Therefore, we are currently looking for interviewees. I talked with User:LZia_(WMF) and asked for advice on how to communicate with enwiki community about our need for interviews and she suggested I reach out to you via this Village Pump. Ideally, you will have already participated in a Wikipedia vote and/or are considering voting yourself. It would be great if we could have a short conversation by phone / Skype / Zoom, of around 30-45 minutes. To thank you for your participation, we can offer you 85 US-Dollars (or €75). We are happy to transfer the money to you or if you prefer to the Wikimedia foundation.
This interview will be used to provide background information for the evaluation of the quantitative data that we have already collected. We plan to publish our results both in scientific journals and publicly online for any interested professionals.
Data protection: If you agree, we would like to record the interview. This data will only be available to the project team. If any quotes from the interview are used in publications, they will be pseudonymized.
The research team is composed of Helge Klapper (Erasmus University), Linus Dahlander (ESMT) and myself, Henning Piezunka (INSEAD). If you are interested, please contact me via /info/en/?search=Special:EmailUser/Henningpiezunka. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henningpiezunka ( talk • contribs) 10:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
As specified here and here the Category:Palazzo Molin (San Polo) on Commons is wrong. That builiding, is the Palazzo Donà delle Rose, not Palazzo Molin. Correction is necessary. -- 93.34.228.189 ( talk) 11:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello
The Wikimedia Foundation’s Community Development team is seeking to learn more about the way volunteers learn and develop into the many different roles that exist in the movement. Our goal is to build a movement informed framework that provides shared clarity and outlines accessible pathways on how to grow and develop skills within the movement. To this end, we are looking to speak with you, our community to learn about your journey as a Wikimedia volunteer. Whether you joined yesterday or have been here from the very start, we want to hear about the many ways volunteers join and contribute to our movement.
To learn more about the project, please visit the Meta page. If you are interested in participating in the project, please complete this simple Google form. Although we may not be able to speak to everyone who expresses interest, we encourage you to complete this short form if you are interested in participating!
-- LMiranda (WMF) ( talk) 19:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The File:Antonino Cannavacciuolo-signature.svg on Commons have some translation errors in the labels.
In the Details section, “SVG sviluppo” should be “Sviluppo SVG”, and “Questa firma è stata creata con un ignoto SVG programma.” should be “Questa firma è stata creata con un programma SVG ignoto.”. How can I fix? -- 2001:B07:6442:8903:B9F7:34B4:B495:EEAF ( talk) 16:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi all
I've recently added some content to Ecological grief and plan to do more in the future, could someone suggest some Wikiprojects etc where I could ask for help with it ?
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 18:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
How can I add all edits from a certain editor to my watchlist? Not edits per article, but edits per editor. Alternatively, I would be satisfied by the possibility to receive an update when a certain editor makes an edit. Debresser ( talk) 22:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Discussion about making a small change to {{ Press}}, if you have an opinion. The change is small but the template is widely used. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 18:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, folks! We are only 2,500 articles away. We should be ready to celebrate everywhere, and also congratulate the winners of the Six-million pool and the Six-millionth topic pool. -- 186.54.24.209 ( talk) 00:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
{{ Wikipedia:Six million articles}} Transcluded from [[Wikipedia:Six million articles]]. ↠Pine (✉) 03:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
On 1 November 2015, the five millionth article on the English Wikipedia was created, and for about a day, we ran a promotional banner over top of the Wikipedia logo celebrating the occasion. As I recall, there was also a celebratory banner with a link to Wikipedia:Five million articles, an information page we created about the occasion. At the time I am writing this, we have 5,997,150 articles on English Wikipedia. So we are getting very close. I was wondering if there was any appetite for doing another run of celebrations for 6 million articles. Mz7 ( talk) 20:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Do we know what the 6 millionth article was? How do we go about finding that out? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Congrats on your 6,000,000th article, and many more to come! -- Alvaro Vidal-Abarca ( talk) 22:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
A bit late to the party but no, I didn't miss this milestone. But let's not forget that we're not even close to the limit. According to a guesstimate I did last year, (any) Wikipedia could contain at least thrice as many articles. To say nothing about length, quality, and being up to date. So we're not done yet and I find that strangely reassuring. Steinbach ( talk) 20:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC) PS: to certain people above: neither the colour of the banner nor the fact that this milestone was celebrated bothered me in the least. One can definitely be too critical.
From today on to 21 February, the last facilitated round of movement discussions on the Wikimedia 2030 recommendations will be held. I created a dedicated page: Wikipedia:Wikimedia Strategy 2018–20. These conversations offer the opportunity to review the movement strategy draft recommendations, and discuss how English Wikipedia community would be affected as well as how well they align with the strategic direction.
Wikimedians across the world have been shaping the 2030 strategy since 2017. The first phase was aimed at establishing a shared strategic direction: that by 2030, Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge, and anyone who shares our vision will be able to join us. This vision of Wikimedia’s future is shared by all of us, irrespective of background (such as home wiki, culture, etc.) or contributing model (some of us don’t edit, and yet, do take part in fulfilling the Wikimedia mission).
Wikimedia 2018–2020 is all about recommendations that answer the question: what systemic changes in our worldwide movement are needed to advance this vision? These new draft recommendations are intentionally broad and focused on long-term impact. However, they will inevitably be familiar to many of you. Your previous feedback was taken into account, and the recommendations are based upon both 2017 and 2019 discussions reports.
Since July 2018, a group of more than 90 volunteers from across the Wikimedia movement have worked to produce various drafts of recommendations to support this change. This effort is now reaching its final stage, and we invite you to review and discuss the new strategy recommendations. This final set synthesizes all previous drafts, and will offer a clear and condensed product for your review.
After the discussions, the recommendations will be finalized, and presented at the Wikimedia Summit in Berlin. Soon after that, the implementation phase will begin.
You can learn more about the process of forming these recommendations and the next steps in the Signpost’s text by Risker, and in a dedicated FAQ on Meta-Wiki.
SGrabarczuk (WMF) ( talk) 21:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
OK, I made some changes to the Wikipedia:Wikimedia Strategy 2018–20 page and created sub-pages with all the recommendations and additional materials. And, hopefully this is a useful advise, please read the recommendations through the lens of the Principles. SGrabarczuk (WMF) ( talk) 19:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
If you want to learn more about movement strategy or ask the core team your questions regarding the process, join our office hours tomorrow, on Thursday, January 30 at 8:00 UTC (one hour) and at 18:00 UTC (one hour). Find links and see more: here. -- KVaidla (WMF) ( talk) 18:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone point me to statistics or source about the percentage of visitors/readers who actually edit English Wikipedia? I have heard stats ranging from .025 to .05 of all readers/visitors to Wikipedia actually edit. Thank you!
MatthewVetter ( talk) 16:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
how to find most viewed Wikimedia projeckts Amirh123 ( talk) 18:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
how to find Annual growth rate of Wikimedia projeckts Amirh123 ( talk) 18:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
MediaWiki has made a new browser extension available: Who Wrote That?. When installed, it adds "Who Wrote That" to your Tools menu which, when activated on an article, will let you see which editor in which edit added a specific bit of text just by hovering over the text, rather than hunting through a list of diffs. (It also highlights all of the other content added by that editor.) I'm really excited by its functionality so wanted to let others know about it, and this was the only place I could think of that was appropriate. Schazjmd (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
"Cinque Terra" does not meaning nothing in italian, and no link exist to that page. I have requested various times for deletion and always rollbacked. Why there is need to exist useless page? -- 93.34.228.189 ( talk) 11:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Is anyone coordinating all the updates to articles, categories and templates, once the UK leaves the EU in half an hour? Wikipedia:WikiProject European Union/Brexit task force appears moribund. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey there! Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but I don't know where else I should look. We are looking for an experienced Mediawiki admin for a custom Mediawiki setup. Thanks a lot! IonutBizau ( talk) 07:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
As I wrote in my last message here, the strategic recommendations for how we can achieve the Wikimedia 2030 vision are available for your final review. There are three weeks left to share your feedback, questions, concerns, and other comments.
These 13 recommendations are the result of more than a year of dedicated work by working groups comprised of volunteers and staff members from all around the world. These recommendations include the core content plus the Principles and the Glossary, which lend important context to this work and highlight the ways that the recommendations are conceptually interlinked. The Narrative of Change offers a summary introduction to the recommendations material. On Meta-Wiki, you can find even more detailed documentation.
Community input has played, and will continue to play, an important role in the shaping of these recommendations. They reflect this and cite community input throughout in footnotes.
In this final community review stage, we're hoping to better understand how you think the recommendations would impact our movement – what benefits and opportunities do you foresee for your community, and why? What challenges or barriers could they pose for you?
After this three-week period, the Core Team will publish a summary report of input from across affiliates, online communities, and other stakeholders for public review before the recommendations are finalized. You can view our updated timeline here as well as an updated FAQ section that addresses topics like the goal of this current period, the various components of the draft recommendations, and what's next in more detail.
Thank you again for taking the time to join us in community conversations, and I look forward to receiving your input. Happy reading!
SGrabarczuk (WMF) ( talk) 00:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78
I am not certain what to do. There have been several AFD nominations at List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters ending in no consensus, and I have serious concerns about whether the article in question isn't actually violating copyright law. I started a conversation at Talk:List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters#Is this list a copyright violation?. However, the AFDs and this conversation seem to be flooded with comments by editors who edit in this area and may be biased because they are fans. I am wanting to just get some neutral people over to this discussion to provide input or better yet experienced editors dealing with copyright concerns. I would feel a lot better knowing if I knew I was getting input from neutral people even if they disagree with me. How do I go about doing this? 4meter4 ( talk) 18:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
First, I noticed Snooganssnoogans campaigning for "dictators" to be described as such. Then, I noticed a campaign for Mao Zedong to be labelled as a mass murderer. The proposed text links "mass killing of landlords" to the under-developed Chinese Land Reform page, where there has been an incredible amount of activity lately. Clearly, Wikipedia needs to detail the bad sides of historical figures, but it also needs to be encyclopedic and neutral. I also think there seems to be evidence of a concerted campaign, which is a bit concerning.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Please help translate to other languages.
Wikipedia Asian Month is back! We wish you all the best of luck for the contest. The basic guidelines of the contest can be found on your local page of Wikipedia Asian Month. For more information, refer to our Meta page for organizers.
Looking forward to meet the next ambassadors for Wikipedia Asian Month 2019!
For additional support for organizing offline event, contact our international team on wiki or on email. We would appreciate the translation of this message in the local language by volunteer translators. Thank you!
Wikipedia Asian Month International Team.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Recently there has been an upsurge of conflicts between WP:ANIME and WP:TV on how to handle Anime television series. Here is the history 1, 2and 3. The common subjects are presented below.
The editors of WP:ANIME have agreed to open this discussion in WP:VILLAGE as the best place to find a solution.
The prominent members involved in the dispute are IJBall, Gonnym, Amaury, and AussieLegend. At this time of posting, they have not acknowledged this discussion and continue to respond here Talk:List of Toriko episodes#Requested move 26 October 2019. This statement will be revised once the respected members participate in this discussion. Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 02:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Because the editors on WP:TV's side are opting for more articles regardless of quality- Not TV editors, but en.wiki's own guidelines support WP:STUB. Feel free to to start an RfC on that and change it.
WP:ANIME isn't OK with it- since when was WP:ANIME exempt from WP:OWN? Please provide me a link to that discussion which resulted in a consensus to disregard an en.wiki policy.
There is no rule or guideline in WP:TV or WP:MOSTV or even in WP:MOSFILM that says our process is different. WP:TVSPLIT does not say that a list of episodes cannot be created unless the main article is a standalone TV series. It just says main article.- That is correct, if by that, you mean you choose to ignore the whole MoS which TVSPLIT is a small section from. Please re-read the MoS, especially WP:MOSTV#Parent, season, and episode article structure, which explains the article structure. Notice that the "parent article" should have all the sections listed.
But i do believe that WP:ANIME should have the freedom to make necessary adjustments to its own MOS and WP:TV should comply- to ignore a MoS guideline you need community consensus and not local consensus.
and we expand the adaptations in the page until proven notable on their own- just like the first point, ANIME is making up rules that contradict en.wiki. See WP:TVSHOW which clearly states
Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television station. See again WP:OWN why you don't decide what has notability.
Because the editors on WP:TV's side are opting for more articles regardless of quality, and WP:ANIME isn't OK with it (Not unless you hold yourself accountable for its quality)- This is certainly not good faith and doesn't make sense. As explained at the RM discussion, moving the article doesn't change its quality. In fact the changes that IJBall made and which were later reverted improved the quality. There is a strange belief amongst the anime editors involved that moving an article somehow turns it into a stub. This has been addressed at length at the RM discussion.
There is no rule or guideline in WP:TV or WP:MOSTV or even in WP:MOSFILM that says our process is different. WP:TVSPLIT does not say that a list of episodes cannot be created unless the main article is a standalone TV series.- The anime project sees a franchise article as being the parent article for all elements of a franchise. Neither the TV or FILM projects do this. As explained at the RM discussion, in a reply to you, [5] I wrote WP:TVSPLIT, which is part of MOS:TV, says "When making the decision to split article content from the main page to a List of Episodes page, a season page, or an individual episode page, Wikipedia's guideline for splitting content should be taken into account." It doesn't suggest splitting from an LoE page to a main page, and doesn't have to because the practice followed is the same used for every other article (5 million+ IIRC) on Wikipedia. Initially a main article is created and then, when the article starts getting large, sub-articles like the LoE page and charcters articles are split out to new articles. It's not done the other way around as you seem to prefer.
WP:ANIME creates franchise articles first before making the respected list.- Nobody has said that. What has been repeatedly said by ANIME editors is that franchise articles are the parent articles to LoE pages, for example, that Toriko (a francise article) is the parent of List of Toriko episodes. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 15:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:STUB is a guideline to help define what a stub is, it doesn't endorse their creation.- Your responses are becoming sillier. The fact that WP:STUB talks about how to manage stubs is an endorsement of their existence. We have hundreds (thousands?) of stub templates. There is even an entire stub sorting project. Your attitude seems to be that if something is not explicitly stated then it's not true and that's not the case at all. Much of what we do on Wikipedia is not explicitly stated. There are policies and guidelines that guide how things are done. Use a bit of common sense. Anyway, this discussion about stubs is irrelevant and seems to have come about because you believe that if something is moved, its quality changes. This is also something that is not true.
I've re-read MOSTV#Parent, season, and episode article structure- I bet you haven't. Throughout the two discussions you keep getting terminology wrong. You've even called the TV project WP:TVSHOW, which it is not.
i repeat that it does not explicitly state that it is required to have a standalone TV series article before having an episode list.- Again, use a bit of common sense. Look at every TV series and see how the article heirachy exists. It's always main TV series article first and then sub-articles are split out from there. That's why WP:TVSPLIT says what it does, which I've already explained both here and at the RM discussion. MOS:TV assumes that editors can use some common sense when editing and not obstinately oppose everything that they don't agree with.
"moving" is not the correct term for what you want. You want to re-purpose- Moving is most definitely the correct term. That's why the discussion is titled "Requested move", not "Repurpose proposal". The heading was placed there by the template, not the RM proposer. When articles are moved it's called a move, whether you like it or not. Wikipedia doesn't have a "repurposing thing".
A list is not the same as an article.- True, and this version of the article is clearly not a list. Even as it stands now it's not a list, which is why the move has been proposed. The lede, for example, doesn't comply with MOS:LEAD.
So to say nothing changes is absolutely not true.- That's absolutely incorrect, as has already been explained at length every time you or the other anime editors have put forth some strange misconception.
No MOS explicitly states what WP:ANIME is doing is incorrect or wrong.- MOS:ANIME is not a law unto itself and cannot ignore other pats of the MOS. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and all projects have to work together.
The Japanese entertainment industry- This is not about the Japanese entertainment industry, it's about one requested move discussion that has gotten the noses of a small group of editors out of joint.
Aussie: Your responses are becoming sillier. The fact that WP:STUB talks about how to manage stubs is an endorsement of their existence. We have hundreds (thousands?) of stub templates. There is even an entire stub sorting project. Your attitude seems to be that if something is not explicitly stated then it's not true and that's not the case at all. Much of what we do on Wikipedia is not explicitly stated. There are policies and guidelines that guide how things are done. Use a bit of common sense. Anyway, this discussion about stubs is irrelevant and seems to have come about because you believe that if something is moved, its quality changes. This is also something that is not true.
Aussie: I bet you haven't. Throughout the two discussions you keep getting terminology wrong. You've even called the TV project WP:TVSHOW, which it is not.
Aussie: Again, use a bit of common sense. Look at every TV series and see how the article heirachy exists. It's always main TV series article first and then sub-articles are split out from there. That's why WP:TVSPLIT says what it does, which I've already explained both here and at the RM discussion. MOS:TV assumes that editors can use some common sense when editing and not obstinately oppose everything that they don't agree with.
Aussie: Moving is most definitely the correct term. That's why the discussion is titled "Requested move", not "Repurpose proposal". The heading was placed there by the template, not the RM proposer. When articles are moved it's called a move, whether you like it or not. Wikipedia doesn't have a "repurposing thing".
Aussie That's absolutely incorrect, as has already been explained at length every time you or the other anime editors have put forth some strange misconception.
Aussie MOS:ANIME is not a law unto itself and cannot ignore other pats of the MOS. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and all projects have to work together.
Aussie The anime project sees a franchise article as being the parent article for all elements of a franchise. Neither the TV or FILM projects do this.
Example text
Aussie It doesn't suggest splitting from an LoE page to a main page, and doesn't have to because the practice followed is the same used for every other article (5 million+ IIRC) on Wikipedia.
Aussie Initially a main article is created and then, when the article starts getting large, sub-articles like the LoE page and charcters articles are split out to new articles. It's not done the other way around as you seem to prefer.
Please remain civil. If you believe it is objectively incorrect, you may say so in a civilized manner- I have debunked a number of your arguments, even when you've said the same thing twice. As this has happened your responses have become less and less sensible. Stating that your responses are sillier is a statement of fact.
Stubs are by definition provided Un-encyclopedic.- That doesn't mean that stubs are not acceptable. This is an example of something that you've said more than once and which has been debunked more than once. as I said earlier, you have a strange misconception that moving a list article that is not a stub to a different name will turn it into a stub. That is sa silly belief.
Your point has nothing to do with the discussion- It's entirely relevant when you keep linking to the wrong thing. You clearly haven't read what you are linking to.
This is the first time you're advocating for common sense- And???? There's been a distinct lack of it demonstrated, especially what constitutes a main article. You believe that because something isn't explicitly stated then it's not a rule. To prove that this is incorrect I challenged you to find a single LoE page in the TV project that did not have a TV series article as the main/parent. You refused to do so, which doesn't bode well for your opinion. You'd rather keep your misconception alive than prove that you are wrong.
that's because moving is a simple name change.- That's an example of the above.
not every name change creates the same outcome- That's not at all relevant to your claim that a move is not a move but a repurposing, even when Wikipedia doesn't have repuposing "thing".
May I remind you that "strange misconceptions" can be seen uncivilized too.- From your latest post it seems that you intent raising the uncivilised card every time you can't rebut a particular point. That's a very poor tactic.
There is no such thing as a stub, start, C, or B-class for lists.- This repeated argument is completely irrelevant. Your claim is that moving a list will turn it into a stub and it clearly will not.
Changing a list into an article will require it to be re-assessed and use different standards. So i dont understand why you claim this is "absolutely" incorrect.- It's absolutely incorrect to claim that moving List of Toriko episodes to Toriko (TV series) will turn it into a stub. As has been explained to you multiple times, it will be at least "start" class based on the assessment criteria.
your current statement has nothing to do with what you were responding to- actually it does. MOS:ANIME seems to think it can structure articles whichever way it wants without regard for an established process that is even linked to at MOS:AM#Scope just because MOS:TV doesn't go into intricate detail about how articles should be created. Again, I chellenged you to find this for yourself and you refused to look for articles or to read the MOS.
All i'm saying is that WP:ANIME hasn't ignored any MOS guidelines.- WP:ANIME has ignored the way that articles are normally created on Wikipedia, not just by the TV project but by every project.
I disagree with that statement.- Disagree all you want but anime editors have repeatedly said that the franchise article is the parent for the Toriko LoE page.
Yes i see the quote but i dont see the correlation or how it can be seen as a counterpoint. WP:ANIME follows the quote pressented.- without following the way that all TV articles are created, where the parent article is the main series article. You clearly haven't read the MOS, only the parts of it that suit your point of view.
WP:ANIME follows the MOS.- You claim to follow the MOS but you do not, as the Toriko LoE page demonstrates.
Hello, I have created the NHLtoGA Drive which focuses on bringing all current NHL teams to Good Article status. Any tips on how I can improve the page, promote the drive, and be successful? Any tools I could use? Also, should I move it to WikiProject/Wikipedia space when I finish the page? Thank you. AmericanAir88( talk) 19:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello
I came across
this edit recently (I've discussed it with the OP already): It raises an interesting point, ie. whether the length of the introduction in some articles are too long for mobile phone users. If so, it is going to be a problem across the project. Has this issue been raised and discussed already somewhere? ( I couldn't see anything in the archive, but that doesn't mean much...)I know we have
a size rule, which was possibly more relevant when computers had less capacity; is it time to re-visit that principle? Any thoughts?
Xyl 54 (
talk) 22:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
That's not to say that there aren't leads that are too long, there certainly are. Any article tagged with {{lead too long}} will be included at Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup. Helping out there may be the the best way to address the OP's concern. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Please look at my query about two Australian arts publications with similar names, and make suggestions on how they should be handled in Wikipedia. Bjenks ( talk) 09:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Built-up area has two very different meanings: one road related, and another one for things not related to the road.
The road related legal concept of Built-up area exists in countries members of the Vienna convention, including the United Kingdom. The road related concept of Built-up area also exists in non member countries, such as Ireland, South Africa, and Australia.
The Vienna convention provides a standard definition of road related concept of Built-up area but allows member nations to implement alternative definitions of it. UK (member), and Australia and Ireland (non members) use alternative definitions.
It looks like nowadays, within Built-up area (also named within urban area) is used for speed limit (for instance in Speed limits by country (column within town (wikipedia dialect for within Built-up area))), when previously (1968 convention) Built-up area was more focused on lightings.
Thus, I was wondering if Built-up area (Highway Code) should exclude non British countries, or deal with that concept only for United-Kingdom?
Please, talk it on Talk:Built-up_area_(Highway_Code)#British_Built-up_area_(Highway_Code)_vs_European_Built-up_area_(Highway_Code) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.208.32 ( talk) 01:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Is WP:ANIME subordinate to WP:TV, WP:FILM and WP:COMICS, and therefore should comply with the guidelines of the parent projects? -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 14:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
This manual of style applies to articles about anime, manga, and related topics, and is a topic-specific subset Manual of Style of the following Manuals of Style: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies (where applicable)and later also
Editors should also keep in mind the guidelines suggested on WikiProject Television or WikiProject Films, as those seem to work well for episodic media, including manga.-- AussieLegend ( ✉) 14:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
WP:ANIME doesn't break any of the MOS rules of WP:TV and WP:FILM or even WP:COMIC- Your continuing insistence on repeating your false claims (and I'm saying this very gently) is really annoying. You've been shown numerous guidelines, talk discussions and actual links to specific instances where ANIME's practice goes against both MoS and naming conventions. Saying otherwise does not make it true.
Making a Rising of the Shield Hero (anime)^ or Rising of the Shield Hero (manga)^ will make lower quality articles, and redundant information.- Even in your examples you are oblivious to correct naming conventions. "(anime)" should not be used as disambiguation. I've even linked to the RfC one comment above yours.
WP:ANIME decides to keep them together until substantial information is found and they can be split- Wow. Again with your WP:OWNERSHIP claims.
And they want to achieve this regardless of how low quality and redundant it is to the original main article it was attached to- You are again ignorant to the actual facts. The current and bad examples of the List of episodes articles are in essence the TV series article, whether you admit it or not. They are also, in their current state, not high quality or good articles. Some also have redirects from the base name. Changing their name via WP:RM does not change that fact. Ni ether does re-purposing those articles as the actual main TV series article create bad articles. On the contrary, now instead of a incorrectly named, disorganized TV series article, you have the an actual TV series article. -- Gonnym ( talk) 16:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Your continuing insistence on repeating your false claims (and I'm saying this very gently) is really annoying. You've been shown numerous guidelines, talk discussions and actual links to specific instances where ANIME's practice goes against both MoS and naming conventions. Saying otherwise does not make it true.All you have to do is quote an actual MOS that explicitly states "Episode lists can only be spun out from standalone TV series articles and not any other type of article". As of now, WP:MOSTV only clarifies it an be done from the main article. There is no MOS that says the franchise article can cover the TV series either.
Even in your examples you are oblivious to correct naming conventions. "(anime)" should not be used as disambiguation. I've even linked to the RfC one comment above yours.Comment disregarded due to incivility. moving onto next statement.
You are again ignorant to the actual facts. The current and bad examples of the List of episodes articles are in essence the TV series article, whether you admit it or not.No. i'm not ignorant to Facts. I'm only seeing personal opinions and personal interpretations from you. But WP:ANIME objectively did not go against any MOS. Even then, i rather use Common sense argument than Policy is law.
On the contrary, now instead of a incorrectly named, disorganized TV series article, you have the an actual TV series article.First time i hear you make this claim. But i think this is up to personal interpretation and opinion. If you say its a bad list and needs to be formatted to be a better list. Then i can understand. But trying to say a list is a incorrectly named, disorganized TV series article? I'm sorry, but you haven't given me enough time to accept an idea. To me, this is a stretch of an idea. Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 17:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
off-topic
|
---|
|
Is WP:ANIME subordinate to WP:TV, WP:FILM and WP:COMICSThis question is irrelevant to the problem. The project is clearly distinct from the others and moreover has its own participating editors.
should comply with the guidelines of the parent projects?This question is also irrelevant. Those guidelines are none of TV's, FILM's, ANIME's, COMIC's, or any other WikiProjects's. They presently live in the manual of style, which means they are Wikipedia's. If there is a display of ownership here, that's one of them. WikiProjects don't get to own guidelines. If we are actually interested in the question of the guidelines in play, the correct answer is generally "the more general guideline takes precedence". Now, however, the disputes in question seem to have been localized to certain !rules, and from that aspect I think this RFC is asking the wrong question. So all-around, close this RFC and start ones to clear the !rules up that are causing pain and misery. -- Izno ( talk) 20:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
the more general guideline takes precedence- I don't disagree with that at all. The problem is that anime editors don't seem to agree with you. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 00:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
If you believe that the two guidelines do not line up or are contradictory, you need to fix the guidelines- Again, this is not the issue. Despite what MOS:AM#Scope says, the anime editors don't seem to want to collaborate at all. MOS:TV has been updated in recent years after long discussions with many editors. While there may be some minor points that need fixing, specifically changing it to "mandate" that a TV series article and not a franchise article is the main article would likely be seen as instruction creep.
Those editors are just as experienced as you. You do not need to comment on their persons.- Please read what I wrote:
where experienced editors have tried to explain how TV articles are created (per MOS:TV and general practice)I was specifically talking about how editors experienced in TV articles, vs editors more experienced in anime aspects and less experienced in TV article aspects while talking about TV articles. This was not a criticism of their overall experience as you seem to think.
you would have moved on to fixing the problematic guidelines- I don't think the guidelines are the problem though. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 02:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
what the differences are and why they're relevant- As has been demonstrated to you several times, there is no difference in the examples we looked at in the RM.
Some editors like you, IJBall, and Gonnym are more concerned about having more TV series despite the quality.-That's completely disrespectful and it's complete garbage. Our intent is to ensure that all television articles to be consistent with each other. That's the main reason for having project MOSes.
Other editors dont want to make unnecessary splits and creating more low-quality articles to work on.- This is completely irrelevant. There were no splits necessary, that was the idea of some of the anime editors who suggested creating a separate TV series article when it wasn't at all necessary. As has also been explained to you repetedly, moving an article doesn't cause it to be of lower quality. In fact the article that IJBall demonstrated was of a higher quality LoE page. The number of times that it has been necessary to rebut the same silly claims is quite ridiculous. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 17:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
while you are right, it does change the criteria- why does this even matter? Page moves occur all the time and nobody talks about the assessment process when it happens. It was demonstrated here that List of Toriko episodes is actually a TV series article mislabelled as a List of Episodes page.
as a TV series page, it is then classified as a stub- The anime editors keep saying this but that's not the case at all. As I've had to say far too many times, it would be at least start class based on the assessment criteria.
Or worse, it would lead to the franchise page lessening in quality because a load of its content is removed to another page- There is actually very little in the franchise page for that series anyway. Moving the article would not affect the franchise article.
why do we need soooo much consistancy between pages- Quite frankly, that's a silly question. Consistency is generally acknowledged to be a good thing. That's why we have the MOS, to guide editors in producing articles that are consistent.
Or Should all biography pages have all of the bio detials split into ten year segments even when it doesn't fit?- Nowhere does the MOS say that should happen. Consistency does not mean articles have to be identical. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 00:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
this is the core problem that you, Gonnym, and IJBall have- More incivility.
46000+ TV programs you claim- Actually, the number of TV series articles using {{ Infobox television}} is 47,682 right now. [7] There may be some TV programs that don't use that infobox.
I doubt that the 46000+ TV programs you mention are all part of multimedia franchises.- They aren't, but that's not at all relevant. Whether or not they are part of a franchise, the TV series article is always the main article for a TV series, as already explained to you multiple times. Franchise articles are usually created later. For example, NCIS originally started with a single series. After other series were started, a franchise article was created to tie the franchise elements together but the individual series articles remain the main articles for each series. This is how it has always been done.
Maybe 1000-1500 articles- Where did you get that number from?
The Japanese entertainment industry- As has been explained to you previously, we're not talking about the Japanese entertainment industry.
For all these reasons, it should be acceptable without question why WP:ANIME follows the current process.- And yet it's not. Nothing you've written justifies stepping away from the article hierarchy that is standard for all TV programs. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 10:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't feel the need to respond anymore because i don't consider any of your points valid.-- And therein lies the real problem. You constantly put forward unsupportable claims and irrelevancies and when they are debunked you either attack the other editor or ignore them while presenting no valid justification yourself. Case closed. -- AussieLegend ( ✉)
The consensus here is that the projects are interconnected but not subordinate, and this has become more of just a shouting match between AussieLegend and Blue Pumpkin Pie which ultimately isn't going to lead anywhere as both users are set in there ways. So I think its time to close the Request for Comment. What does everyone else think?-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page) 22:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
The whole RM and this discussion to me is pretty much about WP:TV vs WP:ANIME which it should not be.- I completely agree and it was never meant that way. I won't go into too many specifics about what happened but the RM discussion was only ever meant to correct a problem with one article. The original discussion on this page was started by an editor who did not like the idea of moving the article and this RfC was started because no progress was being made. That the consensus is obviously that MOS:ANIME and MOS:TV are interconnected is fine with me. It demonstrates what has been said all along, i.e. that we have to collaborate. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 10:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Blue feels the same way about your Aussie.- Maybe he does. The difference is that my responses have all been based on current practices and the MOS. BPP keeps restating silly things like moving an article will turn it into a stub when anyone can see that is not the case at all. He's done very little to actually help in this issue other than attempt to confuse the matter and he's even been called out in the past 24 hours for it at Talk:List of Toriko episodes. I can't say the same for the other anime editors. At least they now seem willing to collaborate. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 03:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
There's a discussion going on at Template talk:Newsletters, please opine. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I've started seeing the following message on the mobile site:
Get the Wikipedia app this Thursday for the quickest way to check a fact, get answers to your questions and information on places nearby. Downloading is easy on your phone and only takes a minute. It’s free and ad-free.
What's happening with the app on Thursday? Wouldn't that be helpful to say, or is this one of those clickbait things and it always gives a day a few days away? --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE) 01:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm posting this here instead of at CfD / AfD because it is not (yet) a proposal to rename hundreds or thousands of categories or articles, but an inquiry as to whether this is a problem or not. Normally, we strive for consistency in category and article naming, but for sports team seasons, we seem to have two competing systems: "Year" "Team name" TEAM and "Year" "Team name" SEASON. But the parent category is always named "Team name seasons", and not "team name teams", which is confusing. Examples:
In Category:American football team seasons
but
All college football seasons (many, many articles) have "team" articles, not "season" articles.
In Category:Association football seasons by club (again, thousands of articles), everything seems to be in the format 2015–16 FC Banants season or 2019 Lansing Ignite FC season. The same goes for Category:Basketball seasons by club. Ice hockey college teams use the "season" format, but for most other college sports we get the "team" version, like 2016 Florida Gators women's gymnastics team.
Is there a need to make this consistent, or is there a good reason why some use "team" and some use "season", even if the parent categories always use "season" and never "team"? Fram ( talk) 11:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Is there any better and/or more prominent way to highlight how neglected this page is to try and attract editors to help deal with the backlog of requests listed and archived? There are requests that are over a month old and have not been addressed. Bots seem to be regularly archiving unaddressed issues, which are then going unchanged and being missed entirely. The page does have a template indicating it has a backlog but for how neglected the page is this seems inefficient. Images and maps are important topics that need maintenance at a consistent rate. Helper201 ( talk) 12:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
In order to bring in a fuller perspective, any Wikipedia editor or administrator is cordially invited to the RfC discussion proposed by administrator JzG on self-sourcing with respect to including the author's rebuttal, by way of his or her blog post, in response to negative information in a section of their article. Arguments for and against have made, including WP:BLP.
Cheers,
--
Doug Mehus
T·
C 15:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Can someone please take a look at what is causing Category:Articles with unsourced statements from October 2,019 and Category:Articles with unsourced statements from November 2,019? I figured out that this edit by @ Starship.paint caused one of the october issues, and this edit by @ WisDom-UK caused the other, but for the life of me I cannot tell why, nor can I fix it. Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 10:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
formatnum
magic word on their value to insert commas in the numbers for display. When someone includes a maintenance tag in the field, though, it also inserts commas into the year in the category title. The usual solution is to put the {{
citation needed}} into the field normally used to supply a reference for the data, rather than in the data field itself. I don't know what's the convention for {{
Infobox airport}}, putting it in |stat1-header=
or in |footnotes=
somehow. You might see also
Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 66#Strange categories due to {{fact}} tags.
Anomie
⚔ 12:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Do we have a page, like Wikipedia:Graphics Lab, for requesting IPA transcriptions? There's nothing mentioned on Help:IPA. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Resolved ia Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. There's also {{ Pronunciation needed}}, which categorizes the article under Category:Articles needing pronunciation - the latter has a backlog of almost 1,000 pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Apakah halaman Manda mempunyai referensi terpercaya? Saya perhatikan tulisannya penuh ngaco dan ngasal. Saya minta halaman Manda dihapus karena isinya mengandung iklan dan penyesatan serta informasinya tidak sepenuhnya akurat Terima kasih. -- Untuk Indonesia ( talk) 17:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I had suggested a merge of the article Radagast in August. However, before there was any resolution of that, the article was sent to AfD which has been closed as "Keep". Does that mean it is impossible to start a new merger discussion?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
{{ User:JzG/I Voted ACE19}} puts a badge on your user or talk page, Please feel free to use and improve! Guy ( help!) 18:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
By coincidence, I have created {{ Voted}} (which yields I have voted), for the more mundane look. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
module:HS listed building was today moved to Module:HS listed building row by User:Cwmhiraeth (non-admin close).
This has broken a vast number of pages, such as eg List of listed buildings in Gairloch, Highland -- essentially every page listing listed buildings in Scotland that are targeted by the Wiki Loves Monuments campaign.
Is there a quick fix for this? Will it eventually fix itself automatically? Or is some intervention needed? Jheald ( talk) 14:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Please move the article of Nicolae Botgros from draft to the main space as he is notable enough because he is one of the most important conductors from Moldova. He has articles on other wikipedias, including french. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 ( talk) 07:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
In consideration of a week-long internet block in Iran, Wikipedia Asian Month 2019 contest has been extended for a week past November. The articles submitted till 7th December 2019, 23:59 UTC will be accepted by the fountain tools of the participating wikis.
Please help us translate and spread this message in your local language.
Wikipedia Asian Month International Team
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 14:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi! Here it seems we have two articles on the very same person. Please excuse if this note is wrongly placed. -- 2.67.226.202 ( talk) 15:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Please join me in giving a very warm welcome and congratulations to User:Astro Christina ( Christina Koch) for making the very first edit to Wikipedia citation needed from outer space! [8] [9] Thank you also to Darenwelsh for his role in this helping us achieve this milestone. I think I can speak for everyone that we are very proud, and look forward to the first edit from the Moon, Mars, and beyond! — MusikAnimal talk 21:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Unbelievable. I was notified that Wikipedia is engaging Google [10]. My replies were annihilated [11]. #NoToGoogle. - DePiep ( talk) 22:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Gore (film) redirects to Kevin_Spacey#Sexual_misconduct_allegations -- Basile Morin ( talk) 01:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Please note that Mariss Jansons died on 1 december 2019 according to russian wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 ( talk) 09:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi to all Wikipedians! :) Why do we need so much time for new articles (Drafts) to be published? If you read them once, you can tell if there is something to be changed and what it is or is it already fit to be published. Alekszizovic ( talk) 10:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Hey All
Later today we will be launching our upcoming annual fundraising campaigns in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the USA, and the United Kingdom. This campaigns sees us raise approximately half of the annual funds for the Wikimedia movement. The banners form just one component and since October, our E-mail fundraising programme has already been running in these countries.
There are a number of ways you can help support the fundraiser:
As always, can I thank the community for all your help and patience over the coming weeks. It's hugely appreciated. Seddon (WMF) ( talk) 13:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi guys! I have left a message on the talk page of the above article. Can somebody please assist me? Regards. Oesjaar ( talk) 10:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
This article is about social institute in Muscovite Russia. The problem is that such social institute wasn't exist in Russia, or, at least, it doesn't have name "terem". As you can see in interwiki articles on Slavic languages, ru:Терем, uk:Терем, pl:Terem and even fr:Terem (architecture), терем is just an upper floor of old Russian buildings. As a Russian, I can confirm this. Women could live in this upper floor, and they could be limited in communicating with strangers, but this social practice definitely not called "terem". Since this enwiki article created by an one-page account and no one source in references mentions a word "terem" in title, could this article be some sort of hoax? It can describe existing practice, but under name that definitely not connected to it. MBH ( talk) 05:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
This is a hoax based on a gipsy song:
Отрада Старинная таборная песня в обр. М. Шишкина
- Живет моя отрада
- В высоком терему,
- А в терем тот высокий
- Нет ходу никому.
- .
- Я знаю, у красотки
- Есть сторож у крыльца,
- Но он не загородит
- Дороги молодца.
46.188.23.100 ( talk) 07:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I read a Kaiser Kuo article about China and its perceptions in the West. He said:
I noticed this very phenomenon with reporting on Russia, where a "Russia does this" turns out to be a municipal government. Please read past the headlines of the sources quoted and be exact with who did what.
Thanks, WhisperToMe ( talk) 15:34, 10 December 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.
Yes. I use Wikipedia regularly as a quick look-up for some kinds of information and a starting point for further research into other interests.
No. I won't contribute. So long as Wikipedia claims to be written in English when it is in American-English. So long as it gives American-English preference and priority over English and gives further insult by calling English, British English.
English, as written and spoken in England has primacy. It is the original form. It is the most widely used by number of sovereign nations that use and/or recognise English. By numbers of people who use English it is the dominant form (this includes speakers in India).
I will continue to use Wikipedia but I will not support it. It is fundamentally racist, exclusive and hostile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenniethedog ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
The more that is written on Wikipedia about mythical, fictional characters from ancient sagas & tales, more and more due to TV shows where they are portrayed as real people of history, and many excited TV viewers think they were (and want them to be), the more confusion the word "legendary" is causing. Legendary, as we know, is also often used about famous stars in many fields in our own time, actual persons who have existed. Does anyone think there might be a need for a guideline recommendation to avoid the word when describing people from old Viking stories etc. Ragnar Lothbroc was a man of legend, yes, but I think many people misunderstand it if we say about him and such persons that they are "legendary". It is then safe to assume thet he was (1) a real person and (2) greatly renowned and thus called "legendary". Mae West is a legendary movie star, but not a Viking princess. Thoughts? -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 12:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I have put in a request for local banner notices for cities in the United States (and possibly elsewhere in North America) hosting Wikipedia Day events this January and February at m:CentralNotice/Request/Wikipedia Day US + North America 2020.-- Pharos ( talk) 00:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
There is currently an RfC on the article discussion page for DC Extended Universe regarding the inclusion of the as-yet unmade Batman movie; to whit, is there notable, reliable sourcing that the film is within the subset of the DC Universe called the DC Extended Universe? More eyes and voices are always welcome. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 17:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi there,
Foreword: I am very new to Wikipedia, not very active and not very literate in online activities. I had joined because I like the cause and because, after years of only using Wikipedia as a convenient source, I realized that I could provide pieces of knowledge to make Wikipedia better. But I am only embarking on this endeavor. So please forgive if I violate rules or place this contribution wrong: just educate me gently ;-).
Now here's the issue: an email in my inbox, date stamped 'Dec 11' and seemingly coming from 'Wikipedia.org'. (It seems, though, that I cannot upload the png-file I created to show this line item; thus I describe it):
- "jimmy@wikipedia.org" is identified as the sender;
- "Nothing beats a warm welcome" is the subject line; and
- "Karin S, something only you know" is shown as the beginning of the text body on a Gmail account.
Two thing threw me off immediately (and if I don't trust an email, I don't open it): (1) When I signed up with Wikipedia, I provided nothing to address me as "Karin S"! And minor, but adding (2): the 'beginning of the text body' doesn't fill the whole line which Gmail provides in the inbox -- as if there would be no more text. (Thinking of it again: Plus, there is this touchy-feely subject line months after I had signed up; and the enticing "only you know".)
I tried to find something on Wikipedia which addresses a possible spoofing, phishing, or otherwise malignant email purportedly coming from Wikipedia.org. But I did not find anything. Then I tried to find out where such an issue might be addressed in 'back pages' like 'talk', 'help' or such... And thus I ended up here:
Is this kind of email spoofing from Wikipedia.org new? Or am I paranoid, and this is a regular enterprise of proactive member contact or such?? And: shouldn't something like this be addressed somewhere on Wikipedia's many pages??? (Or am I too stupid to find that one needle in a haystack?)
Thank you for considering my issue kindly!
-- Katheska ( talk) 04:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Are conditional RfCs binding? What I mean is something like, if X happens, then this edit should happen. This question was inspired by the Trump impeachment, but is not related to any actual proposal. I just wanted to know for future reference. My personal opinion is no.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 01:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi there,
I'd like some neutral input from a few moderately experienced (or better) editors regarding a dispute regarding what does and doesn't belong at a disambiguation page, specifically Holmes and Watson (disambiguation).
The dispute is essentially between this version and this one. Those involved are myself ( Ubcule ( talk · contribs)) and ThaddeusSholto ( talk · contribs).
The discussion is currently at User_talk:ThaddeusSholto#Changes_to_Holmes_and_Watson_(disambiguation), although it might be better moved to the talk page for reasons of neutrality.
(Apologies if the Village Pump isn't the best place to ask, but I'd rather have more input than just the single person that "thirdparty" normally gets.) Ubcule ( talk) 22:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Note that Daniel Selvaraj died on 21 december 2019 according to Google. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 ( talk) 08:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
This template doesn’t work. Did they remove link support?
E Super Maker ( 😲 shout) 01:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
{{ul|Example}}
generates [[User:Example|Example]]
. You created Template:ul but it was changed to a redirect because it was redundant.
Johnuniq (
talk) 02:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Looking through this section, there are articles that haven't seen Talk Page comments in years and/or article doesn't exist anymore. Is there any reason NOT to remove the controversial tag from stale articles? Slywriter ( talk) 16:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
The following users are members of the researchers user group which provides limited access to deleted information. These users have been contacted to see if they still require this access for whichever special project they were working on, but have not responded. As a routine cleanup, I propose we remove this flag from these accounts at this time, barring any specific objection. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 02:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I just received an e-mail saying that "someone, probably [me]" had requested a reset of my password. It wasn't me. Of course the e-mail tells me to ignore the message if someone else made the request, but I'm a bit worried. I mean, why would anyone attempt this if s/he has no access to my e-mail? Steinbach ( talk) 15:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Wikimedia received an inquiry ticket:2019120410011208 regarding an issue with a similar named organization.
While I explained that we typically used a hat note when we have two organizations with similar names in Wikipedia, it appears that in this case, one of the organizations has a Wikipedia article and the other does not. I looked at the Guidance Wikipedia:Hatnote but I didn't see clear coverage of how this should be handled.
The Wikipedia article is OpenStudio, while the similarly named organization has a website here.
Is it, or should it be acceptable to create a hat note to explained that the Wikipedia article is not about the business management site? S Philbrick (Talk) 17:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I clear junk like cookies after each session online. I contribute 2£GBP occasionally but find next session I get the begging bowl come round again. Blunt Sword WP is using. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.49.17.60 ( talk) 11:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedians! For those of you using the Gregorian calendar, what are you doing for New Years' Eve? I'm watching a TV broadcast of Vika and Linda performing a live cover of ABBA's Fernando (song), and Casey Donovan (singer) performing I Will Survive (song). And it's awesome that we have articles on all of thos things! Pelagic ( talk) 12:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC) (disclaimer: I may have been wining earlier [does anyone know the link to that page?])
Happy New Year from Sydney, Australia — UTC+11! Can't believe those peeps from New Zealand and Kiribati didn't get in first. Pelagic ( talk) 13:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Here is a story in the Washington Post about "Personal Life" sections in biographies of living persons. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/obsessed-with-wikipedia-personal-life-entries-youre-not-alone/2019/12/30/cb31a50a-2673-11ea-9c21-2c2a4d2c2166_story.html Basically, many readers like these sections, so that, as long as we are in compliance with verifiability and the requirements for reliable sources and other aspects of the policies on biographies of living persons, maybe we should remember that is The Reader for whom we are writing the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I found a number of biographies that should be moved to a sub-category. The category structure is already there and I can create a list of the articles pretty simply, it will just be tedious to do by hand. Is this eligible for a bot request? The list is User:Bri/Recat. ☆ Bri ( talk) 21:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Please see Talk:List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#RfC_on_booster_landings_graph. Some comment from editors who are not regulars of the page is requested. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 02:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Adding multiple sections to relatively short articles seems like one of the most abused acts of editing on Wikipedia. It adds virtually nothing other than clutter. There ought to be a guideline to only section an article when each of the individual sections would, by itself, be longer than a stub article (i.e. 10+ sentences). Praemonitus ( talk) 20:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place (I am not a regular contributor to the English Wikipedia), but as the original article was deleted and the discussion archived: Concerning South Front: This article was deleted in 2017 for notability-reasons. However, as the website has a clear bias and is being used in a range of citations (e.g. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]) not citing this bias: what might be the best way to inform readers that the sources have this bias? Or is this not an issue? Hardscarf ( talk) 10:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
If you've been here long enough, what was your first edit of the last decade? Mine was Special:Diff/337740563 on 04:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC) to Shakespeare's Spy. Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 17:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Any idea which of the three ISBN numbers listed on PDF page 5 is the correct one for this book?
Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 00:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
(crosspost from WP:AN)
A massive (the largest ever) Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigation, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Dr. Blofeld, was recently opened. The usual 3 people at CCI won't be able to complete it themselves, so I am asking everyone who has the time to help clean it up. No copyright knowledge is required, and instructions + further information can be found at User:Money emoji/Dr. Blofeld CCI cleanup. I will also be listing this at WP:CENT, as the last time a large scale CCI cleanup effort was conducted ( Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo), it was listed there. A big thanks to all who sign up, 💴Money💶💵emoji💷 Talk💸 Help out at CCI! 02:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I finally caught up on a Wikipedia readership survey, which you can listen to in the second half of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIko_V1k09s (The first half is about the re-use of Wikipedia's contents, with a shoutout during the questions at the end to the United Nations for re-using some content while getting the attribution/licensing correct.) See mw:Wikimedia Research/Showcase for more information and links to previous content.
Age: Most readers are under the age of 25. This survey was taken at a time when many countries were not in school, so this is pretty much a year-round baseline.
Language: Every other person reading your article is not a native speaker of English. User:Dank, I'm not sure that this should be considered at all when you're looking for WP:Brilliant Prose, but it's something that other editors, such as User:Doc James, may want to take into account for other purposes.
Identity: As for who reads what, everyone reads about religion, geography, and people, but people read about people who are like them – men read about men, women read about women, youth read about youth, etc. This means that when we don't have content on ________ people, then those readers don't find what they want. Women read about medicine, biology, and television shows more than men. Men read about sports, technology (the article about YouTube was given as an example), and military subjects more than women. (They didn't get enough numbers to make any similar statements readers who identified in other ways.)
If you want more information, please see mw:Wikimedia Research/Showcase#November 2019. Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 21:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
This article was tagged for updating in 2017 and is not only hopelessly out of date, but reflects the fake news of yesteryear. I have proposed to scrap it quite some time ago, but this was simply rejected and it is still standing there in all its ugly and biased glory. Never mind that the euro has the support of over 2/3 of Greeks today. Wikipedia is supposed to be reliable and neutral, not a collection of failed anti-European rhetoric, no matter how many Brexiteers want it otherwise. When will Wikipedia realize that this undermines its own credibility? Jcwf ( talk) 20:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello Folks,
Wiki Loves Love is back again in 2020 iteration as Wiki Loves Folklore from 1 February, 2020 - 29 February, 2020. Join us to celebrate the local cultural heritage of your region with the theme of folklore in the international photography contest at Wikimedia Commons. Images, videos and audios representing different forms of folk cultures and new forms of heritage that haven’t otherwise been documented so far are welcome submissions in Wiki Loves Folklore. Learn more about the contest at Meta-Wiki and Commons.
Kind regards,
Wiki Loves Folklore International Team
—
Tulsi Bhagat (
contribs |
talk)
sent using
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 06:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Given this and this, an RfC has been opened on meta :
-- Jheald ( talk) 21:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Wiki Loves Women is back with the 2020 edition. Join us to celebrate women and queer community in Folklore theme and enrich Wikipedia with the local culture of your region. Happening from 1 February-31 March, Wiki Loves Women South Asia welcomes the articles created on folk culture and gender. The theme of the contest includes, but is not limited to, women and queer personalities in folklore, folk culture (folk artists, folk dancers, folk singers, folk musicians, folk game athletes, women in mythology, women warriors in folklores, witches and witch hunting, fairytales and more). You can learn more about the scope and the prizes at the project page.
Best wishes,
-- ✝iѵɛɳ२२४० †ลℓк †๏ мэ 10:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Yesterday, I uploaded this historic view on the Genesee River from 1859. Unfortunately, I have no clue where it was taken exactly. I would guess somewhere in the Letchworth State Park. Does anyone here know these falls? Sorry, if this page isn't the right place to ask. If so, I would be grateful for a reference to the appropriate place. -- Zinnmann ( talk) 14:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Within the framework of a research project, we are investigating the Requests for Adminship (RfA) process on English Wikipedia. We are especially interested in learning how English Wikipedia determines who are qualified administrators. We want to understand the strengths and weaknesses of Wikipedia’s voting processes and identify factors that could distort these processes. Ideally our study helps to determine how the process can be further improved. To this end, we have already evaluated the thousands of English Wikipedia elections on RfAs held between 2004 and 2014. We would like to discuss our results with Wikipedians and discover answers to our unanswered questions.
Therefore, we are currently looking for interviewees. I talked with User:LZia_(WMF) and asked for advice on how to communicate with enwiki community about our need for interviews and she suggested I reach out to you via this Village Pump. Ideally, you will have already participated in a Wikipedia vote and/or are considering voting yourself. It would be great if we could have a short conversation by phone / Skype / Zoom, of around 30-45 minutes. To thank you for your participation, we can offer you 85 US-Dollars (or €75). We are happy to transfer the money to you or if you prefer to the Wikimedia foundation.
This interview will be used to provide background information for the evaluation of the quantitative data that we have already collected. We plan to publish our results both in scientific journals and publicly online for any interested professionals.
Data protection: If you agree, we would like to record the interview. This data will only be available to the project team. If any quotes from the interview are used in publications, they will be pseudonymized.
The research team is composed of Helge Klapper (Erasmus University), Linus Dahlander (ESMT) and myself, Henning Piezunka (INSEAD). If you are interested, please contact me via /info/en/?search=Special:EmailUser/Henningpiezunka. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henningpiezunka ( talk • contribs) 10:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
As specified here and here the Category:Palazzo Molin (San Polo) on Commons is wrong. That builiding, is the Palazzo Donà delle Rose, not Palazzo Molin. Correction is necessary. -- 93.34.228.189 ( talk) 11:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello
The Wikimedia Foundation’s Community Development team is seeking to learn more about the way volunteers learn and develop into the many different roles that exist in the movement. Our goal is to build a movement informed framework that provides shared clarity and outlines accessible pathways on how to grow and develop skills within the movement. To this end, we are looking to speak with you, our community to learn about your journey as a Wikimedia volunteer. Whether you joined yesterday or have been here from the very start, we want to hear about the many ways volunteers join and contribute to our movement.
To learn more about the project, please visit the Meta page. If you are interested in participating in the project, please complete this simple Google form. Although we may not be able to speak to everyone who expresses interest, we encourage you to complete this short form if you are interested in participating!
-- LMiranda (WMF) ( talk) 19:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The File:Antonino Cannavacciuolo-signature.svg on Commons have some translation errors in the labels.
In the Details section, “SVG sviluppo” should be “Sviluppo SVG”, and “Questa firma è stata creata con un ignoto SVG programma.” should be “Questa firma è stata creata con un programma SVG ignoto.”. How can I fix? -- 2001:B07:6442:8903:B9F7:34B4:B495:EEAF ( talk) 16:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi all
I've recently added some content to Ecological grief and plan to do more in the future, could someone suggest some Wikiprojects etc where I could ask for help with it ?
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 18:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
How can I add all edits from a certain editor to my watchlist? Not edits per article, but edits per editor. Alternatively, I would be satisfied by the possibility to receive an update when a certain editor makes an edit. Debresser ( talk) 22:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Discussion about making a small change to {{ Press}}, if you have an opinion. The change is small but the template is widely used. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 18:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, folks! We are only 2,500 articles away. We should be ready to celebrate everywhere, and also congratulate the winners of the Six-million pool and the Six-millionth topic pool. -- 186.54.24.209 ( talk) 00:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
{{ Wikipedia:Six million articles}} Transcluded from [[Wikipedia:Six million articles]]. ↠Pine (✉) 03:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
On 1 November 2015, the five millionth article on the English Wikipedia was created, and for about a day, we ran a promotional banner over top of the Wikipedia logo celebrating the occasion. As I recall, there was also a celebratory banner with a link to Wikipedia:Five million articles, an information page we created about the occasion. At the time I am writing this, we have 5,997,150 articles on English Wikipedia. So we are getting very close. I was wondering if there was any appetite for doing another run of celebrations for 6 million articles. Mz7 ( talk) 20:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Do we know what the 6 millionth article was? How do we go about finding that out? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Congrats on your 6,000,000th article, and many more to come! -- Alvaro Vidal-Abarca ( talk) 22:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
A bit late to the party but no, I didn't miss this milestone. But let's not forget that we're not even close to the limit. According to a guesstimate I did last year, (any) Wikipedia could contain at least thrice as many articles. To say nothing about length, quality, and being up to date. So we're not done yet and I find that strangely reassuring. Steinbach ( talk) 20:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC) PS: to certain people above: neither the colour of the banner nor the fact that this milestone was celebrated bothered me in the least. One can definitely be too critical.
From today on to 21 February, the last facilitated round of movement discussions on the Wikimedia 2030 recommendations will be held. I created a dedicated page: Wikipedia:Wikimedia Strategy 2018–20. These conversations offer the opportunity to review the movement strategy draft recommendations, and discuss how English Wikipedia community would be affected as well as how well they align with the strategic direction.
Wikimedians across the world have been shaping the 2030 strategy since 2017. The first phase was aimed at establishing a shared strategic direction: that by 2030, Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge, and anyone who shares our vision will be able to join us. This vision of Wikimedia’s future is shared by all of us, irrespective of background (such as home wiki, culture, etc.) or contributing model (some of us don’t edit, and yet, do take part in fulfilling the Wikimedia mission).
Wikimedia 2018–2020 is all about recommendations that answer the question: what systemic changes in our worldwide movement are needed to advance this vision? These new draft recommendations are intentionally broad and focused on long-term impact. However, they will inevitably be familiar to many of you. Your previous feedback was taken into account, and the recommendations are based upon both 2017 and 2019 discussions reports.
Since July 2018, a group of more than 90 volunteers from across the Wikimedia movement have worked to produce various drafts of recommendations to support this change. This effort is now reaching its final stage, and we invite you to review and discuss the new strategy recommendations. This final set synthesizes all previous drafts, and will offer a clear and condensed product for your review.
After the discussions, the recommendations will be finalized, and presented at the Wikimedia Summit in Berlin. Soon after that, the implementation phase will begin.
You can learn more about the process of forming these recommendations and the next steps in the Signpost’s text by Risker, and in a dedicated FAQ on Meta-Wiki.
SGrabarczuk (WMF) ( talk) 21:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
OK, I made some changes to the Wikipedia:Wikimedia Strategy 2018–20 page and created sub-pages with all the recommendations and additional materials. And, hopefully this is a useful advise, please read the recommendations through the lens of the Principles. SGrabarczuk (WMF) ( talk) 19:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
If you want to learn more about movement strategy or ask the core team your questions regarding the process, join our office hours tomorrow, on Thursday, January 30 at 8:00 UTC (one hour) and at 18:00 UTC (one hour). Find links and see more: here. -- KVaidla (WMF) ( talk) 18:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone point me to statistics or source about the percentage of visitors/readers who actually edit English Wikipedia? I have heard stats ranging from .025 to .05 of all readers/visitors to Wikipedia actually edit. Thank you!
MatthewVetter ( talk) 16:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
how to find most viewed Wikimedia projeckts Amirh123 ( talk) 18:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
how to find Annual growth rate of Wikimedia projeckts Amirh123 ( talk) 18:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
MediaWiki has made a new browser extension available: Who Wrote That?. When installed, it adds "Who Wrote That" to your Tools menu which, when activated on an article, will let you see which editor in which edit added a specific bit of text just by hovering over the text, rather than hunting through a list of diffs. (It also highlights all of the other content added by that editor.) I'm really excited by its functionality so wanted to let others know about it, and this was the only place I could think of that was appropriate. Schazjmd (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
"Cinque Terra" does not meaning nothing in italian, and no link exist to that page. I have requested various times for deletion and always rollbacked. Why there is need to exist useless page? -- 93.34.228.189 ( talk) 11:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Is anyone coordinating all the updates to articles, categories and templates, once the UK leaves the EU in half an hour? Wikipedia:WikiProject European Union/Brexit task force appears moribund. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey there! Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but I don't know where else I should look. We are looking for an experienced Mediawiki admin for a custom Mediawiki setup. Thanks a lot! IonutBizau ( talk) 07:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
As I wrote in my last message here, the strategic recommendations for how we can achieve the Wikimedia 2030 vision are available for your final review. There are three weeks left to share your feedback, questions, concerns, and other comments.
These 13 recommendations are the result of more than a year of dedicated work by working groups comprised of volunteers and staff members from all around the world. These recommendations include the core content plus the Principles and the Glossary, which lend important context to this work and highlight the ways that the recommendations are conceptually interlinked. The Narrative of Change offers a summary introduction to the recommendations material. On Meta-Wiki, you can find even more detailed documentation.
Community input has played, and will continue to play, an important role in the shaping of these recommendations. They reflect this and cite community input throughout in footnotes.
In this final community review stage, we're hoping to better understand how you think the recommendations would impact our movement – what benefits and opportunities do you foresee for your community, and why? What challenges or barriers could they pose for you?
After this three-week period, the Core Team will publish a summary report of input from across affiliates, online communities, and other stakeholders for public review before the recommendations are finalized. You can view our updated timeline here as well as an updated FAQ section that addresses topics like the goal of this current period, the various components of the draft recommendations, and what's next in more detail.
Thank you again for taking the time to join us in community conversations, and I look forward to receiving your input. Happy reading!
SGrabarczuk (WMF) ( talk) 00:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)