This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous).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've been too out of the loop from the Village pump and everything community related for a long time. Is everything running smoothly enough or is there any growing issues like what Twitter has grown cancerous with? Occono ( talk) 22:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
The licence of this and other WMF projects was recently changed from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0 to Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0 ( mailing list announcement; ToU diff).
I'm not alone (see responses to the announcement linked above) in wondering how this can be applied to content created (including by people who are no longer active editors, or in some cases no longer alive) under v3.0? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
In regards to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022 and/or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deployment of Vector (2022), how do you feel now, months after the discussion and with certain improvements added?
Before you answer this question, please read my user page to see why I am asking you this question. You do not have to answer this question at all if you wish. If you do answer this question, could you please state if you are okay with your username being used, possibly publicly? Thank you-- DisposableUser12345 ( talk) 01:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I notice we have a great many pairs of categories split by gender that use "male" vs. "women" instead of "male" vs. "female" or "men" vs. "women" (nevermind the other possibilities…). Where these exist, they appear at every level of subcategorization that I have checked. For example:
This imbalance in the terminology we are using seems very strange to me. It appears that most of the "male" categories were created well after the corresponding "women" cats, and arguably run counter to WP:CATGENDER (see also this other section on the same page). Because of the large (and indeterminate) number of such cases and my uncertainty about what should be done, I am bringing it up here (for general discussion) instead of going directly to WP:CFD (to seek consensus). I am leaning towards recommending the removal of at least the more specific "male" cats of the kind in the third bullet point (many of which were created by Ser Amantio di Nicolao, whom I have just pinged). Not sure what to do about the imbalance in the higher-level cats, since the construct "women XYZ" is relatively common whereas "men XYZ" is most assuredly not, and changing to "female XYZ" is probably never going to gain consensus. Opinions? - dcljr ( talk) 05:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I have created and helped others to revise several drafts related to geography, but some drafts have not been reviewed by anyone after more than a month, and drafts with no editing activities for 6 months will be regarded as automatically abandoned.
Fumikas Sagisavas ( talk) 03:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
"Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,469 pending submissions waiting for review."Everyone would like their draft reviewed, but there are many drafts and relatively few reviewers. You just need to be patient. The deletion process is not automatic, and no admin will delete a draft for inactivity that is still waiting for review. RudolfRed ( talk) 04:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
I've already raised some of these issues and suggestions at mw:Talk:Citoid (and at Help talk:Citation Style 1), so I know some people are aware of it, but in the interest of letting this AN thread die, I've written a new project page about issues with automated references and suggested ways forward at Wikipedia:WikiProject Citation cleanup/Repairing algorithmically generated citations. Corrections and additions and participants are welcome. Folly Mox ( talk) 19:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Something I've been noticing a lot in the articles I've edited lately are that there are many sentences I encounter, where there is an extra space at the end of the fullstop, before the beginning of the next sentence, so i.e. there are two spaces instead of one. I've noticed that Wikipedia automatically removes the extra space from view to the reader (though it is visible in VisualEditor mode).
So my question is: Is this a common (minor) mistake that editors make, or is it a common practice that is perhaps done to tell sentences apart from another when editing the article?
Because if it is common and good practice, then I probably shall stop removing them as part of copyedits (such as this one), and maybe start inserting these extra spaces whenever I add any new sentences or paragraphs to an article from now on. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
user agents should collapse input white space sequences when producing output inter-word space, in other words, browsers encountering sequences of two or more spaces should treat the whole sequence as if it were a single space. I can't find the equivalent passage for HTML5, but browser behaviour in that respect hasn't changed. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 17:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I have been seeing a survey link at the top of some pages for me which takes me to https://questionnaires.marsouin.org - I wonder who designed this and claimed that it takes 10-20 minutes but I have attempted it twice and it is almost impossible to finish without the session timing out. They are pretty complex questions and if the organizers really are interested in getting good data, they ought to think a little more about the design. Shyamal ( talk) 12:12, 17 June 2023 (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.
Here and on my Watchlist page, it says that a Request for Adminship is open, but when I go to that page, there's nothing happening and it says the last Request was in May? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 20:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Passive income looks like it could use a lot of attention from someone who doesn't find a Get-rich-quick scheme to be seductive. It could be worse, but it's pretty bad. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
In 2007, KnowledgeOfSelf got his account cracked. However, he said he was using a strong password. Was there any consensus on how this was made possible? 2A02:AA1:1001:AEB5:8CD1:DB4B:3EBB:2403 ( talk) 07:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
IMHO if you're not using two-factor, you're not serious about security. ☆ Bri ( talk) 22:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I originally posted this to WT:Notability (events) a few days ago, but got no reply there.
This regards the notability of Miss Supranational 2023. I think it might need draftification until it's improved but looking for a second opinion. Especially please note a) there's no announced date and b) about half of the text is primary sourced or unreferenced as I noted on the talkpage. ☆ Bri ( talk) 22:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I am trying to understand the current status of Talk:Azov Brigade. Except for some templates at the top, the entire page follows a {{ Archive top}} with no {{ Archive bottom}}. Is this intentional? If so, where is one supposed to raise a question about the current state of the article? Pinging @ TylerBurden, whose name is on the {{ Archive top}}, as the most likely to know the intent. - Jmabel | Talk 22:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
{{
archive top}}
to be anything special, and certainly doesn't look "back" from a heading to see if it's got an {{
archive top}}
before it. Indeed, there shouldn't be any need for the bot to do this:
Template:Archive top#Usage explicitly states Place the {{ Archive top}} template below the header containing the discussion, then place {{ Archive bottom}} at the end of the discussion.and you appear to have overlooked this advice in this edit. Regarding that: what was the
{{
Lorem ipsum}}
(since
removed) intended for? --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 13:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello there,
We are glad to announce the new members and advisors of the Elections Committee. The Elections Committee assists with the design and implementation of the process to select Community- and Affiliate-Selected trustees for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. After an open nomination process, the strongest candidates spoke with the Board and four candidates were asked to join the Elections Committee. Four other candidates were asked to participate as advisors.
Thank you to all the community members who submitted their names for consideration. We look forward to working with the Elections Committee in the near future.
On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees,
RamzyM (WMF) 17:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedians, in response to expressed needs of the communities in sub-Saharan Africa to help achieve growth of the editing communities in the region, the Wikimedia Foundation is working on an experiment-based project dubbed the Africa Growth Project. The project seeks to enhance already existing community efforts by creating a more effective online learning component, which would allow in-person efforts to focus on already-engaged newbies who have obtained a solid foundation in Wikipedia policies and collaboration norms, maximizing the return on investment of human volunteer effort. The hypothesis guiding this experiment is that providing high-quality training to new and existing Wikipedians covering the basics of contribution to Wikipedia (including introducing the many ways to contribute beyond article writing) can double the retention rates of active editors in the region.
For the pilot, we will be developing four modules, and we are inviting you to share feedback on outlines for these training modules, which are:
We hope to benefit from your experience as Wikipedians in sharing your input on these module outlines, to ensure that they capture what is needed to support the community's understanding of those policies. We are interested to hear your thoughts on what's missing, what's good, what could be improved, and any suggestions on the modules' and sections' order and pace, great illustrative examples and helpful exercises that would be useful to incorporate.
We will take your input into consideration as we develop the full modules based on these outlines (including whatever change suggestions we accept). We will also be publishing the complete modules on the WikiLearn platform when they are ready.
See the details of the pilot and the modules in the Africa Growth Pilot Page on Meta-Wiki. Kindly share your comments on the talk page by July 21st, 2023.
Thank you, from the Africa Growth Pilot team @ DNdubane (WMF), @ VThamaini (WMF) and @ Asaf (WMF). VThamaini (WMF) ( talk) 09:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I need to let Lisa Bonet know a scammer is using Jason Momoa name to scam fans and trying to pull her into it too Ellen Bohanan ( talk) 15:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
can i — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.159.190 ( talk) 10:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Dear all,
We would like to share with you the community collaboration page around the English fundraising banner campaign. This page is for en.wiki volunteers to learn about fundraising and share ideas for how we can improve the 2023 English fundraising campaign together. On this page you’ll find information to increase transparency and understanding of the fundraising program, background on improvements around community collaborations that have been made since the last campaign, new spaces for collaboration, and messaging examples to invite volunteers to share ideas for how we can improve the next campaign together.
The fundraising banner pre-tests phase on English Wikipedia starts on the 19th of July with a few technical tests, using messaging that was created with the community during the December 2022 campaign. We will regularly update the collaboration page with new messaging ideas and updates on testing and campaign plans as we prepare for the main campaign that will launch at the end of November.
Generally, during the pre-tests and the campaign, you can contact us:
Best wishes,
JBrungs (WMF) ( talk) 15:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello!
In ENG Wikipedia article about Sapkowski, the beginning of the Witcher series is stated as The Blood of Elves book. But, hm... as a Polish fantasy fan, there are 2 short stories collections that truly - in my view - began the saga and without which the Witcher saga wouldn't be created? And the very last short story is about Ciri and the attack of Nilfgaard. And many things characteristics of the Witcher series (moral ambiguity, Dandelion, Yennefer etc.) originated in the short stories.
Thus, my question is - shouldn't the article about Sapkowski be changed to include the short stories as the beginnings of the Witcher saga?
(I mean, I dunno, maybe you already had this kinda talk before and I am spamming? But from my Polish perspective, the article kinda... does not sound right?).
Best regards -- Kaworu1992 ( talk) 15:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
For those of you who have never seen this, there are a number of LTAs who try to avoid scrutiny (or work around page protections) by asking other editors to perform edits for them. Sometimes these are requests on user talk pages. Sometimes they're via email. If you get a request to perform an edit from somebody you've never heard of (especially if they're a new account), just don't do it. RoySmith (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Per title, I seem to recall something like this but not sure how to find it, but I have like 250 citations to archive so it'd be handy. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 14:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello everyone,
The Movement Charter Drafting Committee is happy to announce that new draft chapters of the Movement Charter are ready for review and feedback. The Global Council draft is available now and Hubs will be published by the end of July.
How can you engage with the Charter content? To create a Charter for our Movement means we need to hear from as many of you as possible. Everyone in the Wikimedia community is invited to actively engage with the content by sharing their feedback on wiki or attending upcoming virtual and in-person events.
We encourage individuals or groups, especially those from under-resourced Wikimedia communities, to apply for grants by July 30. These grants can be used to organize conversations, such as informational sessions to familiarize fellow community members with the draft chapters of the Movement Charter ahead of regional and thematic events from September to November, 2023. The Regional Specialists of the Movement Communications team are available to support community organizers.
Posting on behalf of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee, RAdimer-WMF ( talk) 20:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Please, I would like to permanently delete my Wikipedia account as well as all my data if possible. MarceloLanda6 ( talk) 18:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I wrote a user script called WikiChatbot to assist editors. It can summarize, reformulate, copyedit, and provide suggestions on additional topics, images, and wikilinks as well as assess factual accuracy and bias. It is used by selecting text in an article and then clicking one of the buttons on the right to enquire about the selected text. The chatbot can also be used by typing specific questions about the selected text or the topic in general in the chat panel.
The script uses the AI model GPT 3.5. It requires an API key from OpenAI. New OpenAI accounts can use it freely for the first 3 months with certain limitations. The AI model was not designed to assess or improve encyclopedic articles and has many serious shortcomings. Editors should always question its responses and rely on their own judgment and reliable sources instead. For a more detailed description of all these issues and examples of how the script can be used, see the documentation at User:Phlsph7/WikiChatbot.
I was hoping to get some feedback on the script in general and how it may be improved. I'm not sure how difficult it is to follow the instructions so it would be great if someone could try to set up the script, use it, and explain which steps were confusing. My OpenAI account is already older than 3 months so I was not able to verify the claims about the free period and how severe the limitations are. If someone has a younger account or is willing to open a new account to try it, that would be helpful. Other feedback on the idea in general, its problems, new features to implement, or the documentation is also welcome.
(side note: this text was already posted at Wikipedia:User_scripts/Requests#Feedback_on_user_script_chatbot but it was suggested that here might be the better place to bring up the issue.)
Phlsph7 ( talk) 09:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
I wrote a user script called WikiChatbot to assist editors.Well, there's your mistake right there. Chatbots don't answer questions; they simulate what an answer might sound like. They are progressively making the rest of the Internet a worse place, and are the last thing we need to bring here. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Notes
Seems Wikipedia is all about the factual errors in Britannica, but little interest in the errors in Wikipedia. When someone gets called out for biased editing, it is swept under the rug. i.e. The George Galloway page, rift with unbiased accusations, which he refuted quite soundly, and even won a damages lawsuit, but it was all swept under the rug. Now there is a current article on Wired.com, about edits on the pages of German officials during World War II. Quite the conundrum:
Please read the entire article before commenting. 207.53.252.58 ( talk) 22:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is all about the factual errors in Britannica, but little interest in the errors in Wikipedia.is dubious and faulty and loses me immediately, considering that we do in fact highlight our own controversies with relative gusto. We had a massive ArbCom case about that very issue, in fact. We don't ever shy away from these things. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -( talk) 12:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi All, The Guardian newspaper has produced a statement on its policy concerning the use of generative AI in their journalism. Their concerns reflect the concerns that Wikipedians have raised, and their policy is very sensible. Here it is: [3] Elemimele ( talk) 11:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
there's this humor page that you get to after clicking a link that explicitly tells you not to on wikipedia, and the page shows the destruction of wikipedia by a nuke due to your actions
can someone find it for me i forgot the link
thx DestinyPegasus ( talk) 21:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Not sure where else to post this, but Help:How to move a page is a pretty important help page, and needs updating for Vector 2022. Curbon7 ( talk) 23:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello everyone,
The Movement Charter Drafting Committee is happy to announce that the Hubs draft chapter is now open for review and feedback. The Global Council was published two weeks ago.
How can you engage with the Charter content?
The Movement Charter Drafting Committee is looking forward to receiving feedback from as many people as possible. Please share your input on the Meta Talk page by September 1, 2023:
In addition, we invite you to join the MCDC Live call on July 30 at 14.00 UTC to engage with the MCDC members directly and ask your questions. Please register here to receive a Zoom link.
We encourage individuals or groups, especially those from under-resourced Wikimedia communities, to apply for grants by July 30. These grants can be used to organize conversations, such as informational sessions to familiarize fellow community members with the draft chapters of the Movement Charter ahead of regional and thematic events from September to November 2023. The Regional Specialists of the Movement Communications team are available to support community organizers.
Thank you for your ongoing commitment and participation.
On behalf of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee, RAdimer-WMF ( talk) 19:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello
How the fair use work?
I want to update some movie poster
I can update any poster?
GEORGEB1989 (
talk) 21:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Many cleanup categories have a name beginning with "Wikipedia pages..." while many others have a name beginning with "Pages...". This makes it harder to find the category you're looking for. Is there a possibility of standardizing these categories to use one or the other? Kk.urban ( talk) 23:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello everyone, for the past couple of months the Trust and Safety Tools team has been working on finalising Phase 1 of the Incident Reporting System project.
The purpose of this phase was to define possible product direction and scope of the project with your feedback. We now have a better understanding of what to do next.
1. We are renaming the project as Incident Reporting System
2. We have some feedback from researching some pilot communities to share with you
3. We have updated the project’s overview
4. We have the first iteration of the reporting extension ReportIncident
Please visit the project's update page to get more details.
On behalf of Trust & Safety Tools Team –– STei (WMF) ( talk) 10:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I would only like to point out (think of it like a type of complaint) that certain topics on Wikipedia (I am now referring to religious demographics) are very heavily biased towards a very specific viewpoints, completely going against Wikipedia's rule of a "Neutral point of view". What I am refering to is that articles about countries' and regions' religious demographics are biased towards either a very secularist/non-religious bias or are biased towards a minority religion. I would like to recommend a massive clean-up operation. Hope more people could understand and spread the message. Belson 303 ( talk) 15:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Please excuse my unindented intrusion here. This is an attempt to address some of the claims made by Belson 303, not for 'a large number of articles', but solely the only cited article: Czech Republic and in particular, subsection 6.2, which is restricted to the singular category of religious demographics. I agree that polls in general are coming under greater scrutiny these days, presumably because there have been some major mispredictions lately. However, the single subsection in question regarding the country in question is not quoting, citing or referencing any polls. The article reports the results of a question posed in the most recent national census, as well as providing an illuminating comparison with the same question posed over the three previous decennial censuses.
The numbers in the article are mostly (but not exclusively) percentages and are directly taken from the results of the authoritative Czech national census. You and I can start our own opinion poll immediately, without difficulty. But we cannot conduct an authoritative national census whenever (or wherever) we feel like it. Such things are important to the overall scientific picture we have of ourselves, and are strictly monitored both internally and externally for precisely that reason. We can run our own opinion polls however we like. We can adjust the numbers, or filter the responses, to suit our own undisclosed purpose. Perhaps we want to expose a perceived bias. Or perhaps we want to sell more newspapers. We don't have to be public about any of that. It's our little (or big) secret. But running an authoritative national census is an entirely different matter. Every number is made public and public scrutiny is encouraged. There is no newspaper to sell, no extra communion wafers to sell, etc. The primary objective is to determine the scientific truth, and a secondary objective (not insignificant where national borders have changed during the last four decades) is to be seen to be an accurate and reliable source on the world stage.
Perhaps you don't like to see that 34% of Czechs claimed to be atheists in the 2011 census. But it doesn't mean 34% of all the people in the Czech Republic are atheists. Did you notice that it is only 34% of the 55.3% of people that answered the question. So that 34% is actually 34% of 55.3%, which is only 18.8% of all the Czech people who returned a census form. Even if every adult in the country returned an honestly completed form, and project that onto today's population, it still means that 81.2% of 10.8 million people (i.e. 8.79 million Czechs DO NOT claim to be atheists). But none of the numbers that concern you should matter at all. Are the numbers an accurate reflection of the census results? I would expect that to be the case. But even if it is not, and it is indeed biased to a level found in some of Czechia's neighbours eighty years ago, the Wikipedia article is not incorrect. The article clearly states the source of those numbers and says what the source says. The census states there's another 10% of Christians who are not Catholic. Is it true? I didn't check, but I will bet that's what the census states. The actual number of Protestants is not something that Wikipedia can get involved with. The Wikipedian editor went to the best possible source of information, clearly stated what that was, and reported the findings. If you are concerned that the Czech national census is biased, and wish to do something about it, then I wish you luck on your journey. But this isn't the right place to start it. Belson 303 may have become 176.57.195.131 ( talk) in the time it took me to write this. Either way, I hope dot-131 made it to the end of my response. If so, I hope it helped just a little bit.
ChrisJBenson ( talk) 07:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC) P.S. I like your name - except for that weird 3rd letter L where there should be an N ;-)
Belson 303 ( talk) 16:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I love wikipedia and love what I learn here. But I have noticed most of, if not all information gleaned is stated as unambiguous facts. When in fact some content is of opinions, or information garnished from biased opinions. Or proffered by "sources" or "experts" without requisite proof. Why not warn readers with a disclaimer that clarifies this, it approaches propaganda at some points. Otherwise you folks do a great job and Wikipedia is the best resource available. Just letting the reader know in italics or bold lettering to the source of said information would seem clearly more unbiased. Because some information ascertained on here points to fact when it is clearly of an opinion opined from sources. Citations in the reading also may give more of an unbiased look. Just something to think about. Coopaloop1984 ( talk) 23:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Dear fellow Wikimedia enthusiasts, we are excited to introduce the Adiutor Project, an initiative aimed at enhancing the Wikipedia editing experience! Adiutor is a user-friendly gadget designed to simplify various tasks for Wikipedia editors, making editing easier, faster, and more enjoyable. From creating deletion requests to conducting copyright checks, Adiutor streamlines repetitive processes, giving you more time to focus on creating valuable content for the community. If you're interested in using Adiutor on your local wiki, we'd love to hear from you! Drop us a message here or reach out to Vikipolimer with your Wikimedia community details. Let's collaborate to bring Adiutor to your language and wiki! Join the Adiutor Project, and together, let's make Wikipedia editing a more efficient and rewarding experience! For any questions or to express your interest in bringing Adiutor to your local wiki, feel free to contact Vikipolimer - we're here to support and work together with you! Looking forward to your enthusiastic participation! 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 00:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello. My name is Andrii. I am the developer of WRating, a rating system that has been evaluating the contributions of editors to the Ukrainian Wikipedia's traffic for almost 10 years. Now, it also evaluates your Wikipedia contributions https://wrating.ukrface.org/?le=en&l=en. It was a very interesting challenge, because the volume of data in English Wikipedia is 100x more than in Ukrainian Wikipedia. This website provides an opportunity for Wikipedia authors to assess their contribution to the project's promotion, namely: to find out how many pages were viewed on Wikipedia within one month due to their contributions.
For example, here are the TOP-10 contributors according to the WRating version (number of views in parentheses):
The ranking is updated monthly, usually by the 5th day of each month.
I will be glad to see you among the users of the rating. UkrFace ( talk) 21:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
mw-reverted
, mw-undo
, and mw-manual-revert
.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 16:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
how many pages were viewed on Wikipedia within one month due to their contributions, isn't that a correlation fallacy? For example, if I frequently edit the article for subject X, and then the subject of article X becomes a huge news item for an unrelated reason and page views go up, it's not because of my edits. Orange Suede Sofa ( talk) 04:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Dummies 101 question, with apologies for this many years on Wikipedia and not knowing how to deal with this, but most of my editing experience was at the FA level. After viewing a seriously marginal article, I have encountered a prolific user who has 466 (!!!!!) deletion discussions on their talk page, and just keeps churning out low quality articles. Is that a case for asking that extended confirmed be removed so they can't keep creating content that is not checked, or is there another way I should approach this? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Dear all,
As mentioned earlier, the WMF is now actively engaging interested editors to work with us on creating messaging for fundraising banners for the upcoming English fundraising campaign.
Thanks to all of you who already came to the community collaboration space for the English banner fundraising campaign. We are having some fruitful and interesting discussions on the page.
If you are interested in joining these discussions, or are curious about some of the banner language we are working on, come across to the collaboration page.
Julia will be attending Wikimania this week and will be hosting a banner messaging collaboration workshop (Thursday, 17th of August at 9am local time). Come and join or send her an email (jbrungs at wikimedia dot org) if you’d like to set up a time to meet at Wikimania.
We will also be hosting a community discussion call on the 7th of September at 16:30 UTC. If you are interested in joining the call, please email Julia (jbrungs at wikimedia dot org) to register.
Best, JBrungs (WMF) ( talk) 08:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I am well aware (and I can only shake my head at this fact), that the article Woman and its talk page are minefields. However, I wonder if the entire purpose of Wikipedia is not shredded with edits like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AWoman&diff=1171791336&oldid=1171559669. Is anyone supposed to give as many details about oneself publicly, even for the sake of discussion? Edelseider ( talk) 17:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello all,
I am pleased to share the next step in the Universal Code of Conduct work. The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) draft charter is now ready for your review.
The Enforcement Guidelines require a Building Committee form to draft a charter that outlines procedures and details for a global committee to be called the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). Over the past few months, the U4C Building Committee worked together as a group to discuss and draft the U4C charter. The U4C Building Committee welcomes feedback about the draft charter now through 22 September 2023. After that date, the U4C Building Committee will revise the charter as needed and a community vote will open shortly afterward.
Join the conversation during the conversation hours or on Meta-wiki.
Best,
RamzyM (WMF), on behalf of the U4C Building Committee, 15:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
We have Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, but not Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 Unported License.
Should we? Or should it be a (soft) redirect somewhere? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
A recent discussion at a FAC led me to realize that there's a difference in phrasing amongst WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:NONFREE, and WP:CLOP regarding in-text attribution. V and NONFREE are policy, CITE is a guideline, and CLOP is an essay.
Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible; when quoting or closely paraphrasing a source, use an inline citation, and in-text attribution where appropriate.
use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author (as described by the citation guideline).
In-text attribution should be used with direct speech (a source's words between quotation marks or as a block quotation); indirect speech (a source's words modified without quotation marks); and close paraphrasing. It can also be used when loosely summarizing a source's position in your own words, and it should always be used for biased statements of opinion.The distinction between
should be usedand
should always be useddoesn't seem to completely make sense, but I'd interpret this as meaning the former allows for some editorial discretion whereas the latter does not.
Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text.
CLOP seems inconsistent with the other three, each of which (debatably for CITE) say in-text attribution is not required and citation may be sufficient. Of course in-text attribution is very often the right thing to do, but there are cases where it can lead to ugly and unreadable prose. For example, in a section on the reception of an album, one might want to write 'The lyrics were poorly received, and were described as "bland", "unoriginal", "tedious", and "derivative"', drawing those comments from individual reviews. I won't write out a fully attributed version but it would clearly be horrible to read. I feel that if each of those one-word quotes has a citation to the review in question, that should suffice. Technically of course CLOP doesn't even apply as these are not paraphrases, but that makes the inconsistency even worse.
I would like to bring CLOP into line with the other three. I haven't yet posted notes at any of those other talk pages; I'm aware CLOP's wording has its defenders and if I get shouted down here there's no point in expanding the conversation. If there seems some support for rewording CLOP I'll add the relevant notes elsewhere. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I found a Wikipedia clone online called WikiAlpha. It seems to have no notability rules (which is a bad idea BTW), however it seems that they have a bot that nabs AfD articles on the English Wikipedia here and could count as possibly scraping pages. You can literally input a page right now and copy and paste the wikitext code. People seem to have used the feature as far as I know. Isn't this a violation of WMF's ToS or something? EnbyPie08 ( talk) 22:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi - I’m the Product Manager for the Moderator Tools team at the Wikimedia Foundation (and long-time editor and admin here). I wanted to let you know that now that we're wrapping up our work on PageTriage, my team is in the early stages of designing and building Automoderator - an automated anti-vandalism revert tool like ClueBot NG. Although most of the details and discussion can be found on MediaWiki, we’ve created a project page here to discuss how this tool might be evaluated or used on the English Wikipedia. We think you have unique insight into how we should build the tool given your experiences with ClueBot NG. Please take a look at our project page and share your thoughts on the talk page. We’ll try to keep the page to date as we progress with the project, so consider watchlisting for updates. Samwalton9 (WMF) ( talk) 10:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Just a heads up that Google has launched another salvo in the generative AI wars. I just did a search for "geography of the western bronx" and was asked if I wanted to enable their generative AI experiment. I did so, and got back a couple of paragraphs of perfectly fluent and cogent English which would work perfectly for me to copy-paste into the article I'm working on. And a google search for the text comes up with nothing, so tools like Earwig wouldn't notice anything was amiss. This is going to be interesting. RoySmith (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
This morning I went to login and got presented with a captcha. Yes, a captcha! Just when the rest of the world is starting to move on from the wretchedly unpopular and increasingly useless things. I very nearly never came back. Glad I did try again later, as it has now gone. If it ever comes back, I won't. Anybody who needs that explaining to them, never will understand. (And before you ask, yes I am an infosec expert in my day job). — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 16:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
This thing already hinted in title should interest anyone concerned with discrimination and our articles related to various discrimination issues. It's mindboggling disparate in dealing with a categorisation of BP i BLP, in which we are allowed to categorize persons, living or dead, involved with Antisemitism with corresponding Antisemitism category, but we are not allowed to do the same thing with those involved with Islamophobia. The latest example from my own experience is categorization of Milo Yiannopoulos with Category:Islamophobia in the United Kingdom which was removed on the pretense that "this category is not to include individuals, especially BLPs", which is kinda false since there is no such guideline or policy that say Antisemitism related BLP's can be included into, say, Category:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom, but Islamophobia related can't be categorized with these specific categories such as Category:Islamophobia in the United Kingdom. I just would like to hear some reasoning and/or arguments in whatever direction. In a way, this issue concerns whole project and could be deemed a discrimination in itself. ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 18:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Is it just me or is something wrong with archive.ph? It keeps serving me endless reCaptchas through Cloudflare; I'm stuck beyond it. After a recaptcha it refreshes and has me redo yet another recaptcha. Aaron Liu ( talk) 02:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Once again you ignore the obvious question a reader of today’s photo will have — how large are large silver certificates? Even the article buries that information in an information footnote way down at the end of a very long article. I changed that, but my change won’t last long. Wis2fan ( talk) 03:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Hey all! I work in the Community Resilience & Sustainability team of the Wikimedia Foundation. I am writing to you today to let you know about the Mental Health Resource Center in case you find this resource useful. This is a new group of pages on Meta-wiki aimed at supporting the mental wellbeing of users in our community. This project is the result of the work of a Human Rights intern at the Wikimedia Foundation, who wrote a Diff blog post about it.
While we previously provided helpline contact information for people who are in an active crisis or near-crisis, the team’s goal is to provide additional resources to offer mental health and wellbeing information in a number of languages, covering a wide range of topics. Our hope is not only to help people who are in crisis, but help prevent crises.
As with the Helpline information page, the Foundation’s Trust and Safety team is tasked with maintaining the pages. They will do a quarterly review of the content, which will include reviewing any recommended changes left on the talk page. Because this is a page they send to people who are in crisis, for liability reasons they do have to review substantial changes. However, they very much hope for recommendations and ideas and especially notes of problems.
The Resource Center contains the helplines, a glossary of mental health terms, and resources divided by category with supported languages listed next to each resource. There is also a table available if community members wish to view the resources sorted by language. The hope is this resource expands over time to cover more languages and cultures. Currently, translations into several languages are underway.
Best, JKoerner (WMF) ( talk) 17:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
==See also==
at
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy.
Folly Mox (
talk) 08:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Is there any way that I can see the amount of edits I've made without counting them all? 𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃 ( talk) 15:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Last month I rewrote a userscript into User:Aaron Liu/Watchlyst Greybar Unsin. Besides listing it, are there good ways to promote it? Aaron Liu ( talk) 14:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Would it be helpful to have categories for redirects from non-Latin script to Latin script, and vice versa? Template:R from alternative transliteration is similar, but it doesn't quite capture the meaning. Red Panda 25 21:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to post this as the research-focused Wikipedia pages all seem to be moribund. In this newly published journal article, the author describes a research project in which they vandalize several articles solely to collect information about how editors respond to vandalism. This was done 15 years after publishing a similar article that used the same methods to explore the same topics. There is no mention of IRB approval and I like to believe that an IRB would not allow this kind of research that blatantly violates our community norms and formal policies. It would be trivial to identify vandalism committed by other editors to observe how the community responds so this method is completely unnecessary.
Yes, it's only a handful of edits (33 if I understand the 2023 article correctly). And we now know exactly what articles were vandalized. But it would be very helpful if the Wikimedia Foundation could say something to this researcher and their institution to firmly note, on the record, that this is kind of unethical research is unwelcome and unacceptable. ElKevbo ( talk) 21:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
research projects that are disruptive to the community or which negatively affect articles—even temporarily—are not allowed and can result in loss of editing privilegesRoySmith (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Before starting a potentially controversial project, researchers should open discussion at the Village pump to ensure it will not interfere with Wikipedia's mission.So, we do have a process for this. Somebody could propose, for example,
I'd like to insert 15 specific known false statements in specific articles and measure how long it takes for them to get fixed. To avoid affecting the experimental results, I won't publicly disclose what articles will be affected, but a list is available for inspection off-wiki by any interested party. Maybe people would find it reasonable and there would be consensus to allow it. Basically, this is what you'd put in an IRB proposal anyway. If you need IRB approval for this, it stands to reason you should also need our approval as well. Otherwise it would be like your doctor enrolling you in an experimental new drug trial without your knowledge or consent. RoySmith (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
It was easy to find contact information for the paper's author. I have dropped him an email explaining our policy and inviting him to join this conversation. RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
This search yields 1,245 pages that have manual superscript tags containing bracketed numbers. These will mostly be well-intentioned attempts by new users at making ref tags or weird errors in copy-pasting rich text, with maybe some outright duplicity mixed in. In each case, fixing the problem is rather tedious: One has to find the edit where it was introduced, see what that number referred to then, and check whether that citation verifies the claim, before deciding whether to fix the faux-citation, replace with a {{ cn}}, or remove the statement outright. So, if anyone's looking for a new backlog to work through and likes tedious citation repair, it's your lucky day! -- Tamzin[ cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 01:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
It's caused by an unresolved bug in VE. User:GreenC bot/Job 18 is approved to fix it. The bug has so many permutations, I can't say how well it work now after 4 years. I can try to run it again, and see what happens, but I don't have time to manually fix anything. It is a "devilish bug" as I noted in the original BRFA in 2019, when there were about 1,500 instances, which were fixed at that time. -- Green C 04:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
<sup>[1]</sup>
because there is not enough information to know which article footnote #1 was copy-pasted from. That is unfortunately the majority of them in the above 1,200 search. I am able to fix some (bot still running), which are explicit what the source article was, like [[Golden Gate Park#cite note-15|<sup>[15]</sup>]]
. We know this was footnote #15 in
Golden Gate Park. But <sup>[1]</sup>
is footnote #1 from an unknown article. It takes so long and is so much manual work to verify if it's from the same article, I don't think it's reasonable to expect anyone to ever resolve it at scale, we should be switching from a rescue operation to a cleanup by deleting them all. Alternatively, we could assume it's the same article, and add footnote #1 with a {{
verify}}
and inline comment to check it out. The
one article I manually verified, it was not the same article, and my previous experience with the bug is editors often copy-paste content from other articles, so it's not a great assumption. --
Green
C 14:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)<sup>[#]</sup>
, I saw one added as recently as June 2023. I made a filter request
Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Filter_861_modification_/_VisualEditor_bug. --
Green
C 14:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Scams are a fact of life everywhere, and wikipedia is no exception. There seems to be an uptick in wiki scams recently, so I figured a reminder would be useful. There's a bunch of variations, but they're mostly something like, "If you don't pay me money, I'll make sure your page gets deleted". Often the scammer claims to be an admin, or to have admins on their payroll. They often want to conduct the transaction using cryptocurrency. One that I saw recently included a LinkedIn page. If you get some unsolicited email to this effect, don't engage. Instead, report it to Trust & Safety (ca@wikimedia.org), or to arbcom or a functionary. All these people want to do is get your money, and they've been honing their game for a long time so they can sound pretty convincing. Don't fall for it. RoySmith (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I've seen multiple mentions of the artist Piri in the did you know section. Why? I cannot remember another topic or artist getting put into the did you know section multiple times? Or atleast with such frequency? Breckishere ( talk) 18:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi everyone. About a week ago, RamzyM (WMF) posted the following message to VPM, which was probably overlooked because VPM is a relatively low-engagement forum:
Hello all,
I am pleased to share the next step in the Universal Code of Conduct work. The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) draft charter is now ready for your review.
The Enforcement Guidelines require a Building Committee form to draft a charter that outlines procedures and details for a global committee to be called the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). Over the past few months, the U4C Building Committee worked together as a group to discuss and draft the U4C charter. The U4C Building Committee welcomes feedback about the draft charter now through 22 September 2023. After that date, the U4C Building Committee will revise the charter as needed and a community vote will open shortly afterward.
Join the conversation during the conversation hours or on Meta-wiki.
Best,
RamzyM (WMF), on behalf of the U4C Building Committee, 15:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
This draft Charter defines the election procedures and mandate of the U4C (Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee). Under the previously-ratified UCoC Enforcement Guidelines, the U4C is an elected body with responsibility for enforcing various provisions in the UCoC and coordinating others.
I am posting this here because I'd like to invite comment from enwiki folks on this, and will be posting this thread to T:CENT. You're welcome to comment in this thread here or directly on the meta consultation page. If you comment here, I will be sure to summarize the discussion and post it on the meta consultation page. This is a similar model to how some other projects are soliciting feedback: for example, the German-language Wikipedia had a local discussion on their equivalent of the village pump and posted a summary of their discussion to meta for consideration by the drafting committee.
I urge the community to participate. Under this draft Charter, the U4C in most cases would not have authority on enwiki absent "systemic issues" (Except in instances of systemic issues, the U4C will not have jurisdiction when a NDA-signed, high-level decision-making body exists, warranting effective self-governance.
). Nonetheless, based on the Enforcement Guidelines that have already been ratified by the global community, the U4C will have an important role in the governance of the Wikimedia movement going forward. This is a good chance to help shape how it will look — only a small handful of people have commented at the
meta consultation page. I have my
personal opinions, but welcome feedback from this community more broadly (whether it aligns with my opinions or not, of course).
Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees releases official policies from time to time. Some of these policies may be mandatory for a particular Project or Project edition, and, when they are, you agree to abide by them as applicable.While your reading of CONEXEMPT is reasonable I don't think the totality supports that part of things. That said I will repeat that the failure to hold a vote on the UCOC was a real mistake and one the foundation board has foolishly and stubbornly refused to correct. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 13:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Systemic [issue or] failure to follow the UCoCas defined in the Enforcement Guidelines, because those Guidelines say unequivocally that any such issues are
[h]andled by U4C. Fortunately, that is the only circumstance in which the U4C's powers extend to enwiki under the draft Charter because it states in the "Jurisdiction" section that
Except in instances of systemic issues, the U4C will not have jurisdiction when a NDA-signed, high-level decision-making body exists, warranting effective self-governance.(Enwiki's ArbCom is our "NDA-signed, high-level decision-making body exists".) The U4CBC simply doesn't have the option of proposing anything less than that for the U4C. Now, I think it very much is still a valid grievance, and a useful one to share. In the early stages of the draft Enforcement Guidelines, I pushed to make it harder for the U4C to intervene on enwiki — I have no desire to let the UCoC make ArbCom merely an intermediate appellate court of some kind, because that would invite gamesmanship and interfere with ArbCom's ability to actually resolve disputes. However, it may be even more helpful at this stage to share comments about the parts of this that the U4CBC has the authority to change. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
because high-level decision-making bodies are co-equal to the U4C, those bodies also have the responsibility for applying, interpreting, and enforcing the UCoC. If I'm interpreting it correctly, this suggests that because ArbCom etc. are in some way equal to U4C, ArbCom etc. must impose UCoC on enwp. That reads like a non sequitur. The French government is equal to the German one, but that does not oblige it to impose German law on the French people. I hope I've misinterpreted. Certes ( talk) 17:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Is there a robot or template or ... for article automatic translation? Masoud.h1368 ( talk) 23:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Dear all,
This is a friendly reminder for anyone interested in the Wikimedia Foundation’s upcoming banner fundraising campaign on English Wikipedia to continue to share your banner ideas and look at our latest update on the collaboration page. This upcoming month is crucial in our testing operations, and the page has an update on new messaging and tests we performed based on volunteer suggestions. While the page will remain open through the end of the campaign, we are best able to test and incorporate your ideas over the coming 3-5 weeks. Please reach out to me with any questions. JBrungs (WMF) ( talk) 07:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia now has 6,710,730 articles, and my sense is that most of the substantial encyclopedic topics are covered. While there are certainly pockets of information for which thousands or even tens of thousands more articles are needed, I think that by the time we hit 7,000,000, additions will have slowed to the trickle of new articles being created almost entirely in response to new events, rather than any previously uncovered topics being newly covered. Does this sound right to others, and if so, does this affect how we structure our approach to developing the encylopedia? BD2412 T 17:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote. q:Albert_A._Michelson - Donald Albury 23:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
References
I started what I expected would be a useful stub on Australian mezzo-soprano Fiona Janes, and discover, via a fork or mirror site (EverybodyWiki.com) that a substantial article once existed in draft namespace. Is that article, with history and references, gone forever? Doug butler ( talk) 23:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi all,
With the announcement of the Knowledge Equity Fund’s round 2 grantees, we’ve seen a lot of questions and feedback about the Knowledge Equity Fund, how the Committee works and how the work of the grantees will contribute to the projects and to the movement. To help answer these questions, The Knowledge Equity Fund Committee will host a community conversation on Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1400 UTC to hear ideas, concerns and to answer questions. The Committee would also like to hear ideas for how the fund should be used in the upcoming third round of grant making.
To register for this conversation, please email us at EquityFundwikimedia.org You can also send us questions beforehand. The call will be held in English and we will have interpretation in Spanish; if you would like interpretation into other languages please let us know. If you’re not able to attend, we will also share notes and a written list of Q&A after the call.
On behalf of Knowledge Equity Fund committee member,
Biyanto R (
talk) 14:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Is there a way, perhaps using ISBNs or OCLCs, to find out how often a given book has been used as a source throughout Wikipedia? A list of the most-cited books would be interesting in its own right as well. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 19:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
insource:
searches (
Special:Search/insource:978-0-306-47754-6 and
Special:Search/insource:9780306477546 for example) which kinda works but not great. Probably the most useful way of doing it would be to extend the bot that does
Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia to handle books as well. This was mentioned as possibly of interest in the Signpost article. (
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-08-01/In focus)
Alpha3031 (
t •
c) 12:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
How can I know the size of an article without going to its page? Masoud.h1368 ( talk) 06:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
This is in no way an official anything; just me speaking as an individual wikipedian.
Around six weeks from now ( WP:ACE2023 says November 12), a call will go out for people to self-nominate for the arbcom elections. By my count, there will be nine slots to be filled. Historically, we've had fewer candidates than I think is healthy. Last year, we had 12 people running for 8 slots. In 2021, it was 11 candidates for 8 slots. In both cases, it wasn't clear if we'd have enough candidates to fill all the slots until very close to the end of the nomination period.
This is my call to folks to start thinking about running. While I have only admiration for the folks currently on the committee, the long-term health of the project requires that we get new people into leadership positions. Although traditionally only admins have been elected, that's not a requirement and I think a well-respected editor with lots of experience has a good shot at winning being elected. In any case, it's a big commitment, so the time to start thinking about it is now.
RoySmith
(talk) 16:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
As a further note, if there is someone you'd like to see run in the 2023 arbitration committee elections, or if you want to know someone else's plans before making your own decision, I encourage you to get in touch with them now! For more information about the work involved with serving on the committee, see the arbitrator experiences page. isaacl ( talk) 23:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
The map from the article
Azerbaijani language (this map —
[5]) is false.
The description of the file states that this is “own work”, which is based on two other maps:
But look for example on Talysh region ( [6]). On this map, the darker blue shading of Azeri Turkish prevalence "cuts" the shading of the Talysh language and dividing it goes perpendicular to the Caspian Sea, which is not shown on these two maps on which it is supposedly based. I think this map is unreliable and needs to be replaced. I am writing here because this map is used in other interwikis, from where it should also be removed. Smpad ( talk) 17:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith ( talk • contribs) 21:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Not sure where I can put this down but someone in a training was a bit confused by the words "publish changes" versus "save" especially while editing in the sandbox. I think they would have understood "save" in that context better than "publish". I understand that it can be termed as an education issue but I think we should note confusions like this somewhere. Would be happy to be directed to a better venue. Shyamal ( talk) 11:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
If not, then I think that would be a good feature for those of us on mobile. It’s a feature on computers that you can search specific characters in a web page, but mobile doesn’t have that. It would be really handy to be able to search for a “citation needed” template in an article and jump to it.
Professor Penguino (
talk) 06:55, 23 September 2023 (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've been too out of the loop from the Village pump and everything community related for a long time. Is everything running smoothly enough or is there any growing issues like what Twitter has grown cancerous with? Occono ( talk) 22:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
The licence of this and other WMF projects was recently changed from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0 to Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0 ( mailing list announcement; ToU diff).
I'm not alone (see responses to the announcement linked above) in wondering how this can be applied to content created (including by people who are no longer active editors, or in some cases no longer alive) under v3.0? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
In regards to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022 and/or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deployment of Vector (2022), how do you feel now, months after the discussion and with certain improvements added?
Before you answer this question, please read my user page to see why I am asking you this question. You do not have to answer this question at all if you wish. If you do answer this question, could you please state if you are okay with your username being used, possibly publicly? Thank you-- DisposableUser12345 ( talk) 01:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I notice we have a great many pairs of categories split by gender that use "male" vs. "women" instead of "male" vs. "female" or "men" vs. "women" (nevermind the other possibilities…). Where these exist, they appear at every level of subcategorization that I have checked. For example:
This imbalance in the terminology we are using seems very strange to me. It appears that most of the "male" categories were created well after the corresponding "women" cats, and arguably run counter to WP:CATGENDER (see also this other section on the same page). Because of the large (and indeterminate) number of such cases and my uncertainty about what should be done, I am bringing it up here (for general discussion) instead of going directly to WP:CFD (to seek consensus). I am leaning towards recommending the removal of at least the more specific "male" cats of the kind in the third bullet point (many of which were created by Ser Amantio di Nicolao, whom I have just pinged). Not sure what to do about the imbalance in the higher-level cats, since the construct "women XYZ" is relatively common whereas "men XYZ" is most assuredly not, and changing to "female XYZ" is probably never going to gain consensus. Opinions? - dcljr ( talk) 05:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I have created and helped others to revise several drafts related to geography, but some drafts have not been reviewed by anyone after more than a month, and drafts with no editing activities for 6 months will be regarded as automatically abandoned.
Fumikas Sagisavas ( talk) 03:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
"Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,469 pending submissions waiting for review."Everyone would like their draft reviewed, but there are many drafts and relatively few reviewers. You just need to be patient. The deletion process is not automatic, and no admin will delete a draft for inactivity that is still waiting for review. RudolfRed ( talk) 04:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
I've already raised some of these issues and suggestions at mw:Talk:Citoid (and at Help talk:Citation Style 1), so I know some people are aware of it, but in the interest of letting this AN thread die, I've written a new project page about issues with automated references and suggested ways forward at Wikipedia:WikiProject Citation cleanup/Repairing algorithmically generated citations. Corrections and additions and participants are welcome. Folly Mox ( talk) 19:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Something I've been noticing a lot in the articles I've edited lately are that there are many sentences I encounter, where there is an extra space at the end of the fullstop, before the beginning of the next sentence, so i.e. there are two spaces instead of one. I've noticed that Wikipedia automatically removes the extra space from view to the reader (though it is visible in VisualEditor mode).
So my question is: Is this a common (minor) mistake that editors make, or is it a common practice that is perhaps done to tell sentences apart from another when editing the article?
Because if it is common and good practice, then I probably shall stop removing them as part of copyedits (such as this one), and maybe start inserting these extra spaces whenever I add any new sentences or paragraphs to an article from now on. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
user agents should collapse input white space sequences when producing output inter-word space, in other words, browsers encountering sequences of two or more spaces should treat the whole sequence as if it were a single space. I can't find the equivalent passage for HTML5, but browser behaviour in that respect hasn't changed. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 17:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I have been seeing a survey link at the top of some pages for me which takes me to https://questionnaires.marsouin.org - I wonder who designed this and claimed that it takes 10-20 minutes but I have attempted it twice and it is almost impossible to finish without the session timing out. They are pretty complex questions and if the organizers really are interested in getting good data, they ought to think a little more about the design. Shyamal ( talk) 12:12, 17 June 2023 (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.
Here and on my Watchlist page, it says that a Request for Adminship is open, but when I go to that page, there's nothing happening and it says the last Request was in May? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 20:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Passive income looks like it could use a lot of attention from someone who doesn't find a Get-rich-quick scheme to be seductive. It could be worse, but it's pretty bad. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
In 2007, KnowledgeOfSelf got his account cracked. However, he said he was using a strong password. Was there any consensus on how this was made possible? 2A02:AA1:1001:AEB5:8CD1:DB4B:3EBB:2403 ( talk) 07:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
IMHO if you're not using two-factor, you're not serious about security. ☆ Bri ( talk) 22:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I originally posted this to WT:Notability (events) a few days ago, but got no reply there.
This regards the notability of Miss Supranational 2023. I think it might need draftification until it's improved but looking for a second opinion. Especially please note a) there's no announced date and b) about half of the text is primary sourced or unreferenced as I noted on the talkpage. ☆ Bri ( talk) 22:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I am trying to understand the current status of Talk:Azov Brigade. Except for some templates at the top, the entire page follows a {{ Archive top}} with no {{ Archive bottom}}. Is this intentional? If so, where is one supposed to raise a question about the current state of the article? Pinging @ TylerBurden, whose name is on the {{ Archive top}}, as the most likely to know the intent. - Jmabel | Talk 22:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
{{
archive top}}
to be anything special, and certainly doesn't look "back" from a heading to see if it's got an {{
archive top}}
before it. Indeed, there shouldn't be any need for the bot to do this:
Template:Archive top#Usage explicitly states Place the {{ Archive top}} template below the header containing the discussion, then place {{ Archive bottom}} at the end of the discussion.and you appear to have overlooked this advice in this edit. Regarding that: what was the
{{
Lorem ipsum}}
(since
removed) intended for? --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 13:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello there,
We are glad to announce the new members and advisors of the Elections Committee. The Elections Committee assists with the design and implementation of the process to select Community- and Affiliate-Selected trustees for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. After an open nomination process, the strongest candidates spoke with the Board and four candidates were asked to join the Elections Committee. Four other candidates were asked to participate as advisors.
Thank you to all the community members who submitted their names for consideration. We look forward to working with the Elections Committee in the near future.
On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees,
RamzyM (WMF) 17:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedians, in response to expressed needs of the communities in sub-Saharan Africa to help achieve growth of the editing communities in the region, the Wikimedia Foundation is working on an experiment-based project dubbed the Africa Growth Project. The project seeks to enhance already existing community efforts by creating a more effective online learning component, which would allow in-person efforts to focus on already-engaged newbies who have obtained a solid foundation in Wikipedia policies and collaboration norms, maximizing the return on investment of human volunteer effort. The hypothesis guiding this experiment is that providing high-quality training to new and existing Wikipedians covering the basics of contribution to Wikipedia (including introducing the many ways to contribute beyond article writing) can double the retention rates of active editors in the region.
For the pilot, we will be developing four modules, and we are inviting you to share feedback on outlines for these training modules, which are:
We hope to benefit from your experience as Wikipedians in sharing your input on these module outlines, to ensure that they capture what is needed to support the community's understanding of those policies. We are interested to hear your thoughts on what's missing, what's good, what could be improved, and any suggestions on the modules' and sections' order and pace, great illustrative examples and helpful exercises that would be useful to incorporate.
We will take your input into consideration as we develop the full modules based on these outlines (including whatever change suggestions we accept). We will also be publishing the complete modules on the WikiLearn platform when they are ready.
See the details of the pilot and the modules in the Africa Growth Pilot Page on Meta-Wiki. Kindly share your comments on the talk page by July 21st, 2023.
Thank you, from the Africa Growth Pilot team @ DNdubane (WMF), @ VThamaini (WMF) and @ Asaf (WMF). VThamaini (WMF) ( talk) 09:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I need to let Lisa Bonet know a scammer is using Jason Momoa name to scam fans and trying to pull her into it too Ellen Bohanan ( talk) 15:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
can i — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.159.190 ( talk) 10:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Dear all,
We would like to share with you the community collaboration page around the English fundraising banner campaign. This page is for en.wiki volunteers to learn about fundraising and share ideas for how we can improve the 2023 English fundraising campaign together. On this page you’ll find information to increase transparency and understanding of the fundraising program, background on improvements around community collaborations that have been made since the last campaign, new spaces for collaboration, and messaging examples to invite volunteers to share ideas for how we can improve the next campaign together.
The fundraising banner pre-tests phase on English Wikipedia starts on the 19th of July with a few technical tests, using messaging that was created with the community during the December 2022 campaign. We will regularly update the collaboration page with new messaging ideas and updates on testing and campaign plans as we prepare for the main campaign that will launch at the end of November.
Generally, during the pre-tests and the campaign, you can contact us:
Best wishes,
JBrungs (WMF) ( talk) 15:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello!
In ENG Wikipedia article about Sapkowski, the beginning of the Witcher series is stated as The Blood of Elves book. But, hm... as a Polish fantasy fan, there are 2 short stories collections that truly - in my view - began the saga and without which the Witcher saga wouldn't be created? And the very last short story is about Ciri and the attack of Nilfgaard. And many things characteristics of the Witcher series (moral ambiguity, Dandelion, Yennefer etc.) originated in the short stories.
Thus, my question is - shouldn't the article about Sapkowski be changed to include the short stories as the beginnings of the Witcher saga?
(I mean, I dunno, maybe you already had this kinda talk before and I am spamming? But from my Polish perspective, the article kinda... does not sound right?).
Best regards -- Kaworu1992 ( talk) 15:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
For those of you who have never seen this, there are a number of LTAs who try to avoid scrutiny (or work around page protections) by asking other editors to perform edits for them. Sometimes these are requests on user talk pages. Sometimes they're via email. If you get a request to perform an edit from somebody you've never heard of (especially if they're a new account), just don't do it. RoySmith (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Per title, I seem to recall something like this but not sure how to find it, but I have like 250 citations to archive so it'd be handy. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 14:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello everyone,
The Movement Charter Drafting Committee is happy to announce that new draft chapters of the Movement Charter are ready for review and feedback. The Global Council draft is available now and Hubs will be published by the end of July.
How can you engage with the Charter content? To create a Charter for our Movement means we need to hear from as many of you as possible. Everyone in the Wikimedia community is invited to actively engage with the content by sharing their feedback on wiki or attending upcoming virtual and in-person events.
We encourage individuals or groups, especially those from under-resourced Wikimedia communities, to apply for grants by July 30. These grants can be used to organize conversations, such as informational sessions to familiarize fellow community members with the draft chapters of the Movement Charter ahead of regional and thematic events from September to November, 2023. The Regional Specialists of the Movement Communications team are available to support community organizers.
Posting on behalf of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee, RAdimer-WMF ( talk) 20:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Please, I would like to permanently delete my Wikipedia account as well as all my data if possible. MarceloLanda6 ( talk) 18:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I wrote a user script called WikiChatbot to assist editors. It can summarize, reformulate, copyedit, and provide suggestions on additional topics, images, and wikilinks as well as assess factual accuracy and bias. It is used by selecting text in an article and then clicking one of the buttons on the right to enquire about the selected text. The chatbot can also be used by typing specific questions about the selected text or the topic in general in the chat panel.
The script uses the AI model GPT 3.5. It requires an API key from OpenAI. New OpenAI accounts can use it freely for the first 3 months with certain limitations. The AI model was not designed to assess or improve encyclopedic articles and has many serious shortcomings. Editors should always question its responses and rely on their own judgment and reliable sources instead. For a more detailed description of all these issues and examples of how the script can be used, see the documentation at User:Phlsph7/WikiChatbot.
I was hoping to get some feedback on the script in general and how it may be improved. I'm not sure how difficult it is to follow the instructions so it would be great if someone could try to set up the script, use it, and explain which steps were confusing. My OpenAI account is already older than 3 months so I was not able to verify the claims about the free period and how severe the limitations are. If someone has a younger account or is willing to open a new account to try it, that would be helpful. Other feedback on the idea in general, its problems, new features to implement, or the documentation is also welcome.
(side note: this text was already posted at Wikipedia:User_scripts/Requests#Feedback_on_user_script_chatbot but it was suggested that here might be the better place to bring up the issue.)
Phlsph7 ( talk) 09:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
I wrote a user script called WikiChatbot to assist editors.Well, there's your mistake right there. Chatbots don't answer questions; they simulate what an answer might sound like. They are progressively making the rest of the Internet a worse place, and are the last thing we need to bring here. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Notes
Seems Wikipedia is all about the factual errors in Britannica, but little interest in the errors in Wikipedia. When someone gets called out for biased editing, it is swept under the rug. i.e. The George Galloway page, rift with unbiased accusations, which he refuted quite soundly, and even won a damages lawsuit, but it was all swept under the rug. Now there is a current article on Wired.com, about edits on the pages of German officials during World War II. Quite the conundrum:
Please read the entire article before commenting. 207.53.252.58 ( talk) 22:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is all about the factual errors in Britannica, but little interest in the errors in Wikipedia.is dubious and faulty and loses me immediately, considering that we do in fact highlight our own controversies with relative gusto. We had a massive ArbCom case about that very issue, in fact. We don't ever shy away from these things. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -( talk) 12:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi All, The Guardian newspaper has produced a statement on its policy concerning the use of generative AI in their journalism. Their concerns reflect the concerns that Wikipedians have raised, and their policy is very sensible. Here it is: [3] Elemimele ( talk) 11:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
there's this humor page that you get to after clicking a link that explicitly tells you not to on wikipedia, and the page shows the destruction of wikipedia by a nuke due to your actions
can someone find it for me i forgot the link
thx DestinyPegasus ( talk) 21:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Not sure where else to post this, but Help:How to move a page is a pretty important help page, and needs updating for Vector 2022. Curbon7 ( talk) 23:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello everyone,
The Movement Charter Drafting Committee is happy to announce that the Hubs draft chapter is now open for review and feedback. The Global Council was published two weeks ago.
How can you engage with the Charter content?
The Movement Charter Drafting Committee is looking forward to receiving feedback from as many people as possible. Please share your input on the Meta Talk page by September 1, 2023:
In addition, we invite you to join the MCDC Live call on July 30 at 14.00 UTC to engage with the MCDC members directly and ask your questions. Please register here to receive a Zoom link.
We encourage individuals or groups, especially those from under-resourced Wikimedia communities, to apply for grants by July 30. These grants can be used to organize conversations, such as informational sessions to familiarize fellow community members with the draft chapters of the Movement Charter ahead of regional and thematic events from September to November 2023. The Regional Specialists of the Movement Communications team are available to support community organizers.
Thank you for your ongoing commitment and participation.
On behalf of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee, RAdimer-WMF ( talk) 19:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello
How the fair use work?
I want to update some movie poster
I can update any poster?
GEORGEB1989 (
talk) 21:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Many cleanup categories have a name beginning with "Wikipedia pages..." while many others have a name beginning with "Pages...". This makes it harder to find the category you're looking for. Is there a possibility of standardizing these categories to use one or the other? Kk.urban ( talk) 23:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello everyone, for the past couple of months the Trust and Safety Tools team has been working on finalising Phase 1 of the Incident Reporting System project.
The purpose of this phase was to define possible product direction and scope of the project with your feedback. We now have a better understanding of what to do next.
1. We are renaming the project as Incident Reporting System
2. We have some feedback from researching some pilot communities to share with you
3. We have updated the project’s overview
4. We have the first iteration of the reporting extension ReportIncident
Please visit the project's update page to get more details.
On behalf of Trust & Safety Tools Team –– STei (WMF) ( talk) 10:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I would only like to point out (think of it like a type of complaint) that certain topics on Wikipedia (I am now referring to religious demographics) are very heavily biased towards a very specific viewpoints, completely going against Wikipedia's rule of a "Neutral point of view". What I am refering to is that articles about countries' and regions' religious demographics are biased towards either a very secularist/non-religious bias or are biased towards a minority religion. I would like to recommend a massive clean-up operation. Hope more people could understand and spread the message. Belson 303 ( talk) 15:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Please excuse my unindented intrusion here. This is an attempt to address some of the claims made by Belson 303, not for 'a large number of articles', but solely the only cited article: Czech Republic and in particular, subsection 6.2, which is restricted to the singular category of religious demographics. I agree that polls in general are coming under greater scrutiny these days, presumably because there have been some major mispredictions lately. However, the single subsection in question regarding the country in question is not quoting, citing or referencing any polls. The article reports the results of a question posed in the most recent national census, as well as providing an illuminating comparison with the same question posed over the three previous decennial censuses.
The numbers in the article are mostly (but not exclusively) percentages and are directly taken from the results of the authoritative Czech national census. You and I can start our own opinion poll immediately, without difficulty. But we cannot conduct an authoritative national census whenever (or wherever) we feel like it. Such things are important to the overall scientific picture we have of ourselves, and are strictly monitored both internally and externally for precisely that reason. We can run our own opinion polls however we like. We can adjust the numbers, or filter the responses, to suit our own undisclosed purpose. Perhaps we want to expose a perceived bias. Or perhaps we want to sell more newspapers. We don't have to be public about any of that. It's our little (or big) secret. But running an authoritative national census is an entirely different matter. Every number is made public and public scrutiny is encouraged. There is no newspaper to sell, no extra communion wafers to sell, etc. The primary objective is to determine the scientific truth, and a secondary objective (not insignificant where national borders have changed during the last four decades) is to be seen to be an accurate and reliable source on the world stage.
Perhaps you don't like to see that 34% of Czechs claimed to be atheists in the 2011 census. But it doesn't mean 34% of all the people in the Czech Republic are atheists. Did you notice that it is only 34% of the 55.3% of people that answered the question. So that 34% is actually 34% of 55.3%, which is only 18.8% of all the Czech people who returned a census form. Even if every adult in the country returned an honestly completed form, and project that onto today's population, it still means that 81.2% of 10.8 million people (i.e. 8.79 million Czechs DO NOT claim to be atheists). But none of the numbers that concern you should matter at all. Are the numbers an accurate reflection of the census results? I would expect that to be the case. But even if it is not, and it is indeed biased to a level found in some of Czechia's neighbours eighty years ago, the Wikipedia article is not incorrect. The article clearly states the source of those numbers and says what the source says. The census states there's another 10% of Christians who are not Catholic. Is it true? I didn't check, but I will bet that's what the census states. The actual number of Protestants is not something that Wikipedia can get involved with. The Wikipedian editor went to the best possible source of information, clearly stated what that was, and reported the findings. If you are concerned that the Czech national census is biased, and wish to do something about it, then I wish you luck on your journey. But this isn't the right place to start it. Belson 303 may have become 176.57.195.131 ( talk) in the time it took me to write this. Either way, I hope dot-131 made it to the end of my response. If so, I hope it helped just a little bit.
ChrisJBenson ( talk) 07:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC) P.S. I like your name - except for that weird 3rd letter L where there should be an N ;-)
Belson 303 ( talk) 16:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I love wikipedia and love what I learn here. But I have noticed most of, if not all information gleaned is stated as unambiguous facts. When in fact some content is of opinions, or information garnished from biased opinions. Or proffered by "sources" or "experts" without requisite proof. Why not warn readers with a disclaimer that clarifies this, it approaches propaganda at some points. Otherwise you folks do a great job and Wikipedia is the best resource available. Just letting the reader know in italics or bold lettering to the source of said information would seem clearly more unbiased. Because some information ascertained on here points to fact when it is clearly of an opinion opined from sources. Citations in the reading also may give more of an unbiased look. Just something to think about. Coopaloop1984 ( talk) 23:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Dear fellow Wikimedia enthusiasts, we are excited to introduce the Adiutor Project, an initiative aimed at enhancing the Wikipedia editing experience! Adiutor is a user-friendly gadget designed to simplify various tasks for Wikipedia editors, making editing easier, faster, and more enjoyable. From creating deletion requests to conducting copyright checks, Adiutor streamlines repetitive processes, giving you more time to focus on creating valuable content for the community. If you're interested in using Adiutor on your local wiki, we'd love to hear from you! Drop us a message here or reach out to Vikipolimer with your Wikimedia community details. Let's collaborate to bring Adiutor to your language and wiki! Join the Adiutor Project, and together, let's make Wikipedia editing a more efficient and rewarding experience! For any questions or to express your interest in bringing Adiutor to your local wiki, feel free to contact Vikipolimer - we're here to support and work together with you! Looking forward to your enthusiastic participation! 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 00:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello. My name is Andrii. I am the developer of WRating, a rating system that has been evaluating the contributions of editors to the Ukrainian Wikipedia's traffic for almost 10 years. Now, it also evaluates your Wikipedia contributions https://wrating.ukrface.org/?le=en&l=en. It was a very interesting challenge, because the volume of data in English Wikipedia is 100x more than in Ukrainian Wikipedia. This website provides an opportunity for Wikipedia authors to assess their contribution to the project's promotion, namely: to find out how many pages were viewed on Wikipedia within one month due to their contributions.
For example, here are the TOP-10 contributors according to the WRating version (number of views in parentheses):
The ranking is updated monthly, usually by the 5th day of each month.
I will be glad to see you among the users of the rating. UkrFace ( talk) 21:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
mw-reverted
, mw-undo
, and mw-manual-revert
.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 16:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
how many pages were viewed on Wikipedia within one month due to their contributions, isn't that a correlation fallacy? For example, if I frequently edit the article for subject X, and then the subject of article X becomes a huge news item for an unrelated reason and page views go up, it's not because of my edits. Orange Suede Sofa ( talk) 04:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Dummies 101 question, with apologies for this many years on Wikipedia and not knowing how to deal with this, but most of my editing experience was at the FA level. After viewing a seriously marginal article, I have encountered a prolific user who has 466 (!!!!!) deletion discussions on their talk page, and just keeps churning out low quality articles. Is that a case for asking that extended confirmed be removed so they can't keep creating content that is not checked, or is there another way I should approach this? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Dear all,
As mentioned earlier, the WMF is now actively engaging interested editors to work with us on creating messaging for fundraising banners for the upcoming English fundraising campaign.
Thanks to all of you who already came to the community collaboration space for the English banner fundraising campaign. We are having some fruitful and interesting discussions on the page.
If you are interested in joining these discussions, or are curious about some of the banner language we are working on, come across to the collaboration page.
Julia will be attending Wikimania this week and will be hosting a banner messaging collaboration workshop (Thursday, 17th of August at 9am local time). Come and join or send her an email (jbrungs at wikimedia dot org) if you’d like to set up a time to meet at Wikimania.
We will also be hosting a community discussion call on the 7th of September at 16:30 UTC. If you are interested in joining the call, please email Julia (jbrungs at wikimedia dot org) to register.
Best, JBrungs (WMF) ( talk) 08:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I am well aware (and I can only shake my head at this fact), that the article Woman and its talk page are minefields. However, I wonder if the entire purpose of Wikipedia is not shredded with edits like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AWoman&diff=1171791336&oldid=1171559669. Is anyone supposed to give as many details about oneself publicly, even for the sake of discussion? Edelseider ( talk) 17:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello all,
I am pleased to share the next step in the Universal Code of Conduct work. The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) draft charter is now ready for your review.
The Enforcement Guidelines require a Building Committee form to draft a charter that outlines procedures and details for a global committee to be called the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). Over the past few months, the U4C Building Committee worked together as a group to discuss and draft the U4C charter. The U4C Building Committee welcomes feedback about the draft charter now through 22 September 2023. After that date, the U4C Building Committee will revise the charter as needed and a community vote will open shortly afterward.
Join the conversation during the conversation hours or on Meta-wiki.
Best,
RamzyM (WMF), on behalf of the U4C Building Committee, 15:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
We have Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, but not Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 Unported License.
Should we? Or should it be a (soft) redirect somewhere? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
A recent discussion at a FAC led me to realize that there's a difference in phrasing amongst WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:NONFREE, and WP:CLOP regarding in-text attribution. V and NONFREE are policy, CITE is a guideline, and CLOP is an essay.
Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible; when quoting or closely paraphrasing a source, use an inline citation, and in-text attribution where appropriate.
use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author (as described by the citation guideline).
In-text attribution should be used with direct speech (a source's words between quotation marks or as a block quotation); indirect speech (a source's words modified without quotation marks); and close paraphrasing. It can also be used when loosely summarizing a source's position in your own words, and it should always be used for biased statements of opinion.The distinction between
should be usedand
should always be useddoesn't seem to completely make sense, but I'd interpret this as meaning the former allows for some editorial discretion whereas the latter does not.
Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text.
CLOP seems inconsistent with the other three, each of which (debatably for CITE) say in-text attribution is not required and citation may be sufficient. Of course in-text attribution is very often the right thing to do, but there are cases where it can lead to ugly and unreadable prose. For example, in a section on the reception of an album, one might want to write 'The lyrics were poorly received, and were described as "bland", "unoriginal", "tedious", and "derivative"', drawing those comments from individual reviews. I won't write out a fully attributed version but it would clearly be horrible to read. I feel that if each of those one-word quotes has a citation to the review in question, that should suffice. Technically of course CLOP doesn't even apply as these are not paraphrases, but that makes the inconsistency even worse.
I would like to bring CLOP into line with the other three. I haven't yet posted notes at any of those other talk pages; I'm aware CLOP's wording has its defenders and if I get shouted down here there's no point in expanding the conversation. If there seems some support for rewording CLOP I'll add the relevant notes elsewhere. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I found a Wikipedia clone online called WikiAlpha. It seems to have no notability rules (which is a bad idea BTW), however it seems that they have a bot that nabs AfD articles on the English Wikipedia here and could count as possibly scraping pages. You can literally input a page right now and copy and paste the wikitext code. People seem to have used the feature as far as I know. Isn't this a violation of WMF's ToS or something? EnbyPie08 ( talk) 22:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi - I’m the Product Manager for the Moderator Tools team at the Wikimedia Foundation (and long-time editor and admin here). I wanted to let you know that now that we're wrapping up our work on PageTriage, my team is in the early stages of designing and building Automoderator - an automated anti-vandalism revert tool like ClueBot NG. Although most of the details and discussion can be found on MediaWiki, we’ve created a project page here to discuss how this tool might be evaluated or used on the English Wikipedia. We think you have unique insight into how we should build the tool given your experiences with ClueBot NG. Please take a look at our project page and share your thoughts on the talk page. We’ll try to keep the page to date as we progress with the project, so consider watchlisting for updates. Samwalton9 (WMF) ( talk) 10:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Just a heads up that Google has launched another salvo in the generative AI wars. I just did a search for "geography of the western bronx" and was asked if I wanted to enable their generative AI experiment. I did so, and got back a couple of paragraphs of perfectly fluent and cogent English which would work perfectly for me to copy-paste into the article I'm working on. And a google search for the text comes up with nothing, so tools like Earwig wouldn't notice anything was amiss. This is going to be interesting. RoySmith (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
This morning I went to login and got presented with a captcha. Yes, a captcha! Just when the rest of the world is starting to move on from the wretchedly unpopular and increasingly useless things. I very nearly never came back. Glad I did try again later, as it has now gone. If it ever comes back, I won't. Anybody who needs that explaining to them, never will understand. (And before you ask, yes I am an infosec expert in my day job). — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 16:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
This thing already hinted in title should interest anyone concerned with discrimination and our articles related to various discrimination issues. It's mindboggling disparate in dealing with a categorisation of BP i BLP, in which we are allowed to categorize persons, living or dead, involved with Antisemitism with corresponding Antisemitism category, but we are not allowed to do the same thing with those involved with Islamophobia. The latest example from my own experience is categorization of Milo Yiannopoulos with Category:Islamophobia in the United Kingdom which was removed on the pretense that "this category is not to include individuals, especially BLPs", which is kinda false since there is no such guideline or policy that say Antisemitism related BLP's can be included into, say, Category:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom, but Islamophobia related can't be categorized with these specific categories such as Category:Islamophobia in the United Kingdom. I just would like to hear some reasoning and/or arguments in whatever direction. In a way, this issue concerns whole project and could be deemed a discrimination in itself. ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 18:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Is it just me or is something wrong with archive.ph? It keeps serving me endless reCaptchas through Cloudflare; I'm stuck beyond it. After a recaptcha it refreshes and has me redo yet another recaptcha. Aaron Liu ( talk) 02:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Once again you ignore the obvious question a reader of today’s photo will have — how large are large silver certificates? Even the article buries that information in an information footnote way down at the end of a very long article. I changed that, but my change won’t last long. Wis2fan ( talk) 03:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Hey all! I work in the Community Resilience & Sustainability team of the Wikimedia Foundation. I am writing to you today to let you know about the Mental Health Resource Center in case you find this resource useful. This is a new group of pages on Meta-wiki aimed at supporting the mental wellbeing of users in our community. This project is the result of the work of a Human Rights intern at the Wikimedia Foundation, who wrote a Diff blog post about it.
While we previously provided helpline contact information for people who are in an active crisis or near-crisis, the team’s goal is to provide additional resources to offer mental health and wellbeing information in a number of languages, covering a wide range of topics. Our hope is not only to help people who are in crisis, but help prevent crises.
As with the Helpline information page, the Foundation’s Trust and Safety team is tasked with maintaining the pages. They will do a quarterly review of the content, which will include reviewing any recommended changes left on the talk page. Because this is a page they send to people who are in crisis, for liability reasons they do have to review substantial changes. However, they very much hope for recommendations and ideas and especially notes of problems.
The Resource Center contains the helplines, a glossary of mental health terms, and resources divided by category with supported languages listed next to each resource. There is also a table available if community members wish to view the resources sorted by language. The hope is this resource expands over time to cover more languages and cultures. Currently, translations into several languages are underway.
Best, JKoerner (WMF) ( talk) 17:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
==See also==
at
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy.
Folly Mox (
talk) 08:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Is there any way that I can see the amount of edits I've made without counting them all? 𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃 ( talk) 15:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Last month I rewrote a userscript into User:Aaron Liu/Watchlyst Greybar Unsin. Besides listing it, are there good ways to promote it? Aaron Liu ( talk) 14:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Would it be helpful to have categories for redirects from non-Latin script to Latin script, and vice versa? Template:R from alternative transliteration is similar, but it doesn't quite capture the meaning. Red Panda 25 21:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to post this as the research-focused Wikipedia pages all seem to be moribund. In this newly published journal article, the author describes a research project in which they vandalize several articles solely to collect information about how editors respond to vandalism. This was done 15 years after publishing a similar article that used the same methods to explore the same topics. There is no mention of IRB approval and I like to believe that an IRB would not allow this kind of research that blatantly violates our community norms and formal policies. It would be trivial to identify vandalism committed by other editors to observe how the community responds so this method is completely unnecessary.
Yes, it's only a handful of edits (33 if I understand the 2023 article correctly). And we now know exactly what articles were vandalized. But it would be very helpful if the Wikimedia Foundation could say something to this researcher and their institution to firmly note, on the record, that this is kind of unethical research is unwelcome and unacceptable. ElKevbo ( talk) 21:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
research projects that are disruptive to the community or which negatively affect articles—even temporarily—are not allowed and can result in loss of editing privilegesRoySmith (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Before starting a potentially controversial project, researchers should open discussion at the Village pump to ensure it will not interfere with Wikipedia's mission.So, we do have a process for this. Somebody could propose, for example,
I'd like to insert 15 specific known false statements in specific articles and measure how long it takes for them to get fixed. To avoid affecting the experimental results, I won't publicly disclose what articles will be affected, but a list is available for inspection off-wiki by any interested party. Maybe people would find it reasonable and there would be consensus to allow it. Basically, this is what you'd put in an IRB proposal anyway. If you need IRB approval for this, it stands to reason you should also need our approval as well. Otherwise it would be like your doctor enrolling you in an experimental new drug trial without your knowledge or consent. RoySmith (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
It was easy to find contact information for the paper's author. I have dropped him an email explaining our policy and inviting him to join this conversation. RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
This search yields 1,245 pages that have manual superscript tags containing bracketed numbers. These will mostly be well-intentioned attempts by new users at making ref tags or weird errors in copy-pasting rich text, with maybe some outright duplicity mixed in. In each case, fixing the problem is rather tedious: One has to find the edit where it was introduced, see what that number referred to then, and check whether that citation verifies the claim, before deciding whether to fix the faux-citation, replace with a {{ cn}}, or remove the statement outright. So, if anyone's looking for a new backlog to work through and likes tedious citation repair, it's your lucky day! -- Tamzin[ cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 01:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
It's caused by an unresolved bug in VE. User:GreenC bot/Job 18 is approved to fix it. The bug has so many permutations, I can't say how well it work now after 4 years. I can try to run it again, and see what happens, but I don't have time to manually fix anything. It is a "devilish bug" as I noted in the original BRFA in 2019, when there were about 1,500 instances, which were fixed at that time. -- Green C 04:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
<sup>[1]</sup>
because there is not enough information to know which article footnote #1 was copy-pasted from. That is unfortunately the majority of them in the above 1,200 search. I am able to fix some (bot still running), which are explicit what the source article was, like [[Golden Gate Park#cite note-15|<sup>[15]</sup>]]
. We know this was footnote #15 in
Golden Gate Park. But <sup>[1]</sup>
is footnote #1 from an unknown article. It takes so long and is so much manual work to verify if it's from the same article, I don't think it's reasonable to expect anyone to ever resolve it at scale, we should be switching from a rescue operation to a cleanup by deleting them all. Alternatively, we could assume it's the same article, and add footnote #1 with a {{
verify}}
and inline comment to check it out. The
one article I manually verified, it was not the same article, and my previous experience with the bug is editors often copy-paste content from other articles, so it's not a great assumption. --
Green
C 14:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)<sup>[#]</sup>
, I saw one added as recently as June 2023. I made a filter request
Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Filter_861_modification_/_VisualEditor_bug. --
Green
C 14:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Scams are a fact of life everywhere, and wikipedia is no exception. There seems to be an uptick in wiki scams recently, so I figured a reminder would be useful. There's a bunch of variations, but they're mostly something like, "If you don't pay me money, I'll make sure your page gets deleted". Often the scammer claims to be an admin, or to have admins on their payroll. They often want to conduct the transaction using cryptocurrency. One that I saw recently included a LinkedIn page. If you get some unsolicited email to this effect, don't engage. Instead, report it to Trust & Safety (ca@wikimedia.org), or to arbcom or a functionary. All these people want to do is get your money, and they've been honing their game for a long time so they can sound pretty convincing. Don't fall for it. RoySmith (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I've seen multiple mentions of the artist Piri in the did you know section. Why? I cannot remember another topic or artist getting put into the did you know section multiple times? Or atleast with such frequency? Breckishere ( talk) 18:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi everyone. About a week ago, RamzyM (WMF) posted the following message to VPM, which was probably overlooked because VPM is a relatively low-engagement forum:
Hello all,
I am pleased to share the next step in the Universal Code of Conduct work. The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) draft charter is now ready for your review.
The Enforcement Guidelines require a Building Committee form to draft a charter that outlines procedures and details for a global committee to be called the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). Over the past few months, the U4C Building Committee worked together as a group to discuss and draft the U4C charter. The U4C Building Committee welcomes feedback about the draft charter now through 22 September 2023. After that date, the U4C Building Committee will revise the charter as needed and a community vote will open shortly afterward.
Join the conversation during the conversation hours or on Meta-wiki.
Best,
RamzyM (WMF), on behalf of the U4C Building Committee, 15:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
This draft Charter defines the election procedures and mandate of the U4C (Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee). Under the previously-ratified UCoC Enforcement Guidelines, the U4C is an elected body with responsibility for enforcing various provisions in the UCoC and coordinating others.
I am posting this here because I'd like to invite comment from enwiki folks on this, and will be posting this thread to T:CENT. You're welcome to comment in this thread here or directly on the meta consultation page. If you comment here, I will be sure to summarize the discussion and post it on the meta consultation page. This is a similar model to how some other projects are soliciting feedback: for example, the German-language Wikipedia had a local discussion on their equivalent of the village pump and posted a summary of their discussion to meta for consideration by the drafting committee.
I urge the community to participate. Under this draft Charter, the U4C in most cases would not have authority on enwiki absent "systemic issues" (Except in instances of systemic issues, the U4C will not have jurisdiction when a NDA-signed, high-level decision-making body exists, warranting effective self-governance.
). Nonetheless, based on the Enforcement Guidelines that have already been ratified by the global community, the U4C will have an important role in the governance of the Wikimedia movement going forward. This is a good chance to help shape how it will look — only a small handful of people have commented at the
meta consultation page. I have my
personal opinions, but welcome feedback from this community more broadly (whether it aligns with my opinions or not, of course).
Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees releases official policies from time to time. Some of these policies may be mandatory for a particular Project or Project edition, and, when they are, you agree to abide by them as applicable.While your reading of CONEXEMPT is reasonable I don't think the totality supports that part of things. That said I will repeat that the failure to hold a vote on the UCOC was a real mistake and one the foundation board has foolishly and stubbornly refused to correct. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 13:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Systemic [issue or] failure to follow the UCoCas defined in the Enforcement Guidelines, because those Guidelines say unequivocally that any such issues are
[h]andled by U4C. Fortunately, that is the only circumstance in which the U4C's powers extend to enwiki under the draft Charter because it states in the "Jurisdiction" section that
Except in instances of systemic issues, the U4C will not have jurisdiction when a NDA-signed, high-level decision-making body exists, warranting effective self-governance.(Enwiki's ArbCom is our "NDA-signed, high-level decision-making body exists".) The U4CBC simply doesn't have the option of proposing anything less than that for the U4C. Now, I think it very much is still a valid grievance, and a useful one to share. In the early stages of the draft Enforcement Guidelines, I pushed to make it harder for the U4C to intervene on enwiki — I have no desire to let the UCoC make ArbCom merely an intermediate appellate court of some kind, because that would invite gamesmanship and interfere with ArbCom's ability to actually resolve disputes. However, it may be even more helpful at this stage to share comments about the parts of this that the U4CBC has the authority to change. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
because high-level decision-making bodies are co-equal to the U4C, those bodies also have the responsibility for applying, interpreting, and enforcing the UCoC. If I'm interpreting it correctly, this suggests that because ArbCom etc. are in some way equal to U4C, ArbCom etc. must impose UCoC on enwp. That reads like a non sequitur. The French government is equal to the German one, but that does not oblige it to impose German law on the French people. I hope I've misinterpreted. Certes ( talk) 17:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Is there a robot or template or ... for article automatic translation? Masoud.h1368 ( talk) 23:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Dear all,
This is a friendly reminder for anyone interested in the Wikimedia Foundation’s upcoming banner fundraising campaign on English Wikipedia to continue to share your banner ideas and look at our latest update on the collaboration page. This upcoming month is crucial in our testing operations, and the page has an update on new messaging and tests we performed based on volunteer suggestions. While the page will remain open through the end of the campaign, we are best able to test and incorporate your ideas over the coming 3-5 weeks. Please reach out to me with any questions. JBrungs (WMF) ( talk) 07:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia now has 6,710,730 articles, and my sense is that most of the substantial encyclopedic topics are covered. While there are certainly pockets of information for which thousands or even tens of thousands more articles are needed, I think that by the time we hit 7,000,000, additions will have slowed to the trickle of new articles being created almost entirely in response to new events, rather than any previously uncovered topics being newly covered. Does this sound right to others, and if so, does this affect how we structure our approach to developing the encylopedia? BD2412 T 17:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote. q:Albert_A._Michelson - Donald Albury 23:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
References
I started what I expected would be a useful stub on Australian mezzo-soprano Fiona Janes, and discover, via a fork or mirror site (EverybodyWiki.com) that a substantial article once existed in draft namespace. Is that article, with history and references, gone forever? Doug butler ( talk) 23:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi all,
With the announcement of the Knowledge Equity Fund’s round 2 grantees, we’ve seen a lot of questions and feedback about the Knowledge Equity Fund, how the Committee works and how the work of the grantees will contribute to the projects and to the movement. To help answer these questions, The Knowledge Equity Fund Committee will host a community conversation on Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1400 UTC to hear ideas, concerns and to answer questions. The Committee would also like to hear ideas for how the fund should be used in the upcoming third round of grant making.
To register for this conversation, please email us at EquityFundwikimedia.org You can also send us questions beforehand. The call will be held in English and we will have interpretation in Spanish; if you would like interpretation into other languages please let us know. If you’re not able to attend, we will also share notes and a written list of Q&A after the call.
On behalf of Knowledge Equity Fund committee member,
Biyanto R (
talk) 14:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Is there a way, perhaps using ISBNs or OCLCs, to find out how often a given book has been used as a source throughout Wikipedia? A list of the most-cited books would be interesting in its own right as well. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 19:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
insource:
searches (
Special:Search/insource:978-0-306-47754-6 and
Special:Search/insource:9780306477546 for example) which kinda works but not great. Probably the most useful way of doing it would be to extend the bot that does
Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia to handle books as well. This was mentioned as possibly of interest in the Signpost article. (
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-08-01/In focus)
Alpha3031 (
t •
c) 12:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
How can I know the size of an article without going to its page? Masoud.h1368 ( talk) 06:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
This is in no way an official anything; just me speaking as an individual wikipedian.
Around six weeks from now ( WP:ACE2023 says November 12), a call will go out for people to self-nominate for the arbcom elections. By my count, there will be nine slots to be filled. Historically, we've had fewer candidates than I think is healthy. Last year, we had 12 people running for 8 slots. In 2021, it was 11 candidates for 8 slots. In both cases, it wasn't clear if we'd have enough candidates to fill all the slots until very close to the end of the nomination period.
This is my call to folks to start thinking about running. While I have only admiration for the folks currently on the committee, the long-term health of the project requires that we get new people into leadership positions. Although traditionally only admins have been elected, that's not a requirement and I think a well-respected editor with lots of experience has a good shot at winning being elected. In any case, it's a big commitment, so the time to start thinking about it is now.
RoySmith
(talk) 16:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
As a further note, if there is someone you'd like to see run in the 2023 arbitration committee elections, or if you want to know someone else's plans before making your own decision, I encourage you to get in touch with them now! For more information about the work involved with serving on the committee, see the arbitrator experiences page. isaacl ( talk) 23:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
The map from the article
Azerbaijani language (this map —
[5]) is false.
The description of the file states that this is “own work”, which is based on two other maps:
But look for example on Talysh region ( [6]). On this map, the darker blue shading of Azeri Turkish prevalence "cuts" the shading of the Talysh language and dividing it goes perpendicular to the Caspian Sea, which is not shown on these two maps on which it is supposedly based. I think this map is unreliable and needs to be replaced. I am writing here because this map is used in other interwikis, from where it should also be removed. Smpad ( talk) 17:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith ( talk • contribs) 21:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Not sure where I can put this down but someone in a training was a bit confused by the words "publish changes" versus "save" especially while editing in the sandbox. I think they would have understood "save" in that context better than "publish". I understand that it can be termed as an education issue but I think we should note confusions like this somewhere. Would be happy to be directed to a better venue. Shyamal ( talk) 11:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
If not, then I think that would be a good feature for those of us on mobile. It’s a feature on computers that you can search specific characters in a web page, but mobile doesn’t have that. It would be really handy to be able to search for a “citation needed” template in an article and jump to it.
Professor Penguino (
talk) 06:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)