Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 54

< Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)
Village pump (miscellaneous) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous).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

FIES?

I saw WP:FIES quoted in a discussion about edit summaries recently - the shortcut redirects to Help:Edit summary#Always provide an edit summary. The last two letters of the acronym are therefore obvious, but I can't for the life of me guess what FI stands for. Any thoughts? Just curious. Optimist on the run (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:FILLINEDITSUMMARY, or predating both links somewhat, WP:Always fill in the summary field. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Of course!  . Optimist on the run (talk) 08:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Murphy's Laws of Wikipeida #263: when writing a comment about edit summaries, a user will inevitably forget to use one! [1] Optimist on the run (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer WP:ACES Always Complete Edit Summaries. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Always Remember to Summarise your Edits? Optimist on the run (talk) 09:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Try to Use Sensible, Helpful, and Informative Edit Summaries? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
WP:SUMMARIZE has gone- but WP:SUMMARISE is still available! More important, I think is to look at WP:Always fill in the summary field and see the plethora of acronyms which no-one could predict, then look at the content of the page. Do we need a MOS:EDITSUMMARIES - that could be helpful ClemRutter (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
If WP:SUMMARISE is created, it should redirect to the same page as WP:SUMMARIZE. It would be confusing if different users were redirected to different pages according to their regional use of English. Optimist on the run (talk) 11:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Follow-up - I've created it as such. Optimist on the run (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
You should never use an acronym in a comment or an edit summary, unless it's clear from the plain text what it stands for. See the essay which is actually called Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!. With few exceptions, I never use such shortcuts in discussions, unless either it's been explained in the discussion, I pipe iot using a descriptive text, or I'm referring to a common page to users who are presumably familiar with them. (I did once use WP:AAGF in a response to someone citing Assume good faith in their own defence; and I perfer using the shortcut WP:SCRABBLE to a section of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day which explicitly refers to the game, and don;'t use the name of the page, per Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers.) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Edit summaries are often pointless.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Possible vandalism?

Not sure what is going on with this page List of automated transit networks suppliers. It appears to be a vandalism, can someone have a look at this page. Thank you. Asiaworldcity (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

List of all SPI pages for admins

Feel free to add User:Anna Frodesiak/Green sandbox to your watchlist. That is how I noticed the Ricky81682 matter. I probably wouldn't have seen the announcement at the ARBCOM noticeboard. Of course, it is not for watching to see if any admins turn to the dark side. I use it for instant notification of vandals angry at admins. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Someone from Pittsburgh

Hi

Is there someone from Pittsburgh here ? who coud help me about this ?

Regards --Archimëa (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton vandalized?

CNN just reports this: Hillary Clinton's Wikipedia page vandalized, replaced with pornographic image.

What happened? The version history of Hillary Clinton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems fine. (EDIT:) The talk page has related inquiries. --bender235 (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bender235: Template vandalism. Everything has been locked down, the edit has been revdel'ed, and the person blocked. --Majora (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it OK to evolve a List of ambassadors into an article about the embassy?

List of Ambassadors of France to Belgium only contains a table.

I have many things to write about the Embassy of France, Brussels (when it was built, important events that happened there, the services it runs, how ambassadors are chosen, how the embassy has changed in structure and number of employees over time, the history of the building itself, pictures, etc). All properly referenced, of course. The table would become a section of that article, similar to what can be seen at Embassy of Mexico, Washington, D.C..

Can I add this information then rename the article from List of Ambassadors of France to Belgium to Embassy of France, Brussels?

Thanks for your feedback! Syced (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia or Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia

Referring to this help desk question, for some reason Google search results in the past several days have done exactly what the IP wanted. Wikipedia articles appear with just "Wikipedia" not "Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia".— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

That'll be this. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay thanks.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Site notice Banner request: call for comment

Hello

As part of the coming Africa Desbubathon, I proposed that we run a site notice per described here. Short summary: My personal suggestion would be to do it for "Only logged in". And to "Drop editors with low count edit (less than 50)". The destubathon is planned to run about 6 weeks. I would not advise keeping the banner at the top all the time of the campaign ;) It would be nice to have a quick start display in the first part of the campaign for a few days so as to make people know about it (somewhere 15-25 october); and perhaps a reminder mid term (around 7-14 november) and a last push in the final days (25-27 november). Any feedback on this ? Approval, opposition, no opinion ? Thanks :) Anthere (talk)

Support Agreed with Anthere, at the start, middle reminder and at the end!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Alcosynth

I'm not quite sure where to ask this. A few days ago I wrote the article alcosynth. It was quickly nominated for deletion. Yesterday, an editor deleted nearly the entire article, which was well sourced. I reverted the edit, but the editor reverted it back. My understanding of WP:EDITATAFD is that an article under AfD should not be blanked. Anyway, now new editors are commenting on the AfD, and one of them said there is not "enough content to merit a separate article". Well, there was until yesterday. I'm not sure who to appeal to? I don't want to get into an edit war, but by deleting nearly an entire article, it certainly sways an AfD to one side. Thank you for your advise. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Alcosynth

I'm not quite sure where to ask this. A few days ago I wrote the article alcosynth. It was quickly nominated for deletion. Yesterday, an editor deleted nearly the entire article, which was well sourced. I reverted the edit, but the editor reverted it back. My understanding of WP:EDITATAFD is that an article under AfD should not be blanked. Anyway, now new editors are commenting on the AfD, and one of them said there is not "enough content to merit a separate article". Well, there was until yesterday. I'm not sure who to appeal to? I don't want to get into an edit war, but by deleting nearly an entire article, it certainly sways an AfD to one side. Thank you for your advise. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Problem with one article

Hi! I am Marco Craso from Spanish Wikipedia. I use to speak spanish and german, but my english is not enough good for correcting articles. I want to improve this article: Pedro Muñoz. It has a lot of mistakes, I tried to correct some of them but the article is a disaster, but in the spanish wikipedia is a feature article. I need someone for check it and try to remove the "bad translated tamplete" once and for all. Thanks. --Marco Craso (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I've posted this at WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests; I'm sure it'll be picked-up shortly. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Problem with one article

Hi! I am Marco Craso from Spanish Wikipedia. I use to speak spanish and german, but my english is not enough good for correcting articles. I want to improve this article: Pedro Muñoz. It has a lot of mistakes, I tried to correct some of them but the article is a disaster, but in the spanish wikipedia is a feature article. I need someone for check it and try to remove the "bad translated tamplete" once and for all. Thanks. --Marco Craso (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I've posted this at WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests; I'm sure it'll be picked-up shortly. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Insource searches

How do they work? Do they leave out any articles? PhilrocMy contribs 00:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't imagine any reason that any articles would be left out, other than the fact that it might take time for new edit to show up in the search system. The normal search only finds text that is visible to someone reading the article (or at least that seems to be the definition of what it can find). For example it doesn't see template names, hidden comments, or wikitext such as gallery, ref, or file. An insource search will find anything in the wikitext for the article.
You may want to check out help:searching. It has all sorts of neat info, if you want advanced search options. Alsee (talk) 08:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Adding ping for Philroc. Alsee (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red - UN-ITU Award finalist

Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red is a finalist in the International Telecommunication Union GEM-TECH 2016 awards (Gender Equality and Mainstreaming Policy (GEM)). Has your wikiproject been seleted as a finalist for a UN award this week? No? Ah well... Pertinent links below. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Most other wikiprojects don't do edit-a-thons. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Also, your project acts like it's better than every other project. Of course, the members don't say that. If they did, they would be in trouble with ArbCom. You just imply it ("Has YOUR Wikiproject been X?") KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Wow, what a strong reaction.
I don't think there's anything wrong with being excited about an unusually positive event. I definitely don't think that this group acts like it's better than anyone else.
Even if they did, ArbCom doesn't punish people for thinking that they're good at what they do, even if you say it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

User draft/sandbox article Provenance Ios/tvOS frontend is in article space

Move under the draft userspace or user-ify? Not tagging this on the article talk page because I'm not sure how to act on this one. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red - UN-ITU Award finalist

Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red is a finalist in the International Telecommunication Union GEM-TECH 2016 awards (Gender Equality and Mainstreaming Policy (GEM)). Has your wikiproject been seleted as a finalist for a UN award this week? No? Ah well... Pertinent links below. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Most other wikiprojects don't do edit-a-thons. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Also, your project acts like it's better than every other project. Of course, the members don't say that. If they did, they would be in trouble with ArbCom. You just imply it ("Has YOUR Wikiproject been X?") KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Wow, what a strong reaction.
I don't think there's anything wrong with being excited about an unusually positive event. I definitely don't think that this group acts like it's better than anyone else.
Even if they did, ArbCom doesn't punish people for thinking that they're good at what they do, even if you say it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

User draft/sandbox article Provenance Ios/tvOS frontend is in article space

Move under the draft userspace or user-ify? Not tagging this on the article talk page because I'm not sure how to act on this one. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Buddy Holly and the Crickets

I totally disagree with the edits on Buddy Holly template which have been made pretty recently by an user. We have discussed here and we definitely don't agree with it. Could someone give his opinion ? Elfast (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Question

Is there a hoax noticeboard? KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@KATMAKFORAN: Unless your question is about "should we create a hoax noticeboard if one doesn't exist", then your question probably belongs to Wikipedia:Help desk. As for the question itself, I don't know the answer. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

We don't use a noticeboard for that. Instead, we typically use the {{db-hoax}} tag for definite hoaxes and {{hoax}} for suspected ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
@KATMAKROFAN: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is probably enough for that. Note that we do not want hoax articles, but we may have articles about hoaxes. - Nabla (talk) 08:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is the place where bogus articles are usually put if they don't meet db-hoax. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Buddy Holly and the Crickets

I totally disagree with the edits on Buddy Holly template which have been made pretty recently by an user. We have discussed here and we definitely don't agree with it. Could someone give his opinion ? Elfast (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Question

Is there a hoax noticeboard? KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@KATMAKFORAN: Unless your question is about "should we create a hoax noticeboard if one doesn't exist", then your question probably belongs to Wikipedia:Help desk. As for the question itself, I don't know the answer. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

We don't use a noticeboard for that. Instead, we typically use the {{db-hoax}} tag for definite hoaxes and {{hoax}} for suspected ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
@KATMAKROFAN: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is probably enough for that. Note that we do not want hoax articles, but we may have articles about hoaxes. - Nabla (talk) 08:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is the place where bogus articles are usually put if they don't meet db-hoax. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Indents

Why are people so uptight about the indents on talk pages all of a sudden???--Jack Upland (talk) 09:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

We should focus on how to improve the community, the pages and reader access. I agree that indents should be the least of our worries. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
If you want to improve readers' WP:ACCESS, then you need to care about the use of list formatting to create "indents". You can read more at WP:INDENTGAP if you care about this subject, or want to know why other people care. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
It's just that lately I've noticed people on talk pages commenting on the use of indents rather than the content.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

We're doing something right!

Washington Post article: "Wikipedia is fixing one of the Internet’s biggest flaws"

"Somehow, despite of all the forces dragging it toward chaos, the site has managed to carve out a space on the Internet where people can have mostly sane, mostly productive conversations that mostly converge to a version of the truth."

—Steve Summit (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

An unusual reference to Wikipedia

  • Yesterday on UK television, a man on an archaeology site described an accompanying expert man as "my walking Wikipedia". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear all

Connected Open Heritage (a project aiming to improve information of built heritage in danger) is looking for community input on choosing the official logo. You can submit new logos until 6 November and support the proposed logos until 11 November.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Infobox military conflict - "result" or "outcome" parameter?

  FYI
 – Pointer to discussion elsewhere.

Please see the not-quite-RfC at Module talk:Infobox military conflict/Archive 3#Change "result" parameter to "outcome", on a proposition intended to help avoid misinterpretation of a "just the facts" infobox parameter as being a place for extensive, freeform, subjective cause–effect assertions that may be better handled in well-cited, contextual article prose.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

May I have your attention please?

Please someone sort this out. 83.85.143.141 (talk) 04:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Available Now (November 2016)


Hello Wikimedians!

 
The TWL OWL says sign up today!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for free, full-access, accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for new accounts and research materials from:

Expansions

Many other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 18:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.

What is going on in this picture?

It was taken as a part of a car heat awareness program in Des Moines, but I don't know what exactly is going on in it. Can somebody please tell me? I'm trying to upload the picture to Commons, and it asks for a description. PhilrocMy contribs 17:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It looks like a man is talking to a woman, while a second man films them from the back right corner of the room. --Jayron32 17:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
What Jayron32 said. :) If you are looking for something more specific then - Kelsey Angle, Warning Coordination Meteorologist, National Weather Service, Des Moines is being interviewed by Alyx Sacks, Anchor/Reporter at KCCI-TV. [2] - NQ (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
In that case as well, I just noticed that the picture is not one that you have taken yourself, Philroc. If so, how do we know the image can be uploaded at Commons to be compatible with our media policies? --Jayron32 17:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
The image was taken by someone from the NOAA. It's PD :) PhilrocMy contribs 18:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
In that case, rock on... --Jayron32 17:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No attacks on Wikipedia

I have created Wikipedia:No attacks on Wikipedia. I thought some people might like it. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Why is it tagged as "intended as humor"? In my experience, this is a real issue and an annoying one. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
This is exactly what's wrong with Wikipedia. Bureaucratic over-regulation, pseudo-scientific arguments, school principal humour, and nerdish narcissism.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Heh. --Izno (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
How is it annoying to deal with "Wikipedia will soon end"? Just ignore the exaggeration in reply. --Izno (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Pebble smartwatch app for finding nearby unillustrated Wikipedia articles

I recently made a tool that will be interesting to Wikipedians who have a Pebble watch: Diderot, a watchface that shows you the nearest unillustrated Wikipedia article. I've been using it for about a month and a half, and it's been a lot of fun; I took a lot of photographs of places that didn't have photos. It uses a wmflabs tool that filters out articles that have only png or svg, so you can find articles that have a map or logo but not photograph.--ragesoss (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Question re: the nature of wikipedia in other languages

Have googled and wikipedia-ed in vain. To what degree are the French, German or other language versions of wikipedia independent? Does the German site ever just translate English Wikipedia articles? Are their articles sometimes or always independently generated in German? I know that there are obvious differences between some English and French Wikipedia articles, but I would like to know what general practice or policy is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.16.38.9 (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

We have no direct control over them, and they have distinct policies and guidelines. Beyond that, you'll want to read Wikipedia:Translation. I know that a few of our articles incorporates translated material from other language Wikipedias, while I've been given the impression that many other language Wikipedias translate our articles at least as often. Such practices are generally allowed as long as the translated content fits the policies for the new site. For example, some Wikipedias allow sources that we do not, and vice versa. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Every Wikipedia is independently run; some articles may be translations, but others are likely entirely original content. Especially languages with many speakers, like German and French, there is likely very little direct translation. German Wikipedia especially is known for rivaling English Wikipedia in terms of history of involvement of its editors. All different language Wikipedias are run entirely independently of each other by design. With the exception of Wikimedia Foundation mandates regarding mostly legal issues, each Wikipedia sets up its own rules, has its own editor base and administrators, and manages its own affairs quite independently. Regarding the specific two Wikipedias you cited, the German and French Wikipedias, are actually the two most active editor bases outside of English Wikipedia, as can be seen at List of Wikipedias, German is second and French third in terms of number of edits. --Jayron32 01:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

thanks. That answers my question,--and gives me work since on certain subjects I will feel now that I have to check multiple wikipedias! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.16.38.9 (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, you may enjoy Manypedia, which compares different version of the same article in other languages. --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Avoiding the temptation of recursion

Reading a BBC article about the US marijuana industry, I encountered the line "At present the Wikipedia entry for Desert Hot Springs does not even mention the trade." It took a great deal of willpower to avoid improving the article with the information "At present this Wikipedia article does not mention the trade in marijuana in Desert Hot Springs", with, of course, a reference to the reliable published source. If I had done that, what guideline would it have broken?  Card Zero  (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

MOS:SELFREF and MOS:CURRENT. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) MOS:SELFREF, MOS:CURRENT, and probably WP:BALASP section of WP:NPOV. Though using "As of (date)" instead of "At present" would get around MOS:CURRENT. - Evad37 [talk] 01:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
You may also want to look at WP:CIRCULAR... What Card Zero is talking about would set up a circular reference loop - with a source pointing to a Wikipedia article to support what it says, and the Wikipedia article pointing back to that source to support what we say. Blueboar (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

How to cite Government Gazette of South Africa?

We have a template for citing the U.S. Congressional Record, {{USCongRec}}. We have a template for citing Hansard, {{Cite Hansard}}. But we don't have specific templates for most countries, and it's not obvious to me what template would be good to cite the official parliamentary record of a country, or general official government announcements.

In particular, I would like a recommendation for a how to cite a Government Gazette of South Africa item at http://dnaproject.co.za/new_dna/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/GG-NOTICE-26-APRIL-2013.pdf. {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite news}}, and {{cite magazine}} all seem inappropriate. {{cite report}} is getting a little closer but still seems wrong. Is there a template I've overlooked? Recommendations, anyone? Should we create a new template for items of this sort ... first defining what "this sort" actually means? —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

seems inappropriate; seems wrong. These are rather vague descriptors. Clearly, the gazette is not news and not a journal and not a magazine so those three can be dismissed. If you are citing the url quoted in your post and not the actual gazette itself, {{cite web}} is acceptable but problematic because the thing being cited has two titles which is not supported by {{cite web}}. Which leaves:
{{cite report}}; you can suppress the (Report) annotation by setting |type=none
Republic of South Africa (26 April 2013). "Notice 435 of 2013" (PDF). Government Gazette (Report). Vol. 574. Pratoria: Government Printing Works. 36415 – via dnaproject.co.za.
{{citation}}; you can make it render with the same formatting used in the above mentioned cs1 templates by setting |mode=cs1
Republic of South Africa (26 April 2013), "Notice 435 of 2013" (PDF), Government Gazette, vol. 574, Pratoria: Government Printing Works – via dnaproject.co.za
If you choose to create a new template, it should not be used to cite gazette articles hosted on non-gazette websites as the example url does but rather, use an official government repository, if there is one.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Self-nominations for the 2016 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are open

Self-nominations for the 2016 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are officially open. The nomination period runs from Sunday 00:00, 6 November (UTC) until Tuesday 23:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC). Editors interested in running should review the eligibility criteria listed at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates then create a candidate page following the instructions there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

How does Wikipedia deal with retributive types of actions that span articles?

For example if a person or clique takes exception to an edit or comment on one article (even if valid) and instead of (or in addition to) responding to that, make an attack on the editor or their contributions on another page? Kinda hard to prove but have the impression it goes on quite a lot? Eversync (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding is part of the policy. See the section Wikipedia:Harassment#Dealing_with_harassment or the advice page Wikipedia:How to deal with harassment. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
When I catch a vandal or a troublemaker, I follow all his/her recent edits; this is not harassment, but seeking to redress bad actions. So it all depends upon who is right: if I am wrong it is harassment, if I am right I am a protector of Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Naturally, I only take action in clear-cut cases; if it is the case to give the benefit of doubt, I do it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The concept of harassment is relevant but apparently only meant to be used when the primary motivation is to cause distress. That doesn't necessarily apply if people are simply acting out of a certainty that they are right, or that they have the status or power to enact their beliefs about what is right. Perceptions of troublemaking is relevant but, as you say, what if it is not clear cut, what if that perception is simply based on a failure to assume good faith or to understand the legitimacy of other points of view? At the end of the day the violation is still there - rather than sticking to collaboratively addressing an issue on one page, acting indirectly via another page in a way intended to appear unconnected (or at least to have plausible deniability that it is connected). Eversync (talk) 06:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
WP:POINT and WP:NPA. --Izno (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes those would cover it in theory but how in practice is it dealt with? (given that it's done precisely because it's indirect and can be denied). Eversync (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The standard WP:DR mechanisms. First you tell him to knock it off, then you do that again, then you ask an uninvolved admin or other experienced user to take a look (e.g. WP:3O), and if he still hasn't caught on, WP:ANI--preferably with diffs of the problematic behavior. --Izno (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok. What if it's a clique though, and the only evidence is circumstantial that: the clique has been involved in both articles; that it's plausible that they took a new comment about a long-term flaw in a featured article personally; that their non-response to that comment seems strange given its importance; that the timing of a subsequent dredging up of an old contribution on another page seems unlikely and hasn't been explained; that the criticism of that contribution turned out to be false but the final confirmation of that falsity was not responded to by anyone nor the related deletion of the contribution reversed. I mean they will obviously just deny anything and point out they don't have to reply to anything, and it would just be dropped wouldn't it? I mean no one's going to be able or willing to check whether there was any communication between members of the clique about it as a strategy, are they? (and there may not have been specifically, someone could have just done it knowing how the clique feels in general). Eversync (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Then they appear to be acting as WP:meatpuppets (or WP:tagteaming). But regardless, you're dragging yourself closer to the actual case of interest rather than the hypothetical, so it seems that you should actually pursue the dispute resolution in question rather than speculating. --Izno (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Word of caution: Be aware of WP:Boomeranging in taking a discussion to a dispute resolution location. Your own behavior will possibly be examined, if you are involved in some way. --Izno (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, it's appreciated. I don't see that it could boomerang in that sense but certainly in terms of interpersonal stress, which is why I wanted to get more of an idea if there was any real chance of a productive outcome. I get the sense there isn't because there is a grey area between all the above concepts and just cliques being cliques in a power structure which it doesn't seem Wikipedia is designed to really stand up to. Eversync (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
One clarification: Don't take it to 3O, DRN, or MEDCOM. Those DR mechanisms will not accept conduct disputes. Conduct disputes must of that type must go to an admin or ANI. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Overall, I think that we deal with this relatively poorly. But it's also worth remembering that coincidences happen, and that what looks like deliberate retribution could be the opposite: someone might have seen your recent edit, thought it was great, and wanted to know more about your editing – and more or less accidentally found a potential problem. I've had editors go through every single edit that I've made over long periods of time, and that doesn't always mean that they're harassing me.
OTOH, there are groups of editors that push beyond the limits of collaborative behavior. Generally speaking, though, if those groups still exist, then they are generally powerful in the community. Some people might call the group that regularly hangs out at at the WP:Fringe theories noticeboard a "clique", but their efforts tend to gain more appreciation than criticism – except, of course, from the people they disagree with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Do we have a written guideline on whether a photo is preferred to non-photographic art

Regarding this thread, is there a written guideline that says that for a biography, a (free-use) photograph is preferred to a (free-use) drawing or painting? I'm sure that in the past I've seen paintings removed from infoboxes on the grounds that photos give an accurate representation, whereas for non-photographic art there is a degree of WP:OR and a possible WP:NPOV violation. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

If both are equally free, there's no guideline for which to use as the lede image. We'd want one that is the best representation of the person (or whatever is pictured), which nearly always will be the photo but there are clear cases where other images can be acceptable. If we have an aging actress where we have her photo in the 90s, but she was known as a starlet in her 20s, and we have a free reasonable accurate drawing of her then, that might be preferable. For an artist who had done a self-portrait in their own style (something like Hand with Reflecting Sphere for M.C. Escher), that might be preferred over the photo. But there's no hard, set guidelines once you've met the free-ness of the images. --MASEM (t) 14:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
There's no guideline of which I'm aware. However I would strongly object to anybody who suggests photographs are NPOV. I even started an essay called "NPOV is a problem for images" some years ago, although I never polished it until I fully liked it (consider it a very rough draft). The main thesis is that photographs definitely can have a non-neutral point of view. For example, the image on the "Freeway" Rick Ross article has always struck me as a prime example of an obviously non-neutral POV image that's trying to give a reader a deliberate positive impression. It's basically a PR photograph. I take issue with many professional headshots that appear on the articles for actors and actresses. By trade a professional photographer is trying to get the "best" photo of you, not a typical (that is, encyclopedic) one. I also think that photographs can at times function as original research, although this is more abstract and I digress. The problem of non-neutral point of view and original research is not limited to paintings. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually, we have a good demonstrable case of NPOV with regards to photographs, and that was (during the election cycle) which image of Donald Trump to use (see Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_28#Official_photo), in that in the options of "non-official" but free photos, some portrayed Trump in a different light, which could be taking negatively. If multiple photos are available, and there are potential issues of neutrality, that should be considered. But I would also take issue with saying that "professional" headshots are too promotional. For someone that is a celebrity where these shots will be taken, we prefer these if they are free as it likely best represents the person by that person's own view, the photographer's own view, and our own view. We'd readily prefer that posed headshot against a quick snap of a celeb out shopping at 7/11, for example, even if the latter is seemingly more neutral. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
My point isn't that a 7/11 slurpee run photo is a good photo for the article, it's that there's a middle ground between it and the studio headshot that more closely captures neutrality. Many red carpet shots of actors while they were just walking are good photos from an encyclopedic perfective and capture the subject naturally. The real problem is that people are biased to prefer the best-looking photograph over the "matter of fact" one but neutrally suggests we need to aim for the matter-of-fact image. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
This is probably not what you were looking for, but there is some long-standing advice about using drawings for sex-related images (rather than, e.g., porn stills). Additionally, you should use a drawing when that is more educational, e.g., most anatomical and botanical drawings (because any given example isn't perfectly average). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
It's a biography of a living person. Pierre Bourdieu couldn't really be thought of as being out of the public eye, so free-use photos are not unobtainable. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Breach of WP:CIRCULAR?

I have just noticed that the article on Condom, Gers contains a template inviting translations from the French version of the article. is this not an invitation to use another Wiki as a source, contrary to WP:CIRCULAR?. Britmax (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

No, there is a difference between the content of an article (translating from a different wiki is taking content from it) and the sources of an article (which is what WP:CIRCULAR is about). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Drone Photo Contest?

I had a random thought: how about a WP drone photo contest? It would consist of HD images taken from drones for articles that currently have no decent photo, such as a shot of a town or village from altitude. Praemonitus (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It's a very fine idea. Drone photos and footage is very often very compelling. BUT. I do have a concern about wikipedia being seen to be inciting drone use given that in many venues and jurisdications the use of drones, at least by unlicenced operators, is illegal. (Citation needed, etc). --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Not to mention that depending on what is being photographed and in what jurisdiction there could be freedom of panorama issues. Perhaps you should bring this up at Commons? --Majora (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
You may find this useful. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Looking for an old superlatives mass page move thread

It was about changing eg. List of biggest XXXX in the world --> List of biggest XXXX

I posted at the pump before but more were changed via a Request for Comment at some talk page. I can't seem to find that talk page. Does anyone remember where that was?

Thanks.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: Was it Talk:List of tallest buildings#Requested move 4 September 2016 ? Not an RFC, but otherwise it fits your description. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah lovely. Thank you so much, John. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Compromised account?

  Moved to WP:AN

I found an account that had been inactive for a while and suddenly had a new edit from an apparent "hacker" that seems to have broken into the account. The hack statement threatened death and stated what is possibly the account holders name. the accounts contribs, the talk page -glove- (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Running pilot project to trial importing text from UNESCO open access publications into Wikipedia

Dear all

I'm running a pilot project to import text from UNESCO open access publications into Wikipedia, I'm working with subject matter experts at UNESCO to identify sections of publications that may be suitable, I have also created a simple guide for finding other UNESCO open license publications that may have suitable text. I have done some small tests and found it takes around 2 hours to create a high quality 2000 word article including referencing all the links the publication uses. Please take a look here.

Many thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Opening RFC

Dear users. A request has opened to decide if apply a Global ban against Marrovi. Other users who have relevant information can participate. Here is the link; You can also review the guidelines here. For the same policies I have to notify in the projects that he participate. Regards. --Akapochtli (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Connected Open Heritage - photo exibition

Dear all,
the Wikimedia project Connected Open Heritage - led by Wikimedia Sverige​ - is organizing a photo exhibition aimed at enhancing the importance of the digital preservation of the global cultural heritage. The pictures displayed will not only portray monuments, but they will also tell their stories by showing the transformations they went through because of wars, natural disasters or simply human negligence. Everyone can contribute to the project by suggesting a story concerning a cultural property in danger: the pictures can be uploaded by the 7th of December.

We are looking forward to receive your stories! --Yiyi (Dimmi!) 09:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Listing languages?

In English articles, the full list of all available translations is provided under the "Languages" section. However, in other Wikipedias (e.g. Persian, Chinese) only a few languages are listed with the remainder listed under a button named "Other ## Languages". What criteria do languages need to meet in order not to be listed under that category? For example, let's say I want the listed languages for a Persian Wikipedia article to be "Arabic, English, Kurdish, Pashto, Turkish", and then have the "Other ## Languages" button underneath that. The reason I ask is that most Iranian and Afghan Persian Wikipedia users may not be looking for article translations into Finnish for example, but rather into a local language, so moving those languages from the "Other Languages" category to be listed under the main Languages would be better than some of the other options listed under there now. How can that be accomplished? Yilangren (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Yilangren: Try going to Preferences → Beta features, and enabling "Compact language links". --Redrose64 (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Yes that works for me specifically, but my question is about the general audience and appearance for everyone visiting the article, and not how specific users can see languages relevant to them. Yilangren (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Yilangren, you accomplish this by getting Compact language links enabled at your favorite wikis. User:Amire80 can help you figure out the process for this (e.g., he can check to make sure that there are no language-specific concerns, help you if you need help writing a discussion question for the local wiki, etc.). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
@Whatamidoing (WMF): Thank you, but my question is about how can we change the default languages shown such that a general member of the public, who does not have a Wikipedia account, sees languages relevant to them (e.g. I want the Farsi Wikipedia to show languages used in Iran, the Burmese Wikipedia showing languages used in Burma, etc). Yilangren (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
As I said, you accomplish this by getting Compact language links enabled at your favorite wikis. When it's enabled (for everyone/by default, not just if you personally login and opt-in), that's how it will work. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I should've clicked on that link before replying! Thank you for pointing me in the right direction :) Yilangren (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Excessive archiving talk pages of article

I'm curious what other editors think about archiving an article's talk page on a frequent basis. I've noticed that there are quite a few articles out there that have frequent archiving (30 days), but very few comments. While I know that archived content is still accessible, that extra click(s) and digging seems to decrease the likelihood of a legitimate concern or past criticisms from being expanded upon. If the same concern is being raised over and over by different editors, it will not be readily apparent. Am I out to lunch here? Is archiving sometimes used as a way to minimize debate and maximize the likelihood of status quo? I'm considering writing an essay on the subject of archiving, as I don't believe one exists. Any and all comments on archiving would be appreciated. Thanks. Dig Deeper (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

There is some guidance at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#When to archive pages. Thirty days sounds too fast unless the page is extremely active. Talk pages of articles don't usually turn over that quickly, though noticeboards have to archive in a matter of days. If you see an article talk page with a too-short archiving time, leave a post on it and propose a change. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Some are archived even faster, such as Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations which archives threads after four days of inactivity, which recently caused problems with an unclosed RfC - see Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations/Archive 6#RfC Closure for Jane Doe discussion. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Don't assume malice. All of the times that I've seen this occur its either been because a page has had an increased period of activity that has since died down, and no one has bothered to alter the bot settings, or the bot settings have been copied and pasted and not altered to a suitable level for the new page. - X201 (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I appreciate the link from EdJohnston.
I don't assume malice, don't get me wrong. I imagine some may just copy & paste the 30 day archiving. I'm just not a big fan of archiving pages, unless there is significant activity. I removed the archiving for the Talk:Sugar and Talk:Robert_Lustig. Seemed superfluous. But maybe I'm wrong, let me know your thoughts.Dig Deeper (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dig deeper: Be careful chap. You removed the archive quick access template as well when you removed the archiving template from Sugar - X201 (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

In these two cases: Lustig didn't ever need it. Sugar on the other hand, I would have just increased the bot settings to a larger amount. The reason being, talk pages like that get low volumes of conversations, but they do get conversations. They get even lower volumes of wikiGnomes to tidy the thing up. In my opinion, leaving a bot (with a suitably high setting) on a major subject like sugar is the better solution. - X201 (talk) 09:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
@X201 Oops! Thanks for pointing that out! I see what you did in the history, I'll make sure that bit of code stays behind.
I'm thinking 3 years might be appropriate for articles like that... If things start looking unmanageable, other editors can always make it less.

Is there a way to make a table that appears to have triangular edges?

Hi

I'm working on a a new guidance page and would like to put text into simple arrow boxes, something similar to the right hand arrow on the second line of this image. I assume there is away of doing it by adding a .png file with two white arrows and then getting that to display on the right hand edge of the box. Would someone be able to help me? I'm very happy to make the .png if someone can help me make a simple table with a fairly large border on the left hand side to make the text sit nicely and then absolutely no gap between the right hand edge of the table and the .png.

Sorry if this is confusing :)

--John Cummings (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Something like this? —Cryptic 20:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


Thanks very much Cryptic, this is basically what I'm after except I would like it to be blue and only have one line of text. To explain what I want it for. I've been working with some people at UNESCO (where I work) on reusing content from Wikimedia Commons, the Featured Pictures is perfect for them, however most of them missed the more button meaning they are unaware the wide range of images available. I'm looking for a way to make the more button more prominent and though having it in an arrow would be helpful in pointing it out. Do you think this is possible? Perhaps the arrow could be the same blue as the more details button in Mediaviewer on Commons? --John Cummings (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
@John Cummings: Couldn't you just use an image and override the image's link? E.g:
which gives:
You'll need to make the image, but... it gets you whatever you want. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd suggest the same, since apparently the text's going to be fixed. What I did above is a pretty ugly hack, and I doubt it would go over well at c:Commons talk:Featured pictures. —Cryptic 21:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Adam Cuerden and Cryptic, the only issue is the page has some categories where the button says the name of a subcategory rather than just saying more, fo you think it would be possible to make something similar to the more details button in Mediaviewer on Commons (i.e a curved edge button) with the icon of the category and name. --John Cummings (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
At this point, I shall point you to the WP:Graphics lab, who can probably provide you with everything you need. Though I'd suggest discussing what's wanted on commons:Commons:Village pump first, so that there won't be a lot of second-guessing. Remember accessibility matters too, on a variety of devices, so planning will help here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much Adam Cuerden. --John Cummings (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Looking for editors to test a new editing mode

I need some editors to test a new editing mode. I'd like to find both people who mostly use the visual editor and people who mostly use one of the old wikitext editors for this. I'm not looking for admins or technical people – just ordinary editors, and new people are fine. Probably most of the people who read this will qualify, but I hope that some of you will think of both yourself and also a promising new editor who might be interested.

Users who want to participate in this testing project must:

  • be able to speak English,
  • have access to Google Hangouts (for screensharing and talking),
    • You don't have to be videotaped yourself, but you must be able to share your screen via Hangouts, so we can see what you're doing.
    • You must have access to a working microphone (either external or built-in is fine), so you can tell us what you think.
  • have access to quiet place for 30-45 minute research session,
  • be willing to sign a standard research release form (I can get you a copy), and
  • have access to Chrome, Firefox or Safari (I believe this must be on a desktop system, not on a smartphone).

If you're interested, or if you think you might know someone who is interested, then please click here to leave a note on my talk page. Thanks for considering it! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

What to do about minor plagiarism from an article

In searching online for sources to improve an article I created in 2009, I found a book whose introduction uses three sentences from the article word for word. This is a proper academic book, written by an apparent expert in the field and published by a well-known academic publisher. The book was just published this year, and there is no question that it is using my original wording without attribution. Nonetheless, I want to emphasize that I don't consider this a copyright infringement. They're just three sentences, after all. The only related guidance I've found on Wikipedia seems to be about larger parts of articles copied onto websites. Would it be appropriate to contact the author and/or publisher? I know there are professional codes of ethics against even minor plagiarism like this. I don't want to get anyone in trouble; I'd just rather the book used the author's own words. Or am I taking this too seriously? Ntsimp (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Unless they are really short, generic sentences, three verbatim unattributed sentences is copyright infringement. Full stop. You could contact the publisher to have the wording removed, and they'd likely do it. But better is to send a letter proving the words are yours and demanding some amount of fair compensation. If they don't agree, sue them. There's zero reason to be worried about getting somebody in trouble. Somebody should get in trouble. While you gave away your work under a CC license, somebody else stole your words and intended to profit from them. It is a serious matter and they deserve no sympathy for their wrongdoing. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Lawsuits are expensive. Even the minimum, which is a US $35 copyright registration fee, sounds like more than you'd like to pay.
I believe that User:Nephron cut a deal with an infringer recently, in which he'd overlook their license violation in return for them uploading some high-quality images to Commons. There are also ways to fix the license violation, e.g., by adding correct attribution. So you might think creatively about the kind of "compensation" that would appeal to you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
That's interesting that an academic would do that. I would think they would be more concerned about their reputation. Perhaps they delegated this part to a student. Either way I would point them to the page ... Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. I like the idea of inviting them to contribute to Wikipedia. Dig Deeper (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Passing off a student's work as your own would be plagiarism, too. I suspect that the answer is more mundane, though: you read the Wikipedia article and make a note, and then forget that this bit in your notes was copied rather than paraphrased, or you read it and the sentence lodges in your head, and you later (honestly but wrongly) think that it was your own creation. A book or journal publisher could probably afford to use a system such as Turnitin to check for such obvious problems as copying from Wikipedia, but only some of them do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikignome-work if anyone is keen

Hi all, one of the things we try to do with featured articles is get them on the main page when there is a significant birthday or anniversary or somesuch. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending is a page we have for flagging significant dates for when something might be good to go on the main page (though it still needs a proper nomination down the track). Hence the page just serves as an informal placeholder or reminder for later in the year. Anyhoo, I am sure that a stack of articles listed at Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page will have significant dates that no-one has logged at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending yet. If anyone has some spare time and wants to check these featured articles for sginifcant anniversary or birthdates and place them on the calendar at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending that would be hugely appreciated. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Cas, and I agree ... but also see the page Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page/Date connection (WP:FADC). People can take anything from that page and add it to WP:TFAP (the pending page) if they want to make a special request, but it's not really necessary ... if it's on FADC, we'll get to it eventually. What we really need is things added to TFAP that don't already show up at FADC. - Dank (push to talk) 23:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Chris will want to see this. - Dank (push to talk) 23:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks Cas. The date connection page allows us to pick articles with date connections even when they aren't nominated. Of course, if someone wants to nominate an article (with or without a date connection) at TFA, that would be wonderful.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Wow. Colour me surprised. I've been editing here for over a decade and never seen that page...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving

 
 RightCowLeftCoast (talk) has given you a Turkey! Turkeys promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a turkey, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy Thanksgiving!

To everyone, I would like to extend the warmest of seasons greetings and wish everyone a happy Thanksgiving. Spread the goodness of turkey by adding {{Thanksgiving Turkey}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

List of internet slang acronyms

I would like to ask if it would be appropriate to create the page List of internet slang acronyms (or simply List of internet acronyms). I was surprised to notice that there is no such list, when this whole encyclopedia is created by the "web fauna", most of them knowing a good number of internet acronyms. —  Ark25  (talk)

Because Internet slang already links to wiktionary:Appendix:English internet slang? :) --Malyacko (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Ahh, that explains it, thanks! :) —  Ark25  (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the comeback, maybe it would be useful to create that page as a redirect to the Wiktionary list? —  Ark25  (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Combining Grapheme Joiner

Hi everyone. I just came across Template:CGJ, which is still pre-{{documentation}}. I would change it, but not confident that I can check whether the invisible CGJ character would still be there at the end of the day!

What's more, the example given on only article that it's used on (Combining Grapheme Joiner) doesn't seem to show any difference for me on Firefox or Chrome – perhaps someone with more knowledge in this area would be able to say whether it's still in use, or if modern browsers have made it unnecessary (is it completely redundant?). Perhaps SVG pictures demonstrating the problem that this character was designed to solve would be better than relying on each browser to try to duplicate this, which would then mean the template could safely be deleted.

Finally, are there any conventions surrounding the use of non-visible characters in wikicode? I seem to remember a bot that checked mainspace articles for them (things like stray RTL characters etc.), but can't find any policy pages. ‑‑YodinT 14:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Documentation template added. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 18:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with GAN?

I've literally been waiting five months for a review; I'm going to be busy for much of December, but apparently, there's no way whatsoever to even ask for a review rather rapidly approaching half a year to be reviewed before someone goes on wikibreak. It's frustrating, to say the least. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: You may be interested in the recent feature in the Signpost. --Izno (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit requests

I've noticed that, with many protected edit requests, editors brush them off with a request to be more specific, even if it's reasonably clear what the person wants. It seems to me like an easy way out, but if an editor can't be bothered spending time on the request, why answer it at all? Is there a better way of dealing with these requests?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. If you come across a request that you can act on, act on it, even if someone previously has declined to. No one will stop you from making Wikipedia better. --Jayron32 01:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's nice when it works, but it's not helpful if you can't make the edit or if you saw the request after someone else already brushed them off. OTOH, stale requests sitting around for weeks isn't good, either. It's not easy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I think one problem is that some editors think they're doing everyone a favour dismissing these pesky edit requests. I would rather see a stale request than one summarily dismissed, especially one dismissed for a spurious or inadequate reason. Wikipedia isn't perfect, and it won't be made better by dismissing feedback. Alternatively, rather than dismissing feedback, it would be better for protected pages not to allow edit requests at all. What is the point of asking for feedback if the feedback is bureaucratically dismissed??? Do editors just like frustrating other people?--Jack Upland (talk) 11:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
No editor should be faulted for expecting requesters to follow the instructions clearly outlined at Wikipedia:Edit requests. They essentially say that the requester should do all of the editor work except the actual edit operation, including all writing, placement, and identification of any required references (I might be persuaded to format the necessary CS1 citations given links, but that's as far as I'm going). If the instructions are inappropriate or unhelpful, work to change them (I would oppose). They should be seen as representing current community consensus on the matter, which apparently is that edit requests are for IPs who know how to edit Wikipedia.
Many edit requests should be simple discussion threads instead; use the process as it was designed to be used. There would be nothing wrong with the responder suggesting a discussion thread instead, as they close the edit request as "not done". For that matter, the responder could convert the edit request to a discussion thread with a change of heading and removal of the template, although the requester might have difficulty finding it in that case. In the case of IP requesters, IPs can't be pinged, so the responder would have to post on their user talk page and hope they read it there. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
While it might follow the "instructions", it is clear that this is a faulty mechanism, which is worse than having nothing at all. Nothing at all seems the best option at the moment.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't see what's faulty. As far as I can tell it works as well as it could for its intended purpose, which is to allow IP editors to edit semi-protected articles, if only by proxy. It is not meant to be a way for readers to request changes to articles, that can be done in a discussion thread. The only issue I see is the case of long-term semi-protection at an article with very low activity, so low that no one is likely to see the discussion thread and respond to it. My take on that is that (1) no solution is perfect, and (2) the reader is free to register an account and try their hand at Wikipedia editing. It's accepted that registration has its benefits. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Registering an account doesn't help at all if you don't actually know how to make the change, and it's not enough if the page requires an admin or template editor. I believe that I once had an edit request declined on a template that was fully protected, on the grounds that I didn't provide a cut-and-paste copy of the code – which I didn't, because I didn't know how to write it. So your solution is, at best, incomplete. IMO it would have made a lot more sense to leave the request open until a knowledgeable and interested admin or template editor could have handled it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
That's exactly the point I was making. Some editors simply decline requests for the weakest of reasons, because that is the path of least resistance. Sure, you can heap the blame on the person who makes the request for imperfectly following procedures they are unlikely to understand. Or you can put the responsibility onto other editors who could follow up the request after it has been declined. Or you could put blame where it lies: on the mindless bureaucrats who apparently think they have completed a "job" or made Wikipedia a better place simply by rejecting a suggestion to improve the encyclopedia.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Prepare Yourselves

Absolutely nothing useful or interesting to see here ^demon[omg plz] 02:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Everyone get ready. A Wikipedia raid is happening Thursday, December 8th by feminists and the BBC. Constantly check your favorite articles; make sure they stay accurate. I'm not saying that feminism is bad or to revert all changes by feminists, I'm just saying that we'll be seeing a large user influx, which could bring many false edits. AA Quantum (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

What makes you think that the odd website ageofshitlords.com is a credible source for any claim that such a conspiracy is afoot? -- Hoary (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Come on now, I was just about to remove this under WP:DFTT. --Majora (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
You wouldn't meet any resistance from me, Majora. The website does seem to be a mere pile of what we may be in, or may soon enter, the age of. -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
A raid by feminist activists would not be a "large user influx".--Jack Upland (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I, for one, welcome our new feminist overladies. AA Quantum refers to the forthcoming BBC 100 Women editathon, to which all are invited. There is a BBC 100 Women redlist up & running, courtesy of the subversives who hang out at WikiProject Women in Red. When will it end, you ask? Well, probably when the ratio of male to female biographies is better than the current 1,421,449 to 237,676, or 83.28% to 16.72% - see WHGI. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Let's see... the last two articles OP edited were Ku Klux Klan and Swastika. Now, those edits are innocuous enough by themselves, but combined with panicking over women being out of the kitchen? And citing an alt-right blog as supposed justification for said hissy fit? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

Need opinions on canvassing vs. notices

I spend almost all my time on-wiki working on featured articles, either writing content or reviewing candidates. There's a MoS discussion, here, that I'd like to post a note about at WT:FAC because a lot of content writers would see it there, and I think it would be good to get more input on this (and other) MoS discussions from experienced content writers. A previous note of mine at WT:FAC on a related MoS discussion was considered by at least one editor, SMcCandlish, to be canvassing, so I asked him how I could leave a neutrally worded notice to let editors at FAC know of the discussion, without running afoul of WP:CANVAS. His response is that any such notice would be canvassing no matter how I worded it: "Quotation formatting is not an intrinsically FA-related subject, so it would be taken as canvassing of a special interest group regardless, by various participants". This doesn't seem to me to be in line with the intent of WP:CANVAS, but I don't want to unilaterally annoy a MoS regular and get into a fight over this. Can I get opinions here on whether it's OK to post the kind of notice I would like to post? Or if in fact SMcCandlish is right that no such notice is possible within the rules? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't be concerned with annoying me in particular. The constant personalized character assassination against me and other MoS regulars by the WP:FAC clique, and the general "screw the MoS, let's start our own anti-MoS" campaigning at WT:FAC, and farcical scapegoating by them of MoS people for things that have nothing at all to do with MoS at all, like infobox disputes (MoS is entirely neutral on infoboxes) has pretty much driven me to the verge of quitting this project. I basically don't respond to anything I don't get an e-mail about, and I may even turn that off. The reason to not try to canvass FAC people to an MoS discussion that has nothing in particular to do with FAC is the same reason to not canvass any other special interest to your preferred side of any discussion on WP. The last time that happened (and at least 3 or 4 people flagged it for canvassing, with me being the last one to do so), about two months ago, the result was predictably a big histrionic, demonizing flamewar from which no consensus resulted on anything, because it was not about the merits of the discussion, but about two camps of conflicting personalities. I repeat what I already said in earlier discussion with you: Doing the same thing again and expecting different results isn't a rational or useful approach. People who actually care about the discussion on its own merits already know about it or will through normal channels like WP:FRS and individual discussion. A particular enclave of anti-MoS pitchfork bearers do not need to recruited again to light yet another witch-burning pyre.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
My reading of WP:APPNOTE suggests that it would be inappropriate to post a message regarding threaded discussions at WT:FAC. FAC people are not 'directly related to the topic under discussion', and from SMcC's response, seem very much more like they might be 'selected on the basis of their opinions'. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
It's going to be rare, if ever, that a MoS discussion is going to relate to FAs more than any other area of the encyclopedia. However, FA writers and reviewers are (we hope) experts on how to write and lay out high quality articles. A MoS discussion on how to format a set index article is clearly not of particular interest to FA writers, but a discussion about, say, the structure of article leads is one where they could be expected to have useful opinions. I suspect many at FAC don't watch the MoS pages because there's a lot of tedious (but useful) work that goes on there that doesn't interest them, but I think the input of anyone interested from that group could be helpful. It's not that plenty of good content writers don't already watch MoS pages, but more input tends to lead to longer-lasting consensus. In this particular case I don't plan to post at WT:FAC unless there's a clear consensus here that it would be OK to do so, but I would like to say that I have no idea if anyone who might see such a post would care, or which way they would !vote. I haven't !voted myself and still haven't decided on the issue. Re SMcCandlish's comments about anti-MoS pitchfork bearers; he's right that there are strong feelings and harsh words but that's not a good reason to avoid discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
None of which alters the price of bread w.r.t. WP:APPNOTE. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
APPNOTE says the intent must be "to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus", which is the case here; and that notifications are inappropriate if the intention is "influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way", which is not the case here. I acknowledge that the phrase you quote, "directly related to the topic under discussion", allows the argument that FAC is not a valid place to leave a notification, but given that MoS issues are mostly about form and not content, wouldn't that reading imply one could almost never notify anyone about MoS discussions? I think that leaves the encyclopedia worse off. We should be trying to get more inclusive on discussions that impact every editor, as the MoS does. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I have no problem including anyone who will be there to improve MoS rather than undermine it. Meta debates about MoS belong in a separate venue from MoS talk pages, such as, I guess, WP:VPP or WP:VPR. MoS talk pages are for discussion about how to improve MoS, just as article talk pages are about how to improve the respective articles. On MoS talk pages, those meta discussions are equivalent to WP:NOTFORUM violations and should be prohibited. Absent such prohibition, I don't think we need to go out of our way to invite such violations, although we can't prevent people from watching and violating. The bottom line question for me, then, is whether FAC people in fact have tended to engage in that kind of discussion on MoS talk pages, and I don't know the answer since I have no experience in that area. I haven't known McCandlish to distort or misrepresent such things, much. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Mandruss, if I understand you correctly you're talking about SMcCandlish's comments about some users being anti-MoS. Do you have an opinion about the original question? Is it OK to post notices about MoS discussions to WT:FAC, and by extension to other talk pages that aren't focused on topics (e.g. WT:GAN or WT:PR)? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: Perhaps I'm just thick, but I thought his comments were relevant to the original question. If FAC has shown a pattern of bringing MoS opposition to MoS talk pages, my opinion is no. That is not per p&g, but it appears that p&g does not give a clear answer so I'm left to my judgment. Disclaimer: I don't claim to be an expert in this area, but I think I have a handle on the WP political environment. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
OK, now I understand the point you're making. But even if it were true that FAC regulars had such a pattern, surely that's not a reason not to notify them? After all, a proposal at WT:MOS to, say, severely limit the size of sports-related navboxes would be almost certain to attract opposition from the affected Wikiprojects, but that wouldn't be a reason not to notify them. Would someone notifying a sports Wikiproject be canvassing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
You really don't want to drop this stick, do you, Mike? In your scenario, the sports wikiproject would be 'directly related to the topic under discussion' and so it would, per WP:APPNOTE, be appropriate to notify them. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
OK, I'll drop it. I'm surprised by the response, and I wish more people had expressed an opinion, but we can leave it at that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm kind of underwhelmed by the reasons given here. AFAICT they are:
  • FAC regulars frequently disagree with MOS regulars in style matters (debatable, especially since editors such as Dank, SlimVirgin, and Tony1 have historically been among the most prolific contributors to both pages.)
  • FAC regulars don't have sufficient respect for the MOS (e.g., the "anti-MOS" comments).
  • FAC regulars aren't a subject area, so you can't invite them to anything at all.
    • This is claimed even though changes to the MOS affect them far more than anyone else. They may have to decline candidates and send previously approved articles through FAR as a result of this discussion, but they should not be told that the discussion is happening.
    • In fact, the underlying claim is that no group of people (except perhaps WP:WikiProject Manual of Style) can be invited to any discussion about general style matters (e.g., the best way to handle quotations), because no "general" style matter could be "specific" to any group of editors.
    • Mike, a more appropriate example would have been a proposal at WT:MOS to severely limit the size of all the navboxes, but it happens that the sports navboxes are the ones most affected (because nearly all the others are smaller). Can you notify the sports-related WikiProjects, on the grounds that their work is affected, or must you leave them ignorant of this discussion on the grounds that it's not "specific" to them?
  • FAC shouldn't be informed about this RFC, because if they Truly Cared™, then they'd already be watching the RFC pages or the main MOS page (or all the MOS pages), or would have just known somehow or another.
  • Multiple FAC regulars participated in a previous discussion on an identical(!) topic, but we don't want them back, so don't tell them that we're having this discussion again. It doesn't matter if WP:APPNOTE (heretofore only quoted to claim that the entire guideline militates against letting them know about this discussion) directly says that "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" can be/should be invited them to this discussion; we don't want them and their disagreeable opinions.
I'm not impressed with these reasons. FAC people are disproportionately affected by changes to the MOS. It is therefore reasonable for them to be informed about what's going on. In fact, I wouldn't consider it unreasonable for some FAC regular to post a weekly update on changes to and discussions about the MOS and all the style-related RFCs so that group knows what's going on. I put this in the same category as transcluding {{cent}} on a WikiProject page (which FAC might also want to do): if a group wants to know what's going on, then there's no rule against them organizing themselves to find out what interests them. And if their "organization" looks like "Mike (or the FAC coordinators, or whoever) regularly tell us about anything that might affect FAs", then that's okay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
To whatever extent your comments refer to mine, mine are quite simple. 1. Anti-MoS sentiments in discussions about improving MoS are off topic, wrong venue, and disruptive. This is a well-known problem. 2. Repeated violators needn't be accommodated. 3. I don't know whether the group in question are repeated violators, but that is the only question in my mind. McC says they are, if I read him correctly. That could be proven to my satisfaction with ten or so diffs. 4. I welcome constructive participation in any discussion, anywhere, on any topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I think that you may have developed an incomplete picture of the relationship between FAC and MOS people. FAC editors follow and enforce the MOS more completely and precisely than any other editors. Multiple FAC regulars are regular, long-time contributors to the MOS. I doubt you would find anyone who regularly engages in the FAC process who would claim to be "anti-MOS" – "anti-stupid-stuff-in-MOS", sure (I hope that sentiment is widespread), but not actually "anti-MOS".
What could easily be demonstrated is that some (not all, probably not even most) FAC editors have disagreed with SMcCandlish at some point over the years on various style guidelines. I've both agreed and disagreed with him myself over the years. But "disagreeing with one person who likes to hang out at WT:MOS", even if it happens consistently, is not actually the same thing as being "anti-MOS".
I am making some assumptions; I'm assuming, for example, that Mike intends to post a note at WT:FAC that is nearly identical to the one that SMcCandlish posted about this same subject at WT:NPOV back in August (and at MOS:ICON, and at IMAGES, and at NOR – I think I'll stop looking now), except instead of saying that, in his opinion, the size of quotation marks was a matter of DUE weight or that it was like an image, it would say something about a change possibly triggering the need to re-check some old FAs. But I'm having a very hard time understanding why such notices would actually be problematic for anyone (except possibly someone who thinks that he'll "lose" an RFC if more experienced editors find out about it).
(Oh, and if you're interested: I'm anti-pull quote myself. If it were up to me, all of those templates would have been deleted long ago and replaced with plain old blockquote tags.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't know how many differemt ways I can say it, or how I can say it any more clearly. I know nothing about FAC-MoS, I have made that fact crystal clear, but I read McC's comments as saying they were a part of the problem I describe. My comments were completely contingent on the accuracy of his comments and my interpretation of them, and I went out of my way to underscore the word If to make sure I wasn't misunderstood. I guess I should have blown it up to 200% and bolded it too, maybe put arrows and stars around it. Can we make text blink, or beep? I commented that I have not known McC to distort such things. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Re: '"[D]isagreeing with one person who likes to hang out at WT:MOS", even if it happens consistently, is not actually the same thing as being "anti-MOS".' — That would be true, but a red herring. I'm not talking about people disagreeing with me, I'm talking about at least two distinct proposals at WT:FAC to fork their own style guide against MoS (what could be more anti-MoS that writing an actual Anti-MoS?); demonizing of all the MoS regulars as a group/class by multiple FAC regulars who back each other up in erecting false dichotomies and will brook no disagreement; threats by others in that scene to resign WP editing over not getting their way when wanting to ignore MoS but meeting resistance and/or over those particular editors' continual, escalating fights against those they mischaracterize as MoS editors (who are in fact more often pro-infobox people, infoboxes not being an MoS topic at all); and other patterns of collective and irrational "us versus them", FAC-against-MoS territorial ritualized combat antics, that closely mirror (with considerable individual editorial overlap) similar anti-MoS torch-waving at WT:CITE and (a while back) WT:AT. If I had never even been born, all of this would be continuing exactly as it is now, other than some individual besides me would be the most frequently scapegoated target (probably whoever is next in the stats as the most frequent WP:MOS or WT:MOS editor, or perhaps just whichever one spokes up and didn't still still for being treated like a second-class member of the project by those people).

As for the '"lose" an RfC' comment: just see WP:WINNING, WP:NOTAVOTE, WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, WP:RFC, etc. The purpose of RfCs is to get input from people who care and have something pertinent to say, after they actually understand whatever is under discussion, with an eye to what is best for the project and its readers; not to rally allies to a cause, to swing a vote based on argument to emotion and reactionary territorialism or proprietary sentiment, which is usually what happens when one pointedly canvasses a wikiproject or other editorial cluster with a known, clearly demonstrated bias with regard to the topic under discussion, especially a bias based on their personal level of control/power over particular pages. Fortunately, this is basically moot, since the discussion in question has archived without resolution. I suggest just forgetting about it. If it re-arises after considerable time has passed, I would trust that everyone's cooled heads will prevail.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

  • It's probably a matter of politeness for someone at MOS talk to ping FAC talk if an important topic is under way. Tony (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Mike, yes, it's important to let WT:FAC know about proposals likely to affect them. I would suggest WT:GAN and WT:PR too. SarahSV (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • When I added the word "directly" to wp:canvass, it was intended to prevent someone from posting a notice to every WikiProject talk page in wikipedia. It wasn't intended to prevent notification of discussion at a collaboration talk page. I've clarified the text. - jc37 23:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Location-based pages with separate more detailed pages on the same subjects

I hope this is the right place to ask why location based pages (towns, counties etc.) have sections on, for example, "History of Wikiville", "Geography of Wikiville", "Sport of Wikiville" but also separate pages in the encyclopedia on exactly the same subjects?

If you are - as I am - trying to pull one of these sites into shape, the double-page just creates extra work, with a lot of sections having to be edited twice, and decisions made as to what goes in the summary section and what goes on the fuller page.

However the real downside is that, over time, individual editors find one page or the other, and make additions, corrections or deletions without editing the other page. So we end up with conflicting information - sometimes quite factual stuff like figures or dates - that conflict between the two pages.

Surely it would be better to decide, either a) we have a full page on Wikiville with all the detailed information on it (if people don't want to read the history or whatever, they can always minimise the section) or, b) we have all the gripping event-by-event history of Wikiville set out on one page, with a simple link to it from the main Wikiville page? User:IanB2 1 December 2016

Having dug around the site a little, I think this issue will affect a very large number of sites indeed. Nevertheless the way the site is currently set up makes life a lot more difficult for editors, and potentially confusing for users.

See Wikipedia:Summary style. Large articles are broken out into smaller subject based articles when they become to big to manage. The way it is SUPPOSED to work is that the parent article still should have a paragraph or two of overview material, and the child articles have more exhaustive detail. Where it doesn't happen is because people haven't yet made it work right. --Jayron32 12:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for the quick reply. I can see the logic for a topical page, where you don't want all the minutiae of a detailed sub-subject set out on the main page. But my point is that for subjects like "History of Wikiville" - which is essentially a series of discrete events set out over the full span of human history - the logic doesn't really work very well in practice? User:IanB2 1 December 2016

I don't see a problem with it for an article on the history of a place. Summary style is really there to limit article size; an article on, e.g., New Orleans that included a fully detailed history of the city would be unwieldy. I think a summary of that history in the main article seems like a reasonable approach; what problem do you see with it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the problems are: a) extra work for someone trying to pull a location page into shape, having to double-edit everything, b) individual editors add or change things to one page or the other, but not both, so the two pages grow apart, and occasionally conflict on basic factual details, c) a history - essentially a sequence of discrete events - is not always easy to summarise User:IanB2 1 December 2016

"Wikiville#History" should more or less match the summary of "History of Wikiville", with some extra phrases. --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Has using Wikidata descriptions as page subtitles in mobile view been discussed here?

It seems that this new feature (see phab:T135433) will be "tested" on the French WP during one month starting next Monday, and kept if there is no "major objection". Will there be such a thing here on the English WP or has it been discussed somewhere? The answer could help the French WP know what to do about this "test". Oliv0 (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I thought something like this was already happening? Or perhaps it was just the app. Sam Walton (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
This was mentioned in the Technical Village Pump, but it only pointed to a page on mediawikiwiki. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Mobile search has used Wikidata descriptions for the English Wikipedia since October 2015. There were no comments to the announcement at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 141#Wikidata descriptions. They are also used for the search box at https://www.wikipedia.org. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
This new feature is not in the search but is under the title of the article using d:WD:description as a page subtitle. I found the place where it was mentioned in the Technical Village Pump: WP:Village pump (technical)/Archive 148#.5BIdea.5D Wikidata descriptions to help disambiguate article topic on mobile web (with only very little discussion), pointing to mw:Reading/web/Projects/Wikidata Descriptions (with some discussion on the talk page 3 months ago). Oliv0 (talk) 07:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Oliv0, no this hasn't been discussed here yet, but now I see it is being discussed already :). The feature has been running on all language versions, on stable, except for a very few languages. It could be activated for English Wikipedia soon, as well. Thanks for starting the conversation --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

RM problem

For starters, I would like to say that I do apologize if this is the wrong place to put this.

Now, I have twice relisted a move discussion at Talk:Aleksandar Jovanović (footballer, born December 1992). However, shortly after I relisted a second time, a user moved the page, but didn't close the discussion. Now another user has commented and requested a new title, even though the RM is technically "over". I am unsure of what to do; can anyone be of assistance (also note that I am not involved with the article except for the relistings). JudgeRM (talk to me) 16:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Can we simply close it right now (after the deed), and move on? After all the RM was open for weeks without contests. Otherwise, reading Wikipedia:Move review gave me some hints on current options in the process. -DePiep (talk) 08:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Is Wikidata d:Q42 not an external link?

I am developing infoboxes, using Wikidata. For carbon monoxide, I see

My question is: why is Wikidata presented as an internal link? Is that a web-design choice? To me (and probably most Readers), d:Wikidata is an external site. Can someone clarify? -DePiep (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata is another wikimedia property, like wikimedia commons, and so can be presented as an internal link. And I'd expect it to be shown as an internal, not an external. YMMV. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, wikilinks are the usual method for Wikimedia sites. See Help:Link#Interwiki links. "Internal link" usually means to the same wiki. Interwiki links have a slightly different color (see Help:Link color) and are neither called internal nor external. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I can get this. Now, does King Reader wants it this way too? (not to cause trouble, but I'm interested it the web-design aspects. Readers' perspective). -DePiep (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I doubt there have been any reader surveys and most readers probably don't know what Wikidata is so the result would depend strongly on how the question is formulated. We have always used interwiki links for Wikimedia projects, e.g. in {{Sister project links}} like at Carbon#External links. It's a feature of the Mediawiki software that links made with url's get an external link icon by default (plainlink can suppress it), and interwiki links don't. I like it that way. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
There has been some research on readers (e.g., m:New Readers), but I don't think that any of it specifically addressed this question. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Y'all. -DePiep (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Great stuff, thanks. -DePiep (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Unavailability.

I will be unavailable until December 14. Usually, I would ask that the encyclopedia be finished by the time I get back, or at least that all the disambiguation links be fixed, but this time I'll be more modest and suggest getting through the list of missing United States state supreme court justices. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks BD2412. We'll give your suggestion serious thought. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The SVG Debate: Inkscape or Not

The template: Template:Noinkscape doesn't give any reasoning for why the otherwise wikipedia-endorsed Inkscape is worse than text-editors. It also doesn't explain how editing Inkscape inhibits future use of text-editors. Can anyone help me understand and solve this issue? I imagine that adapting Inkscape could fix this problem. @Prccy27, Brythones, and Gage: Could people who worked on the 2016 Electoral College map weigh in on this? Thanks! Houdinipeter (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sameboat: Do you want to comment on the purpose of {{Noinkscape}} which you created? At any rate, the template appears to only be used at File:SacramentoKings.svg. Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
The Commons version of the template is in rather wider use.
I expect it's mostly an objection to the bloat Inkscape adds if you save as an "Inkscape SVG" instead of "Plain SVG". In the case of File:SacramentoKings.svg, it doubled the svg's size. —Cryptic 03:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
That makes sense, thanks. I have uploaded a couple of SVGs created using Inkscape and I wondered which of the options should be used—I think I used "Plain SVG". Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I have loads of reasons besides the file size exported from Inkscape being substantially larger and polluted by useless metadata and attributes which define the default value (think of it adding <span style="color:#000000;font-weight:normal;font-size:normal;font-family:Liberation Sans,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">Text here</span> for every single section of text, Inkscape is doing something worse than that). For SacramentoKings.svg specifically, Inkscape's default curve tool only supports editing with cubic Bézier curve command. If Inkscape detects other curve commands, namely quadratic Bézier curve and elliptical arc curve, upon editing the path, it will instantly convert them to cubic Bézier curve command. The issue with cubic Bézier curve command is that adjusting its control points for creating a perfect circular arc is extremely cumbersome for all the irrational decimals, even if the angles of the entry and exit points are pointing to the cardinal directions. For example, if I want to draw a circular arc from (0,0) to (100,100) clockwise, turning 90 degree and 100px radius, this is what the elliptical arc curve command will look like: A 100,100 0 0,1 100,100. And this is what cubic Bézier curve command will end up after conversion by Inkscape: C 55.228475,0 100,44.771525 100,100. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Additionally, "no Inkscape" also includes Inkscape's "Plain SVG" format which still contains all the default-value-attribute craps and polluted curve commands issue. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 04:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Any suggestions on alternatives? Inkscape is pretty nice to use. Johnuniq (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Just learn writing SVG/XML codes in Notepad. I have absolutely no objection if you're drawing something like this, but for most vector diagrams, text editor is my only answer. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 05:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Notepad!! My editor can do this in a single search-and-replace. Johnuniq (talk) 05:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I had no trouble making all these topological diagrams in Notepad++. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 05:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I could have done the same in VisualEditor with 2 clicks... --Izno (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Having used Inkscape and other vector programs, I do agree that Inkscape does like to "take over" a saved SVG into its own format since it has a lot of non-standard SVG extensions (good for creation, bad for revisions). I think we should be clear in the language of this template that should explain this issue and to add that it should only be applied to SVG images that were created outside of Inkscape (such that Inkscape editing doesn't screw them up). It should not be taken that we do not accept Inkscape-made SVGs, just that non-IS SVGs should not be edited by IS. (That said, I haven't tested enough to know if a program like Adobe Illustrator has similar "take over" actions on the SVGs it produces) --MASEM (t) 15:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
@Masem: The code neatness of SVG exported from Ai is slightly better than Inkscape, but there can still be many issues with these SVG files if the original work wasn't really prepared with SVG specification in mind. Commons:Help:Illustrator details the issues as much as possible. To me personally, the worst offender has to be intentionally not translating text-align setting of "center" and "right" to text-anchor property ("middle" and "end" respectively) but replacing with translating the text position which almost guarantees poorly positioned text after uploaded to Wikimedia. Because of the Creative Cloud barricade, that means most of our Ai contributors still stick with the older versions of the vector application and they will never ever receive any update if Adobe finally has decided to improve its support for SVG. In other words, they will be highly tempted to convert all text to outlines before exporting SVG just for neat presentation on Wikimedia but hell for revision and localization. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Inkscape is the only free general-purpose SVG editor listed at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab. If the general SVG output from Inkscape is not suitable, then Wikipedia/Wikimedia/Commons should describe somewhere (perhaps Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Resources/SVG) which options should be used to save/export the right kind of SVG. If InkScape is not currently capable of producing the features (or lack of customisations) that we require/would like, then Wikipedia should make a list of what changes we would like, then have someone file a series of bug report/feature requests to InkScape, perhaps with a "Save as Wikimedia-friendly" checkbox. Having InkScape explicitly support Wikipedia and be recommended by Wikipedia should benefit both projects. --Scott Davis Talk 03:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@ScottDavis: The purpose of placing this "no inkscape" banner in some of our SVG files is that we don't rule out Inkscape (actually including all other vector graphic editors/VGE like Adobe Illustrator) but rather to tell our contributors which SVG file can be touched by VGE and which shouldn't be. Generally if an SVG file starts out with text editor, it should not be touched by any VGE at all. There is also the free online SVG optimizer to clean up all the unnecessary metadata and floating points which are generated by VGE so Inkscape contributors are still welcomed but they need to be prepared that once their works are uploaded to Wikimedia, their works will be "optimized" by other contributors at any time. This optimization is usually done for the purpose of allowing easier access in text editor by other contributors when the SVG image is going to be heavily updated by many different users such as this one. If the SVG image is created in VGE and the uploader is the sole contributor of that image, then the image can retain its original state unless it hits the rendering limitation of libRSVG. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 04:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
My suggestion is to add something in this template as a reference to, say, something on one of the WP:GL pages that explains what's been described above: Inkscape (and technically AI) both are fine for creation of new SVG, but should not be used to edit existing text and/or computer-generated SVG files due to how they mess up meticulous optimizations that the creator/updators have made. You don't need to explain that in full on this template, but just the link to such a discussion so that we don't need to redo this conversation at a later date. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@Masem: Of course we should. And links to related Commons help pages are essential a well. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 16:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Most edited pages by unregistered users

Is there any way to see the most edited pages by unregistered users?Ionutzmovie (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

WWA question

(Posting this here because the WWA talk page is inactive and I wouldn't get an answer there, and this touches a bit on how we define "Wikipedian" to begin with.)

I was looking at the page WP:WWA and I noticed Andysch was listed as "Not active". I assumed (given what he's known for) that he had been an active editor on Wikipedia before leaving to found Conservapedia, but if that's the case it must have been under a different username because that account only made a few edits to our article on Conservapedia (i.e., it was created after Conservapedia had already been founded). I then noticed that a number of other "Not active" accounts were also essentially WP:SPAs that had made accounts to comment on or edit their own articles and had not been active since. Some of them actually are active (Arudoudebito, for instance, takes long breaks from editing but he has posted in 2016). This seems like an odd turn of phrase in that light.

There's a control for this. The Larry Sanger account has only made three edits since 2014 and his last edit that wasn't related to Larry Sanger and Citizendium was long before that, but since he was at one time in the past (until February 2003) a normal Wikipedia editor without an article who edited in other topic areas he is not referred to as "Not active" even though the account has been significantly less active than some of the "Not active" accounts.

Wouldn't referring to accounts that post-date their articles and whose only activity has been related to those articles as "single-purpose accounts" be better than describing them as "not active"? I was initially wondering whether single-purpose accounts (especially long-inactive ones) should be described in the present-tense as "Wikipedians", and whether a better name for the page would be "People with Wikipedia articles who also have confirmed Wikipedia accounts" or something (although I recognize that that's too long).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Meh... --Jayron32 00:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

American jazz musicians were mostly African American?

I just noticed that some jazz musicians are lacking any category like "Category:African-American musicians" (for example Eddie Jefferson or Ernie Andrews) and I feel like there are many such articles. Shouldn't they contain such a category? Not all the American jazz musicians were black, and therefore the articles should contain such categories, I think. Is there a better place to raise this question, by the way? —  Ark25  (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Ark25 Thanks for asking about this. There is nothing wrong with being bold and adding them yourself. IMO the important thing, when it comes to these (or any) categories, is to remember the guidelines at WP:CATDEF, especially the fact that there must be verifiable info in the article to support the addition of the category. MarnetteD|Talk 01:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh, well, I've just added African-American categories to Charles Miller (musician) for example (not jazz musician), got no written sources but the photos in the first external link really show an African American. —  Ark25  (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The tiles of the Dukes of Alençon

I have a question regarding Jean I, Duke of Alençon and Jean II, Duke of Alençon. The two of them have names that differ from the name used in their intro paragraph: "John" is used in the intro whereas "Jean" is used in the title. Is there a reason for the discrepancy? Reversinator (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The name should certainly be consistent between the article title and the lead section. I note that the discrepancy has been in the articles since they were created in 2005, so thanks for noticing it. The choice of which name to use depends on whether English-language reliable sources tend to use the native "Jean" or the translated "John". I haven't looked at sources for these specific cases, but usually names of people from the 15th century tend to get translated, whereas modern names are usually used in their native form. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Desktop GIF for donating to the Wiki fund.

I see your pester-power pop-up and am wondering if a different approach might be more amenable. Thinking that something tangible like a desktop logo, not exactly 'I'm a Wikipedophile' but something to sport on the desktop. A badge of sorts, probably the Wiki-world would do it. Maybe it would open Wiki in the browser..maybe

Whatever, Wiki is a brilliant project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.95.1 (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for BAG membership (bot approver)

Hello! I have offered to help with the WP:BRFA backlog as a bot approver. This procedural notification is to make the community aware that a formal request is open for your consideration. Your input is welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group#BAG Nomination: MusikAnimal. Regards — MusikAnimal talk 00:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

findagrave (yet again)

I've tried to follow the old discussion on findagrave.com, but don't see why (assuming it includes a photo of the gravestone) it isn't considered a reliable source—after all, the birth and death dates are literally carved in stone. The written text may not be reliable insofar as it is not a transcription of what's visible on the stone. In terms of value as an external link the site is of inestimable value to genealogists, and also to people interested in visiting the graves of famous people. Peter Flass (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Simply, it is WP:USERGENERATED and as subject to hoaxes as any other website that fits that desciption. MarnetteD|Talk 19:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
That's true of many things. Many obituaries are written by family, although I see that has also been discussed. More importantly, much information recorded on "official" death certificates is reported by family members, and is likely to be no more or less accurate than what's inscribed of a gravestone. Any pictures are subject to photoshopping, if someone is so inclined, including most of the photos on Wikipedia. Peter Flass (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
You can use {{cite sign}} to cite a gravestone, including gravestones that you have seen at Find-a-Grave rather than in person.
The problem is knowing whether you've got the correct gravestone. We aren't really worried about rare things, like someone deliberately photoshopping the dates on the gravestone. We're worried about the typical number of assumptions involved: How many people named "James Smith" were buried in this cemetery, and how do you even know that your particular "James Smith" was buried in that cemetery? Even if you have an obituary or a death notice from a family next to a photo of the gravestone, Find-a-Grave is assuming that when the family member posts that their great-great-uncle was buried here, that this person has reliable knowledge of that, and isn't just assuming that here's a grave with a name they remember and approximately the correct time (because nobody ever mentioned that their Great-Great-Uncle James died of cholera in the war and was buried hundreds of miles away, or the hilarious confusion that was created when this other James Smith moved into town). And these are real problems: I personally know three people who have encountered minor legal problems because they shared a name with another person. It's all easily resolved when you figure it out ("Nah, you want James Smith the lawyer, not me"), but you're not going to be able to do that from a gravestone.
So this suggests that you need to use your best judgment. A rare name is more certain than a common one; a gravestone that corroborates information you've seen elsewhere is better than the only possible source; a gravestone that contains specific details such as "Mayor of Fairville from 1880 to 1892" or "Loving husband of Mary Correctname and dear father of Jane and John Correctname" is better than one that has nothing except the person's name, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Frequency of section titles in English Wikipedia

I have just wrapped up a research project which investigates the 100 most frequent article section headings in Wikipedia article pages. Below are the top 10 English section headings, along with the number of English articles each heading appears in at least once, and the total percentage of all English articles it appears in. For more information (including a comparison with frequently used section titles in other languages and a link to the full dataset consisting of all section headings from all articles) and documentation, see the meta page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Investigate_frequency_of_section_titles_in_5_large_Wikipedias

number_of_articles section_title article_percentage
1 4125018 References 78.19
2 2338348 External links 44.33
3 1134624 See also 21.51
4 533444 History 10.11
5 283206 Notes 5.37
6 176458 Career 3.34
7 152442 Biography 2.89
8 148218 Further reading 2.81
9 145087 Track listing 2.75
10 122415 Bibliography 2.32

Zareenf (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC) (data analyst intern at the Wikimedia Foundation)

Most of this top ten are to be expected, but the fact that "Track listing" appears in 2.75% of our articles reveals something about the demographics and interests of our editors. Are 2.75% of notable topics really music albums? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Not just albums: articles on video games, films, and singles can all have track listings. But yes, I am also surprised by how common the heading is. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
The longer list (beyond the top 10) is also interesting. For instance, you can see that in articles (presumably) about fiction, "Plot" is about six times more common than "Plot summary". For biographical articles, "Biography" is about three times more common than "Life", which in turn is more common than "Life and career". There's no mandate for consistency, but if someone did want to adopt consistent headers (say, for a wikiproject style guide), this data makes it easier to tell what choices are more common wiki-wide. --RL0919 (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Did you share this information with WT:LAYOUT? Some of this information is used to create the advice in WP:FNNR about what's most common. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Please note that Coral Atkins died on friday 9 december according to Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Szasz

please consider participating at RfC:_characterization_of_Thomas_Szasz [3] Dlabtot (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Should predecessors and successors be included in officeholders' infoboxes?

Anyone who wishes is invited to participate in an RfC at Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder#RfC:_Should_predecessors_and_successors_be_included_in_officeholders.27_infoboxes.3F about whether predecessors and successors should continue to be part of the infobox officeholder template, and whether it should continue to be general practice to include such data in officeholders' infoboxes. Thanks, Specto73 (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Essay merge discussion

  FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:You are not irreplaceable, for discussion of merge of WP:You are not irreplaceable and WP:No editor is indispensable.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Use of "our" in Milky Way article lead

Is there a precedent for the use of "our" in an article lead, like what we see in Milky Way? It strikes me as overly conversational, like what you'd see in an encyclopedia for little kids. It's been discussed on the talk page, but I think in this case we should just boldly change it since it appears to go against custom and style guidelines. We don't refer to homo sapiens as "our species" in that article, for example. (See MOS:PERSON.)

The same issue also exists at barred spiral galaxy. St. Clairs fire (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that you should boldly change these instances. Ruslik_Zero 20:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I suggested this at the talk page and was referred to the archive where this has been changed back and forth and been discussed for years. We should stick with the long-standing consensus. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
The context is "our Solar System" which has 538 mainspace hits and millions of Google hits. It's a very common term to distinguish from other solar/star/planetary systems and seems OK to me. I get "About 43,600 results" in Google Scholar so I certainly wouldn't describe it as an expression for little kids. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Technically there are no other solar systems, as "solar" specifically refers to our sun, Sol. --Golbez (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't matter because even if there isn't one solar system, there certainly is one Solar System. And that's all the matters for this discussion. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 14:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
There is guidance at MOS:PERSON. 22:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Last call for 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

The 2016 Community Wishlist Survey survey ends in roughly 90 minutes. Get your votes in if you haven't already! — MusikAnimal talk 22:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Wishlist update

You can see the results here. The list decides what the WMF m:Community Tech team will work on during 2017. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Definition of WP:NPOV at the Death of JonBenét Ramsey article and its relation to article titles and article content

Will editors here weigh in on a dispute about the definition of WP:NPOV and its relation to article titles and article content? It's now an RfC; see Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey#RfC: Is use of murder in the text, or use of murder categories, within the article against the WP:NPOV policy?. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for Bot Approval Group membership seeking input

Hi everyone. I am currently requesting to join the Bot Approval Group, and notification on this page is required. Feel free to comment here if you would like to ask questions or discuss the request. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 23:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

m:WikiTalk

Hello. I am proposing a new sister project, WikiTalk. I invite you to contribute and discuss this. --George Ho (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

File moving

Why file moving isn't allowed to regular users? We let them move (almost all) articles, where vandalism would be more visible. And AFAIK, file redirects work as article redirects do - nothing seems to be broken. I can't think of any good reason why. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

External reuse is the reason. At least that is the reason on Commons. If you move a file and it is being used by another source externally it would break that link. There are also very limited reasons as to why a file should ever be renamed. --Majora (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, sounds sane. But that doesn't prevent admins (and file movers) from breaking something :) Pinging Silraks, who is also interested in this question. Other poeple here - nevermind --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 09:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
The point is that we need to balance the needs of our wiki and the external needs; allowing some highly trusted users to take actions which could break something is very different from allowing any person with an internet connection and the ability to do a small number of small unnoticeable edits the ability to do it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

BAG reconfirmation

A bot approvals group member reconfirmation discussion is now open at Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Magioladitis 2. Please feel free to review and comment. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 13:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija#Title

Talk:Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija#Title -- MilanKovacevic (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Top 10 Movies of 2016 based on page views?

How does this compare to Wikipedias Top 10? Based on https://tools.wmflabs.org/glamtools/treeviews/ See here! --Atlasowa (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Note that Patrick Jenkin died on 21 december according to Google. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Patrick Jenkin, Baron Jenkin of Roding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've found a report in The Guardian, but it doesn't give an exact date for his death. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Article that needs looking at

This may not be the right place for this but I thought I would at least start here. I came across the edit history of Victorino Noval Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and it looks like there has been a large back and forth of editing between people who are involved with this institution. It is hard to tell how far back one would need to go get to a stable version. OTOH it might be okay as it is. I have no background in the subject so I an hoping that someone does at that they can tell what is going on. If there is a better place to post this please feel free to move it with thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 01:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Help on expanding n:British singer George Michael, 53, dies

I recently created n:British singer George Michael, 53, dies on Wikinews. Now I need your help on expanding it while I will add more sources. --George Ho (talk) 10:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Article in an, apparently, abandoned user sandbox

There's an article in a user's sandbox that's been there untouched for more than two years. I have the feeling that the user has abandoned the article. The article has the makings of an excellent contribution to the Wikipedia. However, it needs more inline citations, and I'm willing to take on this task. I've followed the article because it is a subject of much interest to me. Is there anything that Wikipedia administrators, or anyone else, can do about this article? I'd like to see it moved to article space. Here's the link to the users sandbox. I posted a suggestion to the user on his / her talk page sometime ago about this article, without response. Looking forward to ideas on this,....Nolabob (talk) 11:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Not just that, Nolabob; I found Draft:Amistad Research Center, a different content about the same topic. --George Ho (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, George Ho. So we have two different articles evolving on the same subject. How should this situation be handled? Nolabob (talk) 12:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Nolabob: The sandbox version is better than the draft one. However, if you like being cautious, let's notify others at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Libraries and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject African diaspora. If you want the admins to decide on this situation, go to WP:AN, though I don't think it's that much of a serious issue unless I'm wrong. George Ho (talk) 12:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
George Ho, does this indicate that it would be acceptable for me to simply move the article from the user's sandbox into article space? Thank you for the discussion. Nolabob (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome, though I submitted a request for review on the sandbox using your name instead. George Ho (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello

What id with the Deaths in 2016 on 22 december? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Images of Shilling

https://www.bou.or.ug/bou/currency/Reproducing_Currency.html Can me help everbody? I want to upload to commons the images of banknotes of Ugandan shilling.   Szajci pošta 08:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

(From your link) the Bank of Uganda claims copyright on notes. "Bank of Uganda also owns the copyright in its banknotes and coins." and "Until you receive written consent, you are not entitled to reproduce any Bank of Uganda banknote/coin or any part of a Bank of Uganda banknote" - these two statements disallow an upload to Commons. However, they could certainly be uploaded here (English Wikipedia) as non-free content, provided your reproductions meet the NFC policy. Currency should get an easy ride past the criteria. Resize the image sizes so they are small (no larger than 500px horizontal), make sure there is only one image of each bank note, only link to the images from Uganda shilling, and put the Template:Non-free currency template on each upload. Upload the images using the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 19:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

thank you! :D   Szajci pošta 18:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC invite

Hello, I invite anyone to participate in this RfC regarding the Airlines and destinations tables in airport articles. These tables show which airlines fly to an airport, as well as the cities they fly to from the airport. They exist on the perhaps hundreds of airport articles on Wikipedia, so I would like to establish proper consensus on this issue. Regards. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 21:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion?

Hi. How can I propose the deletion of this hoax? It was already deleted in es:WP. See TP and DR in es: for more explanations. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

It already went through AFD and survived, so prod and another AFD so soon are probably not the way to go. Are there reliable sources for this topic? If so use them and update. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I didn't see it. Sorry. It's a shame in this WP are so affected to keep everything, even when there are lots of evidence that is fake. Then we complain when others talk about lack of reliability of Wikipedia. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
BTW: the problem is exactly that: there are not reliably sources, numbers are worldwide (not in Mexico, as it's make to believe) and the disk with major sales are not listed. But what now. --Ganímedes (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

SECURITY ALERT: Phishing via "Email this user" feature

Hello,

I recently received an email that probably was sent from the "email this user" form, but which appears to be an attempt at phishing. The sending address was Mitchel Eshaw <invitations@linkedin.com> The email was nicely formatted, as if is were sent from a form on linkedin. Here is the readable text in the email: 

LinkedIn	Norwegian Blue	 
Hi Norwegian, I'd like to join your LinkedIn network.

Mitchel Eshaw
Financial Planner
Austin, Texas Area
Accept

View profile
Unsubscribe | Help
You are receiving Invitation emails.

This email was intended for Norwegian Blue (Independent Gambling & Casinos Professional). Learn why we included this. LinkedIn 

 ©2016 LinkedIn Ireland Unlimited Company, Wilton Plaza, Wilton Place, Dublin 2.
 LinkedIn is a registered business name of LinkedIn Ireland Unlimited Company. LinkedIn and the LinkedIn logo are registered trademarks of LinkedIn.

It appears the email has triggered the "This mail was intended for" message (bolded by me), with a link to a warning page about fishing.

I am still confused over how they managed to send the message that appeared to come from the user's linked-in account, by using the "email this user" mechanism.

I assume the sender must have held a Wikipedia account too.

I feel this needs to be reported and possibly looked into, and am starting here!

--NorwegianBlue talk 00:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Something sent to you via "email this user" would have the following near the bottom:
This email was sent by user "EXAMPLE" on the English Wikipedia to user "NorwegianBlue".
Do you see that text? What is shown where EXAMPLE appears above? Johnuniq (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. No, the text 'This email was sent be user "SOMEONE" on the English Wikipedia to user "NorwegianBlue" ' does not appear in the email that I received.
The only clue to the identity of the sender is in the email header:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mitchel Eshaw <invitations@linkedin.com>
Date: 2016-12-29 9:31 GMT+01:00
Subject: Norwegian, please add me to your LinkedIn network
To: Norwegian Blue <3008@MY_DOMAIN.com>From: Mitchel Eshaw <invitations@linkedin.com>
Date: 2016-12-29 9:31 GMT+01:00
Subject: Norwegian, please add me to your LinkedIn network
To: Norwegian Blue <3008@MY_DOMAIN.com>
The address 3008@MY_DOMAIN.com is part of a domain which I currenly own, to which I rediredt wikipedia "mail this user" email, before redirecting it to my main account. The fact that the email was sent via this domain, confirms that the "email this user" mechanism was somehow exploited, even if it doesn't leave the signatures one would expect.

Thanks, ::--NorwegianBlue talk 23:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I see no sign that mail was sent via Wikipedia's "Email this user". If you have ever sent Wikipedia mail yourself then the recipient gets the email address stored in your account. If you don't use the address anywhere else then I guess that's how it got out. A recipient of Wikipedia mail from you may have malware sending mails to adresses in their mail archive. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
As PrimeHunter said, you probably exchanged an email with someone, possibly years ago. That person clicked a Linkedin link which sent you the spam. The person is probably unaware of what happened—Linkedin tricks users into allowing their email contacts to be plundered. From my experience, you might get a few more. Ignore them (and delete them), and of course never click anything in an email. Johnuniq (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! That seems like a reasonable explanation! --08:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

What happens if the content of an online newspaper article changes?

Or perhaps it's not a newspaper article. But it is online and could be used in a newspaper. I keep running into the problem of finding a source from Reuters or some other agency or news organization, and I use it, with a URL and a headline, as a reference in an article. I don't always check back to see if the information stayed the same. But occasionally I do, and the same URL gives me a different headline and different content. I would think these news organizations could provide us with a URL that would go back to the previous information, not give us what amounts to a new article. But if they don't, at least one article I contributed heavily to would need "not in citation given" and a replacement source for the information--not once but possibly many times.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

If you're finding this happen, you could use something like the Internet Archive's "Save Page Now" or WebCite to proactively archive the article, assuming the site doesn't block crawlers. Anomie⚔ 00:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
That would be fine if the content hadn't already changed.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I guess the question I'm asking is one I would have to ask each individual service. How can I get a version of the article that appears exactly as it did when I accessed it. There are now 300 references on the Wikipedia article and who knows how many I haven't checked.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Doppelganger

Would it be fine for me to register User:Glove as a doppelganger account (and have it redirect to my account) since it is very similar to my name, or would it be too much of a stretch? Also the user that used to be called Glove renamed themselves so they don't use that name anymore. Thank you for any feedback -glove- (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@-glove-: Glove is already taken on svwiki, see Special:CentralAuth/Glove. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh okay, thank you though. -glove- (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Identical-looking currency symbols: font problem, or what?

When I look at different currency files, I see a number of different, unrelated currencies displayed with the same symbol. Here's an excerpt from the code of Template:Currency symbols, to which I've added the currency names and codepoint, linked to the Unicode page— the same page for all of them:

...

...

And from Currency symbol:

All of these look the same on my screen: the ruble sign ₽, "U+20BD ₽ RUBLE SIGN (HTML &#8381; )". You can see them in the screenshot I just made, of part of Template:Currency symbols. The same is true in List of circulating currencies and Currency symbol.

But they are all different codepoints! Click or hover on any of those names or symbols in the list above; the page or snippet includes an image of the symbol, and they're all different. Or copy any of them and do a find for it on this page: you won't score a hit on any of the others. Or look at them on the Unicode site; they're all on the same code page, U20A0.pdf.

I don't know if this is a font problem, or what, and how widespread it is. Maybe I just need to download a more recent font, but I doubt that it's that, because that would mean some real screwup in Unicode that's been fixed since I last got Arial, and I haven't found any discussion of that.

But even if it's in my computer, I'm probably not the only one with this problem. And that would mean it's something we should fix. I'd suggest using a very small rendition of the image file, such as is already done on the Spesmilo page:

The Spesmilo character, called Spesmilsigno in Esperanto, is a monogram of a cursive capital "S", from whose tail emerges an "m".[1] The currency sign is often typeset as the separate letters Sm.[2] The character has been assigned the Unicode codepoint U+20B7   SPESMILO SIGN[3] and is included in Unicode version 5.2.[4]
  1. ^ Proposal to encode the Esperanto SPESMILO SIGN in the UCS, by Michael Everson
  2. ^ Esperanto and the Dream of a World Currency
  3. ^ Proposed New Characters - Pipeline Table
  4. ^ Andrew West, BabelStone: What's new in Unicode 5.2?

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 10:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't have the same problem as you. Template:Currency symbols displays perfectly in Safari 10, and has the occasional "missing character box" in Firefox 50 (yes, on the same computer, so presumably with the same fonts).
It might be helpful to know what kind of computer you're using, and whether you have the same problem in other web browsers. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

CHECKWIKI needs help!

It's less than a day for the New Year's Eve! We still have 3,500 pages in Wikipedia:CHECKWIKI/111 dump (Ref after last reference list). Please willing editors join the Force! -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Magioladitis, that list is almost a month old. How much of it still needs to be done? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing I think Bgwhite can answer this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

List of countries and capitals with currency and language

List of countries and capitals with currency and language was deleted after discussion in November 2015. Nonetheless, User:West.andrew.g/Popular redlinks (last updated July 2016) shows it being visited 3,822 times in just seven days.

It is now possible to recreate the page, with a table pulling in all the data from Wikidata, and then to (semi-) protect it to reduce the maintenance burden.

Would anyone object to such a course of action, as preferable to failing those 3,822-per-week visitors? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Before recreating (and over-turning the result of the 2015 AFD), I would want someone to address the concerns about WP:Indiscriminate (i.e. the rational given for deletion). Blueboar (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't think anything deliberately looked for by nearly four thousand people a week can be called "indiscriminate"; but I suggest we apply WP:IAR and put the needs of our readers before bureaucracy, per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Furthermore, on reading WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it s clear that there is nothing in it mitigating against such a page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Sports-reference.com closing its Olympic pages

The website Sports-reference.com has announced at http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/down.html that "we are shutting down our Olympic site sometime during the early part of 2017."

These pages are used as references on thousands of en.wp biographies of Olympians. In many cases, a Sports-reference.com page is the only ref on a stub.

Is there any bot which can a) trigger the archiving on these pages on archive.org or archive.is, and then update the links to use the archived version? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Cyberpower678's InternetArchiveBot should be handling this, see User talk:Cyberpower678/Archive 43#InternetArchiveBot. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
@JJMC89: Thanks. Looks like it's all under control. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:RESEARCHER

Is there a reason for not having a community process to assign the researcher right? I found Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Research/Archive 2#RFC: Researcher permission, but it seems relatively disjoint/off-topic. I'm interested because I would like to initiate an RfC to allow this permission to be granted to former administrators who have resigned in good standing, upon request. Rationale is that a some admins aren't interested in performing administrative tasks, but retain the tools so they can view deleted revs. -FASTILY 03:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I doubt the right would be granted "upon request". I expect a case should still be presented for why it was needed / how it would be used. Former admins would of course find it super easy to get approval, given a reasonable case for requesting it. Alsee (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I could see it as a way of "splitting the mop", giving highly trusted users the ability to view it could make sense if they worked in areas such as the teahouse or with newer users wondering why their page was deleted, and them having to give generic advice because they can't actually see the page before it was deleted. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@Fastily: please note, this special foundation group does not actually have access to review deleted revs, only the deleted history log. — xaosflux Talk 18:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: So they can see edits that have been oversighted into oblivion? That could make sense for a SPI clerk to have. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Iazyges no, all this group can do is "search (for) deleted pages" and "view deleted history entries, without their associated text". Members can use it to see the prior contribution history of a page, but not the content. It also has a api throttle override for bulk queries via the api. — xaosflux Talk 19:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@Xaosflux - Thanks for the info; I did not know this group had no ability to view deleted revs. Regards, FASTILY 02:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Ribal al-Assad

Is the article Ribal al-Assad against WP:NPOV? See also: Talk:Ribal al-Assad. Someone translated it into Chinese rigidly and the content does not fit the policy well. Anyway, I think this article need a thorough cleaning.--Tiger (Talk) 16:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for WP:3RR on this page. I will not keep reverting until the agreement is reached. User:Saifalimam kept adding words like "leading" and "life long opponent" to the article and didn't give an appropriate reason. Such words can be WP:OR or describe the person positively instead of neutrally.--Tiger (Talk) 23:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Both users given 3 revert warning. I believe my comment on the article talk page will likely lead to an agreeable resolution. Alsee (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Use of erroneous Rottentomatoes ratings in Ash vs Evil article

I've started a discussion there regarding what seems to be incorrect Rottentomatoes ratings. They've rated season 1 of Ash vs Evil 98%, and season 2 100%. I think there's no ambiguity that, although this series might be good, it's not the greatest master piece of all time as these ratings imply. So I'm suggesting to exercise our discretion as editors and remove these ratings. However it is true that RT's ratings are almost always use in film and series articles and that would set a precedent of editors removing ratings they don't like. Any suggestion of a good course of action here? Are there any precedent of ignoring such a source when it clearly looks like they've messed up? Laurent (talk) 08:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments requested, name of a newspaper's Wikipedia article

Editors are invited to a discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 January#New York Daily News. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Removal of data, and Wikidata

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Removal of data, and Wikidata, which suggests changes to policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Removal of data, and Wikidata

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Removal of data, and Wikidata, which suggests changes to policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice of death of administrator User:JohnCD

I have received a message on my talk page from User:JohnCD's (John Deas) son that his father, an administrator here on the English Wikipedia, had a heart attack and died suddenly several days ago. Donner60 (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC) :Please treat this report as premature and, indeed, probably wrong. I may have been taken in by a fake death news vandal who has been plaguing the project recently. I did not know this, of course, and accepted the report in good faith. I may have been both gullible and insensitive. I hope JohnCD proves to be alright. I will be more wary in the future about postings to my talk page. At least one administrator has been unable to confirm that the report contains the name of an actual person who may be connected with the account. Please accept my sincere apologies. If the report turns out to be right, I assume that someone, possibly me, will confirm it here. Donner60 (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I regret that the original report has been directly confirmed with the family as true and User:JohnCD (John Deas) in fact has passed away. He was a diligent, careful and polite administrator whose contributions will be missed. I hope the posting here has been proper. In any event, since the message was already here and left in a state of uncertainty, this last message seemed necessary. Donner60 (talk) 06:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I am very sorry to hear that. My condolences to his family and friends. We ran into each other on many occasions, an exceptional editor and administrator.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Which copyediting tag to use for resume-like articles?

First, please take a look at Janusz Smulko, which is a very good representation of the problem: an article that is written like a resume or curriculum vitae: dates, career progression, publications, nothing more. For many years I thought that we just tag those articles with {{likeresume}}, but after many years of thinking I know this template, I actually clicked on the link, and to my surprise, it takes us to nothing but WP:COI. Apparently I am not the only person who was misled here, User:Tijfo098 has expressed similar surprise at the template's talk few years back, but of course nobody reads talk of such templates, so I thought I'll bring this issue here.

First issue: I believe that the COI link from this template is misleading. Resume's are not necessarily vanity or COI issues, they are simply an example of bad structure, like articles written mostly as a list instead of a prose, or using more general non-encyclopedic tone ({{tone}}). Please note that COI page does not even mention the word resume, or CV. Also, this tempalte is listed at Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup between templates {{manual}} and {{inappropriate person}}, in the 'style of writing' section. So to summarize: it seems clear to me that the COI link here is wrong and this template should be re-targeted.

Second issue: retargeted where? Do we have any policy which actually talks about bad structure in articles like that? There's WP:NOTCV, but it just goes to WP:NOT, so it is not relevant. Looking at Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup, those template link to policies, guidelines, essays and mainspace articles. Barring anything better, I think simply linking to resume would be better, but if anyone knows of any more relevant essay, part of MoS or such, please say so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

We have WP:NOTRESUME, but that doesn't really tell you what to do. Maybe adding a section to WP:RESUME called "How to fix a page that looks like a resume" and linking to it is the best thing to do. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

How come nobody has managed to build a vandalbot?

Is humanity really that decent? There is not even one developer among the online masses who is both petty enough and intelligent enough to significantly disrupt Wikipedia?-- pretty IittIe Iiar 00:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Iiar: Without going into specifics, automated vandalism does happen, just not to the extent that it's a major issue. Sam Walton (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments Requested - Article Name Change for Israel and the apartheid analogy

Fellow Editors, your input would be appreciated concerning a proposal to change the title of this article. I am posting the RfC here so as to attract the widest range of editors possible. A clear consensus would be invaluable. Your input can help make that happen. Proposed titles & discussion. Thanks for your participation. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments requested on RfC Donald Trump talk

There is currently an RfC on wording about the outcome of the presidential election. [4]. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

New Facebook group to encourage photographers to add their photos to Commons

Hi all

I've created the Wikipedia Photography Club Facebook group to try to engage some of the 100s of Facebook photography groups who have 1000s of members with amazing photos. I would appreciate it if you would join the group so that potential contributors can ask questions. I decided to call it Wikipedia Photography club instead of using the word Commons because it is much more recognisable to people not in the community.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Facebook, because of its peculiar terms of service, is not the best of places for free license contributions: meta:Legal/CC BY-SA on Facebook. Good luck with the initiative, nonetheless. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Requesting help regarding "Paul Mooney (comedian)"

The article "Paul Mooney (comedian)" incorrectly has the name "Paul Mooney" italicised. I attempted to use Template:DISPLAYTITLE, and also to move the page, but to no avail. There doesn't seem to be a DISPLAYTITLE template or an Italic title template anywhere in the article's workspace. According to a section on the article's talk page, this has been an issue since at least May 2016 and has not been resolved. –Matthew - (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  Fixed -- John of Reading (talk) 07:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Out of curiosity, how was the problem solved? –Matthew - (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@MatthewHoobin: Further down the article was an {{Infobox book}}. Articles about books normally need their title displayed in italics, so this infobox sets the DISPLAYTITLE by default. I added italic title = no to turn this off. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for fluent Basque language and Spanish translation help

I am currently mentoring a colleague, and several subject areas which I need to track, especially in verifying sources, will need these language skills. My requests for assistance may be of the duration of 3-4 months. Any colleagues out there willing to assist? You can drop a note here, and/or on my talkpage. Any help would be seriously appreciated. Thanks in advance! Irondome (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Last night

I posted a picture I took at the Phoenix portion of the 2017 Women's March. This morning the name of the article has been changed, "Washington D.C." was in the title last night, but my picture is no longer there. More disturbing, when I look in my "Contributions" tab the record of my uploading it no longer exists. Should I assume that this is some sort of wiki censorship, should I re-upload it and see what happens, what should I do? I have plenty of other less loaded images and might just stick one of them in, but I am concerned about the bigger picture. Any thoughts? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image was moved to Wikimedia Commons, as is customary for free use files, and the local version was deleted as a duplicate. No censorship conspiracies. – Juliancolton | Talk 18:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but why is it not in the article or listed on my Conrtibutions page? I did just put in another picture, by the way though rather liked that one. Since it is in Commons I guess I could return it. Anyway, thank you for finding it for me. Carptrash (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@Carptrash: The file was deleted from the English Wikipedia as part of the move, as such your edits made when uploading it are no longer in your contributions. And your image is still in the article, except the article was broadened to cover all marches that happened, so your image is now placed next to Phoenix in the table. Sam Walton (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@Samwalton9: Thank you Sam, I was the one who re-placed the image in the new article, but I think I get what happened. Oh well, another grand conspiracy theory down the drain. Carptrash (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
There was a lot of reorganising of the article today, I'm sure it just got dropped someplace. Sam Walton (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Support & Safety team is hiring a new Community Advocate!

Hello Wikimedians!

I’d like to let everyone know about a job opening for a Community Advocate in the Wikimedia Foundation's Support and Safety team. Please share this announcement with anyone you think might be interested!

What does a CA do? We work on proactive strategies to improve community cultural health (currently focused on reducing incidents of harassment on Wikimedia sites and improving responses to those as they occur), assist the Trust and Safety task force in triaging harassment reports, help colleagues at the Foundation work with contributors, respond to emails from the public, and perform other challenging, interesting tasks. It’s fulfilling, exciting work, and it’s never boring :)

If you or someone you know might be interested, the full job description and details on how to apply can be found here. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Is /r/Wikipedia an official subreddit?

There is a fairly active subreddit called /r/Wikipedia that has lots of subscribers. Anyone know if it's run by the Wikimedia Foundation? --Ixfd64 (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Ixfd64, good question. I follow that subreddit (because it features a lot of neat content), but it is not run by the Wikimedia Foundation. There is a Facebook page that is maintained by staff that posts similar kinds of content (interesting articles, "on this day" features, news about the project, etc.) I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks for the information! --Ixfd64 (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Ixfd64! No subreddit is official. All are maintained by the community, just like Wikipedia articles. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually there are official subreddits, and even fully commercialized ones (lootcrate for example). /r/wikipedia is just a place to submit interesting wiki articles or quotes. Anything goes there really. --Benderbr (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Whitehouse.gov changes have broken many URLs used on Wikipedia

Links to URLs within http://whitehouse.gov were broken en masse when the new administration changed the main web site. Wikipedia links to this site in many places because has been the official home for continuing offices and historical documents.

I could not figure out how to fill in links to the official web sites even for major nonpartisan offices such as the OMB, OSTP, and OIRA. Google, Bing, and Wikipedias all have broken links. In the near run we can make do with by replacing these with links to a public archive of the earlier site as it existed three days ago. The content remains almost completely accurate since these agencies are defined by law and have hundreds of staff who remain. Therefore I think this is the thing to do, for the moment, and we'll link to the latest stuff when it becomes clear where it is. See the history of these articles mentioned above for my substitutions today, which are minimal.

It might be possible to make a bot that would do the substitutions. Or maybe we should link to archive.org instead? Or to versions of the same documents at the National Archives?

I'd welcome advice and correction. I'd be happy to launch a specific proposal for a bot or instructions to editors if I knew what and where to do that. I asked a parallel question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Government. -- econterms (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

My advice is to relax and get used to Trump's America, which I predict will not be friendly to wikipedia.Carptrash (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Yup, they don't always love external sources of fact. But wp is widely appreciated as such a source, and it can really contribute helpfully here. If you feel defeated, I empathize. But I'm not defeated yet, on day 3! -- econterms (talk)
The official archive at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/ would probably be a better option than a public archive. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 22:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I did use that official archive. I believe you're saying you'd pick that over archive.org. Noted. -- econterms (talk)
For each link from a Wikipedia article to http://whitehouse.gov (see search results) or from a Wikipedia article to www.whitehouse.gov (see search results), you can copy the complete URL (I prefer to call it a web address) into the search box at https://archive.org or simply add http://web.archive.org/web/*/ to the beginning of the web address. The result should be an index page to a number of captures of the web page in question. In my experience, I have found that sometimes the most recent few "captures" are not correctly functional, but give messages saying that the page is inaccessible. In such a case, you can try slightly older captures until you find one that gives the desired result. If the web page in question has never been archived, then it is now too late to obtain a link to an archived copy.
—Wavelength (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much, User:Wavelength. I'll use that search. I see also that the closely related site https://www.reginfo.gov/public/ still has detailed information and I can refer to that. Next steps are clear now. -- econterms (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Need help running a query on the database re welcoming new users

Hey all! I'm very curious to discover how many out of all the new users that I've welcomed on enwiki have gone on to become at least semi-active regular editors. I'm thinking the query would go something like this: from all my Contribs, select only those edits where I created a new User_talk page (regardless of the account's actual age), and of those select only the ones where I added a welcome template (out of any within Category:Welcome templates). Then from that report I could separate out only the users with more than 100 edits let's say, and compare it with the number that were basically just throw-away accounts. This way maybe I can somewhat gauge my success rate at recruiting? But also get a sense of the overall effectiveness of using a templated message to welcome new users. Perhaps the WMF already studied something like this in the past I'm not sure, but it would be interesting to find out. So is something like this possible to do? I'm aware there's services like Quarry as well as Wikidata Query and the API but I don't know which of these would be the best to use and I don't know SQL and would like some help/advice please. Thank you! -- Ϫ 10:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@OlEnglish: Try WP:Request a query. --Izno (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Why'd the number of articles drop by 10,000+?

I had noticed it was almost 5 1/3 million one day (~1,000 less) and each time I check now it's lower. What size of backtrack in article count growth is considered unusual? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably Special:Log/MusikBot, moves to draft space per User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Guidelines. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Craig Newmark of Craigslist donates 500k

Is there a thread or some info on this somewhere at Wikipedia? If not, well, this could be it. What do you make of it? Anna F remote (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak and Anna F remote: I haven't seen anything on wiki but there are two wikimedia-l threads: press release (discussion) and Additional information on community health initiativeand next steps. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, JJMC89. :) Anna F remote (talk) 07:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Highlighting non-English text

User:OwenBlacker mentioned that he uses a customised CSS to make non-English text in English-Wikipedia articles stand out, provided it is correctly marked up. At my request, he has just kindly documented how that works. Perhaps some of you may find it useful. It should work on other Wikipedias, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Andy. I use it on other wikis too, including Commons and Wikidata. There's a bunch of other stuff in my user CSS — including zooming everything, as my eyesight isn't great — which any user is more than welcome to use from any Wiki. (For fonts, I have a bunch of those installed locally. If you use the zoom stuff, note that popups appear mislocated progressively further down the page; I've never got round to debugging how to fix that.) Feel free to post on my Talk: or {{ping}} me with questions or suggestions. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 16:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

'z' in 'Zion'...

Hi all, I just came across our IPA pronunciation template, which has "'z' in 'Zion'" to explain pronunciation of the phoneme 'Z'. This is used on pages such as Gaza Strip, among others, and seems an unlikely, insensitive and unnecessarily controversial choice of words to use. I've started a discussion here; please comment there. ‑‑YodinT 17:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Note: it's been updated to "zoom". ‑‑YodinT 00:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

blogspot.in cited 1000+ times

We have quite an issue with blogspot being cited 1186 times across Wikipedia. I'm assuming that this has been missed because no-one has searched beyond the generic blogspot.com Help needed to purge these sources. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Similar issues seem to exist with "blogspot.com.au". Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Some of those are probably reliable sources (e.g., blog posts by experts, quotations from BLPs about themselves, etc.), so this is a think-and-improve mission, not a simplistic search-and-destroy one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I can assure you, less than 1% will achieve even the most lenient interpretation of WP:RS-criteria. By definition they are unreliable self-published sources or WP:BLOGS. The site is only self-publishing, never anthing else. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Carl Fredrik you're mistaken. I'm finding a shocking percentage of Reliable Sources in there. I checked a whopping twelve of these articles (1%), cleaned up eight, and in addition to a valid SelfSource RS I found businesses, universities, local governments, and national government departments using blogspot.in as a free webhost. Cleanup ended up deleting most of them anyway. It looks like many of these India related articles are pretty dismal. Alsee (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

New Talk page created (I hope this was done correctly...)

I hope I am not posting this is the wrong place.

Thanks for your patience, if this is off-topic, or posted in the wrong place ... or something.

The first edit (currently the only edit, ... but, by the time you read this, there might be others -- [including edits by robots] -- so maybe I should say, << the oldest edit >>) of File_talk:Sioux01.png ... see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Sioux01.png&action=history ... was made recently.

Aren't there numerous templates, etc., that belong on a "Talk:" page like that? None of them are present, "yet" (as of the first edit) because, until now, that "File_talk:" page did not exist [yet].

Any advice? ...or other comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Mike Schwartz, talk-page templates are not mandatory, and it is typical for File: pages to not include any. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you!
PS: "So far", it appears that no one has (yet) added to, nor commented upon, [the idea in] the [new] "section" File_talk:Sioux01.png#Idea_for_a_.28modified.29_version_with_more_.22English.22 which I added [when that "File_talk:" page was "created".]
Here is a (sorta "meta") question... (where the term "meta" question could perhaps be clarified by the examples "[E1]" and "[MQ2]" below).
[E1]: "Is this the line [for me to wait in], to find out whether I am waiting in the wrong line?"
[MQ2]: Would this ("Village pump" page) ... (or some other place that you could point me to?) be a good place, to inquire about ... getting some advice about ... how/where to get some answers to my questions, or how/where to get some comments on my idea, in the new "section" that I added -- ? --
(see the "File_talk:" link above, -- OR below! -- which has a #[fragment-name] field, and points to the new section, which is called Idea for a (modified) version with more "English" ) -- ? --
--Mike Schwartz (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I've replied on the file talk page you mentioned. Unlike article talk pages, File talk pages don't get many people reading them (they're quite out-of-the-way). This is also complicated by the fact that a lot of images are hosted on Wikimedia Commons, and have their own pages there as well as here (click on the bold link "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below." on the file talk page between the image and its description box). On Commons, it's possible to tag files for things like requests to translate them, by adding {{Convert to international}} to the file page there. In this case though, as the user who created this is still uploading lots of similar maps, the best way might be to ask them if they would be willing to provide more easily translatable versions of the files (which I've done on their Commons talk page). More generally, the editors at Wikipedia:Teahouse tend to be great at helping out and pointing in the right direction, or failing that, leave a message on my talk page and I'll see if I can help. Does this answer your questions? ‑‑YodinT 18:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Template documentation

Documentation needed for Template:Infobox motor. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 10:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanking editors in talk page discussions

Is there a policy against writing a message thanking an editor for making a suggestion in a talk page discussion? Sandcherry and I disagree on this over at Talk:Alcoholic drink. Sandcherry believes this violates WP:NOTFORUM. I think we should be letting editors know their contributions are valued. Sizeofint (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Sizeofint It's recommend that you use the "thank" function, as this works for all accounts but IPs. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay, but is thanking editors via a short comment a violation of WP:NOTFORUM? As an additional defense, presuming the public occasionally read the talk page discussions, wouldn't it be better to show textual response to a suggestion? I would guess the majority of suggestions on talk pages are not responded to at all which may give the impression that editors are unresponsive. Sizeofint (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, it's fine, not a violation of anything; I do it all the time, apparently. There is really nothing wrong with that, unless you were being ironic. ansh666 20:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Communication Thanks is OK, and it sometimes even turned my editing mood from dim into bright. I've never felt compromised by giving/receiving a thanks. 99% of them are compliments for an effort, not for an opinion. The other 1% are ironies (misunderstood or misfired). And if NONFORUM is trespassed, how is a clicking the Thanks link not a NONFORUM issue (btw, it's public too). Is there a NONFORUM argument in "Hey, editor X thanked editor Y twelve times in one week, during this discussion"? And if all arguments fail (i.e., if this is not convincing that Thanking is OK), then I'll throw in: Assume GF. -DePiep (talk) 08:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh wow, that was pretty silly. Thanking someone for useful information is absolutely appropriate. It was clearly related to article work, and some positive social messaging encourages contributions and collaboration. I would remove the strike-through on your "Thanks" if I were you. It looks like a de-thanks for some sort of negative reason.
The purpose of WP:NOTFORUM is to prevent disruption from non-contributor irrelevancies, or disruption from excessive side-discussions by contributors. Wikipedia is a workplace. Politeness is desired, and an occasional harmless side comment among productive coworkers should not be targeted. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to pointlessly poke each other with policy sticks. Alsee (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanking a user is never inappropriate, provided it's done in a polite way and is genuine. The "thank" function is a light-weight method of doing this, but some times you may want more than that, even if not enough for a barnstar. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I also tolerate, even appreciate interjections of good-natured humor in article talk, and commit that sin sometimes myself. Yes, it's technically a NOTFORUM violation. So what. It "greases the social gears" and increases trust. It's a problem only when people are there primarily for the banter rather than to improve the article. Bottom line: Apply common sense and don't over-interpret NOTFORUM. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing - Election for coordinators

New Page Reviewing - Election for 2 coordinators. Nomination period is now open and will run for two weeks followed by a two-week voting period.

  • Nomination period: Sunday 5 February to 23:59 UTC Sunday 19 February
  • Voting period: Monday 20 February to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March

See: NPR Coordinators for full details. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Sexist article title

The article "Microbes and man" has a sexist title. We must move it to "microbes and humans". Andreas Mamoukas (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Chiswick Chap who moved it to this title a few months ago. Sam Walton (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Welp, the article title is no longer sexist. I guess we're done here, and this can be closed. JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Except I've redirected the old title to John Postgate (microbiologist), whose popularizing science book with this title is still in print after nearly 50 years. Otherwise it's not a very likely title for people to search on, but I've added a note & link there. Johnbod (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Low-level but chronic link degradation from anonymous editor

There's an anonymous IP who- while they aren't editing that heavily at any given time- is doing so relatively consistently and in a persistently counter-productive manner by removing piping from links.

They've been given numerous warnings but have neither acknowledged them nor changed their behaviour.

Because the behaviour is relatively low-level and spread out, no-one seems that bothered at any given point in time. Ironically, though, it's this that appears to be letting persistent vandalism (*) get "baked into" articles without notice and the user escape sanction.

Any thoughts?

Ubcule (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

File a report at WP:AIV, that's exactly what it's for. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The reason I haven't done that is that- in AIV's own words "The warnings must have been given recently and the users must be active now, especially for unregistered users. "
The user isn't currently active (last edited yesterday), and might not be for a while. Yet the evidence is clear that it's the same user posting from the same IP address with the same destructive behaviour. Ubcule (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
You are correct—WP:AIV is often a bureaucratic nightmare that is utterly useless for something like this. What is needed is a clueful admin willing to look at the issue and decide whether sharply escalating blocks are warranted, and admins responding at WP:AIV may not have time or motivation for that. Special:Contributions/50.101.13.34 shows a problem, but only after checking. Presumably some of the edits are ok? Perhaps start again with a message at User talk:50.101.13.34 that is not in any way accusatory and with no warnings. List a dozen recent edits with a brief mention next to each of why it is wrong ("[5] changes a working link to Sicilian which is a disambiguation page"). Assuming that is ignored and more similar edits occur, post at WP:AIV with a link to the detailed evidence. If that gets no response, do the same at WP:ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
@Johnuniq:
I appreciate that you're trying to be helpful, but I've already wasted a lot of my own time on lengthy, detailed and- at first- very AGF-oriented and friendly notices.
See "Links via redirect reverted- Here's why", "Other reverted edits" and "Longer established than first thought".
Then- *only* after these AGF notices that the user must clearly have been aware of but has failed to respond to- several more closer to warnings, but where I've still taken my time to explain the problem- "Stop breaking things with this obsessive de-piping" and then "Vandalising edits".
You possibly didn't see these because the user was editing from- and warned via- their previous IP, but the pattern of edits and overlap in subject matter makes clear beyond any reasonable doubt that this is the same user.
I don't believe that the user is an overt vandal- and yes, some of their edits are "constructive" (if trivial and sometimes incompetent), but that doesn't outweight or justify acceptance of a very high proportion of problematic edits.
Whether the user was originally making these edits in good faith (in their own mind) is now irrelevant- they've had numerous friendly and in-depth explanations, then several clear warnings. The user must have seen them, and can't fail to be aware that the edits are counter-productive. However, since they've failed to respond, it's not our job to guess their motivation- we can't AGF for ever, and can only take the situation at face value and treat the edits as vandalism, regardless of whether they were intended as such.
Ubcule (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I share your pain—Wikipedia's procedures are not adequate for handling this sort of thing. However, my suggestion is what needs to happen for action. The first step is to write a clear and polite statement at the IP's talk with a dozen fairly recent diffs and a brief explanation of why each is wrong (example given above). That is not for the IP's benefit! The section is vital evidence that there is an ongoing problem, and that efforts to engage are being ignored. The follow-up at WP:AIV (and then WP:ANI if WP:AIV ignores it) will include a link to the evidence. That is much easier for an admin to digest than the scattered sections you just linked. For one thing, an admin would need to click each diff in each section and study it to work out what the problem was, and whether the cumulative effect was a big deal. The alternative is to ignore the problem—not good, but the damage is part of anyone can edit which is outside our control. Johnuniq (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
"However, my suggestion is what needs to happen for action. The first step is to write a clear and polite statement at the IP's talk with a dozen fairly recent diffs and a brief explanation of why each is wrong (example given above)."
Already been done, already wasted more of my time than it was worth first time round.
There are already diffs of recent edits there for the record.
I'll spend my time writing a helpful explanation for someone first time round if I believe they're acting in good faith. You'll note that I put quite a lot of effort into that.
If I'm being expected to redo that effort all over *again* when it's obvious that the first time was a waste- and quite openly purely to jump through hoops- well, frankly I'm burned out on this.
"That is not for the IP's benefit!"
Yes, as I said above, I'm aware that this is a hoop-jumping exercise.
Indeed, the only reason (for example) I left the obviously pointless run of block warnings the last time was as a formality, I didn't expect this to have any effect on the IP.
"the damage is part of anyone can edit which is outside our control"
The usual first few edits aside- no, it's not part of "anyone can edit" and it's not outside our control; we can- and do- sanction anonymous editors, it just isn't being done in this case.
Here's the fundamental problem- I've already spent far more time trying to get something done about this than I would just (metaphorically) running behind this person and picking up the litter he's being allowed to drop. (Not that I consider that a plausible solution either).
Ubcule (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not vandalism (edit: or maybe it's just not obvious vandalism), so WP:AIV isn't the place for swift simple resolution. The pattern of activity is clearly disruptive - primarily due to the IP's lack of engagement to resolve the situation. You have gone above and beyond all reasonable efforts to jump through the hoops. Those hoops need jumping to prove that the issue can't be resolved by normal editor-editor mechanisms. The next step is to wait for it to happen again (to have an absolutely fresh IP address), then take it to WP:ANI. Link to the IP's talk page(s) and any other documentation, and link to the discussion here as well. Cite the IP's edits as an dispute, but focus on the IP's lack of constructive engagement as the primary reason that Admin Intervention is required. The IP is persistently making disputed edits, and they refuse to discuss them. That's the rock solid case, an admin doesn't need to pass judgement on whether particular edits are good or bad. If that admin is currently reading this, I endorse action. If someone won't Talk then they can't edit. Alsee (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the support.
My personal feeling is that the user has some weird obsession with depiping and/or doesn't understand what they're doing (e.g. why this edit isn't constructive.) That is, a basic lack of clue or competence.
That said, in the face of their non-response, any guessing as to this user's motives (good- if misguided- faith or not) is academic, so we're quite entitled to take this at face value. They've had more- far more- then sufficient notification about how their behaviour is causing a problem and haven't changed it; thus they should be treated as disruptive.
I don't see why we should be required to wait until they change their IP, though. Ubcule (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Currently blocked by @EdJohnston:.
While- as one would expect from a first block- this is very short term and as much a gesture as anything (especially given that user's editing is generally quite spread out anyway), it's a first step they can either learn from or the basis for a longer block if they don't. Thanks! Ubcule (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation is hiring community members as strategy coordinators

Hello all! At the moment, the Wikimedia Foundation is hiring 20 contractors - 17 strategy coordinators for specialized languages and 3 Metawiki coordinators. I was am posting this on your noticeboard to reach out to any English (or multilingual) Wiki community members who would be both interested in being a part time contractor with us for three months and a good fit for the movement strategy facilitation roles. Even if you are not personally interested in the position, we would appreciate your assistance in encouraging community members to apply, either individually or with local wiki announcements. You can find the Job Description for the position at this page. There is a less-formal description of the tasks they would be working on here on Meta. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not on the hiring team, so let me pass along a little information that might be useful to prospective applicants: It's 100% remote work, just like editing Wikipedia, so you can be anywhere in the world.  Good language skills are always a bonus at the WMF, but some of these positions can be filled by English-only editors.
These positions are all half-time (20 hours/week), and are expected to run from approximately March to June. That means that they need to get applications, interview, and issue contracts to 20 people during the next few weeks – a huge undertaking. So, please, if you know a great editor who has a little time on his/her hands, a m:Metapedian looking for a new project, or someone that you think is skilled at identifying consensus in complex or wandering discussions, then please ask them to apply ASAP. They really do need your help in finding 20 good Wikimedians. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Principles 3 and 4 of User:Jayron32/Jayron32's Principles of Vandal Fighting

He doth say

  • Principle 3) Any IP with a blue-linked talk page is a vandal.
  • Principle 4) Any IP edit with +/- 1000 characters or greater is vandalism.

I have to disagree with P3 entirely and P4 as useless. P3 ignores all the great IPs who do plenty of work on Wikipedia. I was one such IP before I registered, and I got a talk page due to poor vandal fighting, among other legitimate, good reasons. Any IP who has made a good edit should have been welcomed, and thus they would get a blue linked talk page. I would think that a red-link would = vandalism, as it would indicate a new user. Secondly, this principle is hardly foolproof, as I have found plenty of IPs who were never warned for their vandalism or unconstructive edits or any other of the few hundred legit reasons to start a talk page. Regarding P4, this s mostly true, but is flawed for 2 reasons:

  • Most IPs can't be bothered to type a thousand bytes of gibberish without tripping Cluebot or the repeat character filter, which means that
  • Secondly, nearly every AfC request has been more than a thousand bytes.

If someone used these commandments as gospel instead of applying their brain bytes, they'll get into a world of fire and hurt for poor vandal fighting. Does anyone else disagree with these 2 principles, or think I'm plumb loco? L3X1 My Complaint Desk 03:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@L3X1: Nay, methinks I agree with thee. --Thnidu (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Before registering my account, I edited as an IP, like many others. Perhaps I was different, though; I didn't feel entitled to be "welcomed" like many may feel now. If I made a mistake, so be it; correct/remove it or whatever. That's what many new/transient WP users have problems with - the fact that Wikipedia is free content, that anyone's edits can be mercilessly edited at will, within guidelines and policy, of course. --MuZemike 06:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Holy shit! You found a 10 year-old document that I haven't even thought about since probably shortly after it was created. Wow. That's amazing. I didn't know anyone even looked at that thing in 10 years. You should apply those skills in a career some way. Private investigator, investigative journalist, something like that. Because your ability to find obscure information is amazing. --Jayron32 13:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I was having problems understanding A7, so I was pointed to WP:CA7M, and from there I saw all the other things that were connected to it. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 13:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

WikiCite 2017 applications open through February 27

 

Hey all, we just announced that applications for WikiCite 2017 (Vienna 23-25 May, 2017) are open until February 27, 2017. WikiCite 2017 is a 3-day conference, summit and hack day to be hosted in Vienna, Austria, on May 23-25, 2017. It expands efforts started last year with WikiCite 2016 to design a central bibliographic repository , as well as tools and strategies to improve information quality and verifiability in Wikimedia projects. Our goal is to bring together Wikimedia contributors, data modelers, information and library science experts, software engineers, designers and academic researchers who have experience working with citations and bibliographic data in Wikipedia, Wikidata and other Wikimedia projects. For this initiative to be successful, it is critical to get Wikipedia editors working on citations, citation templates and source-related tooling involved: if you match this profile, it would be fantastic to see you in Vienna. Thanks to generous funding from a number of organizations, we'll have (limited) travel funding available: please consider submitting an application if you're interested in contributing. This year's event will be held at the same venue as the Wikimedia Hackathon and we'll be able to accommodate up to 100 participants. If you have any questions you can get in touch with the organizers at: wikicite@wikimedia.org (I don't always respond promptly to pings, this email address is the best way to contact us regarding the event) --DarTar (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Facts are the reason science is losing during the current war on reason

This article[1] published by the British newspaper, the Guardian, says a lot about the problems of communicating science to the general public. We would do well to take note of the issues it raises. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

That article links to another interesting study.[2] Sizeofint (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The critical question is; to what extent are we part of the problem, or are we part of the solution? Should we even be concerned or involved at all? Is our proper role to be the neutral "recorder" of the issue, rather than a participant?
IMHO we can't really stand aside and claim it's not our problem. Wikipedia is, like it or not, a major source of "dumbed down" scientific information to the general public, whether directly to our readers, or indirectly when reporters and bloggers quote or cite our articles. How we present scientific information directly feeds into the issue raised by the Guardian article and the study it references. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Here are some articles that speak directly to Wikipedia's role in science education.[3][4][5] Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Carnall, Mark (1 February 2017). "Facts are the reason science is losing during the current war on reason". The Guardian. Retrieved 1 February 2017.
  2. ^ Scharrer, Lisa; Rupieper, Yvonne; Stadtler, Marc; Bromme, Rainer (30 November 2016). "When science becomes too easy: Science popularization inclines laypeople to underrate their dependence on experts". Public Understanding of Science: 096366251668031. doi:10.1177/0963662516680311.
  3. ^ Moy, Cheryl L.; Locke, Jonas R.; Coppola, Brian P.; McNeil, Anne J. (November 2010). "Improving Science Education and Understanding through Editing Wikipedia". Journal of Chemical Education. 87 (11): 1159–1162. doi:10.1021/ed100367v.
  4. ^ Goldstein, Evan B. (2017-01-27). "Three Reasons Why Earth Scientists Should Edit Wikipedia - Eos". Eos.org. American Geophysical Union. Retrieved 2 February 2017.
  5. ^ Teplitskiy, Misha; Lu, Grace; Duede, Eamon (October 2016). "Amplifying the impact of open access: Wikipedia and the diffusion of science". Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. doi:10.1002/asi.23687.

However, we at Wikipedia are particularly well equipped to deal with the problems discussed in the article. This is the gist of the problem as defined in the article. After providing a densely packed summary of the science after our knowledge of when dinosaurs lived, it says:

For starters, at 170 words it is way longer than anything people are expected to read and take in from an average museum label. [...] Here’s what it ends up becoming:

The oldest known dinosaur is 230-million-year-old Nyasasaurus parringtoni. Dinosaurs went extinct 66 million years ago.

Which is perfect for a museum label, tagline or press release and comprehensible to most (we won’t quibble about knowing what a dinosaur is or isn’t). However, I hope you can see that it’s also deceptive, belies the ambiguity around “the facts” as presented here and, perhaps most frustratingly (news sites are the worst for this), it doesn’t give readers the source material to go and chase up or query – always supposing that content isn’t hidden behind a journal’s paywall, that is … By not flagging up what we don’t know here, we create a false sense of certainty that’s potentially later undermined by a new analysis, fossil discovery or alternative explanation.

I always say that, for facts, the most important question is "how do we know that this is true?". At Wikipedia, we wouldn't have the problem of the museum label or press tagline; we have tools to overcome those. Verifiability policy guarantees that each stated fact can be tracked back to its source; and internal wikilinks can explain jargon and link to a relevant article, which can provide details that expand and provide context to the provided explanation. Even the {{citation needed}}, which has become some kind of tagline for people quoting Wikipedia, can point readers that some particular fact should be taken with care and better researched. Diego (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Diego Moya Do you think that simply because we are equipped to deal with the problem, that we are under an obligation to do so, or can we shrug it off as "not our problem"? This goes to the heart of the ethics (or morality) of WP; we have a plethora of policies, rules and guidelines, but the ethical foundations of those rules are not explicitly articulated anywhere (that I'm aware of). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I think having a relatively easy to understand lede section but a body explaining the gory details of how we know certain facts might go a long way toward making readers realize they're only scratching the surface. Plus, the shear quantity of articles has always given me the impression that I barely know anything. Sizeofint (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Today I've found this interesting, somewhat related article: Reddit’s /r/worldnews community used a series of nudges to push users to fact-check suspicious news. On the web all links are created equal, but it looks from that study that signaling the relative reliability of a reference does have a significant effect on readers. Diego (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The main point of my post, and the reason I created this topic, is not addressed yet. Do Wikipedians have a duty to explicitly point out that "alternative facts" and "lunatic charlatans" are bullshit, or does our NPOV rule actually prohibit it because "it's not our problem, we are only here to describe/record sources, not judge them"? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I think that NPOV supports stating, in polite words, that lunatic charlatanism on a particular topic is nonsense - in cases where that lunatic charlatanism is notable enough to justify inclusion. We do have articles on nonsense, where the nonsense is presented as beliefs by certain groups. (E.g. natural human parthenogenesis leading to a male child despite our XY chromosome system is presented in its historical context as a belief. The latter article could benefit with a clearer statement that natural human parthenogenesis of a male child is patent nonsense - but a reference from a parthenogeneticist who specifically refers to this context would probably be needed, since otherwise this could count as irrelevant WP:OR in this context... Good luck!)
If we bypass the lay public article and instead focus on the research article, then recommendations to avoid the "easiness effect" in the Wikipedia context could be:
  • illustrate complexity and controversiality - generally done in any Wikipedia science article for which there are sufficient sources to show the complexity and controversiality
  • include science research article style in-text citations in order to show the complexity of the topic - solidly implemented Wikipedia policy for any empirical science article since e.g. 2003-2004 or so
  • "Explicitly highlighting topic complexity and controversiality therefore appears to be a helpful way to inform laypeople in a comprehensible manner while keeping the risk of an easiness effect as low as possible." - Do Wikipedia science articles with controversies show these clearly enough?
  • "However, the fact that the easiness effect was not prevented completely despite explicit warnings suggests a need for further educating the public on the division of cognitive labor and its implications for making judgments. In addition to furthering their basic understanding of science phenomena, formal science education should facilitate students’ awareness of the fact that making reliable judgments often requires deference to scientific experts (Scharrer et al., 2014)." - I guess in principle, we could create some sort of a template for science articles saying something like "This science article is a simplified presentation of the state of research on the topic - do not rely on it without understanding the division of cognitive labour and checking the references and searching for other expert opinion not referenced here!"
  • We could create the Wikipedia article easiness effect and propose a much less intrusive template than in my previous point, but nevertheless easy ;) to click on - e.g. a tiny Einstein icon - which links to easiness effect.
Boud (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
BoudDiego MoyaSizeofint I've started Draft:Easiness effect by quickly collecting a handfull of possible sources, please feel free to jump right in... (that goes for anyone who wants to contribute) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Is it an article or an essay? We need agreement on this so that the page can be developed accordingly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Science is just theories and models based on facts. There are no scientific facts, and nothing in Science is 100% sure. It's a fact the light on Earth is white light (the wavelenghts can be measured, they cover the visible spectrum and more). It is not a fact that the Sun exists. There is no way to go and prove it. The argument that it's visible in the sky isn't very interesting, since mirages are also visible. A scientist will tell you we're 99% sure the Sun exists. Unfortunately, that means that it's entirely scientifically plausible it doesn't. ÞunoresWrǣþþe (talk) 09:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I would argue that the sun existing is on par with your example about light. Things can be measured indirectly in science, and epistemologically, may be deemed equally factual to more direct factual verification. El_C 09:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. Take any transparent prism, direct a light towards it and you will directly observe that light contains the correct wavelengths. We're 99% sure we know how DNA transcription works. But no one has been shrunk to a molecular scale to be sent into a cell, to be able to confirm that a big DNA polymerase comes and transcribes one strand into RNA. There's just no proof, since we have to look at sub-cellular phenomenons at a super-celullar level. It's why transcription (and translation) are theories. You'd not get very far if you suggested some alternative, granted, but there are perfectly accepted theories (general relativity gravity) which have quite important counter-theories. As recently as the 70's people still doubted Wegener and Hess' theories of continental drift, since they had to abandon centuries of thinking the Earth was 'still'. Now they are universally accepted... at about 99%. That's actually a useful example: it is a model ('continental drift happens this way') that reconciles theories with facts. It is an indisputable fact that there are deep indentations (oceanic trenches) near the coasts of the Pacific and Indian Ocean. It is not a fact that rock plunges underneath there and then back up again in the middle, that is Hess' (99% sure) theory. ÞunoresWrǣþþe (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC on how to deal with a shortage of featured articles for the main page

Please see here and comment there if interested. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Gračanica monastery or Gračanica Monastery

Gračanica monastery or Gračanica Monastery, what is correct?--SrpskiAnonimac (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Gračanica Monastery, since the second word is part of the name. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

De-Recognition of Wikimedia Hong Kong

This is an update from the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee. Translations are available.

Recognition as a Wikimedia movement affiliate — a chapter, thematic organization, or user group — is a privilege that allows an independent group to officially use the Wikimedia trademarks to further the Wikimedia mission.

The principal Wikimedia movement affiliate in the Hong Kong region is Wikimedia Hong Kong, a Wikimedia chapter recognized in 2008. As a result of Wikimedia Hong Kong’s long-standing non-compliance with reporting requirements, the Wikimedia Foundation and the Affiliations Committee have determined that Wikimedia Hong Kong’s status as a Wikimedia chapter will not be renewed after February 1, 2017.

If you have questions about what this means for the community members in your region or language areas, we have put together a basic FAQ. We also invite you to visit the main Wikimedia movement affiliates page for more information on currently active movement affiliates and more information on the Wikimedia movement affiliates system.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Affiliations Committee, 16:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to other languages. • Get help

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_54&oldid=1084288714"