Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 53

• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals (persistent)
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • 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This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous).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, 79, 80

The article Jediism has been vandalised

Undo the vandalism--77.66.234.102 (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Use the force, 77.66.234.102 Chuntuk (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

African World Heritage Day

Hi all

Today is African World Heritage Day and I have created a small project to help improve knowledge of African World Heritage Sites on Wikipedia in all languages. Please get involved and also share the link to encourage more people to take part. Whilst all of the sites have an article in English I'm sure there are sites that could be improved.

Many thanks

John Cummings (talk) 11:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

No, not all the sites have English articles (though all of them are of course somehow covered). I got a bit of time today to create Amphitheatre of El Jem.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ymblanter , thanks very much :) John Cummings (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Dating postcard

I strongly suspect it was printed in 1940 as it has the quote from Churchill on the backside: This is the time for everyone to stand together and hold firm. However the pictures could have been from before, as this doesnt look like wartime. On Google I find similar postcards.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Dating the cars is probably the way to go. By the looks, the registration plate we see, TU6004, should have been issued on or prior to 1932, according to our article on UK registration plates. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Enforcing a consensus

I sometimes come across people reverting something on the basis of a consensus and I recently came across one who seems to think one is obliged to do it even if they disagree with the consensus. Actually I think they agree with the consensus but I think their 'consensus' is inapplicable, but disregarding that, how do people feel about the idea? I think one should only revert a change based on some consensus if one agrees with the consensus, after all a consensus can always change and we are all free to opt out of doing things we don't agree with. At most I think one should just warn on the talk page and point to the discussion. If there is a real consensus then some other people will come along and say so. Dmcq (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The consensus concerned was mediated by an admin assessing all the available sources and resolved a long running dispute which involve a lot of socks. One of a series around issues on British Isles articles, In general some one agrees with, some one is unhappy with but once resolved its time to move on. If someone can find evidence that contradicts the earlier findings fine, raise it again. ----Snowded ^TALK 15:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Consensus indeed can change. As it is with any other content disputes, the deciding factor is inevitably editors. If enough editors prefer something in an article or series of articles, that something will be implemented. Likewise, if enough editors want something kept out of an article or series of articles, that something won't be implemented. It's a secure feeling, when you're on the majority side. But, very frustrating when you're on the minority side. Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Wireframes – copyright detection feedback?

Hi everyone. The Community Tech team at the Wikimedia Foundation was asked to help out with copyright detection in last year's wishlist survey. There are suggestions on Phabricator that would benefit from your feedback, if this is a subject close to your heart and you'd be willing to go there and tell us what works and what doesn't work. /16:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan (WMF) (talk • contribs)

Just realized this makes it sound like the Community Tech team is doing all the work, when User:ערן should get the credit. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments can also be left on Meta, of course. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The Core Contest

Hi folks, The Core Contest is on again, running from May 15 to June 30. Enter at Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries. Cheers! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Two of the same pages

Hello everyone, I have come across two soccer/football-season pages that are exactly the same except an extra hyphen separating the two. I don't know where this belongs or how to go about deleting one of the articles. 2016-17 Ekstraklasa and 2016–17 Ekstraklasa are two different pages about the same exact topic. Much thanks! --Matt918 (talk) 04:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I've redirected the first one to the second. That should resolve it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Open license descriptions of UNESCO biosphere reserves is available

Hi all

I'm very happy to say that UNESCO has made the official descriptions of all Biosphere Reserve sites available under a Wikipedia compatible license. Currently around 440 (out of 670) of the Biosphere Reserves do not have an English language Wikipedia article.

These descriptions can be used as the missing Wikipedia articles with very little adaption. I have created a Wikidata query and a set of instructions to help people create the missing articles. I hope that this is useful for other people interested in using Wikidata to organise writing projects etc.

meta:WikiProject UNESCO/Create Biosphere Reserve Wikipedia articles from UNESCO descriptions

If you like you can retweet my tweet about it as well https://twitter.com/mrjohnc/status/733623393233346560

Thanks very much to Navino Evans who did all the data importing into Wikidata (a herculean effort) and Andy Mabbett for helping me with the instructions.

Cheers

John Cummings (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

A new "Welcome" message

Hello everyone.

This is a heads-up about a change which is going to be announced in Tech News: Add the "welcome" dialog (with button to switch) to the wikitext editor (in case you haven't read about it already at VPT).

In a nutshell, this will provide a one-time "Welcome" message in the wikitext editor which explains that anyone can edit, and every improvement helps. The user can then start editing in the wikitext editor right away, or switch to the visual editor. (This is the equivalent of an already existing welcome message for visual editor users, which suggests the option to switch to the wikitext editor. If you have already seen this dialog in the visual editor, you will not see the new one in the wikitext editor.)

• The current site-wide configuration of the visual editor stays the same, that is, the visual editor doesn't become the "default" editor for newly registered editors or logged out editors.
  • Also, nothing changes permanently for users who chose to hide the visual editor in their Preferences.
  • This wiki now features a Single Edit Tab system—if you're not sure you know or remember how that works, you can read the guide; you can change your editing settings at any time, by the way.
  • There is a slight chance that you see a few more questions than usual about the visual editor. Please refer people to local documentation or to the feedback page, and feel free to ping me if you have questions too!

• Finally, I want to acknowledge that, while not everyone will see that dialog, many of you will; if you're reading this you are likely not the intended recipients of that dialog, so you may be confused or annoyed by it—and if this is the case, I'm truly sorry about that. Please feel free to cross-post this message at other venues on this wiki, if you think it will avoid that other users feel caught by surprise by this change.

If you want to learn more, please see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T133800; if you have feedback or think you need to report a bug with the dialog, you can post in that task (or at mediawiki.org if you prefer).

Thanks for your attention and happy editing, --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

In my case at least, it's already popped up 3 times. Doesn't seem to have been tested or deployed properly.--Elvey^(t•c) 00:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Did you see it three times at the English Wikipedia, or once per three wikis (e.g., once here, once at Meta, once at Commons)? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall. Probably the first, but once per user would be better than once per wiki, IMO. --Elvey^(t•c) 21:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Africa - vote for the theme

After two highly successful years, we have drafted the grant request for Wiki Loves Africa 2016. We need your help in two ways:

1. Don't forget to vote on the theme for 2016.
2. Please endorse the project on this page if you think it is a cool project (whether you plan to participate or not).

Main changes this year (which will impact on numbers of participants and levels of entires) are:

• We asked that more money goes towards the local teams (to do more events, have local winners and prizes, etc.)
• We are changing host organizations (the planned host is a swiss non profit)
• We would like to involve Elisabeth Coye, who has been working for Wikimedia France for several years now on fundraising matters, to improve accounting and reporting (to have it more consistant, more informative and hopefully more straightforward and simpler for participants)

Any questions or suggestions, please let us know! Anthere and Isla Haddow (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Timeline Blur Reduction

Hey all, I've frequently noticed that the text in several graphical timelines is quite blurry. Some examples being: 1, 2, & 3. Is there anyway to improve the text of these templates?
Houdinipeter (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Houdinipeter: Hi Houdinipeter, I think the blurry text may be a separate issue in comparison to the templates. I think if the text may just need to be larger, therefore more easy to see it. That's just my interpretation of the situation here. Good luck. Sunekit (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sunekit: I don't think it's the size or even the contrast of the text. I think it's because of how it's rendered, possibly because it's not using great anti-aliasing and/or because of the fact that it's using raster instead of vector graphics. Houdinipeter (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Would someone else chime in? Sunekit turned out to be a sockpuppet. The issue seems to affect math templates as well.

$\left({{\mbox{20 votes cast}} \over {{\mbox{3 seats to fill}}+1}}\right)+1={\mbox{6 votes required}}$

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Houdinipeter (talk • contribs) 03:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Shortly after reading this I noticed it occurring at Bronze Age and a few other related articles, such as in the timeline below. It seems to be an issue with rasterisation of vector graphics into a .png, as you mention. mw:Extension:EasyTimeline and mw:Extension:Math seem to be two offending extensions, so they must both rely on the same piece of rendering code. I agree, it's ugly, hard to read, and needs to be fixed. Maybe lobbying for an improvement over at MediaWiki would help?

The following code, for example,

Extended content

<timeline> ImageSize = width:800 height:115 PlotArea = width:720 height:90 left:65 bottom:20 AlignBars = justify Colors = id:period value:rgb(1,0.7,0.5) # id:age value:rgb(0.95,0.85,0.5) # id:era value:rgb(1,0.85,0.5) # Period = from:-3500 till:-1000 TimeAxis = orientation:horizontal ScaleMajor = unit:year increment:500 start:-3000 ScaleMinor = unit:year increment:100 start:-3500 PlotData = align:center textcolor:black fontsize:8 mark:(line,black) width:15 shift:(0,-5) bar:  color:period from: -3300 till: -1200 text:Classic Bronze Age bar:NEast color:era from: -3300 till: -1200 shift:(0,5) text:Ancient Near East from: -3300 till: -2100 text:Early Bronze Age from: -2100 till: -1550 text:Intermediate Bronze Age from: -1550 till: -1200 text:Late Bronze Age bar:Mesop. color:age from: -2900 till: -2350 text:Sumerian city-states from: -2350 till: -2193 text:Akkadia from: -2119 till: -2000 text:Ur from: -2000 till: -1700 shift:(0,5) text:Babylonia from: -2000 till: -1800 text:Assyria from: -1600 till: -1200 text:Kassites bar:Egyptian color:era from: -3200 till: -1070 shift:(0,5) text:Ancient Egypt from: -3200 till: -3000 text:Protodynastic from: -3000 till: -2700 text:Archaic from: -2700 till: -2180 text:Old Kingdom from: -2050 till: -1700 text:Middle Kingdom from: -1550 till: -1070 text:New Kingdom </timeline>

produces:

which is found at https://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/en/timeline/f08450a5ba9682e8969a2f2afc0cdbf8.png.  DiscantX 07:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@DiscantX: You can change most math rendering in your preferences (bottom of appearance), and there is a conversation about changing the default rendering in an archive. I'm not sure where to petition it to be fixed. Phabricator shows that it is aware of its faults, but is very disorganized and/or unmaintained. Houdinipeter (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

That looks to be poorly implemented anti-aliasing. Praemonitus (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Template Missing information

I've never seen this template before, and to be frank, I'm not crazy about it. See Wicked Tuna. Does this look okay? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It did not look okay. It's gone now. Those interested in history can see it in this revision. The users [1] & [2] who added it don't seem to have repeated the trick elsewhere. Sadly {{Missing information}} seems widely used (as if most articles don't miss important information.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It is only used at 967 pages. Dare we TfD it? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Worth a go. I have other stuff to do for a couple of hours but I'll be back later, either to propose or support. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

And what about others reading this? TfD? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It can now be discussed on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 May 20#Template:Missing information --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Tagishsimon. I've given my views there. I see you have too, and nicely. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

There's now a second discussion of its sister template at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 May 21#Template:Must include --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit war on Sex differences in autism

Hello, I have repeatedly required some scientifical sources for the claims on this page and tried to discuss with the opponent user, but he/she only continues his harassment and edition war. What can be done? --Cupido1234 (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article for a week, I hope the IP users will engage into the talk page discussion which you started.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Old licenses

A pity we don't have a copyright village pump like Commons, or this would go there.

Until 2009 at least, Wikipedia:Copyrights stated If you contribute material to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public under the GFDL (with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). Nowadays, it states If you contribute text directly to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public for reuse under CC BY-SA and GFDL (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). Note the difference: the old version addressed all materials, not just text. Because all material contributed to Wikipedia was originally covered under GFDL, not just text, in our early years all images were considered to be under GFDL, and just as we accept text without licenses unless there's reason to suspect that it's a copyvio, images were accepted unless copyvio was suspected. However, the increasing number of users wanting to use licenses other than GFDL eventually prompted the creation of the system of license tags, but until virtually all of the old untagged images were tagged with GFDL, license tags weren't absolutely required. Nowadays, those old images occasionally get nominated for deletion because they don't have license tags added by their uploaders (e.g. see the discussion for File:LGATasmania Hobart.png at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 26, which prompted this whole issue), even though they were uploaded in compliance with policy with their rights released under a license that's still acceptable.

With this in mind, Sfan00 IMG and I have developed {{Assumed license}}, with the goal of adding it to images of this sort, so that people understand what was going on and don't nominate them for deletion merely because the license was added by someone other than the uploader. As noted in the template's collapsed usage notes, it's not meant to prevent deletion of copyvio images or images that are simply useless; it's just meant to explain the licensing policy as of when these images were uploaded. I'm confident that it's a good idea, but we're just two editors, not the whole community, so I'm asking for your input, ruthless editing, etc., especially in the collapsed usage notes. Nyttend (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I linked in from Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd recommend that it say up front that back then uploads were considered to be under the GFDL license, rather than to hide it in the dropdown.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Related discussion: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:GFDL-presumed. --Carnildo (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiBible

I appreciate that someone is writing this very much tounge in cheek, but it would be appreciated if anyone here that knew of people on Wikipedia that would be able to help make these 'translations' work better, as well as possibly tidying up the commentary a little, if you could encourage them gently to help. Expertise with the academic analysis of historical/theological themes would also be appreciated XD Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Legal Help Needed for Bold edit

On the matter I came to post about:

re: Hortonville Area School District (edit talk links history), specifically this edit and this stub page creation: Hortonville_Joint_School_District_No._1._v._Hortonville_Education_Ass’n

Not being a lawyer, I stumbled over this page title as a redlink dealing with another needed clarification edit this morning. While I've some familiarity with the law, and know this case was a Landmark precedent that has impacted my entire adult life.
 • Since I don't have the time to do this justice, nor the interest in the law, nor on the MOS, and formatting of legal articles, those on Law and other linkable Legal articles, Law templates, etcetera...
 • After looking for a Law and Legal task force, etc. like the Military History group to no avail, I've no recourse to remanding the matter I created as a stub (with my expansion of the case in Hortonville's section) to interested parties with the right credentials.
 • So I strongly suggest some qualified individuals please follow up the many web citable sources and make this a good article per our MOS standards. Best regards FrankB 16:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Erm, Wikipedia:WikiProject Law. --Izno (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Strangely enough, by circuitous means of finishing my original edit several article links before, I found a reference to that on the talk page. Don't have a clue why it wasn't found in the listings under Wikiprojects. I did look. Still, my eyesight has been failing for years, so perhaps I just missed it. Copying this there now. FrankB 18:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Wayback and robots.txt

Citations to web sites go out of date, and then we have ones which have been rescues by Wayback - but they go out of date too due to robots.txt. I was just looking at [3] where two old links have disappeared due to this but it happens frequently everywhere. What do people feel about this? I can see some sense in sometimes hiding old material using a new robots.txt but very often it just strikes me as wrong. What should the policy be about material that was public in the past but for instance the site goes down and then somebody buys it up to put up ads and sticks a robots.txt on it saying don't cache anything? Dmcq (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dmcq: There is an ongoing RfC concerning archive.is, which does not respect robots.txt and therefore can archive any page (but only does so on request, unlike archive.org which can archive on request and also crawls). There are a number of problems with archive.is (unlike archive.org, it's not a non-profit, says it may run ads, it's frequently spammed on Wikipedia, has an unclear/opaque organizational/funding/operational model, is unclear if it'll be around a long time, etc.), but it does have that going for it. For all of those reasons, archive.org should probably be preferred for most situations, but one possible approach could be modifying Template:Cite web to allow both archive links, displaying archive.org by default if available)... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

We also still can use WebCite for single page archiving. Archive.org is good if you find the original site goes down, but WebCite should be used to fix links one they've all been assured. --MASEM (t) 01:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

It sounds then that we should use WebCite if something is quite important or if we find a link is broken and we can get the page from archive.org. Does WebCite work well with archive.org? What do you mean by 'assured'? What kind of assurance is there of Website lasting a long time or could it be moved if there is trouble? Archive.org just can't be trusted with the way people stick robots.txt onto recycles sites. Dmcq (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to that RfC. I don't understand what has happened that caused the blacklist so I think I'll need to read up a bit on it. They seem to be saying it is very good at what it does but using it makes it too easy to break our policies in some way. Dmcq (talk) 08:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the RfC is problematic as there was no real attempt to explain why it was blacklisted in the first place until many of the supports had weighed in. It's because of the reasons I gave above, but especially the spamming. Many bots spamming us with many links many times, combined with sketchy/unclear business practices made for blacklist (it's not being used as a source, after all, it's a service potentially used across the site to host sources for our readers, and thus something that requires careful consideration). If they did flood the archives with ads, which seems likely, it doesn't seem all that different from WP:DEADLINKSPAM, except the whole page is intact (that's where a spammer finds deadlinks on Wikipedia, finds an archived version, copies the content to an ad-stuffed low quality website, and replaces the URL in the citation). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

If someone has a site and includes Robots.txts, They are essentially saying they do not want this page to be archived. Technically, they are saying they do not want this page to be trolled by robots so it is far broader than simply rejecting archiving, but if they don't want a robot even visiting the page they are certainly saying they don't want a robot archiving the page. (I suppose one might argue that disallowing robots is not quite the same as disallowing a manual archive of the page; maybe this needs further discussion.) We expect robots to honor our no-index declarations, so I'm trying to figure out how we could square our position that we expect others to honor our declarations not to archive the page but when someone else has a page that they don't want archived, we can ignore it. Am I missing something?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you're missing something. Archive.is might say that it's not that it spits on robots.txt, it's that it doesn't apply because archive.is isn't a web crawler like Google or Archive.org -- it doesn't automatically have robots archiving or indexing things -- it just does so on user request. Nonetheless, it defeats the spirit, if not the letter, of robots.txt (at least as I understand it). Those arguing to use it view the usefulness as more powerful than any of the various concerns. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes you are missing something very important. hat happens with Archive.org is that it takes account of a robots.txt placed on a site even years after it was archived. This might have a little bit of sense if the site doesn't change hands - people do make mistakes or change their minds - but where it typically happens is for sites which go down and are then taken over by spammers wanting their stuff shown to people who frequented the original. The robots.txt in such cases have nothing at all to do with the original content or the intentions of the original owner. Dmcq (talk) 08:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Years back, I suggested on some talk page that the solution for this, as well as the ambiguity of citations in general without quotations giving context would be to have a subpage (always linked), where a cite can be posted with a quote. Among other things, this would make it plain when & where a cite ending a long sentence applies and supports a subordinate clause or phrase. In some of the history articles I add context to, this would be awfully handy--the quote supports the sense of the material, or it doesn't and it sure beats wasting half an hour finding a reference, that may or not be available online in any case. Note, a template page with the same Title would be off public space, further, a Wikimarkup {#switch|...} by named reference might allow an inclusion of the references by moving them out of article space save for the link (we'd want to code the template namespace page by hash code or other short link to the template subsection (named case) given long article titles need the offloading most of all!). Point here is a template which includes a reference block <ref name=something> ... </ref> can be included via template, the cites can unjunk the articles, and the quotes can be included in noinclude blocks (<noinclude> '| quote=blah, blah, blah ...' </noinclude>) so they don't manifest when not wanted in the article. Alternatively, the article namespace '/doc' (or '/cites') subpage would be easy to find and maintain place where an original context and turn of phrase should be legal under fair use and sidestep this loss of webpage referenced cites. We've all had them, and they do suck! Restating the obvious, the offloading of a cite with quote would solve several matters besides vanishing citations, and editing being easier would be a nice benefit. // FrankB 16:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Well I've put in my oppose to archive.is on the basis the owner looks to be a sleazebag and could hold Wikipedia to ransom. It is a pity as it looks like a good site. Archive.org is just too unreliable with its retroactive deletes because of the later robots.txt of domain squatters. Something like WebCite applied more generally looks like it is what has to be done. I suppose one could apply it to archive.org pages too! Dmcq (talk) 09:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Boldly recreating a redirected article: what venue?

Here's an interesting conundrum.

An article Gerwyn John, was redirected some time ago, to another, after an AfD. I noticed that recently and thought we should have an article on the subject. I boldly undid the redirect, with an edit summary of "Bold restoration, per WP:SSEFAR". WP:SSEFAR says:

In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items.

and Gerwyn John was indeed one of "a finite number of entries where most are notable" (in this case: people with Midland Metro trams named after them).

However, User:Necrothesp reverted me, with an edit summary of "rv; already decided at WP:Afd".

My question is, leaving aside the specifics of this case, but noting that "consensus can change", where is the correct venue to decide whether such an article should be recreated? The talk page is likely unwatched; and this is clearly not an issue for WP:Deletion review. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:DRV is the venue to review the results of the deletion process, so that's the correct venue in this case. WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 explicitly says: "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page" (in this case Wikipedia:Deletion by redirection). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It also says "Deletion Review should not be used... because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd recommend the following:

1. Create a draft, either in your userspace or in the Draft: namespace. Confirm that you can defend it, as it stands, against any issues brought up in the AfD.
2. Propose the new draft at Deletion review.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Please see my comments, above, about DRV. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You could try the unofficial yet hallowed Wikipedia tradition of being the most stubborn jerk about the article. (I've noticed this works for others to varying degrees.) But despite the fact I think you have a valid point for recreating this article Andy, Deletion Review may be your best & fastest option here. If it isn't, someone there should direct you to the right one. -- llywrch (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Earth Biosphere Reserves running in 120 countries throughout June

Hi all

I'm very happy to say that Wiki Loves Earth Biosphere Reserves is running in 120 countries throughout June covering all 699 Biosphere Reserves, the website is available in in English, French, Spanish and Russian but you can help to translate it into other languages.

I would really appreciate it if you could tell groups and individuals who may be interested in taking part, we can't run banners because of the number of countries involved. UNESCO is promoting the project so I hope this will encourage people from outside the Wikimedia movement to take part. You can also promote the project on social media by sharing any of these message from UNESCO on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, French, Spanish and Russian messages are linked to from the site. You can also contact Biosphere Reserves directly to encourage them to share their photos.

UNESCO have also made descriptions of their Biosphere Reserves available under CC-BY-SA so they can be used to start missing Wikipedia articles, I have created a simple to use guide to help.

Thanks very much and please feel free to contact me or ask questions here.

--John Cummings (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Android gallery for Commons images

Would love some feedback and suggestions.

I have released a first preview of a free Android app idea I've been toying with for Commons.

The idea is to provide a simple-to-use image gallery for Commons. You can tap on an image to view more details and to zoom into a full resolution image, which is something I personally love doing for photography and artwork. I would like to make it search through all categories on commons, but for now I've implemented only a selection of 5 interesting categories, including Commons' Pictures of the Day and Wikipedia's Featured Pictures (currently only fetching 50 images from each).

I intend to keep working this and improving it in my spare time over the coming months. It's a hobby, not a commercial project, and I will likely open source it once it is a little more mature.

Google Play link - Available for Android 4.4+ phones. Ktcher (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

PGP-Party@Wikimania

Hello all.
I’m not sure if that is the right place: If not, please move it to the right place.
There will be two PGP-/GPG-key-signing-parties at the Wikimania. One will be at Thursday (during the preconference), the other will be at Saturday – both at 17:30. The goal of the parties is to strengthen the connections between the different languages of Wikipedia. So if you have a key, please add yourself to the list (to make our organizing easier) and come to one of the parties; you can of course also come without adding yourself to the list. --DaB. (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

TED speaker challenge

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Village pump § TED speaker challenge

 – CabbagePotato (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Participate in the TED speakers challenge!!

From 6 June to 6 July we are holding a writing challenge about TED speakers. Everyone can participate by writing about people who have held a TED talk. For an overview of TED speakers in the in competition see here: User:Jane023/TED speakers. For an overview of all the TED talks that these people have held, see here: User:Jane023/TED talks. More information about the challenge, the points, the prizes, and the sign-up is here: TED speakers challenge. Jane (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Indonesia

Why, even though, it is written as "Bahasa Indo...," Indonesian is alphabetized as if it began "Indo..."? This seems inconsistent and obstructing of searches. Kdammers (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Alphabetised where? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Bahasa Indonesia is a redirect to Indonesian language. "Indonesian language" is the English name for the language known in that language as "Bahasa Indonesia". This being the English language wikipedia, we utilise the English language name rather than the Indonisian language name for the article. See Wikipedia:Article titles#English-language titles --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Probably refers to the interwiki links in the side bar. For this page we have links to Bahasa Indonesia, Bahasa Melayu and Basa Sunda. Basa and Bahasa just mean "language" which, I guess, is why we are ignoring them when alphabetizing. Rmhermen (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The sort order for interlanguage links is, I believe, given at meta:MediaWiki:Interwiki config-sorting order-native-languagename (but see Help talk:Interlanguage links/Archive 2#Sorting order). --Redrose64 (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to the links to other versions of Wikipedia. I looked at the two links given by Redrose64. The first is just a list of terse abbbreviations; the latter is a discussion with no real authority. Yes, "Bahasa" means language, but in my experience it is always used when referring to Indonesian in that language (unlike "English language," which is usually only used when it is necessary to reduce ambiguity or for special stress). Kdammers (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not "a list of terse abbbreviations", it's the list of codes for the various languages for which a Wikipedia has been started. So, it begins "ace kbd ady af ak als" - there are Wikipedias for each of those, see ace: kbd: ady: af: ak: als:. The names of these in their own languages are Acèh, адыгэбзэ, адыгабзэ, Afrikaans, ak, Alemannisch; and in English they are Acehnese, Kabardian, Adyghe, Afrikaans, Akan, Alemannic. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

'Same difference. My point is that that does not explain why BI is listed in the links as BI (rather than I) but is placed as if it were I rather than BI. Kdammers (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

This language is alphabetized at I because the sortkey defined on Meta for that language is "indonesiabahasa" instead of the English "Bahasa Indonesia". Similarly, the sortkey for the German Wikipedia is "Deutsch", not "German". (See the list of sortkeys.) If your real question is "Who do I talk to, to get this item moved to the place in this list where an English speaker would expect to find it, instead of its current position, which is where a French speaker would expect to find it?", then I suspect that User:Amire80 will know the answer. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

So my examples in French are aceh, kabarde, adyguéen, afrikaans, akan, alémanique. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

NPP / AfC

Just a reminder that in just over a week at Wikimania there's going to be a discussion about the systems of control of new pages. Anyone who is going to Italy and would like to take part, please check out the conference schedule, and I look forward to seeing you there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The session is intended to focus on edit-review tools at all stages, not just the page creation stage, particularly around support for good-faith new editors. We hope to discuss everything from RC to Huggle. (The full conference schedule is at wm2016:Programme). Thanks for the help and interest. :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Peace Treaties in Art 30 x 30 Challenge

		Peace Treaties in Art 30 x 30 Challenge
		Contest now open, come join us! All editors are encouraged to contribute their best in the depiction of peace in art. Tokens and prizes up for grabs.

The Peace Treaties in Art 30 x 30 Challenge now on! We are very much looking forward to your participation in this inspirational contest aimed at creating, improving and translating articles on Peace Treaties in Art in the context of Donostia-San Seastián 2016 European Capital of Culture, aspiring to provide by dint of collaboration (quality!) material available in the Wikipedia about this compelling topic, both present and timeless.

The project, promoted by the Basque Wikimedians User Group, originates in the Peace Treaty exhibitions project taking place in Donostia-San Sebastián 2016 European Capital of Culture due open on June 17. The Wikipedia challenge extends from June 17 (starting 12 pm CET) to July 17, including a Wikimarathon to be held on 9 July, everyone is invited! Leave your imprint along with other fellow wikipedians, you will win awards (and our eternal gratitude!) in the form of Barnstars and Donostia-San Sebastián stays! Thanks and see you there Iñaki LL (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a sort of woolgathering question: wither the future of translation?

Maybe this is the sort of question that would be better asked at Reddit... it does affect the Wikipedia, including me, directly, though. Here's what I'm wondering:

Does anybody have a handle on, or useful pointers to info on, educated guesses on the future of machine text translation in the near-term and medium-term?

I'm asking because I translate stuff, and I wonder if I'm wasting my time if there's a fair chance that within 5 to 20 years there's likely to be machine translation of text which (while it won't be perfect) will usually be good enough for most everyday use? Google Translate already gives a good enough rendition for most paragraphs that you can already kind-sorta get the gist accurately. Have we hit a wall where the art of translation cannot much grow until there's a true revolution in AI, or will incremental improvements be sufficient to render human text translation more and more obsolete?

Jimbo on his talk page is talking about possibly putting major WMF efforts into aiding translation efforts for some of the smaller languages. I'm for that, but I'm just wondering if we're perfecting the buggy-whip here? Anybody know anything about this? Herostratus (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This might be better off on the reference desk, or indeed, reddit or another off-site Q&A service. --Izno (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Will computers do as good a job of translation as a human interpreter would in the forseeable future? Probably not, in my opinion. Will computers do a good enough job of translating for most people's day-to-day needs? Arguably they already do. What does that mean for the career prospects of interpreters? I guess there'll be fewer people hiring interpreters and translators, but they'll still be needed in some contexts. What does any of this have to do with Wikipedia? Not a lot. Chuntuk (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we need a Turing test for translation ... if the evaluator cannot reliably tell a machine translation from a human translation, the machine translation could be said to have passed the test. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Mmm, in that type of test you would need a large sample size. A passing grade for one translation doesn't mean it will suffice for others. There are language nuances that a translator can pick up, but a machine may miss. When you are striving for accuracy as we do here, that difference can be critical. Praemonitus (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Google Translate is not good enough IMO, usually, depending on circumstances. My raw and uneducated guess is that translation is more of a teach-the-machine-to-write-a-novel type thing than teach-the-machine-to-play-chess type thing. So I guess I'm going to continue to translate articles from time to time. I might be wasting by limited time on Earth doing so, though, and that does trouble me. Herostratus (talk) 03:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The people who get to read those articles today, rather than in five or ten years, are unlikely to believe that you are wasting your time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Translation is an art, not a science. Depending on what one is translating, one can perhaps be very literal and be fine. However, retaining the flow of a language and its nuances in a literary or descriptive context is much harder, especially with context-sensitive languages in general and slang in particular (both of which machines have trouble with). Google Translate works *if* you have a rough idea of what the result is supposed to be, but I've never seen it get a full, "natural language" sentence correct yet, and it frankly could care less about grammatical accuracy.MSJapan (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hy

Note that Vasily Bochkaryov has died. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Maintenance collaboration of the week

Attempts are being made to restart the inactive Maintenance collaboration of the week, which attempts to clear Wikipedia's lingering backlogs. If you are interested in this project, please sign up! Chickadee46 (talk|contribs) 15:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Anachronistic ship prefixes

Someone on the Reference Desk just asked a question about the use of the prefix "USS" with the ship USS Bonhomme Richard (1765).

It turns out that this is seriously anachronistic: the ship was not part of the US Navy, but of the earlier Continental Navy, and the use of USS with US Navy ships didn't become standard until much later, in the era of Theodore Roosevelt.

Possibly this means that the article should be renamed—but possibly not, as WP:AT#Use commonly recognizable names specifies that "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used". I am no expert on 18th century US naval history who would know what name is most commonly used in reliable sources [added later: or even if the addition of "USS" was retroactive"], so I'm just posting the question here for possible consideration.

And the reason I'm posting it here rather than on the article's talk page is that if it should be named, then quite likely there are other articles about pre-20th-century ships whose titles start with "USS" and which should also be renamed. If there is a better place for this suggestion, then I invite someone else to copy this posting there; for me, this is just a drive-by comment. --69.159.9.187 (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

From what I remember reading, it is not referred to as the USS BHR, and indeed the article, other than in the title, doesn't refer to it as the USS BHR. I would rename to BHR (1765). Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Please note that Ernesto Maceda has died. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Has been handled in the article about him. --Jhertel (talk) 07:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment German invasion of Belgium: Eastern Front?

Comments from experienced editors with an interest in military history are kindly requested at the talk page of this article. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello 2

When died George Forrester, born 1934? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.106.146.91 (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Invisible Guy: I restored the above question which called attention to the death date of George Forrester (footballer, born 1934) having been vandalized. --Pipetricker (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Oops! I messed up, sorry. - INVISIBLE^-Talk! 18:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Academic works translation needed before Wikimania

Hi,

I've finished a French academic work named Ethical drift with in Wikimedia movement and I will finish soon a other one named For a better economic justice with in the Wikimedia movement. I would like to translate this two works in English before Wikimania for sharing the contain with the whole community and maybe inspire discussion during the week. I didn't have time and competence to do it my self before Wikimania. Is that in this forum any person who can help me, starting translation or pointing a place where I can found this kind of help ? Thanks in advance Lionel Scheepmans ^{✉ Contact} _{(French native speaker)} 15:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, never mine. I've found a trick system to present my works in english thanks to google : For a Fair Economy in the Wikimedia movement and Ethical Drifts in the Wikimedia movement. A nice day for every one. Lionel Scheepmans ^{✉ Contact} _{(French native speaker)} 21:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Lionel Scheepmans, you can post it on Meta and mark it for translation, if you want something more precise. (Do you know User:Trizek at the French Wikipedia? He knows how to set this up.) Then you can send a request for translation to the translators' mailing list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot WhatamIdoing, I'm in contact with him in Italy. Have a nice day. Lionel Scheepmans ^{✉ Contact} _{(French native speaker)} 08:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Good article reassessment input sought

It has been suggested to me by the editor Coretheapple in the Discussion area of a current GA reassessment that the review be brought to the attention of a wider audience. The issues above are included in the review, so I hope there's enough of a cross-functional applicability. The article in question is Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz.

At the WP:FTN, the article was deemed as needing more attention from uninvolved editors:

• The article has so far been commented on mainly by editors who write military biographies, which seems to have its own separate standards regarding sourcing and details such as I have never seen before. -- diff.
• What we're not saying is that this is a GAR for a 10,000+ word essay full of WP:FANCRUFT that apparently seems to meet the GA criteria of a wikiproject with its own set of rules for what's encyclopedic. -- diff.

I would welcome feedback or a review of the article to see if it still meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria and whether it should be retained or delisted as a Good article. Specialist knowledge of the subject is not required. Thank you and happy editing. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if this [creation of a] "Talk:" page for a redirect page, was done in the wrong place

I added a new section, at https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Larceny_by_trick#Idea_for_changing_the_redirect

I apologize if, in so doing, I inadvertently did something "incorrectly". It seems to have created a brand new "Talk:" page (for the corresponding article-space page, which is a redirect page), where no "Talk:" page previously existed. Please [feel free to] tell me if that new section should have gone somewhere else, instead -- "such as", into the (already existing) "Talk:" page of the article [about] "Larceny". (...which [article] is the current "target" of the redirect page, that I was Talk:ing about.)

Also, Please feel free to answer any questions asked in that new section -- "such as" this question:

(Is it possible for a redirect to point directly to a specific section of an article-space article?)

Thanks for any help / answers / advice. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I've implemented your suggestion. It's quite fine to create the talk page against the redirect as you did, you just might not get many readers. Better alternative is to create it at the talk page of the article itself, as you have observed. Bottom line, though: a) no harm done b) eminently sensible idea. I think you should feel free to amend a redirect without discussion in as clear-cut a case as this - see WP:BRD, for instance. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Release Automatically signing

Hallo all there, I am glad to point out a new functionality-ability. There is "now" a user-script, see Signing (with 10 years development ^^). It is open for testing and feedback. ToDo next week: Functionality in Mobile version! → User: Perhelion 12:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Perhelion: Could you please explain how it works? I've tried to get it to work on the WT:SANDBOX but it wouldn't sign it. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Anarchyte, thanks for response. There is indeed an mistake in the instructions (on WP:User scripts, I'll fix this now) importScript indeed works only on the local Wikipedia (or MediaWiki page). Replace your code and use this instead: meta:User_talk:Perhelion/signing.js You must see below the editfield a new checkbox. → User: Perhelion 09:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, that works. Also, for the ping option, wouldn't it be better to use {{ping}} and for outdent use {{od}}? -- Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay good hint, I'll change this if I've PC internet again. → User: Perhelion 22:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Endorsement for "Mind of the Universe: open video commons" PEG grant proposal

The Netherlands Institute for Sound and Vision and the Dutch public broadcaster VPRO have joined forces in the initiative “Mind of the Universe: open video commons”. The Mind of the Universe is a unique international open source project based on the rapid evolution of our knowledge. The ten-part television series from Dutch public broadcaster, VPRO will show tomorrow's world through the eyes of the greatest thinkers and scientists of our time. The “open video commons”-component will (1) make a content donation of high-quality broadcast content, available in English (2) actively encourage the use of this material by the Wikipedia community and (3) highlight potential and provide practical support for setting up collaborations between public broadcasters and the Wikipedia community. In order to make this possible a Wikimedia Projects and Event Grant has been requested. Your support for this groundbreaking initiative would be much appreciated. You can read the full proposal and give your endorsement on the PEG Grant Application Page. Many thanks! 85jesse (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for Bot Approvals Group notification

As is required by the BAG membership procedure I am placing this notification at WP:AN, WP:VPM, WT:BOT, and WP:BON. I am requesting to join the Bot Approvals Group and my request can be found here: Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/HighInBC. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 20:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Reverts by user Jetstreamer

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.

---

User Ulafme asked me to ask here for help. User Jetstreamer is continuously reverting his properly cited and sourced edits about airplane specifications. The first problem there is, that it looks like the sources he use are blocked here, but maybe completely valid. Could you review the validity of sources like this or this and in case of being valid, then remove them from blocked URLs? The second problem, Ulafme told me, is, that user Jetstreamer maybe breaks content ownership policy on articles in airplane industry. Could somebody check out his activity? The third problem are continuous arguments and disputes between those two users (sometimes vulgar) on their talk pages, talk pages for articles, and so. Could somebody take a look at their disputes and maybe ask arbitrary commitee for some action? --Dvorapa (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dvorapa and Ulafme: I have no comments except for the offensive language used by Ulafme at my talk. I told them future actions like those ones will not be tolerated at my talk and will be promptly reported to an admin. Regarding content, they asked me about the sources at my talk and I replied to them.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

One more thing. I wonder how Ulafme contacted Dvorapa. Ulafme (talk · contribs)'s contributions shows no such contact and I may suspect they are the same person.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know how to start, so Dvorapa did it instead of me. I made some up-to-date corrections in Aeroflot. As a source I used http://www.planespotters.net, among others. It is the biggest, up-to-date, air transport aircraft database in the world. It is widely used source in thousands of articles here on Wiki in all languages. But all of my changes were deleted by Jetstreamer. As a reason the user mentioned, that my source is not reliable. Other source, http://www.airfleets.net, is also widely used here on wiki. And my last source was http://www.aeroflot.com, which is cited many times in Aeroflot without any problem. But for Jetstreamer it was reason to delete my changes. But I guess, the true reason is, that Jetstreamer does not allow any change in some articles. Please check the history of Aeroflot and you will see. One proof, b.t.w.: according to source Jetstreamer sent to me as Reliable Source [4], only 3 Aeroflot's aircraft wear special SkyTeam Aircraft livery. But the source is at least two years old! If Jetstreamer is right, this aircraft https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/Airbus/A320/2106/VP-BDK-Aeroflot-Russian-Airlines and this aircraft https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/Boeing/777/41689/VQ-BQG-Aeroflot-Russian-Airlines do not exist! Not from planespotters.net? Ok: http://www.jetphotos.net/aircraft/A32X-2106 and http://www.jetphotos.net/aircraft/777-41689. Not from jetphotos.net? OK, what about this: http://www.airliners.net/search?registrationActual=VQ-BQG&display=detail or this: http://www.airliners.net/search?registrationActual=VP-BDK&sortBy=dateAccepted&sortOrder=desc&perPage=24&display=detail. If it is not enough to you, put "VP-BDK" and "VQ-BQG" to any search engine.... So do you think, that all photographs manipulated their photos? Or that Jetstreamer is user, which only destroys work of others contributors here? Just because he/she can and other users do nothing against this behavior?--Ulafme (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You asked a question at my talk and I replied to it. This [5] does not help in building an encyclopedia in a collaborative enviornment. Also, I don't understand why you conclude the SkyTeam reference is outdated, there is no timestamp in the document so it may be assumed it is the latest information available. I suggest you a thorough read of WP:RELIABLE before insulting other users or posting pejorative language at their talks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Dvorapa and Ulafme aren't the same person. Ulafme's contribs shows contact but not here. The contact was made on Czech Wikipedia (see cs:Special:Contribs/Ulafme and cs:WP:POMOC). If you want to know what was discussed there please ask me and I'll give you English summary of the discussion. If planespotters isn't a reliable source I wonder why it's used in over 700 pages? Regards, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Reliability does not depend upon the use of a source in a number of articles. I already invited others and now invite you to discuss this once and for all, though I'm afraid this is not the right place for this. Separately, nobody is commenting on the way Ulafme approached me at my talk. Not doing so may give them the wrong impression they did it the right way when they actually did not. Neither I see them mentioning it.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:03, 3 July 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.

Wikipedia for childern

Dear users of the English Wikipedia,

As (maybe) a lot of you know the English Vikidia started a few years ago. Vikidia is a kind of Wikipedia, but than for and by children. Of course adults (like Wikipedians, parents, teachers...) can join Vikidia too. Since a few months we started a project to promote the English Vikidia in several English-speaking countries, that's not the problem at all. Only we have one big problem. We haven't got many users at this time. That's why we started this project, to break the visual circle. I ask the community of the English Wikipedia to join Vikidia, like I did on the Simple English Wikipedia too. Everybody is needed, from users who can write articles to people who can help users.

Of course there also some advantages for Wikipedia. If this plan is worked out, Vikidia has a own community and is popular is English-speaking countries. I see at other Vikidia's (and WikiKids) that much children join Wikipedia as well and contribute on Wikipedia as well. If children find themselves too old for Vikidia, most of them start at Wikipedia. You can see Vikidia as a kind of training for children to become a Wikipedian on an older age. I'm even prepared that Vikidia become a wiki to educate Wikipedians that too young for Wikipedia self. So Vikidia can be more than a wiki alone.

Here is a link: en.vikidia.org. Questions? I've also a mail address. On Vikidia I'm active under the name Mike1023. Please, don't misunderstand me, I don't want to make any advertisement. I just want to help children, who find Wikipedia too difficult, and help Wikipedia as well with users.

Yours sincerely, Mike.Helden (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mike.Helden: what a great idea some editors may see this post as a little adverty but personally I think it's okay - I've joined as Samtar, and will have a bit of a look around. Did you know about the simple English Wikipedia? It's an interesting concept, "training" younger people for Wikipedia - I think we have a lot of young members who are more than capable editors, and some older members who aren't! Either way, thanks for popping by, and let me know if I can be of any help -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Nice to meet you (again). Yes, I did know there was a simple English Wikipedia. I think Vikidia is more directed to children and the simple English Wikipedia to adults and older children (teenagers) as well. I hope you have a good time at Vikidia and let me know if there is something I can do. Mike.Helden (talk) 09:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mike.Helden: I agree with Samtar, this in an interesting idea! I've created an account under the same username and I'll probably find myself contributing from time to time. Omni Flames (talk) 09:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Good luck. Thank you for the positive reactions. Mike.Helden (talk) 09:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit-warring, introduction of edit-protection and refusal to participate in discussion

In Template_talk:Coat_of_arms#Erroneous_COAs.3F User:Gryffindor has introduced an edit protection for the template, after edit-warring through a disputed change of the status quo, without participating in the discussion. This must surely breach wikipedia policy, and the edit protecion should rather have been applied for this version, i.e. the status quo before the discussion was started. Please make this change. - Ssolbergj (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ssolbergj: I think this would be better suited for WP:ANI? If you do opt to file a report there, please remember to notify the editor -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ssolbergj: The wrong version is always the one that gets protected. Well-known fact. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Open call for Project Grants

Greetings! The Project Grants program is accepting proposals from July 1st to August 2nd to fund new tools, research, offline outreach (including editathon series, workshops, etc), online organizing (including contests), and other experiments that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Whether you need a small or large amount of funds, Project Grants can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.

• Submit a grant request or draft your proposal in IdeaLab
• Get help with your proposal in an upcoming Hangout session
• Learn from examples of completed Individual Engagement Grants or Project and Event Grants

Also accepting candidates to join the Project Grants Committee through July 15.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 15:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Ribbon, please

Is there an award for Today's Removal of Oldest and Weirdest BLP Violation? I'm claiming it. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Drmies. You get this plate of freshly made bannock. Please enjoy it in the traditional Inuit manner with butter, Cheese Whiz and/or jam. Or just eat it plain but it's way better when hot. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather, that is a fascinating article and a wonderful gift; thank you. I'm interested in Bere (grain) as well. I am going to skip on the Cheeze Whiz, which I am sure was just a ruse to get me selected for human sacrifice. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Map of Wikipedia articles?

I know there used to be a feature in google maps where Wikipedia articles are visible. But nowadays, is there a Wikipedia app or what programs/websites are available to display this information? Thanks much! Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Biosthmors, that rings a distant bell. I believe that Google dropped the feature more than a year ago.

It's possible that someone at Wikivoyage would know more about this, since maps are important to their work. You could ask at their Traveller's Pub. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Articles in Wikipedia Primary School Project SSAJRP

I'm trying to figure out what's going on with Category:Articles in Wikipedia Primary School Project SSAJRP. It looks a bit like a WikiProject page but instead it looks like the actual pages are tagged and not the talk pages. It links to a project at meta which I can't even figure out how's it is related to here. The parent category looks like it was some sort of educational project, again from meta, that seems to pick some major pages here for alleged improvement including by so-called experts. Is there some project here to bring in "experts" to identify and I guess fix projects based on the views of those experts? Is there a project here to identify those experts at meta and bring them here from that place without any involvement of the pages here? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I listed the category for renaming and discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 6. The larger questions about this project still remain. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: Have a look at the contributions of Anthere (talk · contribs) on 21 January 2016. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The project (which is a research project...) is explained here

Some of the expert reviews have been uploaded on Commons. I listed them there. I did not upload the most recent ones but pasted them directly into the talk pages of the articles. Reviews are of inequal quality. Some being quite superficial whilst others are quite in depth. Here is an example of such an in-depth review on Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide. The person we ask to do the review is actually working on that specific topic but is not a wikipedian ([6]). Following these reviews, wikipedians are invited to look at the comments and to integrate them if they think it relevant (sometimes they do. sometimes they disagree. Well, it is a wiki...)

in other cases, outside parties actually proposed a new version or an updated version of the article. In those cases, I usually "fix" the proposition so that it fits our guidelines. Here are two examples of such work : Flag of South Africa and Mapungubwe Collection. When it comes to alleged improvement... I think those two were improved certainly (see history). Right ? The expert who advised us on the Flag is Bruce Berry, the founder of [7]. Not a wikipedian, but definitly has an expertise on this very topic. The Museum article was based on suggestions from the curator of the collection, Sian Tiley-Nel. I guess she can be called an expert and I guess you would agree the article was improved. I even negociated a few pictures under a free licence from her (duly recorded on otrs) ;)

In yet other cases, we suggested articles for creation. This is the case of Makhonjwa Mountains or Kaditshwene

I am in charge of experimenting various paths to actually get these articles improved (and a few to be created). I have to document each process which explain my attempts to track those articles. Amongst other strategies followed, some edit-a-thon were organized on purpose to improve some articles (with the help of South African User Group and another as part of m:Wiki Loves Women project (for example, basically all edits on Constitution Hill, Johannesburg made since the 25th of May are the result of our work). I also suggest names of articles to other parties organizing edit-a-thon (such as UK, Washington, AfroCROWD etc.). And so on. Well, if you want to know more about the project, I will be more than happy to answer questions. Anthere (talk)

I responded at the category page but perhaps WP:WikiAfrica is a better model to follow. It's not actually a WikiProject but you can still provide notices on talk pages of what pages are included. It's no different that a lot of other projects in that sense. It's the mainspace categorisation that I find problematic. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I have not yet made up my mind as to whether to move the project out of the South Africa banner onto the WikiAfrica banner (there are drawbacks to this). But I will move forward on the categorisation issue (rename of cat and move from main to talk). Anthere (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Photo contest Wiki Loves Art (Belgium)

Logo Wiki Loves Art

In the months July and August 2016 Wikimedia Belgium organises the photo contest Wiki Loves Art. In this period spread over Belgium some museums open their doors for Wikipedians who want to photograph art and upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Wiki Loves Art is organised because we noticed that Belgian art is less well described on Wikipedia in comparison with neighbouring countries and less images are available. To stimulate the knowledge and images about these subjects in Wikipedia, we organise a photo contest, similar to Wiki Loves Monuments.

Participation to Wiki Loves Art is possible by making photos in participating museums of the museum and/or the artworks that are designated by the museum. Some museums are open for two months for photographers, other museums only on certain days and times.

Participating museums are:

• Museum of Fine Arts in Ghent
• Bardelaere Museum in Lembeke
• FOMU Photo Museum in Antwerp
• Ceramic Museum in Andenne
• Library of Université de Liège
• Musée Royal de Mariemont in Morlanwelz

More information about participation can be found at our website: http://www.wiki-loves-art.be/

Romaine (talk) 10:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

TED speakers challenge

Participate in the TED speakers challenge!!

The writing challenge about TED speakers, originally scheduled to end 6 July, has been extended to Wednesday 13 July. Everyone can participate by writing about people who have held a TED talk posted on TED.com. For an overview of TED speakers in the in competition see here: User:Jane023/TED speakers. For an overview of all the TED talks that these people have held, see here: User:Jane023/TED talks. More information about the challenge, the points, the prizes, and the sign-up is here: TED speakers challenge. Jane (talk) 06:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Detecting self-promotional reference spam

By mere coincidence, I found two cases of self-promotional reference spam within the past two months: Jojojava and 151.72.6.77, both adding numerous references to published articles of J. Benchimol and F. G. Santeramo, respectively, to various Wikipedia articles. I doubt that those two are the only cases out there, so I wondered if we could think of a way to automatically detect this sort of edit behavior: IPs or single-purpose accounts adding identical references to numerous articles (while adding no content). Maybe we could have a bot flagging this type of edits, because it is very hard to spot for the human eye. --bender235 (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Seemed appropriate to mention your idea here: Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 72#extract cite: journal template information from history articles, so I did. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistency with English variety categories

Why do we have Category:All Wikipedia articles written in American English, Category:All Wikipedia articles written in Australian English, etc. but not Category:All Wikipedia articles written in British English? – nyuszika7h (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

No-one's bothered writing it. Fancy a go? Britmax (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Britmax: Seems like it existed before, and on May 9, 2011, it was deleted as "G8: Populated by deleted or retargeted template" by Rich Farmbrough, but I'm not sure what happened there. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems like it was removed from the template citing a talk page discussion, but I can't see this mentioned anywhere on the talk page. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of this type of templates, as opposed to those requiring a fix, is to enable people to make sure that the appropriate style for the article is followed. The idea, therefore is to periodically check each pages and make any necessary emendations. After this the date of the template will be updated. I believe this was being done by User:Ohconfucius. The general idea was to have a yearly check.

The "All" category is if little use for this function, and really only serves to count items, which {{Progress box}} does just fine. The "hidden categories" list at the bottom of the page (if you have it enabled) is full enough without having two items for each maintenance issue.

I proposed removal on 7 May 2011 and removed it on 9 May 2011.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC).

The West Country Challenge

If anybody would like to win up to £250 ($330) in August for improving articles on SouthWest England sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge. All participants are welcome! Just a bit of fun, there will be three days allocated to each country such as Devon, and Cornwall and something to win daily.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

County. Devolution isn't quite that bad yet. Britmax (talk) 13:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Just wait until "Wessexit"! Chuntuk (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Defining general readers

How are general readers defined? Are they rich or poor? Intelligent or broad? Curious or ignorant? I spent my time figuring out who qualify as general readers. So far, I end up more concerned about quality more than about quantity. Still, do readers usually go for the introduction of an article and then shift to another article? Do readers go for statistics? Plot summaries? Are they curious enough to read further after reading the lead? How do I find out who is a general reader without generalizing people? --George Ho (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

They are exactly like other people, only more so. Dumuzid (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

"How do I find out who is a general reader without generalizing people?" You won't, so don't worry about it. Britmax (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Come to think about it, do general people read Wikipedia always? Frequently? Seldom? How much do they read Wikipedia? If seldom or less, then I don't know why I spent most of my time here in Wikipedia. I felt as if I lost opportunities to socialize in real life. --George Ho (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain exactly why you are asking this remarkably unfocused question? I can't help but feel that if we understood what actual issue you were trying to address here it might save an awful lot of wasted time. As the question stands there is no way to give a meaningful answer. I'll close it if you can't clarify. Begoon ^talk 14:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The questions came in two groups. The first group addressed readers, which is to say WP:AUDIENCE for which perhaps survey data can be collected to make estimates of how many fit into various classes. The second group addressed reading behavior, which I suspect can only come from laboratory studies. As for summarizing the hypothetical data by defining one general or typical reader or reading style, umm, why? Jim.henderson (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Measuring use of a template that includes a specific website in a field

Hi all

I would like to know if there is a way to find all the instances of a template that use a particiular website in at least one field. Specifically I want to know how many of the uses of Template:Open-source_attribution have a url that includes unesco.org in at least one field. Currently this is possible to do by hand but I expect it will be used a lot more in the near future.

Many thanks

John Cummings (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@John Cummings: a bot could quite easily do this by retrieving all the pages listed at Category:Open-source attribution and then using a regex search to check for instances of /unesco\.org/i in {{Open-source attribution}} -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Samtar:, thanks very much, how could I get something like this created? --John Cummings (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@John Cummings: gimme a mo, I might be able to run a one-time task - would a page listing all the pages with the instance on be sufficient? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 10:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@John Cummings: there's a list at User:Samtar/botrun1 which has every page in the category Open-source attribution where the {{Open-source attribution}} template has a mention of unesco.org within it -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar:, wonderful, thanks so much, will this stay updated or is it a manual thing to keep running it? Thanks again --John Cummings (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@John Cummings: it's currently manual, but I can always add it as an additional task once xphois (hopefully) gets its bot approval. Until then just leave me a message when you want it run -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: great, I might ask you maybe once every month or two until the bot gets approved if that is ok? --John Cummings (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Fine by me :) -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on guidance and VE compatible template for importing open license text into Wikipedia

Hi

I've been doing some work on creating guidance and a VE and Source editor compatible template for importing open license text into English Wikipedia. Currently there is a bug with VE meaning it cannot use nested templates so we have created a workaround, once this bug has been fixed then a better technical solution will be found. I'm more looking for suggestions for additions to the guidance page at the moment and how the attribution is displayed. If you would like to try it out I've created some guidance on using open license text from UNESCO publications and descriptions in Wikipedia.

Many thanks

John Cummings (talk) 10:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Rollbacker block - reporting a well succeeded policy on lusophone Wikipedia

I don't intend do post this as a proposal, but only a report. Since October 2012 pt-Wikipedia non-admin rollbackers have been allowed to make low risk level blocks, what means a block of a maximum of 24 hours on an ip or a non-confirmed account. This has been beta-implemented and the test was successful, without further problems, despite the initial fear of increasing mistakes. This tool is still "on", has reduced the backlog of blocks and also has been a very important help in fighting against vandalism. Perhaps The reality here doesn't recommend the same policy implementation, but I think somebody would like to know this at least as a curiosity. Millbug ^talk 04:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

How often the blocks have been reverted by administrators? Ruslik_Zero 12:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Almost never, I guess, because I've never seen it happen or noticed about. Millbug ^talk 22:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Millennium bug: There are only 129 rollbackers on ptwiki. In comparison there are 5,556 non-admin rollbackers on enwiki. Also, rollbacker is given out like candy here. Anyone with enough common sense to not get blocked within the first few months or so would eventually qualify for the right given even the smallest proof of vandalism fighting. I am not sure what the qualifications are on ptwiki but looking at their requests page it looks like they are at least marginally higher than ours. To give that many people the ability to block would just not happen here. I wouldn't trust that and I'm certain a lot of other people wouldn't either. We would just need a higher bar to granting it. Interesting that it works so well on ptwiki but I just don't see it happening on enwiki. --Majora (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Millbug ^talk 00:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Articles with two deaths/births category

Hi, I get a query and made lists which shows there are some articles with two deaths or two births categories. some of the articles are correct and some of them should be solve please help me to correcting them.

• Articles with two birth categories
• Articles with two death categories

the queries are the their talk page. Yamaha5 (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Yamaha5:Please add "family" to the list of words which disqualify an article from showing up (see, for example, Allison family). And look at the lowercase version of the title, to catch entries like Chudnovsky brothers. An other word to exclude may be "murders" (such as Cerro Maravilla murders). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done I added them to the queriesYamaha5 (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Also "sisters" and "children". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC).

Gutenberg

Gutenberg we all remember as one of the pioneer open knowledge sites. However pages such as this are copyvios of Wikipedia. I have previously emailed Project Gutenberg about this sort of thing, and have made no progress.

What can we do?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC).

Our requirements for re-use of content are "any derivative of works from Wikipedia must be released under that same license, must state that it is released under that license, and must acknowledge the contributors (which can be accomplished with a link back to that article on Wikipedia)". The article in question meets the first two - it has a CC BY-SA 3.0 licence on it - but fails the third, with no link to the source. It does have a sentence "Help to improve this article, make contributions at the Citational Source" with Citational Source being an anchor for a link to the URL https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/?action=history ... I suspect this is a broken mechanism, and that the intent may well have been to point back to the source article's history, rather than the main page history.

So, AGF & all, the solution is to try to find someone within the publishing organisation who would be willing to address the relatively small problem. I grant that may be a sisyphean task. Presuming we can find no-one willing to respond, then it would be for a copyright holder to pursue a case against the publisher, which would be an improbable eventuality.

I have had responses from Gutenberg in the past, including from Gregory B. Newby, so there's evidence they do, sometimes, respond.

I presume you've tried info@worldlibrary.net, who appear to 'own' the republication?

--Tagishsimon (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Short of suit, taking it as far as a DMCA takedown notice is more likely to get the attention of someone that just a run of the mill license violation letter, but it can only sent by a significant contributor to an article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Lets not jump the gun with DMCA or copyright threats. They're a public service non-profit, and this looks like a simple unintentionally broken link. I suspect they will want to get this cleaned up once someone figures out how to contact them. Alsee (talk) 09:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC) P.S. I mean contact them more effectively. There's no detail on what happened with the email attempts, maybe we need to more directly contact someone higher up. Alsee (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Scratch that last comment. We may need to contact WMF-legal to kick the shit of out someone. I'm unclear what relation, if any, there is between Project Gutenberg and "worldheritage.org" (note World Heritage Encyclopedia is a redlink).... but Project Gutenberg is getting the articles from World Heritage, and is including all citational information that was available at World Heritage. World Heritage Encyclopedia is the problem, taking Wikiarticles without properly citing back here. CORRECTION: It seem WorldHeritage does have a "Citational Source" link to our article, and Gutenburg strips the article off of their link. And the reason I abruptly change my tone to ass-kicking is because I just got a look at World Heritage Encyclopedia's article History of Wikipedia. Holy fuck. They did a half-ass search-and-replace, changing "Wikipedia" to "WorldHeritage".

• The History of WorldHeritage formally began with the launch of WorldHeritage on 15 January 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger
• Founding of WorldHeritage There was considerable resistance on the part of Nupedia's editors and reviewers to the idea of associating Nupedia with a wiki-style website. Sanger suggested giving the new project its own name, WorldHeritage, and WorldHeritage was soon launched on its own domain, WorldHeritage.com, on Monday 15 January 2001.
• List of WorldHeritages by article count
  • It refs ^ a b c "List of WorldHeritages – Grand Total (updated daily)". Wikimedia.org. Retrieved 20 December 2014.
• On 22 October 2014, the first monument to WorldHeritage was unveiled in the Polish town of Slubice.
• In late-2015, WorldHeritage was the world's seventh-most-popular website according to Alexa Internet
  • Alexa says[8] worldheritage.com rank not even available, not enough traffic to rank.

I'll go look for where to contact the WMF about this, and I'll post a followup. Alsee (talk) 10:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC) Email sent to WMF legal. Alsee (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The gutenberg.org page for History of Wikipedia also says the author is World Heritage, and has the same insane content quoted above. Alsee (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi all, Alsee asked me to reply here rather than to the email. So I wanted to say thanks for passing this along and let you all know we're looking into it. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Jrogers. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC).

How many registered users have made at least one edit?

I'm curious as to how many registered users have actually made at least one edit. Is such a statistic available anywhere? Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 00:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm#editdistribution says 6,007,614 as of June 30, 2016. Special:Statistics currently says there are 28,714,054 registered users so that's around 21% of them. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

One or the other of those seems out of whack. Why would 22 million people bother to sign up and then never make an edit? Praemonitus (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Because all Wikmedia projects have a unified login. If you sign up for say, the German Wikipedia, an account for the English Wikipedia will be created if you visit here while logged in – regardless of whether you ever edit here or even speak the language. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Also I believe some people sign up to change hte skin on what they see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Here are some of the other reasons I've heard: access to preference settings, wanting to make an edit (then giving up because it's too hard), thinking that you need an account to read (not true, of course), or wanting to use the watchlist as an ersatz bookmarking system.

BTW, I've heard that about 70% of registered editors fail to make their first edit, and that about 70% of those who make the first one never make a second. I believe that those numbers are signed-up-here/edited-here, which controls for the problem of me having a total of 758 "accounts" so far (but edits in only ~255 of them). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you involved in another language Wikipedia?

There's an effort to collect information about smaller Wikipedias at m:Tell us about your Wikipedia. If you are involved in some other Wikipedias, please look through the list there and see if you can provide more information about other Wikipedias. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft essay about negative claims

I've started a draft essay on the problems with using negative claims, statements that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something and depend on the absence of evidence to prove its validity, with regards to WP:Verifiability and especially WP:BURDEN. I would like to present the essay for further expansion and provide examples of negative claims. One example I have encounter are claims that assert a television series or film has not been released for home video. However, I'm not exactly sure how to best present that example. The draft can be found at User:TheFarix/Avoid negative claims. —Farix (t | c) 13:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Please note that Eleuterio Fernández Huidobro has died. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 09:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Article has been updated. Thank you for the info. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Seeking info on India wikipedia stats

I'm a journalist and looking for any Wikipedia statistics related to India, for the purpose of writing some article. Thanks, fredericknoronha (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fredericknoronha: Please see https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_room and http://wiki.wikimedia.in/Media Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Commons media partnership to Wikipedia influence

I expect that many contributors here know that there is another community at Wikimedia Commons which solicits for all sorts of individuals and organizations to provide media files like images for reuse in various language Wikipedias and beyond. When an organization shares their media collection at Commons, there is no standard way for them to do that. Perhaps all of their files are in a certain category, and the organization manages their activity at the top-level category for their organization. Another way they might do this is to set up a project page on Commons, which can be something like a WikiProject here. Commons often encourages anyone who uploads content to integrate that content into various language Wikipedias and other Wikimedia projects when relevant.

There is an organization at Commons which donated a media collection. It is generous of anyone to apply free licenses to a media collection and share it. The media collection is in this category, and the category also seems to be the hub for organizing a project to engage with the media.

• Commons:Category:Southerly Clubs Image Archives

On WP:OTRS in the private ticket:2016071010007208, a user wrote in to request that the use of images from this project be checked. They suggested that the project might be posting pictures in various Wikipedia articles even when the pictures were not the sort that Wikipedia usually uses for illustrating concepts. This pictures might be related to a single individual or family. Here are the images that the user questioned. The text under them is links to Wikipedia articles where the pictures are inserted.

• 
  black tie and sv:smoking
• 
  Neopaganism in Scandinavia
• 
  Sibling relationship
• 
  Swedish American Line
• 
  Clearlake Oaks, California
• 
  Swedish Wikipedia
• 
  Receptionist
• 
  Swedish emigration to the United States
• 
  Dustin Hoffman filmography
• 
  Pau, Pyrénées-Atlantiques
• 
  Cypress Hills Cemetery (New York City) and Mae West
• 
  Family reunion
• 
  1970s in Western fashion and Me generation
• 
  Hippie
• 
  1970s in Western fashion
• 
  Studentexamen
• 
  Public lecture
• 
  Moritz, Landgrave of Hesse
• 
  The Beverly Hills Hotel
• 
  Christoph, Prince of Schleswig-Holstein
• 
  Cadillac Eldorado
• 
  Wenche Myhre
• 
  Valentine's Day

I am not sure. I did not check these and the other uploaded images, but I thought I would raise the issue here to see if anyone else wanted to take this one. I am directing the person who wrote to OTRS to check here for updates. I am not following this further. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Odd to happen to find this by coincidence, without having been notified of it!

I am responsible for most of these contributions as per my (unpaid) assignment. On Swedish Wikipedia right now there is bit of a personal harassment and stalking campain going on against the Chairman of the organization that has donated these images to Commons. I perceive it as little more than a Jante Law problem, such as does pop up there from time to time. These images have been placed in articles where there were few images, without replacing any images that were already there. I have done this in good faith, for no other reason than to appropriately illustrate the articles, which mainly is why we provide images to Commons, if I'm not wholly mistaken. If any of them are "not the sort that Wikipedia usually uses for illustrating concepts" I have been convinced, through many years of experience on Wikimedia projects now, that that was not the case in any instance. I'd be sad to think that contributing in good faith is discouraged.

Many of our images, of many famous people, from the files of the Chairman, are the only free images that Commons has. Many of these images (gallery here) have been in place for a long time. Seems more appropriate to criticize the images on the talk pages of the articles concerned than to wager some sort of back-handed attack against a very benevolent source. I do remove our images from time to time and always replace our images with better images from other sources when possible. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

PS This complaint has also bee posted here, where I am apprantly blocked from commenting. (?) --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC) Confused --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

In all fairness and openness, I've raised the question here also to see if any users of Commons and enWP would like to chime in. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

As someone that adds a lot of images to articles, I would suggest to find better image on a given subject and replace the one you do not like. That is what I often do. I do not see any evidence of image spamming here. --Jarekt (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with Jarekt. Thanks for your work improving usage of images. Nemo 17:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

request renaming

Please be renamed with Greek Nikolas if possible. Thanks in advance.--Νικόλας Παπαποστόλου (talk) 12:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Νικόλας Παπαποστόλου: This is the wrong place to ask; see instructions at WP:RENAME. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Documentation updates

(Moved here from VPP)

With the changes (last month and today) to the ping system the information at the Wikipedia:Notifications and Wikipedia:Notifications/FAQ pages is now out of date and, in some cases, misleading or wrong. I had posted a request for updating here Wikipedia talk:Notifications#Update needed that Quiddity (WMF) kindly responded to. I haven't seen any changes to either page though so I thought I would ask here to see if those who understand the ins and outs of the changes could work out the new wording and pictures that both pages require. If this is not the proper place for this question please feel free to move it to a better spot. MarnetteD|Talk 23:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: (Note: I've moved this topic from VPP to VPM.)

The larger or more general issue of maintaining documentation in multiple wikis and in multiple languages and for multiple target-audiences, is a problem that I worry/think about a lot. I asked if we could somehow solve it with shadow-namespaces, but the developers concluded that this use-case is even more complicated than all the other use-cases for that technology. In the near-to-medium-term, cross-wiki watchlists might help partially solve the complexities with having documentation primarily located on another wiki, and thus prevent this type of content-drift. In the longer term, a more complex system of global transclusions, or something along those lines, might solve it completely.

For this instance, as I wrote in the earlier discussion, it might be worth considering changing most (but not all) of the project page at WP:Notifications, into a soft-redirect to the primary documentation locations at mw:Help:Notifications and mw:Help:Notifications/Notifications types. Plus retaining underneath that, the English Wikipedia specific information, such as "Course talk:" and "Blacklist and whitelist" details. Otherwise there are continual problems with content-drift, hence I strongly encourage various forms of m:mergism when it comes to documentation. It would also help encourage everyone to improve the primary/centralized documentation, which would benefit all the communities. What do you think? Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

It certainly sounds like a good idea Quiddity (WMF). I do hope that between you and anyone else who replies here that a solution happens. My concern is that, with all of the changes to the ping system, editors are going to those pages to try and learn what has happened. Since the info is out of date they may find themselves more confused then when they got to those pages. Thanks for your detailed post. MarnetteD|Talk 01:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

One possible way to reduce the issue would be by using soft redirects more frequently. Thus, if a documentation page isn't very widely used, just put it at a central place and soft redirect pages on other projects to it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

If they're in the same language. Regardless, I agree the documentation needs to be updated. The ping system has been difficult to use predictably, and if it's behavior has changed just as we started to nail down exactly how it behaved under various conditions, then it needs to be rewritten to account for what has changed. The ability to ping and know that it worked has become increasingly important as a notification mechanism.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

What we certainly need is a means for knowing exactly which mentions caused a notification, and to which we can direct people so that they can see for themselves that there was no notification. Some users still attempt to notify by amending an existing post. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Conditional headers in infoboxes

When you make an infobox template, it is not uncommon to have a section with optional data fields, where you want the section header to disappear when no data fields are present. This is described in Template:Infobox/doc#Hiding headers when all data fields are hidden. The infobox documentation suggests that there should be a way to make a header row autohideable by detecting if there is at least one non-empty data row after that header row.

I read that and agreed, so I made a proposal for a change in Module:Infobox to implement that. My changed code is in Module:Infobox/sandbox, and here is a diff from the current version.

It works by introducing a new series of parameters, called condheader(n) for conditional header. A condheader will work exactly as a normal header if it is followed immediately by a data row in the infobox. But if the next row is not a data row, the condheader will be suppressed. The new version should not change anything at all for current infoboxes with no condheader(n) parameters.

I have tested the condheader(n) parameter with a modified Template:Infobox bridge in my personal sandbox, and it seems to work fine. I have also tested the new code with several existing infoboxes, and seen no chance at all.

This change could make many infoboxes simpler to code and maintain. Please give your opinion at Template talk:Infobox#Conditional header. Thank you, Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

ISIS

It might not be relevant, but last night I had an interesting dream that a top YouTube commentator (it might have been a Wikipedia visitor) wrote this:

This article is about the ancient Egyptian goddess. For the jihadist militant group sometimes abbreviated as ISIS, see Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
For other uses, see Isis (disambiguation). Is this a Wikipedia article or just two cats playing?

So, I'm just wondering why do we need this article to be our main article for those characters? In my opinion, we are just distracting potential viewers or users. 91.185.109.142 (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Seems like Twinkle acts too fast to remove images in drafts waiting review

Approximately two weeks ago, I uploaded a fair-use logo on English Wikipedia for an article on a non-profit organization. When I finally submitted it for review, a message said that there was a significant backlog and it would take days to complete the review. I've been waiting for about 10 days, and meanwhile Twinkle has removed the "orphaned" image. Wouldn't it be better if Twinkle checked the queue of articles waited review, and delayed removal in circumstances like mine? Illuminer2 (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Twinkle is not at fault here, the user who has uploaded the fair-use logo before an actual article exists is. Fair-use images can only be used in articles, and not drafts (WP:NFCC#9), and, fair-use files that are not used in any any article will be deleted (WP:NFCC#7) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this rule needs to be reconsidered. How can a draft article be properly reviewed if it doesn't have all the information that the author wants to use? Also, unless I missed it, I don't recall seeing any fair-use copyright prohibitions for unpublished drafts at www.copyright.gov. Illuminer2 (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Illuminer2: Images have zero weight on whether or not a draft is accepted. And our policy on the matter is at WP:NFCC. Fair use images cannot be in drafts. Period. That is our policy and that is not going to change. Sorry. Feel free to reupload it if and when the draft is accepted. --Majora (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

If I may pursue this one more time: You say that images have zero weight on whether or not a draft is accepted, but it seems like a draft review should at least evaluate whether images are used according to Wikipedia copyright standards. Overall, it just seems sad to downgrade images as not worth review. After all, "A picture is worth a thousand words"; or as I prefer to say it, "...worth 1024 words." Illuminer2 (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Birthplaces for Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians

What's the deal with edits like this? I started reverting things, but I'm wondering if there was ever a community-wide discussion on the issue. (Basically, people are changing birthplaces to read "Lithuania", instead of "Lithuanian SSR". And so forth with other Baltic states.) Thanks! Zagalejo^^^ 04:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Something related to the disputes underpinning Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe et cetera, I believe. I.e a POV war. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

There was a partial-consensus according to this user. However, I can't find the actual discussion anymore. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

There was no discussion, and no consensus. Leo Komarov is most of the times protected because people just can not stop edit-warring over his birthplace.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Just because you're not aware of such discussions doesn't mean anything. One of the discussions regarding this matter – Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Country of birth. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Your link is 8 years old and inconclusive. Now we use RfC for such dscussions. Everybody is welcome to open a RfC. Until this has been done, RfC has run its way and has been properly closed, we are in the situation of no consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

{{Citation needed}} vs. {{Dubious}}

A discussion has been started at Template talk:Citation needed regarding an apparent conflict between the documentation for the tags {{citation needed}} and {{dubious}} – namely, which to use for statements in articles that are both unsourced and of questionable validity. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Note that Midget Farrelly has died on 7 august according to Google. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The article already notes that. Google is not a source, it is a means of locating sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

German speaker needed

Resolved

Could someone who reads German please check {{Brueckenweb}}? Some of the links it generates, like [9], are returning blank pages for me. The site's home page works, so maybe the link structure has changed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

 Doing... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

That particular article is now at http://www.brueckenweb.de/2content/datenbank/bruecken/3brueckenblatt.php?bas=83, so yeah it seems like an URL structure change to me. I have no idea why website administrators do such things. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: that's very helpful, thank you. I've updated the template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

We have the same issue with {{Aeiou}}, also for a German site. @Jo-Jo Eumerus: can you oblige, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Holy Pele. In that case, the website administrators have found it necessary to not just change the domain root but also the link format. I think you'll have to mass replace them in some way - at least it looks like each page has a redirect to the newer page version, at the link in the Starten Sie eine Suche nach dieser Seite im neuen AEIOU durch einen Klick hier sentence there is a search result page which seems to usually point to the replacement article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you. It's like server-side rewrites had never been invented. Bot request posted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

RFC concerning the gun used in the Orando shooting

Talk:SIG MCX# RFC: Is the Orlando shooting relevant? Please comment there if you have an opinion. Felsic2 (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Periods now used on Wikipedia in place of bullet points?...Why?...

Hello.

I noticed recently that periods (.) seem to have now replace bullet points on Wikipedia pages in all places where the latter used to be used - e.g. disambig pages and other places with lists.

I personally find the new standard to be less intuitive, and in fact a bit annoying.

I tried to google for more info about this recent change, but couldn't seem to find anything relevant.

If somebody here knows more about this and could share, or at least post a link or two to where this change was discussed prior to its adoption then this would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance! -2003:CA:83D1:4E00:98B6:71:B8E6:D4A4 (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Are you talking about the symbol to the left of my writing here? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• Perhaps you could provide a link to a page where you see this phenomenon. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• In this case I see a little square. It is determined by a style sheet, or in its absence a default browser behaviour. Sometimes the style sheet fails to load, and you see strange results and layout. A reload of the page may cure the issue. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• An observation: on my PC (desktop computer) I see the little square. I am observing this on a disambiguation page I watch: Ball and chain (disambiguation). However if I look up the same page on my smartphone (mobile edit) I do see only a small dot like a period. Since the IP user contributed the question from what appears to be a mobile edit, perhaps this explains the variance. (?) Fylbecatulous talk 16:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• I believe that a bug related to this was reported in Safari more than a year ago. Information about your web browser and computer operating system would be helpful. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Google translate links

I have started a discussion about the use of Google translate links in citations and external links sections. Please comment there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Source code messages to discourage editors

I just wondered how we deal with source code messages like this one aimed at preventing editors from a certain modification or addition to an article. This particular case is a curious one because Giano II (talk · contribs) decided this one 8 years ago unilaterally without prior discussion anywhere, but even if the message is softened to a suggestion for prior discussion before adding an infobox as modified by SchroCat (talk · contribs), is this really how we want it? Especially since, in that particular case it turned out that the suggestion was just a sugar-coated way of saying "suggest an infobox on the talk page so that we can tell you they are not mandatory by Wikipedia guidelines which entirely nullifies all your arguments instantly and chokes the discussion."

Anyhow, my point is that we should not have these discouraging messages in the first place. Rather than have to seek new consensus in a week-long discussion, editors should simply edit. If lets say over a several weeks a different editors repeatedly attempt to add an infobox to a certain article, then that's a sign of new consensus. Messages like the one added to this particular article have quite probably discouraged any attempt to add an infobox over the past 8 years. --bender235 (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

You may want to see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Infoboxes.--Moxy (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Nice way to open the back door for tag teaming IB Warriors to force their own way on pages: a system that validates and rewards edit warring. Brilliant. The text is a polite way of asking people to use the talk page to avoid edit warring. I don't know why you would want to avoid the talk page for a system that actively encourages edit warring by tag team. – SchroCat (talk) 03:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Off topic and moving towards the tendentious. – SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You may want to look at why your always in this situation. Perhaps your approach to the same situation needs to change. --Moxy (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Perhaps you could keep your opinions of my actions to yourself: I care not. - SchroCat (talk) 10:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC What we are looking for is a goodfaith effort from all to try and get along with our peers ...even those that have a different POV. Its alot less stressful to be corgial then it does to be involved in conflict after conflict because of your approach to others. -- Moxy (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Again, keep your opinions of other editors to yourself. If you wish to continue being tendentious, do so elsewhere and stay on topic. – SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Infoboxes are a different case, I'm not familiar with this issue (and I don't see why an article couldn't have an infobox if it's useful), but for example if editors repeatedly try to add information that's known to be incorrect, that does not mean there's a "new consensus". So not all notes like that are necessarily evil. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. I would not compare it to adding incorrect information, but rather something like re-naming/re-ordering section titles, or shuffling images around in an article. An infobox usually is not about correct or incorrect information. --bender235 (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that particular comment should have pointed to a discussion or given a reason. Overall I have no problem with comments discouraging editing if there is a good reason and a number of wrong edits have been done. For instance in spherical coordinate system even with comments discouraging them people still change the convention in equations - there's two main conventions normally used for them. Dmcq (talk) 11:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I just remembered I had deleted an infobox [10] in the last couple of days! It was too large and displaced more useful stuff and really wasn't at the same level as the article. I certainly don't dislike all infoboxes but I do think they have to earn their keep. Dmcq (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I just realized we actually have a guideline regarding the misuse of hidden texts. I guess this particular one falls under point 3: Telling others not to perform certain edits to a page, unless there is an existing policy against that edit.. Especially since the hidden text was added in a unilateral decision with no prior discussion at all. --bender235 (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't look like a guideline – I think it's an essay (though one, somewhat deceptively, not labeled as such...). In any case, I don't think that's in any way "binding" – it just looks like a suggestion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

What makes you believe that Help:Hidden text is an essay? Also, it is linked from MOS:COMMENT. Let's hear from the creators/early contributors Sebwite, OlEnglish, Victor Victoria, and Berny68 please. --bender235 (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I will label the page so there is no confusion (its an essay in the "help namespace"). This bring up a good point ...perhaps we need to expand our guidelines on this point. -- Moxy (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted that. Wikipedia:Manual of Style #Invisible comments links to Help:Hidden text through the {{main article}} template. That identifies it as the detailed exposition of which MOS:COMMENT is the summary, as described at WP:Summary style. As part of the Manual of Style, it has the same status as a guideline, not an essay. --RexxS (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@RexxS thats a bad edit....as it is not part of the manual. Many essays are linked from policy and guidelines. Best not to mislead editors...as seen above. Pls revert or use a different essay template so editors are not confused in the future. -- Moxy (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I've reverting to Moxy's addition – I agree that Help:Hidden text is not a guideline. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It is just as much part of the MOS as any other daughter page would be when using WP:Summary style. The purpose of the {{main}} template is to give fuller information to a summary section. Wikipedia:Manual of Style #Invisible comments is the summary section for Help:Hidden text. Of course Help:Hidden text is a guideline - you only have to read it see that. I'll revert back - you have no consensus to change the state of the page. --RexxS (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Help:Hidden text is a guideline, or if it isn't already we should make it one since these issues need to be addressed. --bender235 (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Rather than just arguing among ourselves, I've set up an RfC at Help talk:Hidden text to try to reach a broader consensus on the issue. Hopefully that will move us forward. --RexxS (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

There is some clear confusion here as to what is what ...an the fact an essay tag is a badge of dishonour - it is not. Please see Wikipedia:Essays#About essays and its main linked essays. When it comes to template documentation as with {{main}} see WP:CONLIMITED --Moxy (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that an essay is a badge of anything. The issue is simply whether a Help page has any standing in supporting a given position in a content debate. Editors should be free to ignore essays (like WP:Essays itself), but Help pages, like guidelines, should represent broader community consensus, and not be dismissed as optional at any editor's whim. --RexxS (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

All page that have not been approved by the community at large are classified as essays ...there are many types of essays - helpful ones, informative ones and even opinionated ones. Help pages are authored in the same manner as all others pages...some good some bad - Help:help See Wikipedia:Template messages/Wikipedia namespace. -- Moxy (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

That's pure invention on your part. There are many types of pages that are not policies, guidelines or essays - see WP:Policies and guidelines #Role "Policies ... Guidelines ... Essays ... Other pages that can be found in the Wikipedia: namespace include community process pages (which facilitate application of the policies and guidelines), historical pages, WikiProject pages, or help pages (also found in the Help namespace), community discussion pages and noticeboards." Stop making things up. --RexxS (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps someone else can explain better then me. We have two types of "info" pages here those approved by the community and those that have not been approved by the community. Anyone may write a help page, anyone may also write a page about civility and so on see Wikipedia:Essay directory. Lets quote one of our guides WP:ADVICEPAGE - " An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay." I edit alot on help and info pages and do not think those pages are more or less important then other essays. -- Moxy (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

So your position is that Help:Hidden text has no standing in any content dispute because in your view all help pages are essays? Whereas my position is that Help:Hidden text is not merely linked from Wikipedia:Manual of Style #Invisible comments, but is designated as the full page that the section of MOS summarises, and therefore is a guideline because it's part of MOS. Fine, we can make a decision on the status of Help:Hidden text by discussing its merits as a guideline at Help:Hidden text #RfC on status of this page. --RexxS (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

This is an issue which is, practically, not going to be easy to solve. There are many essays, some clearly-stated as essays, some not, which are "see also'ed" or equivalent from policy or guideline pages. Whether those references/links give them some weight more than mere essays (as referred to by WP:ADVICEPAGE) is a question which, as far as I know, has never been addressed. Since I spend a lot of time monitoring some policy pages, I would note that on the core policies the addition of such links generally doesn't get by without consensus and, thus, at least some blessing as something more than just essays, but on other non-core policies I'd be willing to wager they don't get nearly as much attention. The practical problem is that I don't think that any one answer will work: In some cases they probably are "junior policies" or "policy by reference" but in others not. The problem is compounded by the fact that since they're not identified as policy or guidelines, that editors coming onto them from places other than the links in the policy feel much freer to edit them than they would a policy and since others may not think of them as policy-by-reference, they may not come under the same degree of scrutiny as designated policies or guidelines. Frankly, with all that in play my thought is that as a general rule they cannot be given any more weight than ordinary essays and that editors who wish for them to be given weight as guidelines or policies should be required to formally propose them for that status. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

That's a good analysis, although I'd add that the use of {{main article}} implies not just a link, but a two-way relationship. It would be anomalous for a section of a guideline to depend on (i.e. be the summary of) the content of an essay. I've already made the formal proposal for Help:Hidden text, which should produce some clarity in the particular case. Does anyone know of other help pages that ought to be considered for testing against the formal process? --RexxS (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• FWIW I've also dropped the question of the status of help pages to ArbCom: if they are to make a decision on hidden text, they should clarify whether their rationale is based on essay, guideline, policy or other and, accordingly, the weight that should be given to Help pages in relation to the others. – SchroCat (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

New Wikiproject

We have started WikiProject Unsourced Article Rescue, as there are thousands of older unsourced articles. We will be holding article rescue drives, with rewards. Sign up today! ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

TfD pending for Split from/to

Not sure what's the best place to post this, so I'm just posting here. Feel free to move or place a notification on other relevant talk pages. {{Split from}} and {{Split to}} were subject to a TfD discussion back in March, and it was closed with a consensus to merge, but all that was done is {{Split article}} created as a copy of {{Split from}}. It does not appear to be usable as a replacement for {{Split to}}. Honestly, {{copied}} can do the job fine and it may be best to convert transclusions to that, but I'll leave the details to someone else. Pinging Izkala as the closer and BU Rob13 as the creator of {{Split article}}. – nyuszika7h (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Please, no – I'd rather the merge go through, as {{Split from}}/{{Split to}} are easier to use than {{copied}}. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: As I explained at Amaury's talk page, it's almost the same, the main four parameters listed in the documentation are enough, so not sure how a merged version of these would be much easier to use. But if someone actually does that, I wouldn't have a problem with it. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Shortcut

Why do so many irrelevant random posts end up at Wikipedia talk:Shortcut (history)? Is it linked from somewhere that it shouldn't be? Or is Wikipedia:Shortcut linked from many pages? I can understand Wikipedia talk:About (history), Wikipedia talk:General disclaimer (history), Wikipedia talk:Contact us (history) etc. getting a lot of attention, since Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:General disclaimer, Wikipedia:Contact us etc. are linked at the bottom of every single page. But why should WT:Shortcut get an even higher level of noise? --Redrose64 (talk) 08:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Lessee, the main page gets a very large amount of traffic, less than these super-pages though. It's linked from some article space disambigs but neither main article nor talk are linked from the MediaWiki namespace. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The "noise" doesn't seem overwhelming there at roughly one a week, similar to the rate at many help, welcome and training pages. Because the project pages are semi-protected, edits from new editors turn up on the talk page. Maybe new editors find this one by clicking on the word "Shortcut" in the box containing the shortcuts at top-right of pages they are likely to be looking at, like WP:About or Welcome to Wikipedia, hoping (I'm guessing) to find a "shortcut" to the wisdom contained in such pages: Noyster (talk), 11:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Redrose64, I can't explain it, but if you look at the protection log, you'll see that this has been an issue since 2010 at least, when Davidgothberg semiprotected it because "This talkpage attracts to much nonsense edits." I've restored semiprotection. Nyttend (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems that Ironholds (talk · contribs) lifted the prot "to let IPs participte in the current discussion", presumably Semi-protection of shortcuts - but none then proceeded to do so (final version prior to archiving). The next IP edit was seven months later, and not at all germane to either that topic or the page in general. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

There's a link to WP:Shortcut in the wideley-used {{shortcut}} - see near the top of this page for an example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but what makes people think that it leads to the place where they can post their random tweetage and bloggery? If it was hidden behind a link like Get help here! I might understand it. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Zechariah

Hi. I am not sure if wikipedia needs 2 pages for Zechariah as 1 and 2? Or there is a difference between them or they are the same but titles are different? Thanks.Gharouni ^Talk 07:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Gharouni: The articles are about two different people. See, for example, Zechariah (Hebrew prophet)#Islam. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Zechariah (Hebrew prophet) refers, as the name suggests, to a person from the Hebrew Bible, all of which took place prior to the end of the Persian era (333 BCE); Zechariah (priest) was from the 1st century BCE. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library accounts available now (August 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 now sign up for new accounts and research materials from:

• Nomos – Primarily German-language publisher of law and social sciences books and journals - 25 accounts
• World Scientific – Scientific, technical, and medical journals - 50 accounts
• Edinburgh University Press – Humanities and social sciences journals - 25 accounts
• American Psychological Association – Psychology books and journals - 10 accounts
• Emerald – Journals on a range of topics including business, education, health care, and engineering - 10 accounts

Many other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page, including Project MUSE, EBSCO, DeGruyter, Gale and Newspaperarchive.com.

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 18:38, 30 August 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.

Categories for two articles required

I'd be grateful for help in identifying one or more categories for two articles, Allen Confluence Gravels and Beltingham River Shingle. Both are Sites of Special Scientific Interest in the UK and categorised as such. I'm looking for a category which covers the sort of landforms they represent - river shingles or gravels in which flora grows. It's possible that we don't have an applicable category, in which case suggestions for a new category are welcomed ... there are probably other examples of such landforms within the large collection of UK SSSIs. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguating hypens needed

I suggest we sort through this list and do a mass move to add hypens like "most watched" --> "most-watched".

If you think this is a good plan, please consider sorting the list into those that need the move and those that do not. (A quick way is to dump the list into a notepad and add ` at the left of the entries needing the move, and then alphasort the list to get them to float to the top.)

So, should this be done? Is this necessary? If so, I can post at all the talks directing them here for input.

FYI: There was another one like this about superlatives. See here.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:HYPHEN, part of WP:MOS, "Hyphens can help with ease of reading (face-to-face discussion, hard-boiled egg); where non-experts are part of the readership, a hyphen is particularly useful in long noun phrases...". On this basis, after some thought, and against my initial reaction, I support the suggestion that we hyphenate. For me, it yields a sometimes somewhat pedantic style, but I think we should sometimes be pedantic for the reason suggested in the MOS. And so, on that basis, I'd hyphenate all of them. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• I would oppose this at this time, since I am not seeing evidence of a real problem. Have people complained that they were misled by these titles? Also, I don't think phrases like "most-expensive" or "most-valuable" are natural in English. Most-watched or most-viewed are because the second word is a verb. I am not so strongly opposed to hyphenating those examples. bd2412 T 13:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Kiev poly logo.png

I guess File:Kiev poly logo.png have to be deleted from the English wikipedia because there is the same free file on Commons commons:File:NTUU KPI logo.png--Tohaomg (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tohaomg: Tagged file for deletion under WP:F8. --Majora (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata lists

If you are interested in future list generation using Wikidata, please consider taking a look at d:Wikidata:List generation input and providing any comments on d:Wikidata talk:List generation input. --Izno (talk) 11:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Category populated by convoluted template

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Category populated by convoluted template

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Od Mishehu (talk • contribs) 17:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Pages using deprecated coordinates format

Category:Pages using deprecated coordinates format is being applied (to 14,801 pages, at the time of writing) by coordinate templates, despite there having been no discussion about deprecating the formats concerned. My proposal to delete the category was - after a low traffic discussion - closed, with the comment "Mayhaps you may want to have a discussion at the Village pump so that it's available for a broader forum.". In that discussion, I asked User:Jackmcbarn for a list of the edits where he applied the category, but he did not provide one.

An example of a page placed in this category, whose coordinates are applied in a manner to be expected, which was arrived at after long discussion and which has long-standing consensus, is Aiguille Aqueduct.

I will place a pointer to this discussion, at other VPs and relevant talk pages.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Most odd. Aiguille Aqueduct appears to employ a most orthodox use of {{coord}} within an infobox. I see nothing which would suggest this is a deprecated method. I hope we'll be getting an explanation here from whoever put this deprecation business afoot, and pointers to the discussions which led to a consensus to do this. I have not seen a discussion of this on WP:GEO nor any of the pumps. Most odd. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Seems like (according to the Category Talk page) the issue is that these formats cannot be used in infobox maps, thus any page with that coordinate format either a) cannot have a map or b) needs to have coordinates twice, creating the possibility of error and extra maintenance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

That's certainly an issue, but not one that explains the unilateral and sans discussion "deprecation" of an established method. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

From reading the same discussion, it also raises the possibility of inconsistant infoboxs where the two co-ords not being the same place. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps Module:String could be used on the |coordinates= parameter to find text such as 43.2304°N 2.6086°E, <span class="latitude">43°13′49″N</span> <span class="longitude">2°36′31″E</span> or 43.2304_N_2.6086_E/43_13_49_N_2_36_31_E, all of which {{Coord}} outputs; and the values could then be put into the infobox map. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

There should be one set of coordinates, which can be used for both pushpin map and title coords. It's also not difficult to provide for things like |region: etc. - I did both of those in this edit four years ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It'd probably be much easier to put a module into the infobox templates (so that {{Coord}} transclusions can have their coordinates extracted), than to play whack-a-mole with more than 10,000 pages which have {{Coord}} in their infobox… Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 15:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention retraining thousands of editors. Deprecating something like this without public discussion and consensus is a significant overapplication of WP:BOLD and/or WP:IAR. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I had some trouble identifying the wikitext causing this behavior. It is this which is near the bottom of {{Infobox bridge}} (I have inserted spaces to show it here.)

{{Main other| <!-- causes following to work only if in an article, not any other namespace -->
  {{#if:{{{clearance|}}}|
    [[Category:Articles using Template:Infobox bridge with clearance]]}}
  {{#if:{{{coordinates|}}}|
    [[Category:Pages using deprecated coordinates format]]}}
  {{#if:{{{extra|}}}|
    [[Category:Pages using Infobox bridge with extra]]}}
  {{#if:{{{map_cue|}}}{{{map_text|}}}|
    [[Category:Pages using Infobox bridge with deprecated parameters]]}}
}}

So any use of the coordinates= parameter is apparently deprecated. This test was added 2014-09-23 by Frietjes (talk · contribs). Perhaps she will join in this discussion. —EncMstr (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

that was a long time ago. probably related to this section of the documentation. basically, avoid duplicate coordinate specifications and use the specification which is compatible with the location map. Frietjes (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how that documentation argues for deprecation; in fact, it appears to argue against it. "Usually not necessary to use" is not "deprecated". Even if it argues for deprecation, it was itself changed without public consensus. Overreach will usually come back to bite us, even if it's years later.
Had this been more widely discussed years ago, we might well have implemented the software solution described by Jc86035 and skipped the individual infobox parameters, which would have been the far simpler solution for everybody except (maybe) the infobox developers. It would have been completely transparent to editors. If anything should be deprecated, it should be those parameters, in my view. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC) ―Mandruss ☎ 19:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

When I am editing infoboxes that support both ways, I tend to use {{{coordinates|...coord...}}} if I do not want a map, and {{{latd}}} etc if I do want a map. That's editor's choice at the article level. I generally would not include the coordinates twice, nor find the "don't show the map" parameter if I use the parameters that make it appear. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@ScottDavis, Pigsonthewing, Frietjes, and Mandruss: Purely as a proof of concept, I've added a function to Module:Coordinates/sandbox which returns the coordinates in a {{Coord}} transclusion – {{#invoke:Coordinates/sandbox|coord2text|{{Coord|24|56|35|N|101|3|26|W}}|long}} returns "-101.05722". ({{Coord}} always returns coordinates in both formats, one of them invisible.) Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort, Jc86035.
Since we are only about halfway to finishing the conversion to the individual parameters, I feel it costs roughly the same to move in either direction. Back to the best solution, or forward to something significantly less than best. We should opt for the former, unless (1) someone more knowledgeable can show that that is substantially more work, and (2) we collectively decide that that cost exceeds the benefit. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll say again what I said before: the deprecated coordinates format has no advantages (if I'm wrong about this, please tell me what the advantages are), but it has the major disadvantage that it doesn't support location maps. I see no reason to not deprecate an option in favor of a completely superior one. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

All coordinates-related data concisely in one place, on one line. Individual elements can't get moved around and separated. Easier to see if an element is missing, and very difficult to duplicate one. Learn one parameter name, not ~10. No need to retrain editors who are familiar with {{coord}} but have never worked with location maps. Works in all articles including those that do not have infoboxes. "Doesn't support location maps" was a good argument until it was shown that it could support them, and without an excessive effort. Now it's largely a non-argument. I don't think "completely superior" is accurate. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, you do have some good points. If/when "could support location maps" becomes "does support location maps", then I'll be all for removing this category. But until that's actually done, there's the chance that we discover while doing it that it's not actually feasible. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Then it looks like the next step is to produce an actual working example. I take it you lack either the tech skills or the will to do that, so we're entirely dependent on Jc86035 (or Andy?) to move this forward. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: It's basically ready. Move contents of Module:Coordinates/sandbox into Module:Coordinates; then, in any infobox containing a |coordinates= parameter and {{Location map}} (like Template:Infobox building), then replace (for example – from Infobox building)

 |lat     = {{#if:{{{latm|}}}{{{latNS|}}}| | {{#if:{{{latitude|}}}|{{{latitude}}}|{{{latd|}}}}} }}
 |long    = {{#if:{{{longm|}}}{{{longEW|}}}| | {{#if:{{{longitude|}}}|{{{longitude}}}|{{{longd|}}}}} }}

with

 |lat     = {{#if:{{{latm|}}}{{{latNS|}}}| | {{#if:{{{latitude|}}}|{{{latitude}}}|{{{latd|{{#invoke:Coordinates|lat|{{{coordinates|}}}}} }}}}} }}
 |long    = {{#if:{{{longm|}}}{{{longEW|}}}| | {{#if:{{{longitude|}}}|{{{longitude}}}|{{{longd|{{#invoke:Coordinates|long|{{{coordinates|}}}}} }}}}} }}

(This adds the value from parameter |coordinates= only if parameters |latitude=, |longitude=, |latd= and |longd= aren't present.) —Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 16:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: Does that satisfy you as to feasibility? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: To answer your question of 15:54 (UTC), it is quite clear that the format in question has never been deprecated. I have not wavered from my intention to revert Jackmcbarn's edits categorising it as such, so that the community can discuss the way forward, from a position of status quo, per WP:BRD, but he has failed to acknowledge my request that he reveal where he made those edits (it would appear that multiple infoboxes are involved), thereby presenting us with a fait acompli (rather, several of them). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: - I have a formal proposal worked up for WP:VPR, proposing elimination of the new parameters and a return to {{Coord}} in infoboxes. Such a highly-public proposal will eventually be needed, lest we repeat the failure to collaborate that we're complaining about. Just not sure we're ready for it yet. I could sandbox it if anyone wants to look at it. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Crickets? Does anyone agree or disagree that this would be a worthwhile proposal? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems like the right answer to me. The proposal is to use ene set of coordinates which are reused by the template to do all the right stuff, right? —EncMstr (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

What are the "new parameters"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Template:Infobox building#Map and coordinates is an example. "New parameters" refers to all the named parameters that have equivalent positional parameters in {{Coord}}. I would propose to deprecate those named parameters and use only |coordinates={{Coord}}, even when there is a {{Location map}}. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@EncMstr: Not ignoring you. With any luck I have answered your question above. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

As in, remove the |coordinates= parameter? So that the other parameters (e.g |lat_degrees=) are instead passed on to {{Coord}}? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: No. Keep |coordinates=, deprecate |latd= and all the other named parameters that have equivalent positional parameters in {{Coord}} (roughly ten parameters). Modify {{Coord}} and the infoboxes to pass latitude and longitude from {{Coord}} to {{Location map}}. From above discussion, it seems Jc86035 has already sandboxed the changes to Module:Coordinates, and they have detailed the necessary changes to infoboxes above. In other words, one common way to code all coordinates-related data in any article, whether the article has an infobox or not, and whether the infobox uses {{Location map}} or not. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: While my proposed implementation above extracts the coordinates out of {{Coord}}, we could simply pull coordinates from Wikidata (as {{Location map}} already seems to do). I haven't checked what the result of the RFC pertaining to pulling infobox parameters from Wikidata was, but whatever it was we could modify |coordinates= to toggle on/off Wikidata info based on a yes/no value (displaying all other values as usual). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 07:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't actually mind whether an article uses {{coord}} directly (perhaps in a |coordinates= infobox param) or whether it uses three or more separate infobox parameters like |latitude=|longitude=|coord_region=, so long as both methods are not used in the same article (a tracking category for detecting such duplication is useful). Where there are two methods in use on the same article, you have two latitudes and two longitudes, which should be the same, but can easily become different. Perhaps an article starts off with two identical sets, but both are wrong in some way; somebody notices that the title coord link goes to the wrong place, corrects the title coords, but doesn't notice that there is also a set of pushpin map coords which must be fixed in synch. This is what I meant by "there should be one set of coordinates" above, which some people seem to assume meant that I was taking one side. I am a supporter of pushpin maps, and for so long as the coordinates for such maps cannot be extracted from {{coord}}, I am using the separate infobox parameters method - but that doesn't mean that I always will. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jc86035: I'm not familiar with the Wikidata aspect. IIRC, in the one case I've seen of coords being pulled from Wikidata, the rendered precision was 12 decimal positions (microscopic resolution), completely defeating the concepts suggested at WP:OPCOORD, which I fully support. I don't know whether precision can be controlled from Wikidata. There are multiple other reasons that solution doesn't appeal to me, which I won't go into at this point, so I would prefer to avoid it unless a community consensus requires it.
I don't really understand in detail how this implementation would go down. Looking at Wikipedia:List of infoboxes, there are probably well over a hundred, if not hundreds of, infobox templates that support the named parameters. Are you going to change and test all of them yourself? If not, are you going to create some clear instructions for infobox template editors, something that wouldn't require them to wade through one or more discussion threads like this one? If so, I think such a page should be finalized before any work starts. I presume it would then be a matter of minions like me posting template edit requests pointing to your instruction page, at the talk page for each infobox. Are you that committed to this process? I ask only because I've made one or two passing comments that have morphed into "more than I signed up for".
Redrose64, I hope I didn't give the impression that I see you as an opponent here. I do not. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: So Wikidata's out of the question then. For the infobox templates, I'm not entirely sure how to phrase it but it'd probably be something like "in parameter |lat=/|long= of {{Location map}} insert [module code] inside {{{latd|}}} after the vertical bar, so it replaces both |latitude= and |latd= if both are empty" (repeated twice for latitude and longitude). Most of the parameter names should be the same throughout the infobox templates, except possibly a few |coordinatesN=/|coordinatesE=. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 05:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't imagine that being clear and detailed enough for a template editor. I lack the experience to know how to move this forward. Redrose64, do you have any suggestions? As I said I have a proposal written for VPR and could sandbox it if there is any interest in previewing/refining it. As for the implementation if the proposal passed, I'm getting the feeling it would be just another of those things that remains "in progress" indefinitely, per WP:WIP, never yielding more than a fraction of its full benefit. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Well, I could file 50 nearly-identical edit requests, if that's what you'd prefer Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 06:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

(Pinging BU Rob13 and Johnuniq, just because.) Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 06:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I have presented the proposal as an RfC, at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Deprecate named coordinates-related infobox parameters. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing, Redrose64, Frietjes, Tagishsimon, Jo-Jo Eumerus, ScottDavis, and Jackmcbarn: Pinging all participants in above discussion. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 04:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Additional input needed to resolve RfC

FYI

 – Pointer to discussion elsewhere.

The RfC at Talk:Eritrea#Location has turned circular and unresolveable, with about half a dozen parties sticking to their positions immovably no matter what is offered. I would suggest that an influx of fresh eyes on the matter would be of great benefit before it gets any more WP:LAME.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Blaming of Marilyn Manson for the Columbine massacre

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

---

I think the title of this article is rather odd, but I'm not quite sure what to change it to; the only slight change I can think of is from "Columbine massacre" to Columbine High School massacre, as that is where the school's article is located. (I normally would have posted this on the article's talk page, but that place is a ghost town.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I've got it; I'll move it to Marilyn Manson—Columbine High School massacre controversy. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:17, 3 September 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.

@Erpert: This is what WP:RM is for.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I always thought RM was for when a page couldn't be moved on its own because of a dispute or for maintenance reasons. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment on cross-wiki search results

The Discovery Search Team wants to enable search results that will include articles across all wiki projects – within the same language.

We'd like your feedback on the specifics of how this new functionality might work, and feedback or alternative ideas for the possible design options.

Thank you for your time. DTankersley (WMF) (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Myspace

{{Myspace}} was deleted (after substututuon) after a TfD discussion in January 2015. We nonetheless still have over 3400 links to MySpace.

We should never delete an external link template, when we have so many links to the external site. They should only be deleted if and when they are unused (or have trivially low usage)

I've tried to recreate deleted templates in the past, but had them speedily deleted "per previous TfD".

We apparently have no forum specifically to discuss such recreations, so I'm suggesting here that we do so.

We can then convert those 3400-odd links, so that the benefits of the template - ease of tracking, wrapping {{Cite web}} so that we benefit from its machine readable metadata, single change if the site goes offline or changes its URL structure - can be realised.

@Magioladitis, Green Cardamom, Martijn Hoekstra, Lady Lotus, TenPoundHammer, and JohnBlackburne:, @ATS, Davey2010, Fredddie, Christian75, Mashaunix, and NinjaRobotPirate:, @Beetstra and Daniel Case: - as people involved in the TfD, or recent discussion at BOTREQ. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support template recreation and Oppose delete-on-site of MySpace. The links were actually never deleted, only the template: Example, as it should have been. TfD is about templates. MySpace is often used as a primary source in External links sections. The WP:ELMINOFFICIAL guideline is not sufficient to banish an entire domain because each case has to be evaluated, there are going to be legitimate uses, even when there is more than 1 official site if MySpace contains sufficiently useful content. -- GreenC 15:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Green Cardamom: 'MySpace is often used as a primary source in External links sections' - that use is utterly inappropriate. We link to the official site of the subject, not to all online presences of the subject (see WP:ELMINOFFICIAL). Moreover, links in external links sections are not 'sources'. There may be rare cases where MySpace is the only/main official site (but that is rare), and there may be cases where the subject is specifically known for it's MySpace presence (which is also rare). We don't need a template for that, and the rest needs to be cleaned out. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• A bot that deletes every instance of the domain is inappropriate. If we are doing that, then the domain should be added to the blacklist. If we are not doing blacklist, then a template is appropriate for domain management purposes. -- GreenC 12:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Who is talking about a bot - that is not possible. If there are only a few left (there is only very limited appropriate use), then there is nothing to manage. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm skeptical that the template would be useful, as the site is virtually dead and most of its uses in mainspace should have been removed a long time ago for violating WP:ELNO or WP:ELDEAD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• endorse deletion. Nothing has changed since that discussion, except MySpace is even more dead. Seems that in some cases the deletion was not done properly if links like that at Reshmin Chowdhury were left in place, as it is neither a proper official link or a useful one. It’s not just badly out of date, but whatever content was uploaded when it was active has been purged. Unless there is evidence someone uses it as their official site the link should be deleted. And as over this and the last discussion no such evidence was found the links should have been deleted from almost all pages.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• The TfD was to delete the template, not every single instance of the domain for perpetuity. That goes far beyond the mandate of TfD, it would require wider community notification and would be handled with a blacklist. -- GreenC 12:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• No-one is talking about deleting every single instance. However, most of the inclusions go beyond the mandate of WP:NOT/WP:EL/WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, and there is no wider community notification needed to remove them if they do not comply. Most of the links (whether templated or direct) do not comply with said pillars/policies/guidelines and should be removed regardless. There is only very, very limited use of myspace links in external links sections, and there is no need for a template for those few transclusions. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• I would go further and say probably every single reference should be removed, except for those in articles concerning Myspace itself. At it’s height it was a blog, the Facebook of its day, widely used and followed but never a reliable source. A few artists did use it though, some as their main web presence. But all that is gone, not just old and unmaintained but it’s all been removed and what’s there now is a skeleton of the previous lively environment. I can’t imagine anyone uses it now as their official web presence, it isn’t a reliable source for anything, so nothing should link to it except for articles about Myspace.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• @JohnBlackburne: I always wonder whether a band who only has a MySpace as web-presence is really notable enough for a Wikipedia article ... (some may, but not that many). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I wonder too. The problem is over these two discussions no-one has come up with even one example of a band or other act using MySpace at all, never mind using it as their primary web presence. My own limited investigations suggest that Myspace is to all effects dead.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 07:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - MySpace links are hardly EVER useful, and it is very unlikely that the 3400-odd links are suitable external links. Cleanup the mess. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I've gone through the first handful of pages that have external links with MySpace - and by far most is inappropriate there (note that some are in reference-templates, which I did not touch - though I would question their appropriateness as well). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• "Most" not "all". Can we all agree that deleting every single instance of the domain is not appropriate? If you think so then please argue for blacklisting the domain. Otherwise please consider how we are going to manage these domains - templates make management much easier. -- GreenC 12:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Lets see how many are left over after bringing all the pages where it is on in line with our inclusion standards (WP:NOT/WP:EL/WP:ELMINOFFICIAL - most of what I (have) see(n) fails that). We don't need a template if there are only a few transclusions. From the few I checked most are utterly superfluous (or templated already inside other templates, though I there have questions whether they are appropriate). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - I've picked 3 random articles from that link above - 2 are external links and one is a reference to myspace.com which is a useless reference, As I said above (and have said at the TFD) no one uses MySpace anymore (and I very much doubt musicians use it either), What was once a famous and loved social networking site is now simply a dead musician page which no one visits or even has any interest in viewing. –Davey2010^Talk 17:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: I rather fear some people here are missing the point (and I was not seeking a re-run of the previous TfD): deletion is not cleanup. We have lots of links to MySpace. That is irrefutable. So long as we do, they should be in a template, for the reasons stated (and this is regularly done without drama, once we have a dozen or more links to a single site). The template should be deleted when and only when the links have already been removed. "Endorsing deletion" won't remove a single link. Having the template will not prevent removal of links where they should not be present. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I can agree to that, Andy. But for that it is now too late. They have now all been substed - or are you suggesting to undo the substs, then do the cleanup (<cynical>which will not happen in either case</cynical>) and then re-delete the template? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I suggest we recreate the template, and either undo the substitutions, where possible, or add it to the list of templates to be applied by this bot/AWB request. When (or if) the number of links to MySpace drop to a trivial level, I'll be the first to nominate the template for deletion again. if your supposition that the "cleanup", as you call it, "will not happen" is correct, al the more reason to keep the links corralled in a template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

So, instead of one edit (removing the links that are indeed inappropriate), you suggest to make two to three edits (redoing the templating, and then cleanup the links that are inappropriate, and if there are not enough left another edit to subst the templates again). IMHO, the latter precludes that this work is done by bot, because, when an editor would do it, they could do the consideration in one go. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Since you yourself noted your belief that the "cleanup... will not happen", you now appear to be employing empty rhetoric. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Not completely, I cleanup MySpace links where I can, and would encourage editors to do the same, instead of leaving it be. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to echo Andy's general statement: "We should never delete an external link template, when we have so many links to the external site." We probably should not have 3400 links to MySpace, but 3400 dead links to MySpace would be a worse situation than 3400 working links to MySpace. Working social media links are better than dead social media links, even when we agree that many of them ought to be removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

K. R. Vijaya

Note that K. R. Vijaya has died according to Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 05:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit per WP:V. Please provide a reliable secondary source. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

(It needn't be specifically a secondary source. Any source that we can rely upon is good enough, whether primary, secondary, or tertiary.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 11:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Box designs not using templates

Hello!! I hope that someone is able to help me. For a project page I want to put 4 text boxes side by side - 2 across, 2 down. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the project, I have to do it without using a template. I have tried to figure it out with other codes (looking at other pages), but I cannot get the two boxes to sit next to each other within the grey box. Please help!! I currently prefer the top two boxes on this link: User:Islahaddow/sandbox/WikiFundi_Mainpage - but I need to sit the one next to the other, with two similar boxes aligned underneath. Is this possible? Isla Haddow (talk) 08:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikitext tables can be nested. That might be your easiest solution. See this for a quick version of this. (If you want different styles of boxes for each of the four, then you can do that: remove the "class=wikitable" code from the top (that'll make the table's normal grid lines disappear) and add whatever styling you want as HTML divs and spans.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: that might just work! Thanks for thinking it through and showing an example. Will experiment with it!! Isla Haddow (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Any proof that the Wikipedia entry "Classical Liberalism" connecting it to "free market" ideology is a revisionist deception?

I need the superpowers of regular editors to determine if a Wikipedia entry has been entirely manufactured or not.

Here is a link to my findings: https://www.reddit.com/r/actualconspiracies/comments/51sq7n/any_proof_that_the_wikipedia_entry_classical

It might be a revisionist attempt to link the history of liberalism to economics. But nothing from 1600s to 1990s reveals such a connection. So far.

Its entry in Wikipedia has plenty of "citations", but they all are after the year 2000. Kind of self-referencing.

All citations on the Wikipedia entry that refer to "liberalism" defined as "free" market ideology, are conveniently from books and articles dating after 2000.

If "Classical Liberalism" meant anything other than what it means today, wouldn't it show up in old books of etymology and in old books? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grassvoter (talk • contribs) 22:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

To better understand the connection between historical (classical) liberalism and free trade, a good place to start would be the article on the Liberal Party (UK). Blueboar (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Spellcheck dictionary

I have started Wikipedia:Spellcheck dictionary, with the intention of compiling a list of Wikipedia-related words, terms, abbreviations, and acronyms that people can add to their software's local dictionary. It's far from complete - please add to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Pingsonthewing: I am not proposing it for deletion but you should as it duplicates Wikipedia:Wikipedia abbreviations which is 500k times better! VarunFEB2003 17:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: correcting pingVarunFEB2003 17:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

See the boxed note at the top of the spellcheck page. A spellcheck dictionary is a list of words that are correct but which a normal spell-checker would think were incorrect. In an edit window, many web browsers highlight words they think are incorrectly spelled, and it is possible to configure them to recognize the words as correct. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@VarunFEB2003: To add on to John's point, I think you're falsely equating WP:ABC and Andy's project. I can't easily copy the abbreviations defined at WP:ABC to my computer's spelling dictionary. That's because when I want my computer to learn a list of words, I want that list to be organized in a way that my computer can easily read. Andy's list is readable by computers; WP:ABC is not. Therefore, they aren't really duplicates. Sure, the two pages contain some of the same content, but the way they are used is very different. Airplaneman ✈ 05:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok I didn't understand Andy's project properly. No problem I shall be contributing to the list and making it large now I get what is it. I shall also give a lead section to the page soon VarunFEB2003 05:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

A lead section would again be to miss the point. This is a machine-readable page. The machine does not need a lead section. The intent of the page is spelled out in the template affixed at the top of the list. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Open call for Project Grants

Greetings! The Project Grants program is accepting proposals from September 12 to October 11 to fund new tools, research, offline outreach (including editathon series, workshops, etc), online organizing (including contests), and other experiments that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Project Grants can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.

• Submit a grant request or draft your proposal in IdeaLab
• Get help with your proposal in an upcoming Hangout session
• Learn from examples of completed Individual Engagement Grants or Project and Event Grants

Also accepting candidates to join the Project Grants Committee through October 1.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Creating a list of national built heritage registers

Hi all

I'm working on the Connected Open Heritage project which plans to upload national built heritage registers to Wikidata (these are often the lists that WLM is based upon in each country). The first step is to create a worldwide list of built heritage registers on Wikipedia, we would really like your help in completing this list with your local knowledge. It should only take a few minutes to fill the information in for each country if you know who produces the information.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion

I'm wondering why it's taken over three days to get a response to a speedy deletion. 117Avenue (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Because moving pages is one of the top three or four most potentially-controversial sorts of speedy deletion, despite the stupidly-misnamed category. —Cryptic 02:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

This "backlog" could potentially destroy cut-and-paste move enforcement. Since Anthony Appleyard usually responds to history merge requests within a day, if I had cut-and-paste the article, then requested a history merge, the article would have been moved much sooner than it was. 117Avenue (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Cryptic took care of this before you posted your last comment.

On the more general case, speedy deletion (as the footnote at WP:CSD says) does not mean that an admin will drop everything else to immediately do what someone requested. If the request gets processed in less time and with less work than a full WP:AFD (which is a minimum of 7 days), then that's still considered "speedy". WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense. 117Avenue (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Where to report the re-creation of a WP:SALTed article?

I think the title says it.

HandsomeFella (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Simplest way is just to nominate it for WP:speedy deletion and mention the situation. Rmhermen (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

SALT should prevent any non-admin user from re-creating the article. I just tested and admins can accidentally re-create a SALTED article with no warnings being given. That may be a shortcoming of the system that needs addressing. Rmhermen (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It would depend on why the article title was salted and the status of the article now. My guess is this is about an article that was salted under one name and was recreated under a different name. Does the current article meet any speedy deletion criterion? If yes, nominate it and leave a note on the talk page explaining the previous salted title. If the current article does not meet any speedy deletion criterion but it is not notable either PROD our AFD as appropriate. If it is notable and the salted title is more appropriate then request a move at requested moves. -- GB fan 18:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The article is Sayyad Mohd Arshi (Politician). The undabbed version is salted. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It needs to be tagged as an A7 or sent to AFD if you want it deleted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Just curious... When and why was the original article salted? Blueboar (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Sayyad Mohd Arshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been created, and deleted, four times three years ago, probably on notability grounds. It appears that the creator, Arshi1234 (talk · contribs), is also the subject. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Where to report the re-creation of a WP:SALTed article?

I think the title says it.

HandsomeFella (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Simplest way is just to nominate it for WP:speedy deletion and mention the situation. Rmhermen (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

SALT should prevent any non-admin user from re-creating the article. I just tested and admins can accidentally re-create a SALTED article with no warnings being given. That may be a shortcoming of the system that needs addressing. Rmhermen (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It would depend on why the article title was salted and the status of the article now. My guess is this is about an article that was salted under one name and was recreated under a different name. Does the current article meet any speedy deletion criterion? If yes, nominate it and leave a note on the talk page explaining the previous salted title. If the current article does not meet any speedy deletion criterion but it is not notable either PROD our AFD as appropriate. If it is notable and the salted title is more appropriate then request a move at requested moves. -- GB fan 18:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The article is Sayyad Mohd Arshi (Politician). The undabbed version is salted. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It needs to be tagged as an A7 or sent to AFD if you want it deleted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Just curious... When and why was the original article salted? Blueboar (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Sayyad Mohd Arshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been created, and deleted, four times three years ago, probably on notability grounds. It appears that the creator, Arshi1234 (talk · contribs), is also the subject. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

News from French Wiktionary

Hi all,

Your neighbour, French Wiktionary, is quite proud to publish every month an online magazine with fresh news about the project, Actualités. It is quite like a small brother of The Signpost. It is not targeting contributors but visitors and people interested into words. After 17 editions, we decided to translate our last edition of August into English, to make this publication available for you. It was quite a long job, so we are not sure if it worth it, so let us know if you have so interest for it. Feel free to comments on any aspects of this publication, we are very open to improve it and our translation - as English is not my mother tongue. Also, thanks to Andrew Sheedy (talk · contribs) and Pamputt (talk · contribs) for supporting this translation! hope you'll like this! Noé (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for writing it, I read the news and found them very interesting.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Please note that Hovhannes Tcholakian has died. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Inclusion of vehicle use in crimes as part of vehicle articles

This RFC covers two automotive articles with similar disputed material.

• Should the Ford Ford F-650 medium duty truck article include a mention in the body of the text or via a see also link the Oklahoma City bombing?
• Should the Chevrolet Caprice article mention in the body or via a see also link the Beltway Sniper's use of a Chevrolet Caprice?

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Request for Comment: Inclusion of vehicle use in crimes as part of vehicle articles. Felsic2 (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Archive.org for Google Books

I really doubt that this will be of any help but an example where I came across this is at Bhagat Singh. Besides archives to all the GB books links (just the general link using ids not the page) in the Bibliography part of the References section, there is one use of it on a page link: "Louis E. Fenech; W. H. McLeod (11 June 2014). Historical Dictionary of Sikhism. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 64. ISBN 978-1-4422-3601-1. Archived from the original on 1 October 2015."

Just to confirm, it's pretty much useless right? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I would agree it is pointless. The "archive" of this is the book itself, and unless there's evidence that a book published in 2014 has zero archived copies anywhere, it seems inappropriate to use an archive link. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

How many featured articles are there on English Wikipedia?

I thought this would be a simple question to answer, but so far I've come up with 5 different answers:

• 4,785: Category:Featured articles
• 4,834: Wikipedia:Featured articles
• 4,844: Category:FA-Class articles
• 4,937: Featured article badges in Wikidata
• 5,823: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Statistics

Any idea which of those (if any) is the correct answer? Kaldari (talk) 22:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

4,834 is the right answer. You can verify this by dumping the wikitext of WP:FA into a text editor or something like Excel, getting rid of the header material, and sorting it to separate the section headings. I just did that and the answer agrees with the number on that page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I should add that the reason that that's the right answer is that an article becomes an FA when it is added to that page, and stops being an FA when it is removed, so whatever the number is on that page is by definition the right answer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Thanks for the reply. I'll see about syncing some of those other sources with the canonical number. Kaldari (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd be curious to see what you find out. Perhaps you could drop a note with the results at WT:FAC? I'm sure a few other regulars there would be interested to know what you come up with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

4,834 is indeed the right answer, as Mike says, since the list at WP:FA is definitive. I have run the category and the "links on page" through AutoWikiBrowser, and fixed some dablinks/redirects on WP:FA in the process (and also removed one non-FA from the category). Don't trust the displayed figure of "pages in category" of 4,785, or whatever it may be, since the category has the usual lag (as explained on every category page). The category actually has 4,826 articles. WP:FA has 4,834 FAs. The "missing" 8 are very recent promotions where the bot has yet to add the FA star and close the nomination. I wouldn't trust any Wikidata figure, particularly as it can't distinguish between the FA star and the Featured Portal star (e.g. that query includes Portal:Anglicanism as having a "featured article" star, when it doesn't use that template), and the Version 1.0 statistics are obviously faulty. (If an FA is assessed as high importance for one project and low importance for another, I guess that it is counted twice). Bencherlite^Talk 23:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The FA-Class categories are bloated because (a) some WikiProjects use FA-class for featured lists e.g. see Talk:List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A), which is a featured list but in Category:FA-Class Nazi Germany articles; and (b) sometimes the categories are inaccurate e.g. Talk:Sperm whale is a GA but until I fixed it it was in a FA-class for a WikiProject. Bencherlite^Talk 23:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

(update) FACBot has run, and added FA stars to the newest 8 FAs. There are now 4,834 articles in the category and 4,834 listed at WP:FA. There are now no more GAs or lower wrongly hiding in a FA-class assessment category, as far as I can see; I've fixed some but not all of the FLs listed as FAs, too. Bencherlite^Talk 00:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

A suggestion. Since this appears to be a question that is destined to be asked again, perhaps the fact of where the canonical list/number of Featured Articles can be found ought to be recorded on one of the related pages. (I didn't know that answer until now, & wouldn't know where to look to find it.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC on Violence against men.

Category talk:Violence against men#Which version is better?. jps (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Wiki loves monument banner links to a Spanish web site

Why is "Wiki loves monument" banner displayed on top of every page links to a Spanish web site http://www.wikilm.es/?pk_campaign=Centralnotice ? I don't speak this language Mascarponette (talk) 10:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mascarponette: The banner is geotargeted and has different versions. Are you accessing Wikipedia from Spain or a Spanish IP address? Each participating country organizes its own photo contest which is advertised at wikis in different languages. See commons:Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 for general information in English. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Thanks for your answer, I was using web client in New York city, it seems geolocalization isn't reliable. after investigation it seems the ip address belongs to my company based in France but when I use various geolocalization services found on the web, one says I'm in Italy, another one in Spain... Why not using language of the wiki server instead ? Mascarponette (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mascarponette: There are some obsolete links around but I think we currently use geolocation software whose result can be seen at https://freegeoip.net/xml/XXX where XXX is the IP address. We don't actually use freegeoip.net. They just provide an interface to the same software as we (possibly) use.

Wiki Loves Monuments is not language based but country based. You take photos of monuments in a country and submit them to a photo contest for that country. If you are believed to be in Spain then you presumably have acccess to monuments in Spain. Spanish is the main language for the contest in Spain. Many countries have no contest (for example mine so I get no banner), while several English speaking countries have separate contests. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Repetition of Welsh place names: disambiguation pages or content pages?

I'm new to this section so please redirect me if it's the wrong place for this query. I've been puzzling over the fact that Welsh isn't as varied as English in terms of place names so a disambiguation page seems to meld into becoming a content page. See, for example, Llanarmon. This is a village name that refers to a prominent local feature, the church. It literally means St Garmon's Church. There are lots of Llanarmons, all meaning the same thing, just in different places. Similarly, Pentre means village, though Wikipedia currently only seems to refer to one of the numerous places with that name. It is possible to repeat the origin of a name on every single page that is an instance of that name, but it seems to make more sense to have a single source of truth on a central page, especially if it is slightly controversial. (An example of such a controversy might be where an early saint went on a stomp around Wales founding churches, but nobody documented exactly who he was so there are two or three candidates.) But is that then a disambiguation page or a content page? Or does it not matter! Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tessthepuppy (talk • contribs) 19:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

A list of entries which share a nmae is appropriate for a disambiguation page, since such a page is explicitly tere as a navigational aid and not part of encyclopedic content; however, merely sharing a nmae is usually not encyclopedic enough to justify a content page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, that works for English place names, but I'm wondering if a Welsh place name like Llanarmon should be a content page rather than a disambiguation page, in the same way as 'felidae' contains a range of sub-cats and 'dog' contains different dogs. There is no Llanarmon that isn't named after a church of St Garmon, I don't think, so ?perhaps it makes sense to explain what the name means and discuss debates over that then link to examples of it. Or does anyone disagree? I wouldn't say the same for an English place name, because English doesn't generally have multiple repetitions of such generic place names as 'homestead' or 'village'. The alternative is to repeat identical (hopefully!) information on multiple pages so that each instance of a village with the same name contains details of the origins of the name.Tessthepuppy (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Manual of Style: best practice for linking to page sections

A discussion had been started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking § Linking to sections of articles about whether to use the link formats [[Article#Section]] or [[Article#Section|name of link]] in articles, as opposed to a separate redirect page to the desired section. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 09:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Grants to improve your project

Greetings! The Project Grants program is currently accepting proposals for funding. There is just over a week left to submit before the October 11 deadline. If you have ideas for software, offline outreach, research, online community organizing, or other projects that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers, start your proposal today! Please encourage others who have great ideas to apply as well. Support is available if you want help turning your idea into a grant request.

• Submit a grant request
• Get help: In IdeaLab or an upcoming Hangout session
• Learn from examples of completed Individual Engagement Grants or Project and Event Grants

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

NNDB

For at least ten years, sources and external links to NNDB have been around on Wikipedia. NNDB is the Notable Names Database, which has various (though unsourced) kinds of informatiom on people. WP:RS has ruled NNDB an unreliable source many times, and Jimmy Wales said as much himself ten years ago (Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive 3#nndb is not a reliable source). NNDB does provide a bibliography, but these are merely sources which show that the person was important, so the information on the pages is practically unsourced. The presence of these links has led some to declare NNDB as link spammers, as there are 4375 external links to NNDB. This overlaps many noticeboards, so what do you think should be done? Should all NNDB links be purged? --Alexschmidt711 (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Infiltration of Wikipedia?

People often talk about governments or political groups infiltrating Wikipedia and editing it to promote their agendas, but are there any verified examples of this happening?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Can't really infiltrate something that, by its very nature, is open to all. But to answer your question, yes. There are plenty of examples of governments, politicians, and political groups editing their own articles to make themselves look better. This article may interest you: United States Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia. --Majora (talk) 03:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

That really underlines my concern with these claims. There is no clear distinction between a legitimate and illegitimate edit. The conflict of interest policy only goes so far. And there is no distinction made in articles like that between edits that come from a particular IP range and edits which are made by political staffers etc as part of their job. Someone could be just goofing off at work.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

There are endless cases of corporations hiring a bunch of people to edit, and cases of politicians and staffers editing their own articles and articles of their opponents, and an admin protecting the page for a scam-college for years, and at least one case of a government intelligence agency threatening an admin with prison if he didn't delete an article. But the only cases I know of that really fit "political groups infiltrating Wikipedia and editing it to promote their agendas" were Croatian and Chechen Wikis, but I think those were "organic" cases of wiki-startup wingnut editors becoming wignut admins, and naturally voting in favor of fellow wignuts for admin. The English article about Croatian Wikipedia has new coverage on it. The entire Croat wiki went to hell because it was infested with abusive hyper-nationalistic admins. You can see the international editing community investigating and dealing with it at meta:Requests_for_comment/2013_issues_on_Croatian_Wikipedia. I'd have to double check, but I'm pretty sure there was a mass recall and re-election of admins. I'm less familiar with the Chechen situation, but that also looks like adminship was infested with nationalistic wignuts and all admins definitely were revoked: meta:Requests_for_comment/Massive_sysop_abuse_in_Chechen_Wikipedia. Work was done developing up a Policy "restart process" to address dysfunctional wikis, but it was never finalized. You can see it at meta:Project_restarting_process and meta:Talk:Project_restarting_process. But I'm unaware of any organized deep infiltration case on any major wiki. Well.... unless of course you buy the Conservapedia view that EnWiki's articles on science etc prove that EnWiki has been completely taken over by radicals. Chuckle. Alsee (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Since making my last comment I have found Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. My impression from this is that overall it isn't a major problem. One of the reasons I asked the question was that I have been editing articles relating to North Korea over the past few years, and people have regularly suggested that North Koreans were editing the pages. I haven't been able to find any evidence of this, and I wanted to gauge if this kind of thing was, in fact, a major problem for Wikipedia. As far as I can see, this is just a cheap smear against other editors.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

tbh, it's none of the above. It's not a major problem overall 1) because wikipedia is so large and so much of it is relatively uncontroversial that injections of Point-of-View tend to affect only the margins and not the totality and 2) because we are more or less able to identify and more or less able to deal with instances of PoV. However the margins are big because wikipedia is big: there are all sorts of areas that are warred over by factional interests: good examples are Israel-Palastine, and a wide range of fringe theories. PoV (your infiltration) is a major problem where it happens, both because it slants articles and because it takes an enormous amount of input from editors to correct the slant; and this can go on pretty much without end. It's also a major problem where it has not been discovered or not been tackled. I don't know what to say to your "cheap smear against other editors". There's a spectrum of editors from good-faith to PoV-warrior, with no one broad brush description with which to paint them. Finally, what I might call minor-PoV - normally commercial conflicts of interest - are a daily occurrence on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard much as copyright violations are on Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Noticeboard. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

When I said cheap smear, I was referring to describing other editors as North Korean government agents without evidence. I also noticed this about supposed involvement of Pakistani agents. There doesn't seem to be any strong evidence that this is true. POV is different. Simply because someone has a pro-American bias does not mean they are a CIA agent or even a Congressional staffer.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

On English Wikipedia, guidelines such WP:Harassment are very helpful in our trying to prevent users from stalking and harassing other users and creating contentious debates (always detrimental to constructive work and good article content), just because of real or imagined political differences. We should perhaps be aware that there are other language projects which have no such guidelines at all, and that some political-agenda users who come here from them, whether to infiltrate articles and discussions with their POV or just to pick fights, may not be accustomed to the stricter policies of English Wikipedia. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It could turn into harassment. I have been accused of being North Korean, but I just find that amusing. Of course someone else could find that kind of accusation highly offensive. What concerns me though is the use of that kind of accusation to dismiss the work of other editors and whole articles, portraying them as the handiwork of Pakistan's secret state, the North Korean regime, etc. Of course, it would be different if the accusations were true, and Wikipedia really was battling legions of secret agents. But that appears to be a fantasy.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

≤I know there was a spate of British Tory MPs editing their entries just before the last general election (May 2015) to obviously remove anything that portrayed them In a less-than-favourable light or, in some cases to add things that weren't true to boost their image. I know this because the computer network at Westminster logs everything and one paper - think it was either the Guardian or the Independent - made a FoIA request as they're been rumours circulating - I think Wikipedia is now blocked at Westminster! Margo (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

A lot of this is media-driven, isn't it? And it seems basically a beat-up. There is a low standard of proof and a low level of importance. There's an obvious contradiction in this kind of story: if anyone was making a concerted effort to use Wikipedia for propaganda, they wouldn't be an "IP editor" or use computer network that logs activity. They would set up a account that appeared to be one of bona fide editor. So there could be professional propagandists operating in Wikipedia, but it doesn't appear they've ever been caught. They would have to be playing a long game, and I think politics in the West is fairly short term. Until someone comes up with some kind of proof I feel justified in treating this as a myth. Sure, someone in an MP's office (maybe the work experience kid) edited the MP's page. But the existence of an eel does not prove the existence of the Loch Ness Monster.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)