Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 59

Does anyone know if there are essays or other resources discussing what are appropriate uses of quotes within a citation? My general understanding is quotes in a citation would be used when the fact in the article might need more explanation without interfering with the readability of the article itself. As a hypothetical, if an article contains a fact may seem odd or incorrect at first read, the quote in the citation could provide additional text for the interested reader.

There are 8 planets in the solar system ^[1]

At the same time I would assume it shouldn't be used if the quote doesn't directly relate to the text the citation supports

The planets orbit around the sun ^[2]

In the first case the quote helps clarify for those who were taught there are 9 planets in the solar system and is thus directly related to/supports the article text. In the second case the material is only indirectly related and in no way clarifies the article text. I would presume in this case the quote shouldn't be used. However, that is only my opinion. Does Wikipedia have any resources talking about this? Thanks! Springee (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Here's the relevant guideline: In most cases it is sufficient for a citation footnote simply to identify the source (as described in the sections above); readers can then consult the source to see how it supports the information in the article. Sometimes, however, it is useful to include additional annotation in the footnote, for example to indicate precisely which information the source is supporting (particularly when a single footnote lists more than one source – see § Bundling citations and § Text–source integrity, below). A footnote may also contain a relevant exact quotation from the source. This is especially helpful when the cited text is long or dense. A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference. Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible. –dlthewave ☎ 17:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking at a list of Wikipedias by language, there are some outliers, and I recall some Wikipedias had had tens if not hundred of thousands of articles created by some bot. Is there any place that lists such cases? Do you recall which Wikipedias has significant article-creation-by-bot initiatives? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Swedish Wikipedia and especially Waray Wikipedia and Cebuano Wikipedia have huge amounts of bot-generated material. The English Wikipedia had Rambot create thousands of articles in 2002, which meant a large percentage of English Wikipedia was bot-generated for a while. —Kusma (t·c) 09:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

List of Wikipedias#Detailed list is a helpful indicator. Just compare article count to user count and you can spot which are mostly bot-filled. Regards SoWhy 13:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Please note that Gopaldas Neeraj died on thursday 19 july according to Google. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

The article Gopaldas Neeraj appears to have been updated. – Uanfala (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The new filters are cluttering up my Watchlist so I decided to opt out. I turned off "Hide the improved version of Recent Changes" on my "Recent changes" preferences page, but the Watchlist clutter is still there. I'm using Chrome and I tried an f5 reload but no luck. Is this feature broken? Praemonitus (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

To opt-out of the watchlist changes, you should opt out on the "Watchlist" preferences tab, not on the "Recent changes" preferences tab (a mistake easily made). --Pipetricker (talk) 07:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes the help page on the topic wasn't particularly helpful. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

This is more of a comment than anything, but anyone else have noticed piped links where the left side consists of the correctly spelt actual title of the article and the right side of a misspelling? I find it simply baffling that this is a thing that exists.

One particularly blatant example I just corrected was [[artificial vagina|artificial-vagina]]. Like, what the hell, dude? Obviously you saw the title of the article already. In contrast, artificial-vagina is a redlink. Applying simple everyday logic, you can deduce that the article title is the/a correct spelling and your own spelling is incorrect. Why go to the length to create a piped link instead of simply writing [[artificial vagina]]? I'm not sure that even the VE can fully explain this phenomenon. And I'm pretty sure I encountered this phenomenon already before the VE was rolled out by default. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why those were hyphenated, either, but this particular instance was added here by FreeKnowledgeCreator. —DoRD (talk)​ 14:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

It is usually pointless to ask someone about a minor detail of an edit they made years ago. This is one of those cases. I don't care about the spelling of "artificial vagina". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I just don't understand why anyone would type the equivalent of [[Barack Obama|Barock Obama]]. (Or, even better: "Baroque Osama".) It just makes no sense. It can't happen accidentally. It feels like an editor who does this wants to prank and annoy wikignomes like me. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you give another example? Some might see a hyphenation as the correct spelling, not saying that is the case in the given example. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC) (please mention me on reply; thanks!)

Please put Ian Stanley (golfer) on july 28 in the deaths list. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 06:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Is it safe to assume that readers would recognize Jack as a nickname for John? Also, where should this question be asked? —151.132.206.26 (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This post pertains to the edit request at Talk:John F. Kennedy#Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2018. I replied there. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@ElHef: That's what prompted me to wonder, but no, I was simply asking whether Jack is a sufficiently commonly known nickname for John (it's actually rather unfamiliar to me). —151.132.206.26 (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

There are variations, both regional and temporal; so I'd say, do not assume. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC) a/k/a Mikey, or Mick, or Mickey, or Mischa, or Miĉcjo...

Please don't assume. In Europe (beside possibly UK) it is generally not known that Jack 1) is not shorthand for Jacques resp. Jacob and 2) John F. Kennedy could have been called Jack by anyone in any circumstance. 194.174.76.21 (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin

Does anyone have an english word for these occupations? They are used for occupations With respect to mining both in Norway and in Germany. Breg Pmt (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I find "foreman", "headman", "glass master", "master smelter", "glasswork master", "director of the founderies" and "metallurgist" for "Hüttenmeister", while "Hüttenreuter" was sometimes a synonym and sometimes someone charged with the accounting. With respect to mining "foreman" is probably the word you are looking for. 194.174.76.21 (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin

I was going to update the article Gifford Lectures to include recent lectures and then noticed that the article is essentially always going to be mainly a list. There are several things that could be done:

1. Move the list out into a separate article List of Gifford Lectures while keeping Gifford Lectures as a stub
2. Move the article itself to List of Gifford Lectures
3. Leave as-is

The problem with leaving it as-is is that the article is always going to comprise mainly of the list, as there just isn't that much you can say about a lecture series in prose form (well, I suspect there actually is, but most of it isn't going to be notable, and it certainly isn't going to be sourceable).

This is also the problem with just separating the list out – it just leaves a perpetual stub – hence considering the possibility of perhaps just renaming the whole thing to "List of Gifford Lectures". Thought I'd come here to get some second opinions!

--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 13:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd leave the title as-is. It's easier to find pages if they start with the real name rather than "List of". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Per WhatamIdoing, I would also leave it as is. The "List of..." titling is essentially a form of disambiguation, to indicate that there's a separate article from the main one just for the list, for example List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom as distinct from Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Insofar as there isn't need for two articles, there's no need for the "List of..." bit. Even if the article is basically all list, there's no main article from which to make a distinction, so there's no need to have the "List of..." bit. --Jayron32 18:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I feel this could just be bundled with TemplateEditor rights, but whatevs. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Plausible, but TE is a bit more candyish than I expect this right will be (should be?). --Izno (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've added {{automated tools}} to {{Draft article}} and {{AFC submission/helptools}}. It will add the following links to the templates:

• Easy tools: Citation bot (help) | Advanced: Fix bare URLs

You can see them (as of writing) in action at Draft:Scafida#See_also (expand the "How to improve your article" section) or at Draft:Shell Pernis Refinery).

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello guys. I'm a regular contributor in the Indonesian Wikipedia. Recently there, someone brought up whether a political slogan should have its own article. The slogan is coming from the opponent of the current President of Indonesia. I decided to look for slogans here and I found Category:American political catchphrases. There, a slogan can be a redirect page (such as Feel the Bern or I am not a crook) or an article (such as Make America Great Again and We are the 99%). Is there any considerations as to why some are articles while the others are only redirect pages? Thank you. Sersan Mayor Kururu (talk) 06:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Could someone (presumably in the US, or at least outside the EU) please check that this link works okay, and that the source is indeed a WP:RS. It's blocked for me, due to their GDPR angst. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 14:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think a source that isn't accessible (to a large part of the world) qualifies as RS. --Zac67 (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, there are many reliable sources which exist only in book form: Reliability is not determined by the ability to read it RIGHT NOW. Merely that someone (it doesn't have to be YOU even, just "a person, on earth"), with some modicum of effort, could find it and check it. It could be a book in a library, an archived newspaper on microfiche, whatever. Just that it was a) published and b) available for someone (again, not necessarily you, right now) could check. In this case the source is the Hickory Daily Record, a genuine bona fide, honest-to-god daily paper, so its reliability is as good as any other. It does real journalism. The text of the article is about President Trump nominating Brock Long to head FEMA. I'm not sure what text it is being used to verify, but the article is fairly unremarkable, just your standard newspaper article which identifies Long as the appointee, and a short biography of Long's prior professional experience. In the future, FWIW, the Wikiproject WP:REX is designed exactly for thsi sort of question (rather than the ref desk or the Village Pump). REX is designed to ask for help checking references you don't have access to yourself. --Jayron32 18:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Exactly – books or newspapers can't be geoblocked. I was referring to a web site that denies access from the Internet. I'm not completely against using this kind of sources but there's an undeniable problem with them. Sabotizing this problem is a good approach though. --Zac67 (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Geoblocked websites are also not a problem. You just ask someone who lives where they can check it for you. Like at WP:REX. No issues at all. --Jayron32 18:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education is hiring an experienced Wikipedian for a part-time (20 hours/week) position. The focus of this position is to help new editors (students and other academics) learn to edit Wikipedia. The main focus of the position is monitoring and tracking contributions by Wiki Education program participants, answering questions, and providing feedback. We're looking for a friendly, helpful editor who like to focus on article content, but also with a deep knowledge of policies and guidelines and the ability to explain them in simple, concise ways to new editors. They will be the third member of a team of expert Wikipedians, joining Ian (Wiki Ed) and Shalor (Wiki Ed). This is a part-time, U.S. based, remote or San Francisco based position.

See our Careers page for more information. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi all. A while back, I wrote a post here to tell you about two experiments related to enwiki newcomers the Research team at Wikimedia Foundation has set up to run. We had some delays for running those experiments, but as of a couple of hours ago we've started one of them. We will run this iteration for a period of 1-2 weeks and after that is completed, will move to the second one. If you have any questions, please reach out to us at the task in Phabricator or the talk page of the research. Thanks! --LZia (WMF) (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

JY Yang is a writer who goes by the pronoun "they". I'm not sure which of the following article versions is preferable:

• this older version, which avoids the use of pronouns so as not to confuse the reader as to why a known person is referred to as "they". But using no pronouns looks kind of weird, especially if the article is ever expanded.
• the current version, which uses "they" but explains this at the outset, per GENDERID's advice to "explain it without overemphasis on first occurrence in an article". My concern with this is that it gives undue attention to what is ultimately a minor aspect of the biography, especially in a stub.

Any advice from MOS experts? @YarLucebith: you may want to comment also. Sandstein 08:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an MOS expert, but it looks fine to me the way it is currently. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 08:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Sandstein: based on experiences here I think an in-text explanation for pronoun preferences is a good idea for people who use they-them pronouns, if only because it can limit the number of well meaning editors who mistakenly attempt to "fix" the article by adding gendered pronouns. This is entirely a stylistic preference, but I think placing it as a parenthetical in the second sentence might make it feel a little less overemphasized: "Yang — who is nonbinary and uses they/them pronouns — has written a series of "silkpunk" novellas..." Nblund ^talk 16:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The only thing that stands out is that explanation (which I do think is helpful), it just looks weird since its coming from a primary source. Perhaps moving that to a footnote so that the reader understands without calling out far too much detail to it? That's more just odd, not wrong/inconsistent with GENDERID. --Masem (t) 16:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, User:Sandstein. I agree with what I think User:Masem is saying; make the explanation of pronoun use a footnote attached to the first instance of “they”, rather than a substantial part of the lead. Then just run with it.

While here, I feel obliged to voice my skepticism regarding the (admittedly ubiquitous, and not unreasonable) assumption that readers will be genuinely confused by the use of the pronoun, as opposed to, say, disgruntled or irritated due to politically motivated prescriptivism. I, personally, have only ever seen non-binary pronouns “corrected” in circumstances where the responsible party realizes (either self-evidently or explicitly) that the pronouns were intended as written, but either feels a need to avoid confusing others, or—probably more often, I’m sad to say—feels empowered to declare this Wrong and rectify the transgression. I say this not to question anyone’s motives—I see only good will in this thread!—but to suggest that an abundance of caution in the name of the confused masses is, in my view, unwarranted. (It helps that virtually any source of info on Yang will provide matching usage, so anyone questing after the “right” gender pronouns out of genuine confusion will pretty quickly realize they’ve misunderstood)

One more thought: as it stands, GENDERID seems wholly inadequate here—it was clearly written first and foremost to address the issue of binary transgender people (i.e. trans men and trans women) whose notability falls partly—or perhaps in rare cases, entirely—outside the temporal scope of their presently declared identity and/or name. For people like Yang who have no widely disseminated deadname or previous gender identification, the particular pitfalls addressed by GENDERID are conveniently side-stepped, and we seem to be in the position of establishing new precedent. Let’s try something and see if it works. :)

tl;dr We’re venturing into uncharted waters; if the pronoun use is mentioned/explained somewhere relatively early on, I suspect we’ll be fine.YarLucebith (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello all. I'm currently developing a Wikipedia TriviaBot for use in the IRC channels on freenode. The intent and spirit of this bot is to help new editors learn crucial knowledge as well as expand veteran editor's general knowledge of Wikipedia. The bot is currently functional, though I'd still say it's in its beta phase. The reason for this post is to request community's assistance with expanding the database of Wikipedia related trivia questions from 80 total questions to thousands. This page has been created as a place for the community to submit questions for addition to bot's database. All contributions will be credited to the editor who submitted the question. I thank all who get involved. Anyone who is regularly on IRC are also welcomed to contact me to test the bot. Operator873^talkconnect 02:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The bot is now active! Please stop in and see what you think! #wikipedia-trivia ^connect Operator873^talkconnect 23:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The bot is clearly broken, and just spouts trivia questions at a target less audience. It does not respond to my inputs.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 01:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The article about the actor Victor Banerjee lists all the western directors that he has worked with first, and then the Indian ones. (Based on their names.) Given that he has worked with Indian directors of the status of Satyajit Ray, I'm not sure about this ordering. Does anyone have any thoughts about this? Ross-c (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's bad (shoutout to WP:WORLDVIEW), and particularly egregious in the case of Jerry London, who as far as I can tell is not a particularly noteworthy director, certainly not as compared to Polanski or Ray. As for solutions, we could 1. list them in alphabetical order (Akbar, Benegal, Ivory, Lean, London Polanski, Neame, Sen, Ray, Varma) 2. list them in the order that he collaborated with them (Ray, Ivory, Benegal, Lean, Neame, Sen, Polanski, Akbar). Of these two options, I'm slightly more partial to the second. We should also consider shortening the list, as it's currently half the length of the lead. Rosguill (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

These articles need to be renamed:

• Vrljika River --> Vrljika (river)
• Kobilja river --> Kobilja (river)

--SrpskiAnonimac (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

"Kobilja River" calls for upper case "River". Bus stop (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Why should they be written that way? What do English language sources use for the names of those rivers? --Jayron32 18:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Rivers are only called "Vrljika" and "Kobilja", "river" should be in brackets --SrpskiAnonimac (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be some usage in English of "Vrljika River" and "Kobilja river".

"Traditional dishes offered at the end of the trip will give you an opportunity to enjoy the finest food at the spring of the Vrljika River inside the 250 years old mill."

"Around Vidovište, from Kobilja river (south-west) to Ilomska's canyon (north-east) there are the hamlets, as follows..." Bus stop (talk) 10:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Then you need to rename all the articles which they have in the title (river) in River (Category:Rivers of Bosnia and Herzegovina), e.g:

• Kobilja river --> Kobilja River
• Bosna (river) --> Bosna River

For example, these rivers have the name river (Bosnian: rijeka)

• Grabovička River (Grabovička rijeka, "Grabovica River")
• Fojnička River (Fojnička rijeka, "Fojnica River")
• Crna River (Crna rijeka, "Black River")

• Crna River (Ilomska)
• Crna River (Vrbanja)
• Crna River (Vrbas)
• Crna River (Željeznica) --SrpskiAnonimac (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

A more important question... Are all these “Crna” articles about the same river? Blueboar (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

No, these are different rivers, there is more:

• Crna River (Sava) (sr)
• Crna River (Lepenica)

in Serbia:

• Crna River (Ibar) (sr)
• Crni Timok or Crna River (Serbian: Crna reka)

in Republic of Macedonia:

• Crna River (Vardar) --SrpskiAnonimac (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Why is an article such as Ćehotina named that way? Why isn't it titled Ćehotina River? Are there different naming conventions in Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina for rivers than there are in the United States? The United States of course has Mississippi River and Missouri River. I find "Our Rafting club promotes and is one of the organizers of permanent open championship of Bosnia and Herzegovina R6 rafting on the Ćehotina river, World Cup rafting on the Tara River and other events such as school rafting, etc." Wikipedia titles that article Tara (river). Bus stop (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

OTOH, we have Rhine and Danube minus the "River" or "(river)" bits. SharkD  ☎  22:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Excellent point. How are we to make sense of this? Danube River (Encyclopedia Britannica). "Our Danube River cruises deliver you to culture-rich banks, from scenic vineyards to spectacular monasteries..." Again, Britannica: Rhine River. "Hillside castles, lush riverbanks and storybook villages take center stage during our Rhine River cruises through Switzerland, Germany and The Netherlands." Did our Manual of Style drop the ball on this? Bus stop (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that English just doesn't have a consistent way of referring to rivers, and I suspect that speaker judgments may differ depending on different regional variants of English. Anecdotally, when rivers are particularly large/important and not confusable with other places bearing the same name, they tend to drop "river" from the name (e.g. The Nile, The Amazon). Going through a few lists of rivers articles, it seems like American conventions generally put "river" after the river name, whereas British conventions put "river" before the river name or drop it entirely. Curiously, other near-synonyms for river like "creek" and "brook" are always appended but also are treated differently grammatically: one would say "The Mississippi River is wide" but you would never say "The Redwood Creek is wide"; conversely, "Redwood Creek is wide" is acceptable but "Mississippi River is wide" is not.Rosguill (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

So I guess an attempt at attaining uniformity on a project-wide basis would actually be the wrong thing to do and we should instead make such article-title decisions on a case-by-case basis? Bus stop (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, in fact this appears to already be the suggested practice per WP:NCGN and WP:PLACEDAB. NCGN states that we should use the most widely accepted English name, while PLACEDAB specifies that terms like "river" and "mountain" can be added when it is useful for disambiguation but does not stipulate a hard rule on their inclusion or exclusion.Rosguill (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for those leads. Following those leads I found WP:NCRIVER which seems to confirm that a title is determined by a variety of factors but that a lot has to do with "common usage". Bus stop (talk) 12:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

40,000 scientists identified by Quicksilver AI as missing from Wikipedia.

• "AI spots 40,000 prominent scientists overlooked by Wikipedia" (The Verge)
• Quicksilver introduction
• 100 Summaries created by Quicksilver. "We’re curious how long it will take before someone creates their articles."

-- GreenC 18:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Alright who wants to get to work on these and put those robots to shame.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

You? Blueboar (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I've done a few. I have some doubts about the selection procedure: at first glance it looks to have been a relatively unsophisticated media trawl. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

And the generated articles read like press releases from university media departments. Their bot may need more training on suitable style. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

How reliable is it for establishing notability? · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Nobody knows. I think a far better way would be to identify scientists who have won a prominent international prize but do not have a wikipedia page. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 05:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I pointed this out over at the Signpost and at NPROF. The problem is that they took 30,000 articles on WP about academics, but we have no idea which ones, and if all 30,000 would meet our notability guidelines even under NPROF. As such, it's a "bad" data set that if there are a fair proportion of those in the 30,000 that would fail GNG /NPROF. If they had used articles that clearly passed either guideline, I am sure there would a good number of false positives (articles that would fail notability) but far less than what their current set has. --Masem (t) 05:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Kosovo Pomoravlje#Title -- SrpskiAnonimac (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I would ask one of the admina to lock the article so that they can only be edited by registered users, the vandal mi non stop cancels the change, and the change has sources -- SrpskiAnonimac (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is the place to ask for protection. This looks like a slow edit war. Though I cannot tell that anyone is a vandal. Just a sr vs hr disagreement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone find sufficient sourcing to prove to me whether or not Marcel·lí Perelló i Domingo is a hoax? I got nothing on GBooks. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The Spanish version is more developed involving a lot of editors over time with many sources, doesn't look like a hoax. -- GreenC 00:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I've been reading Wikipedia:RFT, but cannot figure out which procedure to follow when text on an image (not an article) needs to be translated. I just uploaded File:Tape Ball Color Space, Itten, 1919-20.jpg and cannot read the handwriting well enough to figure out what is written. Where do I go for such a translation? Do I go to the reference desk instead? Thanks. SharkD  ☎  17:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@SharkD: there is no specific procedure for such a thing. My main advice would be to contact users who have noted on their userpage that they want to translate from German. See Category:Translators de-en for the full list, but it's good to pick someone who has recent activity. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay thanks! SharkD  ☎  01:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

This is kind of "meta" but why is there a unified search box for all the village pump pages? It would be better in my view if each page had its own search box. Sure a "search all Village Pumps" option would be nice, but having the "all" as the default brings in tons of clutter to already apparently random results... Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Ellen Gertrude Cohen on Museum of London

By my reckoning these five illustrations are in public domain, but I would really appreciate a person knowledgeable in copyright confirming this.

The images are by illustrator Ellen Gertrude Cohen, created in 1891 and appear to be published in Britain in that year, but it is unclear of the publication. They are on a site that implies copyright, but they are not marked. May I upload all five images to the commons? If so, which tag? "in public domain in U.S."?

Thanks for taking a look. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

If published at that time, it is in public domain in USA now. The British copyright status depends on the death year of Ellen Gertrude Cohen. You are better to ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Ruslik_Zero 20:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ruslik0. I'll ask over there. Unfortunately I cannot find a death date for Ms. Cohen, but I'll put all that in over on the copyright page. Best. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Talk:Immigration and crime#should the Sweden section be in chronological order?. Disagreement about paragraph order in section, some 3rd opinions would be welcome. AadaamS (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I am still looking for outside input for my RfC, reverting to random order has been done previously in April. Also this topic has been brought up before here at this page. Blueboar, JohnBlackburne and WhatamIdoing, would you consider adding a 3rd opinion to the RfC? So far only myself and the editor who disagrees have responded to the RfC. AadaamS (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Having looked at the edits, it appears that "random ordering" might be a bit misleading, as the primary locus of the disagreement is whether the information should be ordered by date of events (i.e., the decade in which immigrants arrived in Sweden) or the date of research publication (i.e., the decade in which the research was published, regardless of whether it is reports about immigrants who arrived in the 1980s or the 2010s). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The paragraphs in the "Past" section appear in random order and the "past/recent" split seems random or not supported by any source. AadaamS (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The appeal only appears when one is not signed in - rather than for registered users (who are going to be more supportive of WP than non-signers), who if they are on computers where they have ticked the 'Keep me signed in' box may never see the appeals.

Possibly there could be different types of appeal: for example would it be possible to make the 'Donate to Wikipedia' link on the side more noticeable? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jackiespeel: Do you have "Suppress display of fundraiser banners" checked under Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The point was actually the reverse - those who are committed enough to create a user name might well be more willing to donate than IP-contributors/users.

The issue has been raised in the past (often in conjunction with comments on the amount of space taken up by the appeals - hence the suggestion that the link be made more noticeable). Jackiespeel (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

How difficult would it be to make the 'Donate to Wikipedia' link bold/larger or different typeface etc? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

According to WP:JCW/W8 and WP:JCW/W9, the following circular references to Wikipedia are made

If you could ensure that things from the journal column point to the correct target, that would be great. Thanks. Ignore the 'type' column. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Also feel free to fix the circular refs themselves. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary redirections, Serbo-Croatia and Serbo–Croatia --SrpskiAnonimac (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Seem fine to me. Plausible search terms/plausible typos. Redirects are cheap, and there's no need to get rid of redirects that aren't harmful. --Jayron32 13:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

As you might already know, there is currently a copyright reform going on in the European Union, which will affect Wikipedia and other free knowledge projects. In July, the European Parliament debated a proposal that would have been harmful for freedom of expression and collaboration online. Many Wikimedia organisations and communities took action in June and July to oppose it and contributed to the rejection of this version of the proposal.

After its summer break, the European Parliament will vote on new amendments to the European Commission’s original proposal on 12 September. Members of the European Parliament can submit such new amendments by 5 September. The European Wikimedia organisations, members of the Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU, and the Wikimedia Foundation are working on making sure amendments that protect and grow free knowledge will be on the table. These include a new approach to Article 13, but also safeguarding the public domain, freedom of panorama and user generated content.

Over the coming weeks, it will be important for Wikimedia to promote our vision of a copyright framework that helps us share the sum of all knowledge online. Should your community wish to engage in further public policy actions around this we would greatly appreciate if you coordinate with us to make sure our message is coherent across countries. We want to promote sensible copyright rules that advance access to information and knowledge instead merely stopping a bad proposal.

You can help by translating and sharing information materials in your language, sending an opinion piece to media in your country, contacting MEPs from your region with suggestions to support positive amendments, or participating in events in Brussels and Strasbourg (on 6 and 11 September, tbc).

We will provide updates soon about the community activities. In addition, we will share information and guidance on important amendments to the copyright proposal in due time.--dimi_z (talk) 09:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi all. An update about the experiment for eliciting new editor interests mentioned here earlier. The first phase of the experiment is completed. We have received 382 responses from new editors. We have applied the matching algorithm to the responses received and we are getting ready for the second stage. This means we have stopped emailing newly registered users. We continue to expect that the second and third stages of the experiment not have negative impact on active editor workflows. This being said, we are actively monitoring the space. If you have questions, please ping here or on the project's talk page. Thank you! --LZia (WMF) (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

{{Expert needed}} seems to be a very underused template.

So is there any proof that use of this template actually gets anything done? I've seen uses dating back to 2008 that have gone completely unanswered. FoxTrot used to have it for several years, without response from anyone anywhere despite multiple alerts. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised a template like this exists, as it seems to go against the principles of no original research. Aiken D 09:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

How so? An expert is likely to know more about the sources that exist for a topic and to know which sources are high quality. Anomie⚔ 11:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it's useful in that it notifies other editors that there is information in the article that is vague, contradictory, or incomplete such that an editor without knowledge of the topic cannot further improve it without making dangerous assumptions that may be incorrect. I've frequently had this experience when copyediting articles about locations in India and Nigeria, as it's not always clear which terms are interchangeable, or even sufficiently translated. That having been said, I don't believe there's any system that attempts to inform potential experts about the article, so these templates often go unanswered.Rosguill (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. In my opinion we as a community, ought to have a more aggressive program to identify and attract experts. Until we do that, those templates will largely fall on deaf ears but I would prefer to solve the real problem rather than address a symptom of the problem.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

In theory this sounds good. I agree with what Rosguill and S Philbrick have brought up. I'd say the talk page equivalent might be a better use in terms of visual appearance for readers, but that's a conversation for a TFD. Killiondude (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Could we consider renaming Expert needed to something less imposing (brainstorming: "double check", "advice needed")? "Expert needed" at first glance makes me think that we're looking for someone with a PhD or extensive experience in the relevant field, when for a lot of these cases even a passing familiarity with the topic (or languages and/or locations relevant to the topic) would suffice. Rosguill (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I have just opened an RFC on the above subject here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Rfc_on_the_inclusion_of_the_Erdős–Bacon_number_in_biographies.. feel free to particpate. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The relevant context is here and here. --JBL (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI

{{Infobox building}} now automatically displays dynamic <mapframe> maps by default, if available. If you are interested in any articles using this infobox, please review how the map displays in those articles: you can adjust the size, frame center point, initial zoom level, and marker icon using various optional parameters; the mapframe map may also be turned off using |mapframe=no.

See Template talk:Infobox building for further information and discussions. - Evad37 [talk] 05:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: {{Infobox shopping mall}} now similarly displays automatic mapframe maps. - Evad37 [talk] 05:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

On behalf of (at least part of, I can't speak for all) the Commons community I apologize for this deletion of 117 Huntington images that were used here. Many, probably most (but that's a bit harder to check now..) are properly licensed.

It's not the first time this happens, nor will it be the last. Another DR with 90 images (49 used here, 23 on ruwiki, 12 or less on various others) is also about to be executed. I'm not linking it now because that might cause it to be deleted faster and I haven't saved all the pictures yet.

Undeletion is feasible for a few in case of The Huntington (the deletion was so careless even PD-old works have been deleted), but for most undeletion is probably not possible on the short term.

Now my question. Would enwiki appreciate it if I upload the images that are properly licensed locally? And is there a tool to upload Flickr images to enwiki? Alexis Jazz (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

If one goes to the History section of an article, one can click on "Number of watchers" (in case any one is curious, I shall say that Wikipedia: Village pump had 954 viewers last time I looked). My question is this. How many days is this a record of the watchers that an article has had? Perhaps it might be an idea to change "Number of watchers" to "Number of watchers in past x days". Vorbee (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Vorbee: Watchers are editors that have added the page to their Watchlist. It is a count of the current number of watchlists that contain the page, not views over a certain period. If you're interested in page views, see https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I just gave this page a major revamp. It could look a fresh pair of eyes, especially from users that never used User:Citation bot before. Please give feedback at User talk:Citation bot/use. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Around the population of 30000, the situation is quite chaotic (the numbers are the rank in population):

23. Dunakeszi city. 24. Szigetszentmiklós city. 25. Salgótarján city. 26. Cegléd city. 27. Baja city. 28. Ózd town. 29. Vác town. 30. Szekszárd city. 31. Mosonmagyaróvár town. 32. Gödöllő town. 33. Hajdúböszörmény town. 34. Pápa town. 35. Gyula town. 36. Kiskunfélegyháza city. 37. Budaörs town. 38. Esztergom city. 39. Gyöngyös town. 40. Ajka city. 41. Orosháza city. 42. Kiskunhalas city. 43. Kazincbarcika town. 44. Szentes city. 45. Szentendre town. 46. Jászberény city. 63. (!!!) Keszthely city.

I know population isn't the only criteria in being a town or a city, but I don't understand why Szentes is more of a city than Siófok. --194.37.90.250 (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Looking at WP:NCGN, there doesn't seem to be any established convention for the usage of town vs. city, and doesn't provide any special guidelines for Hungary. Ideally, we should reflect actual usage, so if most sources refer to Szentes as a city, then we should refer to it as a city. Rosguill (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a tool, which allows to compare how popular is the same article in different wikipedias.

I am looking for a similar tool to compare the actual size of the same article in different wikipedias. --Perohanych (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

For example, see .

This doesn't work with all bare urls, but it will work with urls to Google Books, arXiv, bibcode, JSTOR, doi, PMID and several other identifiers. If you see such bare urls in an article, you can activate Citation bot here or use the one-click citation expander gadget in your preferences. The Google Books output in particular will need to be reviewed, as sometimes Google Books links to magazine, rather than books proper. It shouldn't give anything egregiously wrong, but the citation might not have the full details, list a publisher for author, or might need to be converted to {{cite magazine}} or something.

Many thanks to User:AManWithNoPlan for this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Is this intended to replace, or work alongside, ReFill? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Both tools have their use, this is just intended to... well just make the bot more useful than it was. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

She's a pretty famous pornstar and Wikipedia in other languages has article for her.

Sorry if I mistaken section but I think this is the more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unvers (talk • contribs) 13:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

If she qualifies for a page because she meets the minimum requirements at Wikipedia (see here for information), then if a page does not yet exist, it only doesn't exist because you didn't create it yet. See, every word at Wikipedia is only here because people who care about a subject write words about it. If you care, and have not written about it yet, then there is no one else to blame except yourself. --Jayron32 13:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Unvers: In this case, however, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lana Rhoades where is was determined (last year) that she is not notable enough for her own article. If you disagree, I propose you create a draft with appropriate sourcing. Wikipedia:Your first article will be helpful to read. Once you are done, you can request review by experienced editors. Regards SoWhy 14:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, the fact is that the page that responds to the name of Lana Rhodes is a page of redirection that has the protection with the blue lock and that I being new user can not change, I noticed that on Italian Wikipedia that is that of my native language the article is there and also in some other language, I do not know if it is allowed to cite porn sites here but I saw that in one of these sites she is first for popularity and has 500 million views, of course this is not enough to get her on Wikipedia, if the community has decided, however, that she should not have a personal page since I'm a novice I do not feel like going against the decision because I physically can not create the page because it's protected by a blue lock that requires 500 changes and 90 days of inscription it seems to me, I will have to wait a while. Unvers (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Unvers, if you manage to create a draft that passes review, someone will "fix" the "lock" problem, it's possible it takes an admin, redirects can be like that. You might find people interested in working with you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

13:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, I am not sure where, or whom to ask about the recent changes.

Until recently (that is, a few days ago), you could look at a page history, then up to the left was a button which gave info about who had edited the page (by number of edits, and by added text).

It was basically this tool: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/index.php with the info about the article automatically filled in.

Why has that been removed? (Ok, you can still find it, but now you have to look around, while before it was right there, easily available.) Huldra (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

You mean the "Page statistics" link that's the second link at the top? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

User:SarekOfVulcan LOL, yeah, you are right.. Thanks..Huldra (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC) (feeling like an idiot...)

NP, it was an instructive hunt. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The link is made by MediaWiki:Histlegend which was modified today after discussion on the talk page. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, User:PrimeHunter, I had no idea even where to start looking for that stuff (now, back to my Middle Eastern stuff), Huldra (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

Please find the results of our first analysis about readers' interactions with references in English Wikipedia in our project page. This is work from the Wikimedia Foundation Research team, in the context of the "Citation Usage" project. This project aims to understand how Wikipedia readers use the citations, and the role of external citations in Wikipedia reading, which in turn can inform the editor and tool developer communities about the usage (or not) of citations by Wikipedia readers.

After a first round of data collection, which ended on 2018-07-08, we analyzed the data and identified a number of issues. We have modified our instrumentation to address these issues, and we will start a second round of data collection next week. We will collect data that captures readers' (not logged-in users) page views, as well as their interactions with references and footnotes. We will initially sample 1–15% of the traffic to validate the data quality, then turn at 100% sampling rate for a period of one month. All details can be found here. We may have to change this plan based on the initial validation steps, and we will keep this thread and our project page posted with changes if they occur.

To follow the progress of the project and monitor our research results, please also look at this task. If you are interested to know more, or if you have any question, or any observation, please ping me or leave a message on the project page! Miriam (WMF) (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Miriam (WMF): I dropped some notes on the discussion page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Thank you for your precious suggestions! I will address them this week and make the changes in the analysis page accordingly. Miriam (WMF) (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Update: due to the overload of events, we temporarily stopped the data collection. We are making changes to the schema to sample page load events at 50%, and will start it again next week. We will keep this thread informed with all news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miriam (WMF) (talk • contribs) 15:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the correct procedure but I read that an RfC can be published at the Village pump. I'd like to hear a wider opinion on this question

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Francis_Beaufort#RfC_on_National_Origins Centuryofconfusion (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello all,

If you’re interested in changes to how Special:Block works, then see the discussion about Partial blocks. Your thoughts are greatly appreciated.

• Proposed changes to how logging of blocks happens is being discussed now.

• The third set of designs for a new layout of Special:Block are also available for review and comment.

Please spread the word to others (especially administrators) who might be interested in helping re-design Special:Block's layout. Cheers, For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I noted the Short description of "Azərbaycan" page with purple color in the following picture.

My first question: how to add such descriptions to pages? Second question: If the article contains more than 1 photo, how to define which photo will be shown in search (for examle Azerbaijan's flag in "Azərbaycan" page)? For both questions, give universal methods for all languages. Ki999 (talk) 11:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ki999: See the Wikidata method at Wikipedia:FAQ/Editing#How do I edit mobile subtitles? It requires a Wikidata item for the page. I think the alternative feature used by {{Short description}} is only enabled at the English Wikipedia. Special:Version#mw-version-parser-function-hooks lists shortdesc, meaning that feature exists here. It is not at az:Special:Version#mw-version-parser-function-hooks. See mw:Extension:PageImages#Image choice. It is not possible to specify the image directly. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Thank you!

In hindsight, this is better suited for Meta as other projects are affected as well: m:Wikimedia Forum#Commons will soon stop accepting some GFDL-only media. Alexis Jazz (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Per the comments on the closure of a TfD here Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_July_23#Template:Media_by_uploader it was suggested that a VP discussion be had. I've marked this template as deprecated as an amended wording was implemented in {{Img-unclaimed}} and {{img-claimed}}, but given the wording of those templates is related to the one at the closed TFD, this discussion also concerns them.

The problem is essentially that before Wikipedia developed the upload policies it currently now has and to some extent the structure imposed by the {{information}} template, some media was uploaded under a set of assumptions that whilst in good faith at the time, aren't necessarily the same assumptions that would be made when evaluating media that would be uploaded under the current policies. One of these assumptions being that where the uploader said something like "I made this" on the file description page, the file was implicitly considered own work, (One of the current recommend approach is for the uploader to use Own work as the Source: field and to use a license like {{Self}} or {{Self2}} at the time of upload.

Why does this matter? Currently a query at WMF Quarry (https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/29651) lists at least 27,000 uploads (an expanded query listed at least 50,000) for which a source couldn't be recognised. The actual number of uploads that don't have a source is certainly going to be considerably smaller. In many instances the source for older images will be a statement to the effect "I made this" or " Photo taken by username", but NOT as it didn't exist the time an explicitly included {{own}}tag or {{information}} block. Some contributors in the past have added these in good faith, but I was advised against off-wiki (more than once) about automatically adding own work (or {{own}} without some kind of confirmation (either from the original uploader or by other means). Whilst assumption of good faith is a key Wikipedia trait, taking it on trust that something is own work based on limited meta-data is not necessarily a long-term approach.

{{media by uploader}}, {{img-unclaimed}},{{img-claimed}} were intended as part of a pragmatic approach, as by asking uploader to more actively confirm 'own' work status, without needing to take media through the FFD or PROD process which would be inappropriate given that many of the affected uploads are sourced, and are (implied or not) indeed own work by their uploaders.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

After a good chat with SF00 off-wiki, the issue seems to be as follows. There are three classes of images:

1. Images which are identified as own works, but without the exact {{Own}} template.

2. Images which are tagged with a licence but no clear source (and are presumed own works for some reason)

3. Images without any source or licence (if presumed own, then they are automatically licensed under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA)

SF00 has been previously instructed that tagging case 1 as {{Own}} is not appropriate which has lead them to attempt to create a new process of clarification. I'd like to invite the community to either allow SF00 to get on fixing the tags, or to put some proper thought into how we want to handle this. TheDragonFire (talk) 11:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• I think there are several good cases where it is perfectly safe to just put the {{own}} template in the image without further interaction from the uploader or putting any warning templates anywhere: (1) the uploader clearly says "my own work" or "I took this photo on my trip to Africa" or some such thing, (2) the uploader attributes the photo to "Bob Smith" and either the user's Wikipedia user name is BobSmith123 or the user says on their user page that their name is Bob Smith, (3) the user uses the {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-self}} template. All three of these cases are obviously with the proviso that the claim is credible - that the image hasn't been published outside of Wikipedia, doesn't have EXIF data that contradicts what the user says, etc. On the other hand, if there is no claim of authorship at all or the photo is attributed to a person that we don't reasonably believe to be the uploader, then {{npd}} or {{nsd}} is the correct template. If the uploader is still an active user, then we can/should attempt to discuss the issue with the user rather than just tagging the image - that is more likely to get a positive response than just tagging 10 images and leaving 10 identical templates on the talk page. (Obviously, there is little we can do if the uploader hasn't editing in 10 years - we have no choice but to tag and delete the image.) --B (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

If interested, please comment here. petrarchan47คุก 04:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Forgive and please advise if this is the wrong place to bring this up. Wikisource has only the first few chapters of the vulgate. This seems like a serious oversight that could be easily mended. Couldn’t any of many copies be uploaded? I regret if I’m being naive about the factors involved. Temerarius (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Pinging several of the Wikisource admins: It sounds like Temerarius would like to help with Wikisource. Can someone point the correct direction? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The place to ask would be s:Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help, and it would be helpful to identify a public domain version of the vulgate suitable for uploading. bd2412 T 20:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Consider the Clementine Vulgate Project as a source for the text. EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Is this a desire to have a Latin text of the Vulgate put online, or an English translation of the Vulgate? This makes a big difference, since it involves different Wikisources (Latin versus English). Wikisource is divided into different language projects just as Wikipedia is. So the first question to be answered is: Which language are we discussing here? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all. Not a translation, just a Latin text. Temerarius (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• I have dropped a note at s:Wikisource:Scriptorium#Vulgate. bd2412 T 02:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

— billinghurst sDrewth 08:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

This redirect "Legally Blondes 2" is unnecessary, it needs to be deleted...."Legally Blonde 2" is correct --SrpskiAnonimac (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@SrpskiAnonimac: This is not the place. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

For which I nominated it shortly after the note. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 17#Legally Blondes 2. --Izno (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Is there anyone out there who can guide me through a few simple questions regarding my efforts to open a fold3 account, with Wikipedia permissions? -Broichmore (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Broichmore, have you applied for access to WP:Fold3 yet? User:Samwalton9 (WMF) could probably help you get started with Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Broichmore: I see you were approved for a Fold3 account - are you having issues accessing or using your account? Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Yes, no access; it's apparently been resolved now, I'll know for sure in a couple of weeks. Broichmore (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

18:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Can someone tell me if you have any policies here regarding disclosure of personal data and conflicts between certain users that are going on outside of the wiki itself (like on Facebook - with offences, nickname disclosures and such)? Because I couldn't find any (or I didn't search thoroughly enough). If there're none, I'd like to know what are the best practices regarding these situations. --Piramidion 05:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Try WP:OUTING. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! That's what I was looking for. But what about outing made outside of Wikipedia, say, on a public Facebook page? Do the Wikipedia rules apply here and should the user get blocked?--Piramidion 08:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

No, but it all depends. Generally, only what happens on-wiki is of concern as far as policies are concerned. However, if user Example at some off-wiki website was attacking an editor (outing is the worst attack) and if there were good reason to believe that Example was the same person as User:Example, the latter might be blocked. You could consider emailing an admin with the details and asking their opinion. Johnuniq (talk) 09:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. The example case you mentioned, was exactly the one I was thinking of, so it directly addresses my concerns. As for emailing an admin, well, there is such a case, but not on this wiki, and there was no actual outing (only personal attacks with some use of personal data that had been previously posted on Wikipedia by the targeted person). The thing is we do not have appropriate policies regarding this, and I wanted to know how far can Wikipedia policies reach, and if their scope is larger than Wikipedia itself. So I decided to check some opinions of the much more experienced community of enwiki. Thanks for your help!--Piramidion 09:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

When a discussion is archived, and it is requested that the discussion be closed, where does the closing statement go? Enterprisey (talk!) 01:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: You restore it from the archive (a manual copy-and-paste operation), remove it from the archive, and then close it normally. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Enterprisey (talk!) 23:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The Community health initiative is starting a project to measure the effectiveness of blocks. The first step is to discuss with the wikimedia community ideas about how to do it. To that end, the Anti-Harassment Tools team and Morten Warncke-Wang has created a page with some initial ideas and a discussion space to talk about these and your ideas.

AHT is particularly interested to learn whether the new partial blocks feature is successful as a tool or instrument. Therefore, the first part of this research will mainly focused on the short term gains in the utility of partial blocks in order to understand whether it appears to be working and if there appears to be a need for changes. These measurements will provide us with insight quickly. Currently there is not much known about how sitewide blocks affect users. This makes a comparison of the effects of the new partial block feature to sitewide blocks difficult. To provide all of us with some insight, the Anti-Harassment Tools team would like to examine historical block data across wikimedia projects to establish a baseline.

However, our list of measurements that we propose has a lot of longer term ones, e.g. surveys. These are important and should be considered to be implemented later, because they can provide all of us with insight that is otherwise hidden.

Please join us to discuss these proposed measurements. For the Anti-Harassment Tools team and Morten Warncke-Wang. SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello! A few months ago the Wikimedia Foundation invited contributors to take a survey about your experiences on Wikipedia. The report is now published on Meta-Wiki! We asked contributors 170 questions across many different topics like diversity, harassment, paid editing, Wikimedia events and many others.

Read the report or watch the presentation, which is available only in English. Add your thoughts and comments to the report talk page. Feel free to share the report on Wikipedia/Wikimedia or on your favorite social media. Thanks! --EGalvez (WMF) 20:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

There's enwiki page Kerrigan, which lists people (and a character) with given surname. And there are exactly the same pages in other wikis: ru:Керриган, de:Kerrigan, fr:Kerrigan, etc. I've tried to connect them via wikidata and met a merge conflict. The problem is that in ruwiki and some other wikis this page considered as disambiguation page, while in enwiki this is an article, am I correct?

If there are several articles about people with the same surname in Russian Wikipedia, there's always a disambiguation page with the list of articles and sometimes there is an article about this surname with history, etymology, etc, but without any lists. Seems like in enwiki there's always one page with complete list and, very rarely, additional facts. IMHO, they looks more like disambigs, not like articles - there is no sources at page, there's probably no reliable sources at all, meaning that there is no notability. Which page should they connected to? I can find any variant.

• ru:Казаков is Russian disambig, ru:Казаков (фамилия) is Russian surname article. English surname page Kazakov connected to disambig.
• ru:Волков is Russian disambig, ru:Волков (фамилия) is Russian surname article. English surname page Volkov (surname) connected to article.
• ru:Аббот is Russian disambig, there is no Russian surname article. English surname page Abbot (surname) IS connected to it.
• ru:Керриган is Russian disambig, there is no Russian surname article. English surname page Kerrigan is NOT connected to it.

What variant is correct? Facenapalm (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to be a bit unclear here, and ask for some input on how best to deal with this. I'm tempted to invoke some form of WP:IAR, but I wanna see what alternatives are first.

Let's say we have a certain predatory publisher (Foobar Publications) which meets WP:N, and has article on Wikipedia. Said publisher produces a lot of crap journals, none of which meet WP:N, so the standard practice here is to redirect individual journal entries to the publisher (e.g. Scientific Research Publishing, redirects). Since we have a main article, categories, and redirects, we can easily find problematic citations to that publisher and its journals via Special:WhatLinksHere and other tools like WP:JCW or WP:CRAPWATCH.

But let's say we have a certain publisher (Foobar Publications) which doe not meet WP:N, and therefore doesn't have an article on Wikipedia. And said publisher produces a lot of crap journals (Open Foobar Journal of Bunk, Open Foobar Journal of Crap, Open Foobar Journal of Junk... ), none of which meet WP:N. As things stand now, we can have no information on Wikipedia about those journals, "Special:WhatLinksHere" is useless, and other tools like WP:JCW or WP:CRAPWATCH cannot be used to their full potential.

The question here, is how do we best deal with this? My WP:IAR instinct is

1. Categorize and redirect Foobar Publications in/to Category:Foobar Publications academic journals.
2. Categorize and redirect individual journals (Open Journal of Bunk, Open Journal of Crap, Open Journal of Junk, etc.) in/to Category:Foobar Publications academic journals
3. Redirect standard abbreviations (Open J. Bunk, Open J. Crap, Open J. Junk, etc.) to Category:Foobar Publications academic journals
4. Add a hatnote to the category, possibly something like

   This category is for academic journals published Foobar Publications, a predatory open-access publisher.

   or

   This category is for academic journals published by Foobar Publications, a predatory open-access publisher which does not meet our notability guidelines.

The idea is that we'd have something very similar to Category:Scientific Research Publishing academic journals, except without the main article and we could leverage our predatory publishing fighting tools to their full effect. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

If this helps us keep predatory publishers and journals from being used within Wikipedia it has my strong support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

How would we verify that the publishing company is predatory? Should we cite a source on the category page? Enterprisey (talk!) 19:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I do not favor "redirect to category". I would be fine with "redirect to list", as long as we have a citation, which should be required regardless for any particular item. Should be the same purpose except that isn't a WP:XNR. --Izno (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Izno: But that's the thing. There's no publisher article because it's not notable, there's no list because the journals aren't notable either. There can be no mainspace target. The question is what do we do then? A redirect to a category seems like a good IAR solution (and is not forbidden by WP:XNR either).Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Notability is not our inclusion criteria besides at the total-article level. Seeing as there are multiple lists in existence, a List of predatory journals could or even should exist, presumably sourced to those other lists. If the predatory journal is entirely unmentioned anywhere, we have no business covering it regardless of namespace. --Izno (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

(You can also do List of predatory journal publishers, but I suspect those two lists overlap significantly if not exactly.) --Izno (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The problem with those are rather large. First is the issue of sourcing. Very often, you can only give one source for predatoriness, and most of those (e.g. Beall's list) will hedge and will mix "predatory" with "potentially predatory" and "questionable" publishers/journals. So you could have a journal that's merely questionable, but not predatory, mixed with journals which are definitely predatory, and others that are only potentially predatory. But because the list doesn't distinguish between them, we can't use it to say the journals/publishers are definitely predatory, and if you throw the word "potential" around, then it becomes near-meaningless as far as an article is concerned.

However, there are other issues with such lists, assuming they could be made. For journals, there are literally tens of thousands of such crap journals out there. The lists would be too massive and too cumbersome to maintain/keep up to date, and would suffer from the problems above (what is predatory, what is only 'potentially' predatory, what has been wrongly accused of being predatory, etc...). And if we have a list of publishers instead, then we'd be redirecting tens of thousand of individual journal entries to a list of thousands of publishers, without any indication of which publisher is of relevance to individual journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Your objections in the second paragraph are the same objections I might levy at your category scheme, also. And your former, as well. --Izno (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Not really, since the journals would be simply categorized in their publisher category. If predatory is mentioned, a source can be added for that. If no good source exists, we just leave that out. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Redirecting to a list of thousands of publishers is OK if anchors are used to identify the publisher. Having a list that is too large has been the case with list of minor planets. This has been split into numerous sublists. So I think we can overcome the problem of big lists. Since the issue of using content from predatory journals is not confined to English Wikipedia, perhaps a broader system could be used say on Meta or Commons to allow identification across all projects. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Except that adding/removing/changing an entry invalidates several hundreds, if not thousands of redirects per addition/removal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Article "Karl Topia" needs to be renamed to "Karl Thopia", since the article about the family is called "Thopia family". All other articles about family members are called "... Thopia" (examples: George Thopia, Helena Thopia, etc.) ... Excuse in my English, I'm using Google Translate --SrpskiAnonimac (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

You should request for the move at WP:RMT. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ammarpad: Can you do it, I do not know that? --SrpskiAnonimac (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ammarpad: here (Category:Thopia family) you can see that all the other articles in the title have "Thopia", while the article "Karl Topia" has "Topia" --SrpskiAnonimac (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, moved. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be an increasing use of templates on talk pages, and there is even WP:TEMPLAR which tells you not to template the regulars. It seems to me that, in the near future, talk pages will simply be a tessellation of templates. No one will be able to air a genuine issue with the article, because other editors will simply respond with a tortoise shell of templates. The problem is that, while the templates do explain Wikipedia policy, this policy is complex and nuanced and the particular issues of the article have a reality that goes beyond Wikipedia and even the Internet itself. Is it possible to restrain the Knights Templar or is Wikipedia going to buckle under a shield of templates???--Jack Upland (talk) 09:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

12:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The Anti-Harassment Tools team plans to generate baseline data to determine the effectiveness of blocks and we'd like to hear from users who interact with blocked users and participate in the blocking process to make sure these measurements will be meaningful.

The full commentary and details on how these will be measured are under § Proposed Measurements. For sake of brevity and discussion here are the seven proposed measurements for determining the effectiveness of blocks:

Sitewide blocks effect on a user

1.  Blocked user does not have their block expanded or reinstated.
2.  Blocked user returns and makes constructive edits.

Partial block’s effect on the affected users

1. Partially blocked user makes constructive edits elsewhere while being blocked.
2. Partially blocked user does not have their block expanded or reinstated.

Partial block’s success as a tool

1. Partial blocks will lead to a reduction in usage of sitewide blocks.
2. Partial blocks will lead to a reduction in usage of short-term full page protections.
3. Partial blocks will retain more constructive contributors than sitewide blocks.

Are we over-simplifying anything? Forgetting anything important? Talk to us here. SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

In this edit, I got a warning that I was citing a predatory open-access journal, but the warning didn't indicate which of the six sources I added was the offending one. How do I get more information on that? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=81899&#abstract is the problem source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, but how does one know that from the warning message? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I know out of memory. For other people, checking this URL leads to Special:AbuseFilter/891 which in turn shows that 4236 which is part of the SCIRP DOI is blacklisted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello! This is to announce that Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa, with which I'm working, has launched the II edition of the Wiki4MediaFreedom contest. You can participate by writing articles in the media freedom topic, with particular attention to the access to public information and killed journalists. There's time until November 30th. More information on Meta. --Niccolò Caranti (OBC) (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

At Zanzibar, someone has removed the diacritics from the spelling of the Arabic name for the territory. Do we have a guideline as to whether or not to provide the vocalized form? Largoplazo (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't find any (if there was one, I guess it would be in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic#Lead paragraph). Since a strict transliteration is encouraged next to the Arabic text, the non-vocalised form might actually be more useful (for searching etc.), but I don't think it's a difference that merits enforcing in either way. One related guideline is for Hebrew, it says not to include vowels (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew)#Vowels and shva). Tokenzero (talk) 12:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI: Donna Strickland won a Nobel Prize in Physics this week (she's now on our Main page of course). It appeared that she had no enwiki article at the time of Nobel announcement. (It was deleted in 2014 for copyright reasons). -DePiep (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

And then deleted again later for apparent lack of notability. But apparently some 33% of new Nobel winners have no article, which is slightly surprising. The man who won the Chemistry Nobel the next day had no article either, which has of course received no media coverage whatsoever, whereas this has been all over the media & several discussions here that I can't be bothered to link to (usual places - do a what links here). Johnbod (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

For the record, not 'deleted again', declined at article creation (with a request for more sources). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

While it's entirely possible that whoever proposed deletion or declined the article creation failed to properly follow WP:ACADEMIC, the coverage of this is rather silly and misunderstands how Wikipedia operates. Are we just supposed to assume that researchers might win a Nobel in the future when reviewing articles? The fact that there are past Nobel winners that don't have articles is far more concerning than someone not having an article prior to winning a Nobel. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Johnbod Could you give the wiki page where this number is described & discussed? - DePiep (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, List_of_Nobel_laureates lists all and none is a red link. -DePiep (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I think Johnbod means that at the time the Nobel is announced, some have no article; but it is rapidly created due to the Nobel. 33% might be too high but as a regular at WP:ITNC where we do post the announcement of all Nobels, there is at least one or two laureates each year that have no article at the time of announcement, and editors step up to make one based on the weight of the Nobel so that it is done for the ITN posting. But that's also not accounting for how many start in poor shape that would be on the cusp of deletion (in the same manner as Strickland's draft) and get improved. I'd argue its something like 10-15% of Laureates don't have articles when the Nobel is announced, but closer to 60-75% that have very poor articles at that same point in time, all which are created/improved on the announcement. --Masem (t) 13:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

It's 13.19% of Nobel Laureates in Physics, Chemistry, and Physiology and Medicine since 2007. GMG^talk 13:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's one figure. The 33% covers a wider group of 212 Nobel winners, but going right back to WP's start - see User_talk:Bradv#About_your_rejection_of_the_AfC_on_Donna_Strickland. Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Did her page not exist because she is a women? No. -DePiep (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

We can't really say that in any statistical sense. There are too few women Nobel laureates overall to draw any conclusions. It very well may be the case. Now it may also very well be the case that this was the result of systemic bias, but also that that systemic bias lies largely external to Wikipedia, as some have pointed out, that we are often hamstrung by sources that themselves tend to prefer writing about men. GMG^talk 10:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Another issue that is hard for academics that do not have much coverage until they get an esteemed award is that we have COI problems with BLPs in general where people are posting effective resumes to get hits. We have to err on the side of exclusion if notability is not there in the article. I would argue that Strickland could have passed some tests for notability prior to the Nobel, but those sources to support that were not provided at the state the draft was rejected. We need to stress to editors to make sure that when they create these articles they strive to make it encyclopedic rather than promotions/resume or CV-ish or the like. --Masem (t) 23:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Yup... remember that there are two prongs to WP:Notability - the first is that the subject has to have done something noteworthy... the second is that others (reliable sources) have to have taken note of what the subject did. There are lots of academics who achieve the first prong without achieving the second. Blueboar (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Clerly (TM), the physics editors, the Canadian editors, the Women in Red editors, and the press journalists (not to mention other groups/projects), failed us, they should all be fired. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Getting them fired seems rather harsh, surely fairer that they should have their pay deducted from 28 March to 3 October for failing to anticipate the future actions of the Nobel committee. . . dave souza, talk 00:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: The original article in 2014 was deleted as an unambiguous copyright violation. It had nothing to due with notability. Rmhermen (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Where does it say that? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Admins can see it, and I vouch for what others have said about the deleted version. It was a copyvio outright from university pages. --Masem (t) 01:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Here. You don't need to be an admin to see the deletion log. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Since this was being raised as a persistent question, I had a careful look and the version that was deleted in March 2014 was an exact word for word copy of the two paragraphs of the OSA biography (as archived 2015-08-28) with the order of the paragraphs swapped, and a new opening sentence stating "Donna Strickland is a past president of the Optical Society." So it was a webpage of The Optical Society rather than a university page. . . . dave souza, talk 15:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, I reviewed scientists who won the Nobel since 2007. There were 12 (out of 91) that didn't have an article at the time that they won. A few more details here: https://twitter.com/rarohde/status/1047802023092076544. Dragons flight (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Kosovo Pomoravlje#Title --SrpskiAnonimac (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Why Baidu Baike (baike.baidu.com) has 16000000 articles but English Wikipedia has 5700000 articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

They have a relaxed approach to copyright issues and notability.©Geni (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

but 16000000 is very big — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

and quality and legality are important for us here. --Zac67 (talk) 09:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

As a random example, it has three pages (1 2 3) on exactly the same topic (the Baikonur Cosmodrome). To be fair, the first one seems to have a lot of content than Wikipedia (English or Chinese) does not (even some potentially interesting references, like [1] there). But, for example, the section "Historical events (历史事件)" is just copied from reference 2 there. There are also far fewer references in total, so it's much less likely to be credible. Some articles are known to be copied and plagiarized from Wikipedia, without attribution; some are machine translated (which leads to terrible language quality); see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Baidu Baike. Baidu Baike is also more open to self-promoting content, so people create articles just to advertise themselves. Probably the main factor though is big numbers of very short articles on nonsense topics; for example, one article for each mobile app that provides a few wallpapers (see this search). Tokenzero (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Does the article "Freestyle battle" need to be a redirect to the article "Battle rap", or? --SrpskiAnonimac (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@SrpskiAnonimac: This would best be discussed at Talk:Freestyle rap or Talk:Battle rap. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Is it just me, or, are an absurd number drafts (or former drafts) being nominated for peer review recently? Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 03:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I've noticed the same thing, especially from newer editors. Has there been a big push to make peer review more prominent recently on-wiki, or is something else going on here? shoy (reactions) 13:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Shoy, exactly, WP:PR is stressed as it is, so, I don't think the new people asking for peer reviews are gonna get much in the way of responses.

Does anyone else have an idea as to what has been happening? Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 13:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Media viewer 2014 the current consensus on Media Viewer? If so, the way for IPs to disable the Media Viewer is highly deceptive (burying it in something that looks like settings) and this may be a violation of consensus.  pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 22:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Ohboy. I'm not sure how much you know, but I'll try to summarize events.

When MediaViewer (MV) was built, the Wikimedia Foundation ran pop-up surveys asking random readers about it. On some tiny language Wikis they got generally positive results and they thought all was well. However when they ran the surveys on major languages (English and German), the reader-survey results TANKED. A majority of readers rejected it. (As far as I'm aware, no one has ever found an explanation for the differing reader-survey results between small languages and major languages.) EnglishWiki, Commons, and GermanWiki all had multiple RFCs on MV, with overwhelming consensus that MV should be DEFAULT OFF for everyone. However the foundation had decided that MV was a GoodThing^TM, and they spent a fortune building it. They were dead set on rolling it out despite reader-rejection and community consensus. The community decided to follow consensus, and on German Wiki an admin edited the site-wide javascript to disable MV. Certain foundation staff decided to fight consensus, a very-new Executive Director and the Board of Trustees approved it. They editwarred the javascript and threatened to summarily revoke admins. They invented SuperProtect to win the editwar via page-protection, even admins couldn't edit a Superprotected page. The community was outraged, especially about Superprotect, everyone was angry and stressed on both sides. Nearly one THOUSAND editors signed on to a demand to remove Superprotect. Things got really ugly. The foundation announced that they would remove Superprotect, and that they would run a "consultation" to collaboratively work with the community to resolve the issue together. However during that "consultation" the foundation BANNED discussion of the default setting. Foundation staff edit-warred to blank the comments of people wanting it default-off. The foundation would only allow supportive comments, or bug reports, or enhancement requests. The foundation then selected four minor bugs or enhancements that they wanted to work on. Stuff that no one cared about. The foundation deemed the issue resolved.

This is the point when the linked RFC occurred. That was indeed the most recent RFC on the issue. As you can see there's a sizable majority for Media Viewer to default off. It was given an utterly bogus closure against the majority. That closure was challenged and unanimously declared invalid. Then it got a new closure, again disregarding the majority. It was also challenged. If I recall, that discussion didn't get much participation. It resulted in no consensus to endorse or overturn the closure, which defaults to keeping the closure.

The closure is ridiculously long, but my interpretation is that the closure decided participants were too dumb to understand the fixes or changes the foundation said they would make after the consultation, and that we should have waited until that work was done before running the RFC. The closer effectively disregarded and invalidated all !votes. If you read the last line of the closure, it explicitly says a new RFC needs to be run to produce a consensus result on the issue. By that point the conflict had been dragging on for half a year, and everyone was sick and tired. No followup RFC was run, and if a new RFC is run it is unclear whether the foundation will go back to war. As a side note, Commons has MV set default-off for logged in users and default on for logged out users. A more recent informal discussion at commons had a unanimous ten people wanting it fully default off.

As a direct result of this incident, all community-elected members were kicked off the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. The newly elected Trustees had all explicitly ran on an anti-Superprotect platform. All non-elected members of the Board of Trustees (except Jimbo) were also soon replaced. The foundation staff members directly responsible for building Superprotect soon left or were fired. The executive director managed to last about a year more before being fired by the new board.

So the answer is yes, that's the current "consensus". But the closure on it denies the existence of any consensus on MediaViewer settings, and it says a fourth RFC has to be run. Alsee (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

That's preposterous but this being the WMF I'm not all that surprised.  pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 12:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

And that is the short story. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear editors:

I edit a lot of articles about Canadian music subjects, and one of the sources I use regularly is a magazine called Chart Attack. It stopped publishing last year, and now the back issues seem to have disappeared from the web. The Wayback Machine has copies of a lot of the issues, and I am hoping that there is a way to search inside the archive for text within the specific domain "www.chartattack.com".

The links I've already added will all be dead, but I put in complete citations and URLs, so those should be okay for now, and likely one of the bots will come along and link them to the archived pages. However, there are a lot more articles that could benefit from the album reviews, etc., in the magazine, and I need a way to find them. If anyone knows of a way to search the Wayback Machine in this way, please explain. Thanks.—Anne Delong (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Anne Delong, the answer is no. The material is there but not at this point retrievable. The Internet Archive has run a beta test on rudimentary retrieval, and there has been a bit of academic interest, see here. The web pages are just stored. They aren't indexed in a way that would make things findable in the way that Google indexes things and finds things. This is very frustrating. It is like having an enormous library with no doors or windows. Maybe in the future if someone donates enough money to them. At least the information isn't going away. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma: Is there anything that would prevent Google from indexing it? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

You can search the Wayback Machine but limited. Example. -- GreenC 23:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, StarryGrandma and GreenC. I guess I could just read the magazine issue by issue...—Anne Delong (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how reliable it is, but you can always put the following in Google: "www.chartattack.com" site:archive.org

That says "No results found". Repeating after omitting "www." finds some hits. Johnuniq (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

11:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)