Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 50

Add links
Coordinates: 51°41′48″N 0°23′57″W / 51.6967°N 0.3991°W / 51.6967; -0.3991
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous).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

Request an account process needs help

Hello everyone, I'm John F. Lewis, an administrator on Wikipedia's account creation interface. Recently, our project has had an increased backlog in getting accounts for new users. Our numbers are currently over 400 people waiting for accounts on the English Wikipedia. If you could even spare a moment to do a few requests a day to help us clear this backlog, that would go a long way to encouraging new editors to participate with an account. If this interests you and you're willing to help, and you match the following description, then please do apply! Ideal users are:

We have a very friendly team to help you get started, we also have a private IRC channel where you can ask questions or get help with difficult account requests. If you have any questions for us or about the process, feel free to ask at the talk page. If you can help out, we would greatly appreciate it. For the ACC team, John F. Lewis (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Final Day of WMF Board of Trustees Election

Just a friendly reminder that WMF Board of Trustees Election will be ending in about 24 hours! So if you want to contribute your opinion on who should be part of the highest level leadership of the WMF, now is the time. Dragons flight (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Can we hire this guy as a consultant?

See [1]

There's actually somebody who copies other people's private (even sexual) Instagram photos, prints them up six feet wide, then sells them at an art gallery for $90,000.

I doubt we can afford whatever witchcraft he works on the customers, but obviously he knows some legal tricks that we should know... yesterday.

Those with an excessive regard for copyright can say that "we need to know how to distinguish our activities from his so that we are not caught up if there is some reactionary legislation passed to target him." Still, we need to know how this works. And I'd love to see us put it to good educational use. (not necessarily Instagram porn, but can we have the freaking Eiffel Tower now?) Wnt (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

He appears to be invoking fair use. We ourselves take advantage of that quite a bit. Given Wikipedia's non-profit, educational status, we could likely get away with a lot more under fair use. The en.wp community has long placed restrictions on fair use materials that are much more restrictive than "we can probably get away with this" for various reasons, including a desire to keep most of the project's content freely-licensed and reusable, and a desire to minimize legal risk. Many of the other Wikimedia projects disallow fair use altogether (except, usually, for short quotations, which are their own big grey area). One reason for this is that the U.S., by global standards, has a fairly liberal fair use regime. Projects in other languages tend to give some deference to the laws of countries where the languages are widely spoken, under the logic that most users and re-users of content in a given language will be in said countries. A prominent example of this is the rabbit hole of freedom of panorama, which varies wildly between countries. In this case the U.S. actually is quite restrictive, with the result that local uploads to en.wp of things like images of sculptures will generally get deleted, while Commons may accept them depending on the country in which the image was produced.
It should be noted that a lot of copyright holders would love to have their content on Wikipedia, as long as they could license it only to the WMF under restrictive license terms. In the early years we accepted this, and had a number of takers—and this was when there were fewer Internet users and Wikipedia's popularity was still growing (here's Jimbo's announcing the end of this practice). If we wanted to abandon the whole "free content" thing we would likely be able to license a lot of high-quality stuff under favorable terms, but of course only for use on Wikipedia and possibly other WMF projects. They would not be freely available to anyone wanting to re-use the project's content.
On a side note, Richard Prince has been doing this kind of thing for decades, so, contrary to the tone of some of the media coverage, it's not really some "brave new world of the Internet" issue. A comment in the above Washington Post article brought up sampling, another notable area where many artists have long been using copyrighted material without permission. --108.38.204.15 (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

My absence for the first part of this year

Hi all - as some of you are aware I wasn't around much for the first part of this year. I had serious physical issues (severe septic shock) coupled with other issues (septic encephalopathy) that meant that when I was here, I wasn't always acting rationally or like myself - and was also a lot more aggressive than I normally am. I know this is an unusual use of WP:AN, but since the extra aggressiveness definitely effected some of my own-wiki actions, I felt like it would be a good idea to let people know about it. I put an explanation here, but I'd be happy to answer any questions anyone has. I know this is pretty odd for a VP post but felt it worth mentioning and couldn't find a better section. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Also, I know it's kind of weird to post this here - apologies in advance. An admin termporarily having been mentally compromised seemed worth posting and I wasn't sure where was best. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Welcome back, Kevin. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Other stuff does, or does not, exist

Where are the essays treating the above subjects? I cannot find them. I am confused, even though I have BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Default thumbnail size and increasing screen resolutions

If the default thumbnail size in pixels remains constant as screen resolutions increase, thumbnails will appear to shrink as a percentage of screen size. Has the default been increased along with average resolution? If so, when and by how much? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It was last increased from 180 to 220px in Feb. 2012. [2]. The next step would be 300px but the dev team seems extremely cautious about this until theres' consensus across all Wikis. Additionally, there is going to be a legal limit here beyond 300px, in terms of non-free images, as it would be difficult to call these "low-resolution" images anymore. Also, considering that the race to pack pixels into monitors has dropped significantly. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
And I think we're running up against some technological barriers, not to mention the limits of human vision. I was just wondering whether thumbs appeared significantly larger, say, ten years ago. I'm seeing a number of articles oversizing thumbs and wanted some historical perspective on that, wondering if they are trying to get back to how things looked way back when. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
We last discussed it at Enwiki in September 2014, with a frustrating 'no consensus' close.
If I understand/remember correctly, the devs are happy to change the global default to 300px because enough thumbnails at that scale have already been generated by logged-in users with that user-preference; they are not happy to change it to any other size because of the massive strain that would put on the thumbnail-rendering machine(s). (Sidenote: the MediaWiki default is already 300px (just not for the Wikimedia sites) per phab:T69703.)
What we need to change it, is (per phab:T69709) "the support of a substantial number of wikimedia communities and NO, for technical reasons, this is NOT a per project decision." - So I believe essentially someone needs to bring this proposal to m:Wikimedia Forum, after digesting the technical/social/legal/historical details, so that they can explain it all concisely. Quiddity (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
As an editor, I've always felt that these are thumbnails and should be used as such; i.e., the reader is expected to click-through to the larger image if they want a good look at it. We aren't creating illustrated books or magazine articles, which lack this advantage of modern technology. I think I'm in a minority in that respect, that most editors (among those who care about image size at all) want to avoid the click-throughs and think like a magazine layout artist. To me, the reason to move to 300 now is that we're going to do it eventually, and the longer we wait, the more oversizing (size > default, upright > 1) will have been done to compensate for the lack of it. Then, when the change is finally made, many thumbs will appear too large, and we'll have to begin a gradual process of returning them to the default. I think we should avoid that unnecessary work by changing it now, but I'm not in a good position to drive that effort. (Btw, I experimented by changing my user pref from 220 to 300, and the difference is remarkable.) ―Mandruss ☎ 04:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistency between English Wikipedia and Wikidata

Category:Pages using authority control with parameters reveals that there is inconsistency between English Wikipedia and Wikidata. Most of the pages in this category have parameters with different values than it is stored in Wikidata. Any idea of how can we resolve this? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The better maintenance category to tackle which would help to resolve that would be e.g. like the series of categories Category:VIAF different on Wikidata. Then, someone needs to work their way through those lists systematically.

Separately, there should probably be a category of Category:Wikipedia categories tracking Wikidata differences or similar; probably tagged with {{wikipedia category|hidden=yes|container=yes}} since I suspect until full integration we will have lots of these fun categories scattered around.

Template talk:Authority control#Next steps is relevant. --Izno (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

My bot is now able to replace the template partially which means that the articles in Category:Pages using authority control with parameters have exclusively inconsistencies or unknown parameters (like WORLDCATID). We don't really need a special tracking category because my bot cleans up the existing category frequently. Somebody has to have a look at every article in Category:Pages using authority control with parameters and fix the differences manually. -- T.seppelt (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Bruno Pesaola died on May 29

Note that Bruno Pesaola died on 29 may acording to italian wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! English Wikipedia's Bruno Pesaola now reflects this information. —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed.

We need to add a few sentences to "Help:Authority control"

Our Help:Authority control page is particularly unhelpful... while it explains what "authority control" is, it does not tell us how to edit it. To give an example: the "Authority control" for our article on Freemasonry just lists the German "GND" number... I want to add the US Library of congress's "LCCN" number... but can't find out how to do so. Blueboar (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

One should go to Wikidata and edit the corresponding field.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah... thanks. We should probably say something about that on our help page. Blueboar (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Good point. Could we nominate you to make the edits to Help:Authority control yourself? You need only add a sentence or two. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

 Feedback required.

We can make indeed a page requesting Wikidata edits (in principle, everybody can edit Wikidata but for many Wikipedia-only users it is too tricky). I will look at the help page later and see whether I can amend it easily.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: setting up a requesting pages is a good idea. But for {{Authority control}} is would be best to implement edit on Wikidata links for those values which were transcluded from Wikidata. (I requested an imrovement here without any comprehensive response) -- T.seppelt (talk) 12:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea but I am afraid it is far beyond my technical abilities. May be someone else could do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually it looks like Alakzi has already done it.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
But how does one "go to wikidata"? The authority control page tells you what authority control is, the wikidata page tells you what wikidata is, but neither tell you how you can edit it. Chuntuk (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
See here. Alakzi (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

File:TennisGirl thumb.jpg

Is it possible to transfer this file on wikidata or not? I would like to add it to the equivalent french article. A.Gust14 (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@A.Gust14: It's a copyrighted image uploaded to the English Wikipedia as fair use. Wikidata does not host images. You probably mean Wikimedia Commons but they don't allow fair-use images. It would have to be uploaded to each wiki where it's used, but only if the rules of the wiki allow it. Each language can make their own rules. fr:Wikipédia:Exceptions au droit d'auteur#Rejet du fair use says "le contenu en fair use est totalement interdit sur la Wikipédia francophone" which Google translates as "the content fair use is totally prohibited on the french Wikipedia". So it appears you cannot add it to a French article, but I don't work at the French Wikipedia and don't know much about it. Questions about their policies belong there and not here. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

AIV now protected

I went to WP:AIV to report a promotion-only account, but it's now protected. So I went to the User_talk: page of the editor who protected it, and that's protected too. If anyone would like to do the necessary, see User:Crystalpoolsindia1 (see also User:Crystalpoolsindia). 171.100.247.198 (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Have others noted peripheral edits against 'old Earth' chronology in articles on other subjects?

I went through part of the history of the article Tsetse fly, after having found edits directed against an incidental remark about a 34 million years old geologic strata. I found to my surprise, that there has been a number of such edits, spread sparsely, and (seemingly) by different editors. The latest removed the entire statement, claiming to fix a dating error.

I know that some people are very actively proposing changes based on their Bible interpretation rather than on the scientific sources in articles about e.g. evolution; but in these cases there are numerous other editors aware of this. I didn't think that small notes about longer time lines in articles about 'non-controversial' subjects could be under this kind of pressure. Now, I don't know.

Therefore, I'd like to know if others have noted the same kind of edits directed against mentioning a time-scale of more than a few thousand years in "general" articles. If not, the pattern I thought I saw could be incidental. If others have seen the same, then perhaps some bot wizard could fix a way to find resent changes removing words like "million" from articles, since such changes might be parts of a 'Young Earther' agenda. JoergenB (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I have not seen this, but I agree that it is distressing, and should be watched for. Whether editors agree on the age of the Earth or not, when we provide a reference to a reliable source stating that something is millions of years old, our article should reflect what the source says. bd2412 T 15:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I have seen past evidence of a creationist agenda on edits to certain articles. Usually it is by anon. editors. Sometimes it can be subtle. Praemonitus (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Non-free images now being resized to default thumbnail sizes, ignoring user preferences and accessibility

WP:NFC, our non-free content policy, requires non-free images to be low resolution. When a non-free image is challenged on its file size, it is taken to WP:NFCR for discussion. The problem is that WP:NFCR is populated by editors whose sole interaction with Wikipedia seems to be image policy. They seem to lack experience with not just editing content, but reading it.

Non-free images are now being resized to the default desktop thumbnail width of 220px. Take this film poster for example, discussed here. User preferences are now being ignored. The pixel density of your display and the quality of your eyesight are irrelevant, the regulars at WP:NFCR essentially believe the thumbnailer should be disabled for non-free images and that they are all uploaded at a maximum width of 220px.

I think this is ridiculous. - hahnchen 20:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I think this is ridiculous too. Actually, a little worse than ridiculous. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, disabling the thumbnailer is inappropriate. I don't have an issue with the size though, as long as the information in the image is still communicated. Praemonitus (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Galicia 20 - 20 Challenge

Wikipedia:Galicia 20 - 20 Challenge is a public writing competition which will improve improve and translate this list of 20 really important articles into as many languages as possible. Everybody can help in any language to collaborate on writing and/or translating articles related to Galicia. To participate you just need to sign up here. Thank you very much.--Breogan2008 (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Gratus

Hello, I discovered this article. There is no source in the article (dead link) and I can't find anythings on Google. It's a hoax or not ? --Gratus (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I could find several secondary sources and added one of them to the article. Also Robert Graves mentioned the soldier in his book , I Claudius. Ellywa (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I've tracked down where the dead link in Gratus was pointing, and replaced it with a cited one that still works. Chuntuk (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I cannot view the Google Books link. It if makes sense, it might be worthwhile to add a |quote= parameter to the Barrett ref's cite template. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I've rewritten the article entirely, given that the old one was a straight copy of a one sentence entry in a 19th century biographical dictionary. My version quotes Josephus directly (the only thing we know about this guy comes from a couple of sentences in Josephus), adds references from two modern historians, and also points out the I Claudius connection. Chuntuk (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Help restoring deleted page?

I am new to this, sorry if miscategorized. If this should be posted elsewhere, advice would be appreciated. Here is my question:

My sister Brett Anderson is the lead singer for the band The Donnas (they put out 7 studio albums). She had her own page, in addition to a page for The Donnas band, just like other band members. At some point, someone deleted her personal page. As you may know, the music world is filled with rivalries and this may have been an intentional act or just someone editing Wikipedia. I don't know. Regardless, Brett's career is both significant and continuing past her time in The Donnas and I think that warrants her having a personal page. Any help I could get restoring it would be very appreciated. Thank you.

Dryananderson (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The article was changed to a redirect with this edit. The original article was perhaps considered too brief and it lacked any references. I don't think it was done with malicious intent. At any rate, I left a request at the Rock Music WikiProject. Praemonitus (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikimania 2015 - India Booth

Hi Wikimedians,

As you people might be aware, Wikimania 2015 which is going to be held in Mexico from July 14th to 19th. We, the Indian attendees at Wikimania, would like to represent Wiki Indic Community booth in the same. We are creating Leaflets and Posters for the community village at Wikimania 2015 to display in Wikimania 2015. We would like to invite you to gather the content and design(optional) for posters (Sample) and leaflets (Sample) about the Indic language project of your choice. We will take care of printing and displaying the posters/leaflets.

The maximum dimensions for your poster are 36 x 48 in (91.44 x 121.92 cm). We suggest using the A0 paper size, which is 33.11 x 46.81 in (~84 x 118 cm). The contents of the poster has to be in English. Posters and leaflets based on all Indic language Wikimedia projects are welcome. The design should be a media file uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Please post the link to your content/design file on http://wiki.wikimedia.in/Wikimania_2015/Booth/Posters_Leaflets before 25th of June. In case if you face any issues please reachout to Dineshkumar Ponnusamy or Netha Hussain.

For guidelines regarding creating posters, please have a look at this link : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Learning_patterns/Posters_that_work

We look forward to receiving your posters/leaflets and displaying them while at Wikimania 2015!
Note: This is not a competition or contest, we expect at most 1 poster and 1 leaflet from each Community.

Thanks,
Indian Wikimania 2015 Participants — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dineshkumar Ponnusamy (talk • contribs) 17:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

feature article of the day

I can't find where to make a recommendation for a featured article, so I'm suggesting it here: The Magna Carta for June 15th. The article is already a "good article." The 15th is the 800th anniversary of the agreement. Kdammers (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

To be the featured article of the day, the article first has to pass the featured article process; there's probably not time now for that to happen before the 15th. Anomie⚔ 16:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
To elaborate on what Anomie said, "featured article of the day" is very deliberately worded; the article has to be a featured article, which is what that star you might have seen on some articles means. The standards for featured articles are very high—they're supposed to embody the very best of articles—and getting an article up to them and through the formal review process is quite time-consuming. "Good article" is a lower standard, intended to signify that the article is of reasonable quality and has no glaring deficiencies. Now, there is something related to Magna Carta scheduled to appear on the main page: tomorrow's Picture of the Day. Magna Carta has also shown up in the "On this day" section in the past, and would appear this year because of the anniversary if it weren't already being featured in POTD. The project's "back corridors" can be hard to navigate; I hope this helped a little. To learn more about the main page and how stuff gets on it, you might try the FAQ or the main page's talk page. --108.38.204.15 (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

DYKfile on local file descs of global files

Hi guys. I've faced a thing that there're local filedescs created for Commons files with content of {{DYKfile}}. That was done by DYKUpdateBot. I don't know an original purpose of these edits and whether it was intended to actually create local descriptions. I think it should be that either that information is moved into Commons (idk whether there's already a template about enwiki DYK but if there's no then it can be easily created) and then the local page deleted or the local page can just be deleted if that information is of no use anymore. Just leaving it be doesn't seem like a good solution because it's nothing other than rubbish. An example descpage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Фото_для.JPG?action=edit (link it like this otherwise it isn't obvious). --ᛒᚨᛊᛖ (ᛏᚨᛚᚲ) 23:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Away.

I will be away for a few days. Please try to get all the disambiguation links fixed before I get back. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Have a nice time, we will do our utmost best . Ellywa (talk) 09:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Translations

Where can I find the imho handy translation tool~? On NL Wikipedia its this link: https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speciaal:Paginavertalen&campaign=contributionsmenu&to=nl . And yes I will take care to not using machine translations. Ellywa (talk) 09:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ellywa,
Amir's team has done some pretty awesome work with mw:CX, haven't they? But it's not available here at en.wp yet. I haven't checked their plans for a while, but I believe they're rolling it out to all of the mid-size and larger Wikipedias first, and that the English Wikipedia has to wait until the end of that process. I suppose if editors here kept requesting it (you're definitely not the first to ask about it), then he might move it up in the priority list. It would be a great tool for WP:Countering systemic bias, by making it easy to get (for example) more well-written, well-sourced articles about famous people from non-English speaking countries here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Ellywa, thank you very very much for your interest!
The plan is to make it available for translations into English this month. It is already available for translation from English to many other languages.
Out of curiosity, between which languages did you want to translate? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Amir E. Aharoni and WhatamIdoing, thank you for explaining. I am planning to translate from Dutch (my mother tongue) to English, especially for articles with could be of interest in the English version. The automated translations helps me, currently I am using sometimes Google translate. It would especially be usefull to be able to translate certain paragraphs, because many articles exist already in a shorter form. Ellywa (talk) 06:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC on the placement of GMO safety consensus - should it be located in the Controversy section?

Here is the RfC. petrarchan47คุก 23:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

A veteran’s Wikipedia edits help him understand the brutality behind Yugoslavia’s wars

Hi all, I just published this profile of Peacemaker67 on the Wikimedia blog, and I'd love any feedback or comments you have on it. Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Any issues arising from the A/B Testing for VisualEditor?

Hey all,

As you may have seen, we’re currently running an experiment studying the effect of enabling VisualEditor for new users. The first half of the A/B test (in which half of all new accounts get the option to use VisualEditor automatically, and half stay not getting it) is now complete, and we’ve moved to the data collection phase of the A/B test. As outlined in the timeline, this phase will continue for the next week, and then we’ll analyse the data and post the results here.

To help inform us best, I’m very interested if any of you have noticed any problems that might have been overlooked by us, or which may affect the quality of the results and the conclusions we can draw. In the forthcoming analysis of A/B test data, we’re going to be looking for evidence about whether offering VisualEditor makes editing easier/more productive for newcomers, and whether it raises additional burdens (reverting damage, blocking vandals) for current editors. It’s particularly important to me that, before we start any conversations about offering VisualEditor to new users on a permanent basis, we have as much information as possible for everyone to make the best decision discussions.

Yours,

Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

When did ever believe that you had gotten permission from English Wikipedia to ever enable that thing by default for any group of users for any reason? Did I miss something?—Kww(talk) 01:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
@Kww: Hey, sorry for not giving links to where we've previously announced and discussed this – see here, here, here and here, amongst others. As you know, we regularly run experiments and tests to make sure that we're doing the right thing, and this is just another part of that process. Hope this helps clarify things. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Still haven't seen any steps where you asked for community consensus to make it the default editor for any group of editors at any time. I understand that you normally run small experiments, but certainly you understand that reenabling something that caused so many problems before and was specifically rejected by the community is somewhat of a special case.—Kww(talk) 02:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Clarification Kww, they weren't making Visual Editor the "default", they're putting TWO edit buttons everywhere, side by side. I believe they they attach Visual Editor to the Edit button and move the editor an Edit Source button.
Jdforrester (WMF), I've identified a problem. The proposed setup makes the "Edit button" incoherent.
  • Alice: I pressed the edit button and had a problem with blah blah blah.
  • Bob: Easy, just press the edit button and blah blah blah.
Alice and Bob go back and forth for a week getting confused and angry at how stupid the other person is.... because you're giving different people different editors on the same button. You need to keep the Edit button connected to the current editor, and if Visual Editor is enabled then it needs to go on the second button with a different name (Visual Edit or something). Alsee (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I do have to agree that the edit labels should be different as it is confusing. COuld edit be kept the same and VE use a edit visually? TheMagikCow (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Not any time soon, unfortunately. Ultimately, the switch will be inside the editor, so the problem will basically go away. You can get an idea of what it might look like at File:Switching edit modes on Mobile Web 2014-11-04.png. If this were working here, today, then you'd have one 'Edit' button, it would open in wikitext, and then you could switch to VisualEditor if you wanted. The next time it opened, it would remember which one you had used in your previous edit, and automatically select that for you. But this is definitely not going to happen soon. (As for keeping 'Edit' the same, it might be best to be explicit on both: 'Edit source' and 'Edit visually', with no room for doubt in either case. You can do that in your own CSS, but it can't be done sitewide because the same label is used for different things, depending on your prefs.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Please fix the problem with search function. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Which problem would that be? Not everyone is experiencing problems. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Everyone actually were at the time of the post but it's usually good to be more specific. Anyway, it has been fixed. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 137#Search engine problems. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
See phab:T102463 - unfortunately still ongoing work. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 07:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

A/B Testing for VisualEditor complete

Hi folks. About a month ago, I announced that I'd be running a short A/B test with the VisualEditor for newly registered users. That test is complete and I have posted a write-up of the results on Meta. See m:Research:VisualEditor's effect on newly registered editors/May 2015 study. --Halfak (WMF) (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

What a boondoggle! The problem with VisualEditor is that's it's stapled on. Mediawiki and its markup and template systems were designed with direct text editing in mind. Heck, Wikimarkup doesn't even have a well-defined grammar! VisualEditor is really a prototype of what the successor to Mediawiki might look like. VisualEditor was an interesting experiment but nobody can say that trouble hasn't been evident from early on. Now that we have it, sure some people might use it but was it really worth so much effort and diverting resources from other areas in desperate need of attention? Jason Quinn (talk) 07:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I do not know of course how much effort was put in it, but I like the visual editor very much, especially the ease of making references to the sources I use! It costs much less effort to copypaste a single link then to type <ref>[... title]</ref>, especially because this has recently been automated further. In addition, I am making far less mistakes, which I do/did when using the normal editor, because of WYSIWYG. (ROFL. This makes me think of my own aversion against MS Word when I came from Wordperfect 5.1 with all its visible codes, I knew by heart). Thanks, developers. Ellywa (talk) 08:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Halfak:, @JamesF:: Most promising. Thank you for the update, and the fast turnaround! – SJ + 23:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Available Now (June 2015)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today!

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

  • Taylor & Francis — academic publisher of journals. The pilot includes two subject collections: Arts & Humanities and Biological, Environment & Earth Sciences. (30 accounts)
  • World Bank eLibrary — digital platform containing all books, working papers, and journal articles published by the World Bank from the 1990s to the present. (100 accounts)
  • AAAS — general interest science publisher, who publishes the journal Science among other sources (50 accounts)

New French-Language Branch!

  • Érudit (en Francais) — Érudit is a French-Canadian scholarly aggregator primarily, humanities and social sciences, and contains sources in both English and French. Signups on both English and French Wikipedia (50 accounts).
  • Cairn.info (en Francais) — Cairn.info is a Switzerland based online web portal of scholarly materials in the humanities and social sciences. Most sources are in French, but some also in English. Signups on both English and French Wikipedia (100 accounts).
  • L'Harmattan — French language publisher across a wide range of non-fiction and fiction, with a strong selection of francophone African materials (1000 accounts).

Many other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page, including an expansion of accounts for Royal Society journals and remaining accounts on Project MUSE, JSTOR, DeGruyter, Highbeam Newspapers.com and British Newspaper Archive. If you have suggestions for journals or databases we should seek access to make a request! Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 22:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

We need your help! Help coordinate Wikipedia Library's account distribution and global development! Please join our team at our new coordinator signup.
This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List

Navbox for a real estate company's properties

I'm looking askance at a navbox (in obvious need of being moved to a template) at the bottom of Madison Marquette that lists a very large number of properties associated with that real estate developer and operator, about some of which there are articles. In one sense there's nothing unusual about this, collecting links to a large number of articles related to a single topic into a navbox. On the other hand, because this is a commercial operation, it smacks of a portal for doing business. Maybe I'm overthinking it. What do you all think? —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Well that's fun. If it exists it should, as you said, be moved to a template and put on the properties that have articles. On the other hand, it does seem promotional. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 23:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It's occurred to me to post this in a more topical location. (Not forum shopping: this obviously isn't a reaction to having received a pile of adverse opinions here!) If anyone sees this here and has a contribution for the discussion, please come over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Navbox for a real estate company's properties. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Question about Diamond League results (grey marking in results table in article)

Hi, in 2014 IAAF Diamond League, some of the winners in the 'results' table are marked in grey. The article does not say what this means. Does anyone know? Ssu (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ssu: Grey means it's not a Diamond Race at that meeting, i.e. it doesn't count in the overall Diamond Race of the year. There are 14 Diamond League meetings but only 7 Diamond Races in each event. See for example 100m Men (the first table) in [3]. There are no entries for New York, Lausanne, Birmingham, Zürich so those meetings have grey for 100 m Men. I spotted two errors in the coloring. 100m Men Rome should also have been grey, but 200m Men Birmingham should have been white. Half the 14 meetings have a 100m Diamond Race and the other half have 200 m. Sprint is popular so many meetings also arrange an event at the other distance but the quality of the athletes is lower when it's not a Diamond Race. See [4] for an upcoming meeting where Diamond Races are marked with a diamond as indicated to the right. The programme also has several minor events like for juniors or locals which will not be included at all in the table at 2015 IAAF Diamond League. If others don't beat me to it then I expect to fix the errors and explain the grey (also for other years) later today. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I have now explained and fixed [5] the grey backgrounds in 2014 IAAF Diamond League and the other years which use grey. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Ssu (talk) 12:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Andriy Slyusarchuk BLP disturbingly bad article

I used to edit fairly regularly, but don't anymore. However, I stumbled across the Andriy Slyusarchuk article, and it is so terribly, atrociously bad, especially considering its BLP status, I thought somebody should look at it. It's extremely long, full of straight up confusing, poorly written, unencyclopedic crap; I'm disappointed it's lasted so long in this form (only a couple edits in years). I always defend Wikipedia to its detractors, but when I come across something like this, I end up sorely disappointed in the system. One "copy-editing" tag at the top of the article is definitely, definitely not enough.

70.67.150.60 (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Two weeks to save freedom of panorama in Europe

Content moved to Wikipedia talk:Freedom of Panorama 2015. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I know this discussion is moved, but I feel I need to make a bit of noise here as well, because even though we've only got a few days to take action, and the community is almost unanimously in favour of placing a site banner, there is still no banner visible on the English Wikipedia.

Action must be taken. Now, or it will be too late. 82.139.82.82 (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor test results update

Quick note: User:EpochFail posted a note here a while ago about an A/B study for VisualEditor. The results were posted last week at m:Research:VisualEditor's effect on newly registered editors/May 2015 study. The WP:TLDR is that everything is approximately the same, except that users of VisualEditor are slightly less likely to get reverted.

The thing that was most interesting to me was that a lot of editors who got access to both VisualEditor and the wikitext editor when they registered their accounts opened both, looked at the options, and then chose the one that they wanted to use to make their edit. There's a proposal based on these results at the Village Pump (proposals) to eventually give all new users both editors, and let them use whichever they want.

By the way, if you haven't tried it out for a while, then you can opt in via Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures or have a quick look on a random article (requires Javascript). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC notice: There is an active RFC concerning (early) cinema terminology.

The RFC can be viewed by clicking *HERE*.   Please feel free to vote in the Survey and/or join the Threaded Discussion.
Richard27182 (talk) 05:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I made this box to be put in a userpage or user talk page if anyone wants to. If somebody wants to make it a template I can put it in my userspace.

--Fazbear7891 (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stub Contest

...will be run again in August. Signups are at Wikipedia:Stub Contest/Entries. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

WT:VG looking for help from a Javascript expert to resolve a Wayback/Webcite issue

It's not explicitly a Wikipedia issue but one that affects our project in a weird way. Main discussion is here, but the short situation, we've found that certain video game sites (ones that seem to be owned by CBS Media) that, when archived via Wayback or WebCite, load up initially but then replace the content with a short Youtube clip of Eddie Murphy, thus effectively making the archive url useless. We have found disabling javascript stops the content replacement, but I've tried to debug (poorly) to find where the content rewrite is happening and how we can try to prevent that in the future. If anyone is skilled in the ways of Javascript, help to figure this out would be great. --MASEM (t) 23:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Possibly an anti-archiving measure. Intentional or unintentional only the archive site or the site being archived can address it, nothing you/we can do. Archive.is doesn't present the same problem - compare this [6] to this [7]. I suggest migrating to archive.is 177.154.145.101 (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Ally Skills Workshop at Wikimania

The Wikimedia Foundation has given a grant to the Ada Initiative to conduct an Ally Skills Workshop at Wikimania this July. Valerie Aurora of the Ada Initiative recently wrote to the gender-gap mailing list:

"The Ally Skills Workshop teaches men simple, everyday ways to support women in their communities. This workshop will be laser-focused on techniques that work specifically in Wikipedia and related projects, including how to use existing policies and suggestions for advocating for new policies. It will also teach people about the mindset of trolls and what strategies work best for foiling them."

Editors (of any gender) who want to help close the gender gap are welcome and can sign up here. Admins willing to help women with dispute resolution are particularly welcome. Sarah (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Clearing announcements on the watchlist

Is there a way to hide the announcements on my Watchlist? They're getting in the way and there's apparently no obvious way to turn them off. Praemonitus (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You should be able to "dismiss" each of them. Do you have Javascript turned off?
I believe that there are also CSS changes you could make that would hide them all. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't have JavaScript turned off, but I'm not able to dismiss them. It's just a bulleted list. Praemonitus (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
At the end of each item, do you see "[Hide]" or "[dismiss]"? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah yes, okay. Just hard for me to spot then. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Random anniversary bot idea

This is a totally random idea I just had. First, I know virtually nothing about bots. My idea is that it would be cool if on the first and subsequent annual anniversaries of a Wikipedia editor account's creation, if there was an automated "birthday bot" that left a message on the user's talk page thanking them for their contributions to the project. If it was super fancy, it could perhaps include statistics on the user's contributions. Again, this is just a totally random idea that I think would be kind of a cool morale-boosting tool. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Safehaven86: You might want to post your idea on Wikipedia:Bot requests. GoingBatty (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Grime userbox and category

Anyone who likes grime music like I do? How about this userbox?

Dizzee Rascal - SquareThis user enjoys listening to grime music, especially from the pioneers of the genre.




And I don't know how to do this, but why don't we put anyone who uses this userbox under a category of people who listen to grime? Coderenius (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

No discussion is needed to create a harmless userbox. Just create it and add it to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Music/Genres. The format is obvious when you edit the page. {{Userbox}} shows recommended category code. To match names in Category:Wikipedians by music genre:
| nocat         = {{{nocat|}}}
| usercategory  = Wikipedians who listen to grime music
PrimeHunter (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much, PrimeHunter, I didn't know about this. :) Coderenius (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Upcoming in the next several months: 5 millionth article on English Wikipedia

English Wikipedia started in 2001 with a single article. By 2006 we had one million articles. On 13 July 2012 we had our four millionth article. The Wikimedia Stats website shows that as of May 31, 2015 English Wikipedia has about 4.88 million articles. At the recent rates of article creation, we will reach 5 million articles in the last few months of 2015. How should we celebrate this milestone? Pinging Katherine (WMF) and Philippe (WMF) so that they're aware of this discussion. Please propose ideas and coordinate projects! Regards, --Pine✉ 05:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Blog post and social media celebration

I think that a Wikimedia Blog post and celebration on English-language Wikimedia social media channels would be great, especially if coordinated with the Wikimedia affiliates which have significant English-language contributor bases. --Pine✉ 05:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion here

Good idea. Obviously if the 5 millionth article itself is celebrated, there should be criteria that it could be a good article (that it's not an article likely to be deleted, not a DAB, not a redirect). Also do we know what the 1 millionth, 2 millionth etc articles are? —МандичкаYO 😜 06:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

This was #4,000,000. The article's talkpage has a link to the other milestones. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
In Spanish Wikipedia the WMF changed the article counter and we jumped from under 990,000 to 1,016,000... :( --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The 5 millionth article itself does not have to be celebrated, but it can still be mentioned, just as a little fact. If it happens to get deleted, that's okay, just goes to show the quality of most articles here. Any celebrations should be more of a reflection point, how Wikipedia has changed, and what change, if any, we can expect in the future. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Do redirects count as articles? I always assumed they were included in the 36.6 million pages count, but not in the 4.9 million content pages tally. I suppose they are in the main namespace... — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 23:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Let's have a meetup event at the Jordanhill railway station, watch El Hormiguero and something with Beate Eriksen, and...do something with Ezbet el-Borg.  :-) Nyttend (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Article quality

Discussion here

  • Comment: It depends on whether you consider a mass of stub pages to be "articles". A more useful measure would be the total number of "B-class" or better articles. Praemonitus (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment With increasing numbers of articles and a declining editor base, maintenance is getting increasingly more difficult. Try clicking the "random article" link 10 times in a row and see how many real articles you get and how much cruft you get... Quantity is going up, overall quality is going down... I don't see much reason to celebrate. --Randykitty (talk) 07:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The meaning of 5 million

Jumping from 4 to 5 million is just an excuse to reflect on the Wikipedia articles. I'd focus on the diversity and depth.

So one aspect of the celebration should be to show how each corner of the world, each academic discipline and each cultural item is present (or missing). We can see how we are more complete than other general works, but less complete than other specialty works.

And another aspect should be to show how deep (or shallow) are our articles. We can show show how some articles seem to be almost finished, and how so many others are stubs, often from relevant subjects.

--NaBUru38 (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion here

Your idea here

Discussion here

Deletion and removal of articles pertaining to London bus routes

I, Pablothepenguin (talk), hereby recommend that the above notorised articles are henceforth removed from Wikipedia. I note in point that I have an article on a Scottish bus route deleted. I have not stood down. I am looking to obtain a copy to keep in my user sandbox to work on until it is in better condition. However the draconian laws of Wikipedia dictate that articles must pass a trial of notability. If even one of the millions of editors disagrees with the article, it is gone. I declare that the London bus route articles are issued undue attention. I propose that they are removed from Wikipedia and are given the same shabby treatment that the rest of Wikipedia's public transport related articles are given. I request their deletion for the sake of us Scots and the underlings of England, the patronage of Wales, the populace of the twain Ireland's and the greater citizenship of the planet Earth. I have terrible people skills and so my syntax and writings are cheesy. Pay me some respect and try to ignore the cheesiest parts of this paragraph. I sign, thusly, Pablothepenguin (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC).

Try not to be POINTy, but if you feel like any other article should be deleted feel free to go ahead and nominate it at AfD. Sam Walton (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
But before nominating any article, I suggest that you actually read up on Wikipedia policy, because whether you like it or not, that is the standard we go by - and bad-faith nominations from a contributor recently unblocked following a six-month block for time-wasting [8] aren't likely to be well received. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: I am calling into question many articles on London bus routes. Posting individual AFDs is too time consuming. Pablothepenguin (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, here's the deal. If you think there are legitimate grounds for articles to be deleted, start an AfD for them. Or if you think there are legitimate grounds for a specific change in policy, make that specific proposal. Otherwise, find something useful to do with your time - because I am one step away from asking that your earlier block be restored, on the basis that you are returning to the same time-wasting nonsense that had you blocked earlier. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • So let me get this straight ... Because this article was deleted (and temporarily restored for DRV purposes) and your DRV report backfired you know propose on deleting everything bus-route related just because that one article was deleted? .... Unless you want to be blocked indefinitely then I would suggest you don't use this place as a battleground and instead grow up and find something better to do ... Like perhaps improve an article.... –Davey2010Talk 01:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Received a strange email last week

I received this email through wiki last night... it's strange and I'm not sure what it says or what to make of it. The sender in the header was: :Ελληνική Βικιπαίδεια <[email protected]>

And the message within read:

Κάποιος (πιθανώς εσείς, από την διεύθυνση IP 94.66.157.225) ζήτησε την επαναφορά του κωδικού σας σε Βικιπαίδεια (<https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%A0%CF%8D%CE%BB%CE%B7:%CE%9A%CF%8D%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%B1>). Ο ακόλουθος λογαριασμός χρήστη συνδέονται με αυτή τη διεύθυνση e-mail:
Όνομα χρήστη: Floydian
Προσωρινός κωδικός πρόσβασης: (Redacted)
Αυτός ο προσωρινός κωδικός πρόσβασης θα λήξει σε 7 ημέρες.
Θα πρέπει να συνδεθείτε τώρα και να επιλέξετε ένα νέο κωδικό. Αν κάποιος άλλος έκανε αυτό το αίτημα ή αν έχετε θυμηθεί τον αρχικό κωδικό :πρόσβασής σας, και δεν επιθυμείτε πια να τον αλλάξετε, μπορείτε να αγνοήσετε αυτό το μήνυμα και να συνεχίσετε να χρησιμοποιείτε τον παλιό σας :κωδικό/ πρόσβασης.

-- Floydian τ ¢ 00:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Machine translation indicates that it is the standard email sent when someone requests a password reset, but in Greek. IP given is 94.66.157.225 and also geolocates to Greece, from service provider OTE/OTEnet. I don't know why it's in Greek though, my best guess would be someone tried to reset it on the Greek Wikipedia. KonveyorBelt 00:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@Floydian: That's your password reset email. You also posted your password. You will want to change the password to your account immediately. I've hidden the revisions containing your password from this history of this page and had them suppressed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
It looks like I only posted the changed password, but thank you. I checked the link and it was just the main page for (I'm assuming now) the Greek Wikipedia. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia wikiproject importance rankings

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment#Removed Just curious, sorry if this is the wrong place, but what happened to them? i don't see a discussion anywhere in the project itself? is it a bot error? sorry for being annoying, best wishes. GuzzyG (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Answered my own question, i am a idiot, haha. Someone edited the template, i feel there should have been consensus so i re-added it for now. GuzzyG (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Wayback Machine and WebCite Archiving Problem for CBS Interactive-owned gaming sites

This RfC concerns an issue that has been plaguing archiving sites WebCite and Wayback Machine for over half a month now. When a url from GameSpot, Giant Bomb or Comic Vine is archived using these two archive sites, the page is redicted to a looping clip from an Eddie Murphy comedy routine, rendering the page unusable. The problem was first brought up on the Video Game WikiProject talk page in June: this is the relevant first discussion and a follow-up I created. In those threads, Comic Vine was not mentioned as I have only just tested it and found it too was affected by the issue. One user has said that it is something to do with the page's Javascript, but nothing further has happened so far. GameFAQs and Metacritic, also owned by CBS, do not appear to be affected, but I have not looked thoroughly into other websites.

Two previous discussions have been started with no results. This is an urgent appeal: will someone with access to the forums of any of these sites, or CBS Interactive's forums, please alert the site staff to this issue. Given how volatile the internet space is, thousands of informative articles are at risk of vanishing without there being an archived version. This cannot and must not continue. If you wish to see proof, they can either attempt to archive a page themselves or go to any page from these sites archived on Wayback or WebCite within the last two weeks. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to add that it is not so much a redirect but a page rewrite using Javascript that forces the video; disabling javascript prevents the rewrite but make render some of the archived page or the archiving site's features inactive. Live versions of the sites that haven't been archived still work without this so it does appear a specific bit of code to hamper the webcapture and/or prevent page importing into other sites. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Need help on what looks for me an edit war

Hello all.
First of all, I hope you will forgive my bad wording as English is not my mother tongue.
Just, as I am not so experienced on WP:EN, I would like help/advises on how to manage the continuous reverts between some contributors under IP who do not agree on some flights destinations to some East Asian Airports (here, there ...). As it looks to be dynamic IPs, I feel difficult to put something in their discussion pages to invite them to debate rather than reverting themselves together; also, I do not find them eager to discuss (but here it is a personal point of view)
Thank you to route my request to the proper page.
Regards,
--Sundgauvien38 (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

You could always ask for pending changes protection at WP:RPP. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Peer review and document improvement request

This is a Peer review request to seek broader input to improve page: meta:Help:Form I & Affidavit (Customised for relinquishment of copyright as per 'free cultural work' definition) an option available under (Indian) Copyright act 1957 rules.

Mahitgar (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Requesting a template modification

I would like to request a modification of the {{GOCEreviewed}} template to display the issues= parameter on the talk page and as a category at the bottom of the talk page. There are special pages to propose deletion of templates and other needs, but no page for modification. Where should this modification be requested?--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dthomsen8: You could try Template talk:GOCEreviewed. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 04:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Urban upgrading

I don't quite know where to put it, so I'm dropping it here: I'd very much like for someone in the know to write up this article. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, there's some info here (and ALL over the internet are NGOs doing these kinds of projects). It's hugely important, and totally not a part of the world of the average Wiki editor, including me. I could write up a stub, but it would take me forever and I'd not do a good job. Please someone pick this up and run with it: I think it's exactly the kind of article that fits our mission. After Meghan Trainor's bootyshaking and a list of all Pokemon awards, of course. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: You could try Wikipedia:Requested articles. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I hope the eventual article includes the phrase "The future will benefit most." All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC).

IP addresses, what more is recorded?

Hi everyone,

I know that users’ IP addresses are recorded somewhere in the wikisystem and they can be dug up if needed. But can you tell me if anything more is recorded, such as the ID (or equivalent) of the device (i.e. computer) which is used in a given edit. Would be grateful if you could answer this question. -- Polomnik (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, such data is collected. See the privacy policy. --Izno (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • No the ID of the of the device is not collected (MAC address, volume serial number, CPUID or other identification number). The standard web-site logging is used, as are cookies and other technology mentioned in the policy. These may be enough when combined to uniquely identify the client machine - see device fingerprint.
Non-public information is only kept as long as is needed, theoretically, though we all know that backups, backups of backups, stray excerpts etc. may mean there are lots of exceptions.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC).

Why do I sometimes see new users creating articles with speedy deletion templates already on them?

Title summarizes it all. The db- templates are already on the articles in the initial revision, and not edited in afterwards. Plus, when I proceed to check the logs for the page, it doesn't mention any page under that title that has been deleted already. Can someone please investigate? (Ataa Ullah Khan Wato Kheshgi is an example.) Gparyani (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

They're cuts and pastes, most often from just before the last time the article got deleted. Your particular example's unusual in that the original version is still visible at Ataa Ullah Khan Wato Khaweshgi. —Cryptic 00:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Can Wikipedia's coverage of the Nanking Massacre be considered "unfairly bullying the Japanese people"?

Currently at Talk:Second Sino-Japanese War there is a rather unusual debate going on, with an editor from Japan claiming that Wikipedia is unfairly portraying Japan during World War II in a negative light. As of present, articles throughout Wikipedia acknowledge that the Nanking Massacre was a wide-scale act of murder which targeted civilians, given that the overwhelming majority of English-language reliable sources written by western scholars and historians describe it as so (and hence to paint it otherwise would fall under WP:FRINGE). However, this editor claims that the Japanese military was, in fact, rightfully exterminating guerrilla forces operating within the city of Nanking, and uses a rather partisan citation to affirm this (many books in Japan written on behalf of right-wing organisations outright deny that a "massacre" occurred, and that it was only a military operation against guerrillas). Furthermore, he makes his position clear on the talk page that Wikipedia's current interpretation of the war is being unfair towards Japan, and considers it targeted "bullying" against Japan as a whole.

I would like to obtain a third opinion, if possible. How should we treat topics like this as a whole, throughout the Wikipedia project? --benlisquareT•C•E 16:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd treat it no differently than the Holocaust, Armenian Genocide, the Srebrenica massacre, and so on; there will always be a fringe point-of-view in each that seeks to whitewash the perpetrators and make it look as if it wasn't really so bad after all. We should strive to follow that the majority of solid, historical sources say on these matters. Tarc (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
How is this different from any other discussion where nationalistic POVs are involved? --NeilN talk to me 16:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not familiar enough with how issues such as the Holocaust, Srebrenica, and similar topics are handled on Wikipedia, I haven't spent much time looking at those yet. If we already have a consensus of how denialism is handled within such articles, then that's good to hear. One thing that I notice is a little bit different is that while most Holocaust deniers are minority writers and authors with little to no real-world influence, disputing the Nanking Massacre is an active policy of a wide number of active political parties in Japan, some of them even holding seats within parliament. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Thankfully, governments and their hired propagandists do not determine article content. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't blame these particular Wikipedia denials on organized efforts of the Japanese government. There are plenty of individuals who are more than willing to do it without pay or encouragement. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I did not mean to appear to suggest that the Japanese government is organizing it. Rather, I meant that fringe authors (cited by POV-pushers acting of their own volition) are still fringe authors no matter how much political favor they are shown. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I believe that the Japanese, as represented by their government, have only lately come to the table of historical accuracy. Notable debates in the last decade have centred around Japanese history textbook controversies. This is to some extent ongoing.
We go with the reliable sources, NPOV and UNDUE, as always.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC).
This is the right way to say it. It's not really "fringe," per se, to deny the atrocity. It is/has been the official Japanese government (and Liberal Democratic Party - which is the conservative party, despite the name - and various further right parties over time) position that the Imperial Army's actions were just and warranted for wartime (or, in extreme cases, didn't happen), even though most Japanese people know that's a lie. The issue isn't limited to Nanking, but Nanking is part of it. The rest of the world knows and has documented what happened. Go with that. --Unready (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I should add that you can probably expect the rhetoric to escalate the closer we get to August. The 70th anniversary of the end of the war is going to be a really big deal. Lots of people are eagerly awaiting the speeches Abe and Naruhito are going to make. The "restoration" of imperial glory is a hot topic that both are expected to address, in a typically Japanese sideways fashion. Curiously, Abe, the democratically elected leader, is in favor of it. Naruhito, the crown price, is opposed. --Unready (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTCENSORED. The most we could possibly do is mention that a few right-wing historical-revisionist Japanese sources like to pretend that the Nanking Massacre was legitimate, but we'd also have to include the many sources call that claim BS. And is the US apologizing every year for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki "unfairly bullying" the American people, or is it remembering past mistakes so future generations don't make them again? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
There's a revisionist movement rampaging on English Wikipedia; we must put a stop to it. STSC (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Gold Members Only?

Why are so many pages on your wiki "visible to gold members only"? How much does gold membership cost? And why, whenever I try to apply for gold membership, am I redirected to this weird page with lots of adverts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.27.108 (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no requirement for viewing non-deleted pages. Perhaps you have a virus? Are you confusing Wikipedia with a separate wiki? There is no such thing as "gold membership" and there should be no pages saying "visible to gold members only". Dustin (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Should I delete the app I downloaded from your official website then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.27.108 (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. Looking online, did you download an app called "Wiki Encyclopedia Gold" for Android? If so, then that is not an app from Wikipedia/Wikimedia. If you are looking for the official app for Wikipedia, look only for an app published by the "Wikimedia Foundation". Anything else is from a third party and Wikipedia has no control over it. Resolute 22:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I've just deleted "Super Free Online Wikipedia". I thought I got it from your site, via an email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.27.108 (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
With no other information to go on, I'm a little worried this might be a phishing scam. For the sake of safety, I would suggest you contact your bank and/or credit card provider if you inputted your bank or credit card number as part of an attempt to sign up for this purported "gold membership". Resolute 23:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Nope! Thankfully... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.27.108 (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
It's a joke (and possibly worse than a joke if you fall for it...), probably originated on 4chan and just recently I saw it on Tumblr -- people will post images that say "To view this image you need to purchase a [website] gold account" and add text implying that the image contains some important or interesting information. It's not considered an evil thing to do since most people will understand it's a joke.
I wasn't able to find a "Super Free Online Wikipedia" app, was that the right name? If all it gave you was adverts when you tried to apply, then maybe that's slightly less evil than trying to get your credit card details or giving you a virus. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 06:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

For more information (note: commercial site, has ads): http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/gold-membership-trolling --108.38.204.15 (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC at WP:AVDUCK

An RfC that may interest you has been posted on Wikipedia_talk:Advocacy_ducks#RfC:_Is_the_following_addition_relevant_in_the_Signs_of_advocacy_section?. Atsme📞📧 13:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Ambassadress translates to ambassador?

According to us Hariot Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood, Marchioness of Dufferin and Ava was ambassador to Russia and later Turkey.

It's true that ODNB says "In 1879–81 Lady Dufferin was ambassadress at St Petersburg and in 1881–4 at Constantinople."

Surely this is a similar wording to "mayor" and "mayoress" (wife of a mayor), whereas a woman holding the post would be known as "Mayor Jones" (or, once upon a time, "Lady Mayor Jones").

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC).

The same word has been used for both meanings. I think you will need to find another source, ideally one with more details. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC notice: 2012 Koch-organized funding of Americans for Prosperity

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds. Please contribute to this request for comment. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:List_of_Indian_cities_by_GDP_(per_capita) Should GDP per capita figures be sourced only from comparative studies?

List of Indian cities by GDP (per capita) (talk · edit · hist) provides a comparison of GDP per capita of the major Indian cities. It has recently been updated with 2014 WP:OR figures for a single city (Bangalore) to put it at the top of the table. The RfC is intended to ensure WP:NPOV. Thanks. Batternut (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

"Wiki Loves Pride" has expired, but notices are unsigned

@Another Believer: 2015 Wiki Loves Pride was supposed to occur in June 2015, this is now July. But the notices that were posted at that time such as this one [9] were not signed. This causes major problems on all pages that use bots to archive their contents, as this stale notice that no longer matters will stay on the talk page indefinitely as it isn't indicated with a timestamp when it was posted, so will not be archived. There are a very large number of posts of this nature during the period of June 2-3 [10] by Another Believer (talk · contribs) that are still unsigned. Some have been signed here and there by people who've accessed talk pages, but this clearly hasn't occurred over most of them (such as [11] at the time this was posted). So, how do we fix this problem? The person who posted them messages has already been informed of this problem, as has Wiki Loves Pride, but in the weeks since the notice was given, little has been done to solve the problem. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, anyone know how to fix the problem that exists in the here and now (the proposal is about fixing the problem in the future, should everyone follow the proposal). How can we add timestamps to all these postings that are missing timestamps? Since the event has expired, do they just get a mass rollback? Can someone go about and add timestamps to all of them? -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Mass postings must be timestamped

All mass postings must include a standard bot-recognizable timestamp; failure to include one breaks the archival bots, so no mass posting should be allowed without a timestamp. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Blatant copyright violations and the failure of Wikipedia

There are days when I see problems at Wikipedia, and I despair that it can sustain. Today, I ran across an article that is a blatant copyright violation using material from multiple URLs. No worries, right? We'll just speedy delete it. Sure. Ok. I tagged it (see University of Santo Tomas College of Rehabilitation Sciences, if it hasn't been deleted already). But on closer look, we find this article was created in 2009...six years ago...and has contained massive copyright violations ever since. This isn't isolated; it appears possible that many, if not most or even all, of the articles linked from Template:UST are copyright violations. I look at this sort of stuff, facepalm, and wonder why I should even bother? If nobody's cared in six years that this stuff was effectively stolen from this institution's websites, why should I care? If Wikipedia hasn't cared for six years, obviously it isn't important.

To the abstract, I see that WP:CCI is hopelessly backlogged, with open investigations dating all the way back to 2010. Sure, I could post yet another CCI about these articles and their contributors (there may be several). To what end? It will take years to resolve, if ever.

The inability of Wikipedia's mechanisms to deal with this sort of problem is extremely serious. Pessimistically, I foresee the responses here being "sofixit", "shrug", "help to reduce the problem rather than complain about it" and etc. I despair of Wikipedia ever being able to handle this problem. I don't really even known where to voice this concern. So, I'm here at the pump with a sandwich board on me saying "The End of Copyright Violations Isn't Nigh" and I'm sure I'll be disregarded. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

  • And here I find an even older one, with copyright violations dating back to 2007: University of Santo Tomas Hospital. I've tagged it for deletion. EIGHT YEARS this has sat here, with not even a blip on the radar that this just might be a blatant copyright violation. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • If we're listing particularly bad examples of this I found contextual cueing a few months ago: the article mentioned information that could be found in the "following chapters," but despite this wasn't spotted as a copyvio for 7 years.Bosstopher (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • User:EranBot is a handy tool for spotting copy and paste problems; it seems to have been about for 3 years. I don't know if it would have picked up the page you mention, or how much attention the reports get. I think it offers hope for the future though! Batternut (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Just a comment: Wikipedia is purely volunteer-run! People often seem to forget that and when Wikipedia isn't run like a corporate machine they jump to "it's the end of the world". Yes, while your issue is serious and should be dealt with, it's ultimately up to whoever is willing to deal with the issue. It doesn't mean Wikipedia is broken, it just reflects a lack of volunteers in that specific area of Wikipedia. So yes, it's great you found the issue and it was dealt with, but no need for the pessimism. What did you expect? Wikipedia isn't and never will be perfect. It's a bottomless project. Jacedc (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It sounds like you need a break. Praemonitus (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

2015 MP redesign

If you'd like to try it, check "Show the new version of the Main Page currently under development. You can help!" under "Testing and development" in Preferences>Gadgets. Eman235/talk 19:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

It looks a little better when you view the version with style settings. Praemonitus (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:Bella and the Bulldogs

Need outside comment on whether or not the sources are valid, and the controversy is indeed a controversy. If you have any questions about what is being discussed feel free to contact me. The talk page is overwhelming. Thanks.FauXnetiX (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Naming

Dear fellow editors of Enwiki,

I have noticed that the era that we, Hungarians call Első magyar köztársaság ("First Hungarian Republic"; and existed between 1918-1920) is called Hungarian Democratic Republic here. No such state existed in Hungary by this name. It was called Hungarian Republic or Hungarian People's Republic, but hence it had nothing to do with socialism at all. I tried to move it to the exact title, but it was reverted.

Actually Hungarian Democratic Republic and Hungarian Republic (1919–20) are the same states. Just please check hu:Első magyar köztársaság.

I want to ask your opinions about whether it is possible to move and merge these articles.

Thanks for your attention, Oppashi (talk) 06:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

According to our articles in English these are non-overlapping governments - not one single government. One existed in 1918- early 1919 (Hungarian Democratic Republic), then for a few months in 1919, the Hungarian Soviet Republic, then the Hungarian Republic replaced it in 1919 and lasted until 1920. The single article in Hungarian covers the first and third of these and notes the name change on August 8, 1919 under a different leader. Rmhermen (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Alright. It is clear, but why is it Hungarian Democratic Republic? It is nonsense, a country by this name has not ever existed. The first one was called Nepkoztarsasag which means People's Republic, not Democratic Republic. Oppashi (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
What do other, reliable, English-language sources call the state in English? --Jayron32 21:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Is this good enough? "1918 - Austro-Hungarian Empire is broken up at the end of World War I. Hungarian republic is proclaimed following a revolution." And not Republic, and not Democratic, but Republic. Most of historians removed "People's" from this era during Communism, because of the name of the state would have been the same. Oppashi (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for or against you. I'm making a statement. I am not a person you have to convince; neither am I siding with you. Use the article talk page, present multiple, in-depth, reliable sources that unambiguously use the term you wish to use, AND convince others that it is the correct term. I don't really care one way or the other; I was giving you instructions on what to do, not picking a side. --Jayron32 21:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. Actually no one cares on the article talk page either, another fellow editor told the same thing there more than a year ago. I think even if I have reliable source of it, if I tried to rename it again I would be blocked or something so I will do just minimal contributions in it. Oppashi (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Why would you be blocked? There's no rules against moving an article to a more correct name. People do it all the time. If someone objects when you do it then move it back and discuss. But if no one objects, no one objects. Being bold is not a blockable action, indeed it's a core Wikipedia commandment. --Jayron32 02:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Peer review and document improvement request

This is a Peer review request to seek broader input to improve page: meta:Help:Form I & Affidavit (Customised for relinquishment of copyright as per 'free cultural work' definition) an option available under (Indian) Copyright act 1957 rules.

Mahitgar (talk) 03:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Question about the GA / QA

Hello people from the en:wiki (sorry for my english, i'm french). A little question please... do you know who is, in the all languages, the contributor who've brought the largest single article number to a level of GA / QA ? It's easy to find who've add the more bytes or do the most edit, but I've not find answer to this question. A big thank to you in advance --Tsaag Valren (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Your question is unclear. Praemonitus (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


I believe you are asking who has created the most featured and/or good articles? I don't believe we have a comprehensive list for both article ranks, but there is Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. I can't think of an equivalent for good articles. That link is for the English language Wikipedia only. Since each project is separate, there is likely no statistics that combine all language Wikipedias for information of this nature. Resolute 16:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
That's what I was looking for ! Thanks to you Reso. --Tsaag Valren (talk) 08:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

[Image donations] Three historic atlases (national library of the Netherlands)

Sample image from Atlas Van der Hagen

Earlier this week the national library of the Netherlands (KB) donated over 3100 images from 3 historic atlases (period 1690-1750) to Commons.

Each atlas has its own category

  • Category:Atlas van der Hagen (446 topographical drawings and prints from across the globe in various formats, beautifully colored and decorated with gold)
  • Category:Atlas Schoemaker (2579 topographical drawings, descriptions and prints of Dutch towns, villages and hamlets in the early 18th century.)
  • Category:Atlas Beudeker (133 images devoted to the northern and southern Netherlands.)

This was the first time the KB used the GLAMwiki-uploadtool, which can upload large numbers of images batchwise. This tools has been used by many GLAMs, including the Institute for Sound & Vision and the Peace Palace. So far meer dan 430.000 images have been donated worldwide using this tool.

The three atlases were digitized in the late ‘90s and put online on the Memory of the Netherlands website. This has been the source of the current donations.

Uploading to Commons is just the start, in the next couple of weeks the KB will work on

  • Expanding WP-articles about the atlases themselves, the creators/collectors (Andries and Gerrit Schoemaker, Cornelis Pronk, Abraham de Haen, Dirk van der Hagen etc) in multiple language versions
  • Creating / expanding related Wikidata-items
  • Promotional activities outside the community

The KB would like to invited all Wikip/m/edians to reuse the images as widely as possible, which could include

  • Using them in WP-articles (duh)
  • Further (sub)categorization of the images. A subdivision into country/city/place names would make sense, see for instance this list of place names for Schoemaker. Unfortunately it was not possible to do automatic subcategorization via the GLAMwiki-upload tool.
  • Adding geo coordinates

Including these 3 atlases the KB has now released 7 historic atlases, see this overview. --OlafJanssen (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Review article Elevenie

I have translated the article "Elfchen" from the german wikipedia. Since it's an article about poetry I would like to see this article be reviewed by a native english speaker to may replace some parts that could be formulated in a better way as well as spelling and grammar mistakes. The article is pretty much a word by word translation which is missing some parts (eg. I don't know how to correctly translate "Schreibwerkstatt" - word by word it would be writingworkshop - where (according to de.wikipedia) students learn writing/poetry technics).
The name of the article was taken from here: here. If there is a better name for it please rename the page! I did sort the page in category "Poems". If there is a more fitting one again: feel free to move it.
If you have any questions or suggestions contact me. The best way is to use my talk page on Wikimedia Commons! I eg though of adding an elevenie like

Web
Community project
Free of charge
All humanities knowledge combined
Wikipedia

to have some Wikipedia related example in there that is not translated. --D-Kuru (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@D-Kuru: I suggest you submit a request to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I did copy the entry over to the provided page. Thanks for your fast answer and the page! --D-Kuru (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Talk:Cyrano de Bergerac

An RfC about a suggested title exchange between Cyrano de Bergerac and Cyrano de Bergerac (play) --The Traditionalist (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Beginning gradual availability of VisualEditor for new users

Last month, I made a proposal at WP:VPPR about gradually enabling VisualEditor alongside the wikitext editor for new editors here. Given the consensus in that discussion, I'm moving ahead with that change, starting later this week.

At first, I will restrict the configuration so that only 5% of new accounts (chosen randomly) have a choice of which editing tool to use. As promised, I'll report back on how well this goes, before increasing the rate to a larger proportion and monitoring from there.

If you have any questions or see any problems, please alert us. The fastest way to reach the team is by contacting us on IRC at #mediawiki-visualeditor connect, by filing a report in Phabricator, or by leaving a note at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback.

Yours,

Jdforrester (WMF) (talk), Product Manager, VisualEditor – 18:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Research Study on Talk Page Usability

I'm leading a collaboration out of Carnegie Mellon University's Human-Computer Interaction Institute that is researching how current editors make sense of the history of articles before they edit, and what kinds of tools or resources might help editors to do a better job. Based on some interviews with some local expert Wikipedians, we're designing prototypes that stitch together article pages and talk sections, history and editors relationships, or talk sections with short digestible synopses.

We think these prototypes would not only help expert Wikipedians make sense of new pages faster, but also help newbies avoid common pitfalls before contributing. But we need your help. While we're accessing all sorts of new data and generating visualizations, we need to stay grounded with what editors actually need. Following HCI traditions, we want to involve Wikipedians in the design process before we start developing prototypes for evaluation.

If you'd like to help us out, we're having short 30-45min Skype conversations with experienced editors (1000+ contributions to en:wiki) where we talk about the kinds of resources editors need to use to make good edits, and get some feedback on several different ways to add new information or redesign Talk sections. More details and a link to the signup sheet are at the lede of the project page on Meta.

As we continue to do this work, we hope to deploy some prototype Talk data visualizations on our Meta page for the Wikipedia community to explore. Ultimately we hope to deploy our tools for general use as either addons to WikiMedia or browser extensions. Watch out project page for more info. Feel free to reach out if you have any questions about the study or the kinds of research we're doing. Thanks for your time!

JeffRz (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Potential copyvio, or at least poor style/formatting

I'm worried that much of the article on Space: 1889 is lifted from a promotional guide, or at the least is not in proper Wikipedia style. If this is not the correct place to report this, where should I go? Brownie Charles (talk) 04:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC update: 2012 Koch-organized funding of Americans for Prosperity

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds. The RfC proposes a one-sentence addition to the "Funding" section of Americans for Prosperity. This is an update and a request for wider participation. The main source for the proposed content is a pair of reports in The Washington Post, supported by FactCheck.org and the National Journal. Generous excerpts from the sources are provided in the statement of the RfC question for your convenience. Please help with this request for comment. Thank you in advance for your time and attention. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

This request for comment will most likely close Thursday 6 August 2015. This is an update and a request for wider participation. Issues in the appropriate application of our due weight content policy remain in the discussion. Your comments are needed. Please help with this important request for comment. Thank you in advance for your time and attention. Hugh (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hyphens in links

Which is the correct or preferred way of linking in the following case?

  1. The pelagic zone contains [[Macrofauna|macro-]] and [[microfauna]] …
  2. The pelagic zone contains [[Macrofauna|macro]]- and [[microfauna]] …

--Leyo 12:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Why not [[macrofauna]] and [[microfauna]]?--ukexpat (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's a repetition. Anyway, this is just an example. I am interested in the general question. --Leyo 20:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
There used to be something in WP:MOS (or a similar place) about it, but I'm unable to find it atm. Basically if you have something like [[blahblah|yadada]], it should be written that way and not as [[blahblah|y]]adada, even though they display and function the same. --Unready (talk) 06:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Does this mean that you think #1 is correct? --Leyo 11:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
It's a very minor issue and I don't think we have guidance about it but I prefer #1, i.e. "macro- and microfauna" with the hyphen inside the link seems slightly better than "macro- and microfauna". Few people will notice or care whether the hyphen is blue or black. Red or black would have been a little easier to spot: "macro- and microsomething" versus "macro- and microsomething". PrimeHunter (talk) 12:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for this statement, with which I agree. --Leyo 14:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stub Contest

just in case anyone missed it when I pinged the first time round....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC - The Pirate Bay

You are invited to participate in the RfC at Talk:The Pirate Bay#RfC - 24 July 2015. This RfC, which asks "Should all of the urls for this website be included in the infobox?", is due to end in approximately 21 days time and would really benefit from some fresh eyes. Thank you. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

edits said Karen Taylor died

I started Karen Taylor (basketball) lately and reverted edits claiming she passed away. I am unsure if this is true and I am on a mobile device. Can somebody check/potentially warn accounts/welcome accounts? Thx. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Without a source, people are alive by default. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
You'll need a better source, but Detroit Free Press is reporting a tweet from her son about her death.-gadfium 00:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@Biosthmors:-gadfium 00:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks gadfium. I see another source exists. I have added that source and the other to the article with the news of her passing. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 02:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
And I tried to unprotect with this logic. (The page has since been actually unprotected.) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 03:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Derek White

How can the race driver Derek White (today's Did You Know?) be 'native american' when he's not American at all? He's First Nations Canadian.Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Canada is part of the North American continent; therefore the native peoples of Canada are Native Americans. America is more than the United States. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
While technically true, Canadians never refer to themselves as being "American". Likewise, we don't use terms like "Native American". They would be either just "Native" or "First Nations". At any rate, this is a question for WP:ERRORS. I will point this out there. Thanks, Resolute 16:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Wet Side Story

Not sure what to call this. I need a double redirect but in Wikipedia that's something else.

There are two possible redirect targets. Teen Beach Movie and Teen Beach 2. Wikipedia doesn't provide for this situation.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

A disambiguation page might fit the bill. Something like:
Teen Beach may refer to:
•Teen Beach Movie
•Teen Beach 2
   → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 21:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Wet Side Story is the subject of both movies, though.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
My apologies then. Apparently I do not understand the question. Sorry.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 21:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
There needs to be a redirect, but it can't go to both articles. However, Wet Side Story is a major plot in both movies and I've only redirected to one.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, I think I get it. Make a page for Wet Side Story like this:
Wet Side Story may refer to:
•A plot in the film Teen Beach Movie
•A plot in the film Teen Beach 2
   → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 21:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Judith Chemla

Hello! Really sorry, I'm not sure if I'm on the right place to talk about it. I'm not used to English Wikipedia, I'm more used to French one and to Commons.

But I'm having a problem being reverted two times of the article Judith Chemla by a IP because of the year of birth of this French actress. This IP might be absolutely sure of one year of birth, whereas there are 4 different sources stating two different years of birth. I already had the case on the French Wikipedia, but maybe the policy about it is different here. On FR-WP, when we're not sure, we clearly write it on the the article, especially when sources are relevant on both sides. Here it might be the case. On Talk:Judith Chemla the IP tells that it's not, according to him VIAF and BNF are not relevant authorities sources. In my opinion, as long as there is no exact date of birth with day, month and year, we can't be sure of the year of birth (in my old version I explain in the references how we can't be sure, and there are the VIAF and BNF sources stating the 2nd possible year of birth). And if we can't be sure, I think either we put 2 possible years of birth in the article, or no year of birth at all. And when a better source will be found, there will be time to update it.

I have noticed that in FR-WP for example for Arielle Dombasle, there are 2 birth dates, whereas on EN-WP there is only one. Then I prefer to be sure how to work on WP-EN according to your policies that I'm not used to. Thank you very much for your help. Jeriby (talk) 09:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Jeriby, we have the same rules here: if good sources give different dates, then we write that Source #1 says 1924 and Source #2 says 1935. Of course, if a bad source has a different date, then we ignore the bad source.
If you want to know whether your sources are good, then please post the sources and the question at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Good luck! WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Update on gradual availability of VisualEditor for new users

As promised last week, I'm following up to let you know about the current state of our process of gradually enabling VisualEditor alongside the wikitext editor for new editors here. Last week, only 5% of new accounts (chosen randomly) were given a choice of which editing tool to use. We have monitored the results and found no technical problems, editing corruptions, or other concerning issues. Consequently, this week we have increased it to 10% of new accounts. We will keep monitoring this and adjust the proportion of new accounts in gradual increments if we continue to see positive results.

As always, if you have any questions or see any problems, please alert us. The fastest way to reach the team is by contacting us on IRC at #mediawiki-visualeditor connect, by filing a report in Phabricator, or by leaving a note at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback.

Yours,

Jdforrester (WMF) (talk), Product Manager, VisualEditor – 22:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

VIN cloning

I saw this recent report about VIN cloning. I am concerned that images like this may be construed as a potential source of 'stolen' VINs. Is there anything currently in wikipedia policies anywhere that address this issue? The article Vehicle identification number gives much information about VINs and how they are constructed but also includes some photos with full VINs. Should we not allow images in wikipedia/wikimedia like this on a privacy basis? Nyth63 14:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a big risk, compared to leaving your car parked in a public parking lot, where anyone with a camera can get a picture of it. But why don't you expand the article with information about the problem? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
New article is located at VIN cloning. Nyth63 14:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Rfc concerning use of galleries

There is an RfC about the sue of galleries in articles about artists. It is about the use of legacy gallery formats over newer versions. The old one is being promoted on account it ""allows each work the dignity they demand" while simultaneously taking up significantly more space with smaller thumbnails. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

In essence either of these:

Mobile viewer

Modern
Old
Old 220px
Suggested by User:Coldcreation

Spasemunki made an excellent point above about how these show up in mobile browsers. I did a test and have uploaded 3 screenshots to commons that display the different examples shown above. (There are no other changes, and the examples are of Talk:Paul Signac as of August 8.)
I believe these results are conclusive in saying that the packed mode displays better with the modern gallery format. Also note that the resolution of the phone in question (an LG G4) is 2.5k, which is not representative of most phones. Using an ordinary lower resoltion phone the wasted space between image and caption might actually exceed the range of the screen, resulting in needing to scroll down to see the caption and image in the same screen.
Please weight in to support the best alternative on the RfC.

P.S. I will do a similar test with a lower resolution phone as soon as I get time, and for full disclosure the browser being used is Firefox for android
-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Georgian language

Any one speaking Georgian? Xaris333 (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Xaris333: Have you tried looking for someone in Category:User ka? Brustopher (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes... Xaris333 (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
@Xaris333: I don't, but I have a relative who was one of the first linguists in the US to specialize in Georgian. If it's a brief Q I can ask her. Well, I can pass on any request, but I don't know how much time she'd be willing to spend on it. --Thnidu (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Join us on Wednesday, August 19, to talk about Writing Contests on Wikipedia

Hi all, the Learning and Evaluation team at Wikimedia Foundation will host a program leader panel to discuss Writing Contests on different Wikimedia projects. Community members from Kosovo, Ukraine and Australia will share their experience hosting this type of Wikimedia program. Please join us to discuss the latest resources:

  • Evaluation report 2015, a solid corpus of data about what is the online impact of this program, in terms of user retention, content creation and quality, and more.


Join us via Google Hangouts! The event will be recorded and will be available later on on our Youtube channel.

Visit the event page and register.


Best, MCruz (WMF) (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Scam/spam alert for "Cogniq"

There is a new scam product called "Cogniq" or "CogniQ" (basically a mix of unregulated herbal supplements) that is being pushed on numerous social media sites with links to obviously fake articles claiming that various celebrities (Johnny Depp, Stephen Hawking, Bradley Cooper, Denzel Washington, Tiger Woods) use or endorse the product, and making unsupported effectiveness claims (including that it is "so effective" that governments are planning to ban it, for some reason). I just deleted and blocked four new "user" accounts who are obvious spam bots, having done nothing but create User talk pages containing borderline gibberish content promoting or linking to these fake "Cogniq" articles. The scam, being a very recent creation, will not have reached Wikipedia levels of notability, and its perpetrators may well pocket their earnings and disappear before it ever reaches that point. In the meantime, be wary of any effort to introduce mention of this scam product into Wikipedia, either through spambot talk page postings, or in articles relating to its supposed endorsers. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Another reason to stop web crawlers from scanning user space by default. Praemonitus (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Featured Pictures now so powerful it can promulgate its own OR?

At Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Orazio Gentileschi - Il suonatore di liuto (National Gallery of Art).jpg we see this

(The painting possibly depicts Francesca Caccini, a famous Italian composer, singer, lutenist, and poet of the early Baroque era, who is know for being the first woman who ever wrote an opera. Looks like this information has so far no reliable sources)

and also this at the Talk page Talk:The_Lute_Player_(Orazio_Gentileschi)#Attribution of the article concerned

The information added about Francesca Caccini was based on the Wikipedia article Francesca Caccini and the also on the identification of of the music cover,and the site musicacademyonline.com and on DYK on Andrea_Salvadori, by Voceditenore. The information is removed by now, so if anyone has some sources can add it again. Hafspajen (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

That looks like WP:Original Research to me, officially sanctioned by the administrators Crisco 1492 and Drmies.

For what it's worth, the subject has never been suggested as being Caccini, not even "possibly". The standard reference works make no mention, nor does the holding museum (National Gallery of Art, Washington), although it was nevertheless cited as the only source by the nominator in the article (tailor-made for the nomination). A glance at the painting, in part an allegory of love and music, is sufficient to determine it cannot possibly be a portrait of anyone of significance as the girl has loosed her bodice. Needless to say no sitter of the age would have allowed herself to be portrayed in such a fashion, or even in that pose for that matter. But for my efforts as IP (threatened, blocked and then locked out) and another editor (blocked as a sock), this hugely popular and much loved painting would have gone out as a portrait of Francesca Caccini in Wikipedia's voice as per the original nomination and repeated within minutes over dozens of mirror sites on Google searches. 138.199.69.140 (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that FP nominators should have been more careful to verify statements of fact in their nominations. The suggestion in this nomination that noms should not be allowed until the relevant article has been in mainspace for some time, to allow collaborative editing seems reasonable to me. I don't know if the socking accusations made here are valid -- I see no links to an SPI. I have thought before that some editors here are rather too quick to yell "sock" on thin evidence when they don't like what another editor or especially an IP says, or how it is said, and I think the hatting of the IP's comments as "disruptive" was out of line. DES (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Using Template:{{Start date and age}} to display both date and age in infoboxes

Versus001 performed a mass addition of {{Start date and age}} to articles regarding shooting incidents justifying that the age of an event should be mentioned in the infobox along with the date. As some editors would disagree with this, a discussion was started on his talk page to arrive at a consensus. It was noted that the discussion should be moved to Village pump in order to get a clearer consensus. As an end note, my opinion is that it's redundant to implement this template on articles concerning recent events. --Chamith (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to add start date and age for any one off event. It is just wrong and unnecessary to tell a reader that 2013 was two years ago (thank you, Captain Obvious). I'm not sure either why mass shooting articles have been deemed necessary to have this treatment. Perhaps the people who read the articles are stupid or don't have calculators in the house.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
We should balance the need to avoid clutter in infoboxes against the legitimate benefit of the template, which, in my view, increases as the event ages. I would see no harm in a loose community consensus, something with roughly the weight of a guideline, setting n years as the minimum age. This would be equivalent to the usage guidelines in {{Current}}, for example, which have proven their value by averting untold time-wasting conflict. Unneeded freedom results in unnecessary conflict, as we've seen today. Are there likely to be significant differences that would warrant, say, a minimum age of 5 years in one type of article and a minimum of 20 in another? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Eh. I don't see the harm in it. I kinda like the way it's used in the September 11 attacks article, and think Attack on Pearl Harbor would benefit from it. At the same time, I agree it's unnecessary. I'd be inclined to leave Versus001 be, and not change articles myself one way or another. Post edit conflict regarding the statement that the benefit of the template increases as the event ages, I see your point, but if we set n years as the minimum age, that makes more maintenance work for someone to go change them all when n years has elapsed. I don't see the benefit to that. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
One off events are not a start date. The mainstream media does not instinctively mention that the 9/11 attacks were 14 years ago if this would be obvious to someone who had not flunked high school math.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
"The mainstream media does not instinctively mention that the 9/11 attacks were 14 years ago" Really? "So far, he has painted 1,300 portraits, or one every two-and-a-half days over the past 13 years. He has now been approached by agents and galleries to complete this mammoth undertaking by September 11, 2016, the 15-year-anniversary.", "Now, 14 years later, we finally have these photographs", "The 14th Annual September 11 ceremony". Those are just three recent news stories that mention (admittedly in various contexts) how long it has been since 9/11/2001. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Let's not forget those constant stories concerning the anniversaries of mass shootings like Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, etc., etc. I've even seen an article for an anniversary for the 2012 Azana Spa shootings, which is included there. I honestly don't care what decision is made, but for now, if people insist on keeping the template for one mass shooting article (my attempts to remove it have been reverted twice already), then it should apply for every article involving some notable death. Equality is key. Versus001 (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

ONUnicorn, re your last point, such a guideline would not constitute a requirement to add the template after n years. In any case, the amount of effort is the same whether you add the template today or five years from now, so I don't know what you mean by more maintenance work. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

*Comment: I think having "x number of years ago" adds unnecessary clutter to Infoboxes. Infoboxes are supposed to be summaries of an article's salient points, so if the age of the incident or anniversary of the incident isn't covered in the article then perhaps the Infobox shouldn't mention it either... Shearonink (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
*Comment:The specific template makes it look like we are counting days from an event which hasn't ended yet. Shooting incidents or terrorist attacks don't actually commence. They take place, which means they start and end at the moment it occurs. In that case we should be using {{Years or months ago}} instead. -- Chamith (talk) 04:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

But we already know the exact dates of the incidents, and to use that template would mean getting rid of the exact dates and specifying only the month and year at best. Versus001 (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe {{Time ago}}?~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I guess that could work, but isn't this what people have been arguing against? The very presence of all the time that had passed since the incident happened? The template technically does the same thing. Versus001 (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I still standby my opinion that it shouldn't be mentioned in recent events. I was simply pointing out that the usage of {{Start date and age}} in shooting/terrorism related incidents wouldn't make any sense. -- Chamith (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
How recent are we talking about? People's ideas of recent easily vary. Versus001 (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
According to Google "recent" means "having happened, begun, or been done not long ago or not long before; belonging to a past period of time comparatively close to the present". That's exactly what I have to say here. My argument is that it's unnecessary to implement this template to articles concerning incidents which occurred relatively close to the present. For example, do we really need to say that it's been a year/"X" no. of months since mm/dd/2014? or that it's been 2 years since 2013? Do we really have to state the obvious? -- Chamith (talk) 11:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't know, ask LimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774. He/She was the one insisting on keeping the template in the 2015 Lafayette shooting article. Versus001 (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Nobody can claim ownership for articles. So, even if LimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774 insists that it's the right thing to do he could be proved wrong. As far as I know there weren't any discussions regarding this at that point. So, User:LimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774 probably thought his reversion is justified, just like you thought when you performed that mass addition. You shouldn't undertake something big like this just because one other editor opinionated it's correct. Establishing a consensus is always the best way to deal with situations like this. -- Chamith (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, then. I now think the template is unnecessary. Versus001 (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

For the record of this discussion, I would like to explain myself on performing this mass addition. On the 2015 Lafayette shooting article, LimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774 applied the template, and since I didn't see the template on any other mass-casualty articles, I made attempts at removing it. However, those edits were reverted by him/her twice now, so I just decided to add the template on all the others, since he/she is insistent that it belongs in the article. If that one article should have it, I didn't see any reason why all those others should not. Versus001 (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Has a consensus been reached yet? Versus001 (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

.uz

Hello all. Is en.wikipedia.uz/Main_Page some sort of mirror or an official WMF site? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Minangkabau or Cebuano

If anyone is speaking Minangkabau or Cebuano, I need help, just to correct 1 paragraph I have written in these languages. Xaris333 (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Joseon

There is currently an RfC at Talk:Joseon#RfC: Joseon Kingdom or Joseon Dynasty?. Please drop by with your 2¢. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 09:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC on whether or not the Iran deal article should explicitly state in the lead that the P5+1 have accepted Iranian enrichment of uranium

see RfC at talk:Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action; please come and express your opinion. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit filter noticeboard

As part of our efforts to improve the use of the edit filter, an edit filter noticeboard has been created. We hope that this will be a better venue for users to discuss and ask questions about edit filters, whilst also freeing up WT:EF for discussion of the corresponding project page. Sam Walton (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Yet another "Wikipedia is doomed" essay

In my ongoing efforts to alienate as much of the Wikipedia orthodoxy as possible (previous attempts include this proposal and numerous XfD !votes), I've written Wikipedia:Stack Exchange is eating our lunch. I would appreciate it if someone who believes that Wikipedia is not failing could go through the essay and pick out all the stuff I got wrong. If anyone wants to write Wikipedia:Stack Exchange is not eating our lunch, I would of course be willing to reciprocate. --NYKevin 23:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Given that Stack Exchange isn't an encyclopaedia, what exactly does your comparison prove? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
^That. Also, I'm not particularly familiar with Stack Exchange, but reading your description of it makes it sound a lot like Quora, which appears to be a glorified and intellectualized version of Yahoo! Answers. Again, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a Q&A forum. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Randomly noticed this thread in my watchlist, thought I'd chime in that all is perhaps not well in the Stack Exchange ecosystem either. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@Nettrom: I find it rather amusing that the second comment on that article is comparing SO to Wikipedia (in a "they both suck" fashion). Well, yeah. Everything sucks. If you don't suck, you haven't scaled up yet. --NYKevin 01:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
So make some changes to NFCC, for starters. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC).

Automatic links to articles

My (lazy) searched did not come up with any information on how or if articles are linked to existing wiki content. For example, you create the page "horse" and it has the word "quadruped" in the text. If there is a page called "quadruped" is there a bot to automatically link those two pages? OR, because of the plethora of articles and unknown associations between then, does this happen all by hand? Question: is there any automation to speed up linking articles?--Lucas559 (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

It's all done by hand. If I was writing the article "Horse" and I used the word "quadruped" and I thought more context about quadrupeds was needed I would type quadruped like this: [[quadruped]] which would produce quadruped. I would then check to make sure that was the correct article and not a disambiguation page or something. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
You will probably be interested in WP:LINK. For software tools to help with editing, WP:TOOLS is one place to start. When you have questions about editing, you could maybe start at Help:Contents. By default, searches only return content from articles, so unless you've changed the default search settings in your preferences, just searching for something in the search bar won't give you anything from "project space". This is probably why your search didn't find anything. On the search page itself, you can change what namespaces your search will look at. --108.38.204.15 (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC about Miss Cleo

There is a new RFC about how we should refer to Miss Cleo. To view and/or participate, follow the link at: Talk:Miss Cleo#RFC: How to describe Miss Cleo in her article.
Richard27182 (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

How can we improve Wikimedia grants to support you better?

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation would like your feedback about how we can reimagine Wikimedia Foundation grants, to better support people and ideas in your Wikimedia project. Ways to participate:

Feedback is welcome in any language.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation. 05:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Different color background on talk pages

It used to be (back in 2006 and 2007) that talk pages (and I think user pages as well - maybe all non-mainspace pages) had a light blue background, while article pages had a white background. Now pretty much everything has a white background. Does anyone know when that changed? Can someone point me to a discussion about it? (I'm not wanting to rehash anything; just curious about when it changed and what the reasons for the change were.) ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Which WP:SKIN are you using? It sounds like you used to use Monobook and have changed to Vector at some point in time. Monobook, the default skin back during 2006 and 2007, uses a light blue background for most pages outside the article namespace. Vector, the current default skin, uses white backgrounds on talk pages as well as for articles. You can use Help:Preferences to change the skin you are using. --Allen3 talk 18:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
That must be it; I've never used anything but the default skin. So if the default changed, that would be when it changed for me. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

List of musical bodies with names of Biblical books

Hi, I'm just occasional wikignome on cs.wiki, but recently I realized that there is lot of musical bands with names of Biblical books (i.e. Genesis, The Kings, Exodus, Apocalyptica), so I joked about it and ultimatelly was chalanged to do complete Bible. Long story short, here it is. Input welcomed.

As side result, new category was created, feel free to expand.--Fafrin (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the heavy metal music article include a paragraph on the gender, race and sexual orientation of heavy metal musicians?

There is a new RfC asking if the heavy metal music article should include a paragraph on the gender, race and sexual orientation of heavy metal musicians. To view and/or participate, follow the link here.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 17:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Strategy for reading department

Happy weekend everyone, just headsup that the reading team is currently soliciting community input for the upcoming strategy of the reading department. Feel free to take a look and participate :)--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Materials from 'Chicago Monitor' can be used?

An RFC related to the Quds Day is opened here. Mhhossein (talk) 10:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Regulation Committee and alternatives to consensus

Bumping thread for 30 days. ceradon (talk • edits) 04:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Members of the community are invited to give their thoughts at a request for comment to discuss Wikipedians' alternatives to consensus, and the formation of a proposed Regulation Committee. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • edits) 04:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Tobias Conradi

Per m:Global bans, I am notifying the project of this proposal. Everyone is welcome to go and voice their opinion of the proposal and about the user in general.--GZWDer (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves

Hi all, there is a backlog of moves that are very quiet with little input. If anyone has any opinion at all on any then comment away. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of photo

Dhakuri is on the way to Pindari glacier(you have to reach Pindary by trek and Dhakuri is next stop when one trek from Loharkhet side.) Why my photo of Dhakuri is deleted from here.Pls explain me.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pindari_Glacier Thanks and regards. Sumita Roy Dutta (talk) 10:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not a good place to discuss content disputes. I have replied to your comments at Talk:Pindari Glacier. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Gradual availability of VisualEditor for new users is now complete

Over the last few months, we have been slowly expanding the availability of VisualEditor as an option for editors. At first we ran an A/B test, and then a slow ramp-out for new accounts (A/B test announcement in May, proposal at WP:VPPR from June, note about it starting in August). This is now complete, which means that all accounts registered now will get the choice to use VisualEditor.

As always, if you have question or encounter problems, please feel free to reach out to us at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback.

Jdforrester (WMF) (talk), Product Manager, VisualEditor – 16:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Example news image wanted

Resolved

Suggestions, please - I'm looking for an example of an iconic image, uploaded to Commons under an open licence, of a recent, unplanned, newsworthy event, to illustrate an article asking people to donate such images in future. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

File:2015 Tianjin explosion - Crop.jpg seems like a prime candidate. --MASEM (t) 17:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Just the job; thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

New articles on narrow gauge railways

I am looking for new Wikipedia articles on railways or in particular on narrow gauge railways. Are there any search engines, which can filter those that are let's say less than a month old? --NearEMPTiness (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly, but something like User:AlexNewArtBot/MedicineSearchResult (created by a bot) might work for you in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Thank you, that was what I was looking for. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Contacting socks off-Wikipedia

Why doesn't WMF or someone at Wikipedia contact LTA socks who have a website and tell them to stop? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Between legal and CA this has happened on numerous occasions. If you have any specific examples I encourage you to email [email protected] with them. Jalexander--WMF 00:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Splendid. Thank you kindly, Jalexander. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the Wikimedia public policy site

Hi all,

We are excited to introduce a new Wikimedia Public Policy site. The site includes resources and position statements on access, copyright, censorship, intermediary liability, and privacy. The site explains how good public policy supports the Wikimedia projects, editors, and mission.

Visit the public policy portal: https://policy.wikimedia.org/

Please help translate the statements on Meta Wiki. You can read more on the Wikimedia blog.

Thanks,

Yana and Stephen (Talk) 18:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

(Sent with the Global message delivery system)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Improving Wikipedia#RfC: WikiProject name?

I started an RfC regarding the old WikiProject Wikipedia's move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Improving Wikipedia about a day ago, and seeing as only one other user has commented there, I've decided to come here to try to attract more community input. Everyone is welcome to voice their opinions there. CabbagePotato (talk) 06:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a note: I've closed the RfC since the original WikiProject Wikipedia has moved back to its original name, and related discussion about Tortle's WikiProject can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. CabbagePotato (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Come see the New WikiProject Wikipedia!

{{WPW Referral}}

The original WikiProject Wikipedia has been restored and discussion is occurring on alternative titles for the New WikiProject Wikipedia effort. Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Get a grant to improve Wikimedia

Hi all, there's a new post out at the Wikimedia blog, titled "Innovation is welcome: apply for grants to improve Wikimedia," that I wanted to highlight. If you or a team of people have an idea that will improve a Wikimedia site, you can get a grant to cover certain costs. Check it out! Obligatory disclaimer: due to legal restrictions (I believe—please don't quote me on this), the WMF cannot fund content creation. Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Heavy metal music RfC related to the guitar solo

There is an RfC on the Heavy metal music talk page regarding whether the guitar solo should be mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of the Characteristics section. To participate, see hereOnBeyondZebrax • TALK 20:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Heavy metal music RfC related to the Parents Music Resource Center

There is an RfC on the Heavy metal music article talk page on whether the Lyrical themes section should identify the Parents Music Resource Center as the organization that criticized heavy metal lyrics for their allegedly misogynist and occult content. To participate, follow this link.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 01:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Open call for Individual Engagement Grants

Greetings! The Individual Engagement Grants program is accepting proposals from August 31st to September 29th to fund new tools, community-building processes, and other experimental ideas that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Whether you need a small or large amount of funds (up to $30,000 USD), Individual Engagement Grants can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.

I JethroBT (WMF), 09:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Guilford, Vermont notable persons list

According to an entry made in The Memorial of John Slafter, by Edmund F. Slafter, my 6 times great grandfather, the Hon. Benjamin Carpenter was Lt. Governor of Vermont in 1779. Though he is buried in Guilford, Vermont on Carpenter Hill road, Wikipedia neglects to mention him in its list of notable persons from that town. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF41:AD10:DC5B:5D14:3AFE:E554 (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done by reviewing and copying the references from Benjamin Carpenter to Guilford, Vermont. Next time, please post your request on the article's talk page (e.g. Talk:Guilford, Vermont). GoingBatty (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Miss Cleo RfC is drawing to a close.

Time on the RfC on how Miss Cleo should be described in her article is rapidly running out.  The RfC will be closing in less than a week.  If you would like to participate, now would be a good time to do so.  The RfC is at: Talk:Miss Cleo#RFC: How to describe Miss Cleo in her article.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Ferenc Kiss (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please note that wrestler Ferenc Kiss died on 8 september 2015. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 11:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Not really the place to report this, WP:BLPN would normally be more appropriate. Though per policy, we need a published reliable source before we can add details regarding a death to a biography - for obvious reasons, we can't simply take someone's word for it. If you have a source, please let us know on Talk:Ferenc Kiss (wrestler). Meanwhile, I'll see if I can find anything myself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

#Edit2015 Video Collaboration

Hi everyone, I'm making a year-in-review video about 2015 through the filter of Wikimedia projects, and I need your help! The video above is what I and another video editor made last year. I think it was good, but it could be a lot better. I need your help to find the stories from 2015 as articles, photos or videos and how to tell each one in about 5 seconds. Like - how can one story link to the next? What photos tell our story? How can we be more internationally representative? I set up this page as a space to collaborate on this years' video. Here I explain what I learned from last year, and here is a space to fill in images and articles, sorted by month.

Thanks! VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Neutral notice

An RfC about the format of a field in the "cite web" template has begun at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 9#Request for Comments: Italics or Non-Italics in "website" field. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Animal-free agriculture or Stock-free agriculture ?!

Stock-free agriculture have been changed to Animal-free agriculture, it is ok? ! --Jesus estw (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor update

James F. has started a discussion at WP:VPPR about offering VisualEditor to inexperienced editors. New accounts already have access to both VisualEditor and the wikitext editor now. This proposal would (for example) retroactively opt-in editors who were missed during the last couple of months (e.g., 75% of the editors who created an account during the week of the gradual deployment process when only 25% of new accounts were being opted in, etc.) and dead accounts.

This is partly driven by technical/WP:PERF issues. It appears that more than a million accounts will be opted into VisualEditor via Beta Features by the end of the year, and handling preferences for such a large number in Beta Features is a strain on the servers. The preference will therefore be moved out of Beta Features soon, and into the regular preferences system. The proposal is to use this preferences migration opportunity to make a one-time change to preferences for inexperienced editors, while preserving the existing preferences settings for active, experienced editors. If you have opinions on the best way to handle these accounts, or to define which accounts fall into which group, then please join the conversation. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

WebCite preserves sequence, not appearance

I used WebCite because the source I used, which was not independent but was all I could find, will likely change. In fact, even after I preserved it, the archived version changed as I looked at it. Twice. So what is preserved is not the image, but a set of three images. The third version of the web page appears after one clicks on the X in the upper right corner of the second version (which I preserved separately with its own URL). But only the first version, which disappears after a few seconds, documents what I added to KAHM.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I suppose if there is a question, it is how do you indicate this is the case, since someone might only see the second or third version? I know that it requires scrolling down and someone might not do that beofre the second version appears, after which scrolling down will only give you the third version. And yes, I'd like an independent source but I haven't located one.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

RFC needs additional comments from uninvolved parties

Please come to the RFC at Talk:Peter_Dinklage#RFC_on_the_inclusion_of_his_dwarfism_in_the_lead if it interests you to do so. --Jayron32 03:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for input on Combination tone article

Should the Combination tone article, which includes a section on Resultant tones include information about the use of resultant tones in heavy metal music power chords? For talk page discussion, see here.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 02:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose This suggestion serves no real purpose. The Combination tone article isn't genre related. It is independent of genres, not by accident. The article is about two notes and a resultant tone. The article is written in a way that it can be applied to All genres. It is not specific to heavy metal music. It should stay as is. It would not benefit the article. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 04:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I would have to agree with CombatMarshmallow on this... It is usually appropriate to mention (and link) generalized concepts within of an article on specific genres ... but it is usually not appropriate to mention the specific genres within the context of an article on a generalized concept (except perhaps as an example). So... we might mention Resultant tones in the Heavy metal music and Power chord articles... but I don't think it appropriate to do so the other way around. Blueboar (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Database Access (September 2015)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today!

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

  • EBSCOHost - this is one of our largest access donations so far: access to a wide variety of academic, newspaper and magazine sources through their Academic Search Complete, Business Source Complete and MasterFILE Complete
  • Newspaperarchive.com - historical newspapers from the United States, Canada, UK and 20 other countries, and includes an Open Access "clipping" feature (1000 accounts)
  • IMF Elibary- a digital collection of the IMF's reports, studies and research on global economics and development (50 accounts)
  • Sabinet - one of the largest African digital publishers, based in South Africa, with a wide range of content in English and other European and African languages (10 accounts)
  • Numérique Premium - a French language social science and humanities ebook database, with topical collections on a wide range of topics (100)
  • Al Manhal - an Arabic and English database with a wide range of sources, largely focused on or published in the Middle East (60 accounts)
  • Jamalon - an Arabic book distributor, who is providing targeted book delivery to volunteers (50 editors)

Many other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page, including expanded accounts for Elsevier ScienceDirect, British Medical Journal and Dynamed and additional accounts for Project MUSE, DeGruyter, Newspapers.com, Highbeam and HeinOnline. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 19:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

We need help! Help us coordinate Wikipedia Library's distribution of accounts, communication of access opportunities and more! Please join our team at our new coordinator signup.
This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.

5 millionth article celebration: community press release, video, open letter, and site banner

In collaboration with Cascadia Wikimedians User Group and with input from Victor Grigas (WMF) and Marti Johnson (WMF), I've nearly finished producing a video to celebrate the milestone of 5 million articles. I (or someone) will publish it on Commons as close as possible to the day when we reach 5 million articles.

I like the open letter that's currently at User:Mz7/sandbox/5 million articles and would encourage us to put it on the main page, and/or create a banner that links to that article. I'll add the video into that letter after the video is published to Commons.

Along the lines of a suggestion offered by Ed Erhart (WMF), I would like us to create a community written press release that can be published simultaneously on the milestone day by WMF and the English-speaking Wikimedia affiliate organizations.

I would invite users to propose suggestions for the press release here and/or in their userspace with links from this page.

I have drafted a very rough press release below and would encourage others to edit it.

***** ***** ***** ***** *****
EMBARGOED UNTIL ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA HAS 5 MILLION ARTICLES as shown on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics

English Wikipedia reaches milestone of 5 million articles
Wikipedia is the largest open text project and the largest encyclopedia in human history. Today, the community that creates, edits, shares, and protects English Wikipedia announces that the encyclopedia has reached the milestone of 5 million articles.

Wikipedia started in 2001 on a single computer as an offshoot of Nupedia. During the first month of its existence English Wikipedia grew from a single article to over 200, and to 18,000 articles in its first year. There are now Wikipedias in over 280 languages, with English being the largest.

Wikipedia is an open text encyclopedia that almost anyone can edit. Thousands of people around the world collaborate to write and improve Wikipedia. As of September 2015, there are approximately 26 million registered user accounts on English Wikipedia, and over 120,000 registered accounts that have edited in the last 30 days. People who are interested in learning more about Wikipedia or becoming Wikipedians are encouraged to register an account. A variety of help options like the Wikipedia Teahouse are available to assist new users, and users can also contact their local Wikimedia affiliate organization for assistance and to connect with other Wikipedians.

CONTACT INFORMATION: (contact information follows for WMF and Wikimedia affiliates in countries that have English as an official or primary language)

***** ***** ***** ***** *****

Please add any other suggestions, comments, or questions below about the press release or video. I will send invitations for users to discuss the press release and related communications, and put a note on Centralnotice. Please note the discussion happening already on this page in a separate section regarding a proposal to change the site logo to mark the 5 million milestone.

If someone could design and propose a site banner that we can link to the open letter, that would be great.

Regards, --Pine✉ 01:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the ball rolling Pine. By current growth estimates, we will cross that line in about a month and a half. Maybe that draft blurb needs to be put on a dedicated project page somewhere, so it can be copy-edited more peacefully, and this discussion needs to be pinned onto the Village pump until the big day. I'd like us to prepare a page where readers can post their feedback. i.e. make it a two way communication, not just a press release. It could be useful to have Flow enabled on that feedback page.  ;-) It would be interesting to see how that turns out. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, it would be interesting to have a special "WP:Did you know feature that is entirely facts about 'knowledge', or something else relevant. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I would strongly prefer that User:Spirit of Eagle/5million be used as the base letter since it already talks about the true potential of the project and directly encourages people to start contributing. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
      • I like the way the Eagle text addresses the matter of quality by reminding the readership that Wikipedia is a "work in progress" and emphasising that the community works continually to improve it. I think it is important to remind people of both these aspects, and also that editors are volunteers. I would like to see the word "volunteer" added before the word "editor" and include the term "work in progress". Whiteghost.ink (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree as well that Spirit of Eagle's version should be used. The one I threw together might put a little undue weight on negative aspects and, as Jakob described, it has a "there aren't many more brand new articles to create" feel to it. Eagle's version merges my draft and Jakob's draft, and I think it definitely looks preferable. Mz7 (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

If m:Www.wikipedia.org template doesn't say "5,000,000+ articles" by the time this press release goes out the door, please ping me or another Meta sysop to update the portal. We usually go by m:List of Wikipedias/Table, which is updated nightly by a bot, but five million is important enough a milestone to make an exception. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 08:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Personally, I think celebrating stuff like this sends the wrong message... it places quantity over quality. How many of those five million articles are uninformative stubs? Blueboar (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Note: if anyone is looking for some articles to write to boost us towards this number, I have recently created about 1,800 bare-bones drafts for missing United States state supreme court justices‎ at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/United States judges and justices‎. Fill them in and move them to mainspace. On a tertiary note, I just passed one million edits Wikimedia-wide, and will be figuring out an appropriate way to celebrate. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Sturgeon's law applies, except in Wikipedia's case it's more like 99.4%.* (*30,000 GA/FA articles vs. 5,000,000 total.) Praemonitus (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Pine, let the WMF Comms know if you need help with the template. Both quantity and quality matter -- more to celebrate! LilaTretikov (WMF) (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Less than one week left for Individual Engagement Grant proposals!

There is less than one week left to submit Individual Engagement Grant (IEG) proposals before the September 29th deadline. If you have ideas for new tools, community-building processes, and other experimental 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.

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Censorship of reliably-sourced content?

Collapsed per WP:CANVASS

There is currently discussion ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Pirate Bay proxies about a newly created article. More input is required as rationales listed for deletion do not apply. These are independently sourced and have been proven notable in their own right as per WP:WEBNOTE. Much of the discussion seems to be surrounding how "one can get this information in a simple google search" or "this may be illegal" – something that in previous discussion was shot down by WMF.
It seems much of the opposition amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and would be in violation of WP:CENSOR. More input would benefit discussion. CFCF 💌 📧 13:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Forum shopping? WP:CENSOR is a red herring here. The key issue is whether the list in question passes a) WP:NOTDIRECTORY and b) WP:Notability#Stand-alone lists. In both cases, I am have serious doubts that it does (but that can be discussed at the AfD itself). Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
WP:Notability#Stand-alone lists actually seems to strongly support the creation of the list. The existence of proxies of the site are undeniably notable. I understand that many people have strong feeling regarding the site, but that is irrelevant as to whether the article should exist or not. CFCF 💌 📧 14:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue about it here... if you wish to "save" the article from deletion, I would suggest that you go to the AFD and clearly demonstrate why the list is notable... post links to reliable sources that discuss (in reasonable depth) these proxies (as a set or group). Simply saying "but it's notable" over and over won't convince anyone that it is (ILIKEIT is just as invalid as IDON'TLIKEIT). If you think the list's topic is in fact notable... Demonstrate it at the AFD. Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Pencil icon

AT the top right of my edit pages there is a pencil icon. What is it for? Kdammers (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

It inserts two unspaced hyphens and four tildes, producing two unspaced hyphens followed by your user name. The unspaced hyphens are a headshaker. – Modal Jig (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
That pencil icon is not at the top right. I guess the question refers to the WikEd icon or . WikEd can be enabled or disabled at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. If it's enabled there then clicking the icon should switch between using or not using WikEd in the edit box. The difference is obvious so if nothing happens when it's clicked then WikEd is not working in the user's browser. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
You say the difference is obvious. Since I didn't see any change, I guess WikEd is not working for me. Is there some way to get it working short of changing browser?Kdammers (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
See User:Cacycle/wikEd#Bug reports. I have limited knowledge of it but let's try quickly here. What is your browser, operating system and skin? Do you see the colored or the grey ? Does it change between the two icons when you click it? Do you have WikEd enabled at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets? Try to disable it, clear your browser cache and enable it gain. Editing with WikEd should look like File:WikEd screenshot.png. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

What to do with "Jack Meakin (actor)" article?

Hello, I have seen the history of Jack Meakin (actor) article, and I don't understand what is going on. First, Accy192 created it, but he has been slowly removing its content, now it is smaller than a stub, but for example in this version the article is way bigger. It has been deleted before and also with the title Jack Meakin (Actor). I was not sure if just ask Accy192 about the article blanking, because maybe it needs to be reviewed by other users, and then reverting it to a better version or delete it. Thanks in advance for your help, I hope you please fix this issue, I am not a regular editor of English Wikipedia. --UAwiki (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that in the "larger version" you linked to, most of the content appears to be about a different person. It looks to me as though Accy pasted the content of another article into this one in order to use it as a template, then deleted the parts that weren't relevant. Nothing wrong with that in principle, though certainly it would've been better practice not to save the page until after deleting the irrelevant parts. (And if you follow the history of Jack Meakin, which was hijacked for a while to be about this actor, you'll see something similar going on there.) However, this doesn't account for all the deletions, and I can't guess what this poster had in mind with the other changes (or for that matter whether the actor is notable anyway). --174.88.134.156 (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Grant submission

Hi, here is a message to inform the Wikiversity community about my grant submission on Meta-Wiki. You are welcome to correct mistake, give opinion or endorse it. A nice end of the day for every one. Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Contact (French native speaker) 22:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

About the 2013 meat adulteration scandal

Hello.

You probably remember the 2013 meat adulteration scandal, revealed in France by Findus lasagnes. The brand had hired a French e-reputable agency to "clean the web" in order to appear as a victim of fraud, among other... on Wikipedia. An attempt that does not go unnoticed ! Mid-2014, I noticed what looks like a "branding polishing" (see here). The case is forgotten, until in a report broadcast on France 5, a consultant in e-reputation explains his methods, while the french page about this ( fr:Fraude à la viande de cheval de 2013 (https : //fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraude_à_la_viande_de_cheval_de_2013) is cited as an example in the television.

The french Wikipedia community has mobilized and, in response, has restored the relevant page in a version-neutral, highlighting the existence of a highly organized e-reputation network serving large companies. A group that does not respect the new rules on the reporting of paid contributions. Mobilizing Wikipedians made the page about this fraud is now very complete, that is to say almost ready to spend on the home page of Wikipedia in French (our BA label), or it should be visible about 2 million people. Quite a setback for Findus! --Tsaag Valren (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Good for the French Wikipedia! Bon travail! ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Can you tell if brand polishing has happened on English Wikipedia for this topic? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Location maps

Leavesden
Leavesden is located in Hertfordshire
Leavesden
Leavesden
Location within Hertfordshire
Shire county
Region
CountryEngland
Sovereign stateUnited Kingdom
PoliceHertfordshire
FireHertfordshire
AmbulanceEast of England
List of places
UK
England
Hertfordshire
51°41′48″N 0°23′57″W / 51.6967°N 0.3991°W / 51.6967; -0.3991

Many articles about places are accompanied by a location map like the one seen at right here, which is generated automagically from this Infobox code: 

    {{Infobox UK place
    |country = England
    |latitude= 51.6967
    |longitude= -0.3991
    |official_name= Leavesden
    |shire_county = [[Hertfordshire]]
    |region= East of England}}

The map looks superficially like a normal image, but there is one significant difference: if you click on it, instead of being taken to a page where you can select a larger size of the image, you are taken to a page for the base map (in this case, of Hertfordshire) without the annotation showing the place name (Leavesden). This is kind of useless if the reason why you clicked on it was to see it in a larger size, to help you identify where in Hertfordshire Leavesden is.

Can this be improved? --174.88.134.156 (talk) 06:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I think mw:Wikimedia Discovery#Maps has such plans. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Broken English

I often see articles that are written or edited by a user of English as a foreign language, with a feeble grasp on English grammar, spelling, etc. My questions: (1) Isn't it desirable to discourage this sort of thing (or is such an article considered better than no article, and therefore not a problem)? (2) Is there a policy in place to discourage writing in broken English, or at least advising such editors to get help with English before uploading (or does the remedy just consist of hoping a later, English-speaking editor will fix it up)? Sometimes the writing is so garbled I can't extract a meaning to fix up, even when I know the writer's native language. Kotabatubara (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes the poor English part can just be removed. Sometimes fixed relatively easily. If not, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion has categories for articles too bad to be fixed. Rmhermen (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there's a policy that touches on this subject, but see the essay WP:Competence is required (generally endorsed by the community, I believe), which does suggest that editors with a poor understanding of English should be encouraged to edit their native-language 'pedia instead. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
If the English is so bad that it is literally incomprehensible, then there is {{db-g1}}. If it is just a question of a few spelling and grammar mistakes, then you are encouraged to fix or tag it. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 12:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Reimagining WMF grants report

Last month, we asked for community feedback on a proposal to change the structure of WMF grant programs. Thanks to the 200+ people who participated! A report on what we learned and changed based on this consultation is now available.

Come read about the findings and next steps as WMF’s Community Resources team begins to implement changes based on your feedback. Your questions and comments are welcome on the outcomes discussion page.

Take care, I JethroBT (WMF) 17:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Bot operator approval list?

How does one find out if an editor is running an approved bot or has permission to run a bot? I ask because the edits of Srednuas Lenoroc (talk · contribs) seem to be suspiciously bot-like, but I can't tell if this is authorized or not.

Note: I've already asked this at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval, but I'm not sure who reads that page. --Calton | Talk 09:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Calton: FWIW, "Srednuas Lenoroc" spelled backwards is "Coronel Saunders", an obvious distortion of "Colonel Sanders". ("Coronel" reflects the pronunciation and origin of "colonel".) --Thnidu (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Replies are on the WT:BRFA page. — Earwig talk 15:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Weird irrelevant (?) text on Category page

Category:Old requests for peer review has this text after the page description:

1. We will have Control over all systems/data.
2. Corporate data is stored/handled internally.
3. We can achieve scalability which involves lower costs.
4. On-premise Feedcop planning keeps our yammer data close to the source. We do not need to worry about data leaks, security threats, and other data security problems.
5. With on premise systems, the control is in our hands. If we have sensitive business data, on premise might make the most sense.
6. Security concerns are one area where on premise systems offer more protection than cloud-based systems
 
 
confidential, do not distribute, internal, proprietary, source code, infosys, internal use only, restricted
Infosys Source Code

Like, what the HECK? I'm deleting it and leaving a note on the Talk page, which was last modified on 11 March 2013, at 15:21 and is currently "a perfect and absolute blank". --Thnidu (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It's just some spam. I reverted it. — Earwig talk 15:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Making it easier to check out current RfC's

This may or may not be in the correct Village Pump category, but for what it's worth.........
I like to regularly read a list of all current RfC's. Because the RfC list (WP:RFC/A) lists the RfC's by category and many RfC's are listed in multiple categories, this means I have to look at the same RfC's over and over again to make sure I've seen them all. Would it be possible to maintain a separate list of RfC's not broken down by category, where each RfC is listed once and only once?
Richard27182 (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a user caller RFC Watcher, their talk page User talk:RFC watcher (together with archives) should contain every RFC, however User:Legobot Legoktm@ seems to give up delivering the messages sometimes (and maybe also limit them to 1 per day) - the last note was on 9 August.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC).

Move userpages without redirect

As proposed here, this bot is know available, you can test him here, so please test it. Greetings, Luke081515 19:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Page view statistic frequency

I noticed an odd phenomenon that I can't seem to easily google. If you go to the page view statistic for say, Aspirin and look at the periodicity, you note that the peak viewing is mid week and the lowest viewing is at the weekend. This seems to be the same for most articles that I have looked at (apart from peaks caused if the subject was in the news). Is this phenomenon understood? I can only assume people have better things to do at the weekend, and only read wikipedia while at work? Which seems to imply that reading from the ubiquitous smart phone is not dominant.

KreyszigB (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Schools in anglophone countries are not generally in session on the weekends. --Jayron32 06:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't blame it on schools. 90 days (i.e. including mid-year holidays in anglophone countries). I suspect several hundred million people are tied to their desks weekdays, and "at home" in the evenings. Not only is WP more available, but the chance of wanting to look something up (even on a mobile) is more likely in those environments. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC).
@KreyszigB: Those statistics only count desktop hits, not hits from mobile devices, so I wouldn't draw a conclusion about smartphones from those data. Disagreeing with Rich here, my experience is if you look up a subject that people study at school or university (Aspirin is an example) there is this weekly periodicity, but for more recreational topics (like a pop music album) the stats have a different pattern. An additional test that a pattern is due to education institutions is to look for dips in the summer and spring: there should be more readers in October than in August, for example. However, my experience is very partial and it would be nice to see more systematic data. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd agree with that, & I look at these a lot. The term/holiday variation is complicated by different term times around the world, & for types of school & college. Logarithm has one of the neatest 7-day cycles, which persists though August, but at a lower level. There is no doubt an element of work/home too. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Had to share..

This is the village pump and is the place we hang out and discuss...well, stuff. This is what my instructor wrote on a recent microbiology assignment:

This was a comment in the instructions for a homework assignment by my college microbiology instructor-I didn't do what he said since I edit some of these articles myself and so know that they are reliable! 9/2015
This was a comment in the instructions for a homework assignment by my college microbiology instructor-I didn't do what he said since I edit some of these articles myself and so know that they are reliable! 9/2015
Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
While it is true that Wikipedia is not usually acceptable as a source in academic writing, there is no earthly reason why one cannot use Wikipedia as a starting point. There are many academic-quality sources in the references and external links sections at the bottom of many articles. As far as I know, most academics don't object to this use of Wikipedia (and some encourage it), but you should ask your instructor if he permits it. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
What Jakob said is true; actually academics usually frown on using any encyclopedia as a source. Even we discourage citing other encyclopedias. But, unless your instructor would prefer you to start at a library, it would be perfectly valid to research here, follow our sources and cite them yourself. You might even find info that needs correcting. Keep in mind that your classmates might have the same idea and end up with the same sources. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Away until mid-October.

I will be away until mid-October. Please try to have this project completed by the time I return. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Wikipedia was complete just prior to your edit. You messed it up, so you cannot leave. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I request an WP:RFC to determine whether or not this action goes along with community consensus. Shouldn't take more than two weeks. If consensus goes your way, by all means you may leave until mid-October.--WaltCip (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, you must surrender your Tireless Contributor Barnstar for obvious reasons. ;-) --WaltCip (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Deadlines are useful, and Wikipedia finally has one. --Golbez (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Every time we get close, something notable happens! ―Mandruss ☎ 01:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Logo question

Yes, we will. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Is Wikipedia going to temporarily have a celebratory version of its logo on the day/week that the 5 millionth article is created? Personally, I think it's a good idea. Lets casual readers realize concretely the true size of this project. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

That's traditional in Wikimedia projects, I believe. I'd go for it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Definitely a major milestone worth at least some form of recognition. I don't see how a temporary celebratory logo could be intrusive. We could even have a Central Notice banner linking to some form of open letter from the community saying thanks to all the contributions and encouraging casual readers to join the project. (Just a thought.) Mz7 (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I guess you were thinking of something like this for the open letter? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 18:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Exactly! I wasn't even aware that existed. Mz7 (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
        • I've started a very rough draft of what I initially envisioned with regards to the open letter: see User:Mz7/sandbox/5 million articles. It celebrates 5 million articles, but it does so by recognizing that we still have a lot of work to do, and it encourages new contributors to join us. Obviously, it needs to be edited and perhaps expanded with more information such as the importance of reliable sourcing. Mz7 (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
          • @Mz7: Nice draft! I suggest you make a small change from "Each page on Wikipedia has a discussion page dedicated to discussing improvements" to "Each page on Wikipedia has a talk page dedicated to discussing improvements" (since the tab on each page says "Talk"). Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
            • @GoingBatty and Jakec: Thanks for your suggestions! GoingBatty, I've  implemented the change you suggested. Keep in mind, the draft I made was a very early thing that I threw together in about 10-15 minutes. Feel free to be bold and edit it directly if you think there should be changes. Jakob wrote an alternative in his sandbox, User:Jakec/sandbox, that I think could be merged with what I wrote (looks good too though—the general message we want to send is that while 5 million articles is a milestone, there is still a lot of work that needs to be done, and we need all the help we can get). Mz7 (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I see no policy based reason to oppose, and don't believe that a temporary five-million logo would be any more intrusive than the normal logo. Hitting five-million articles is a major accomplishment that should be celebrated. I also like the idea of having an open letter, since it could potentially drum up contributions. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Consideration could also be given towards a guideline for displaying Google Doodle type banners for future special Wikipedia occasions. Dl2000 (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Both the 5 million mark and google-doodle style logos have my support, especially the latter. Sam Walton (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Five million articles would be fantastic and a logo to mark the occasion would be even better. I say have it up for a week—one day is too easily missed. Altamel (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Also support having it up for more than one day. Five days seems good to me, one day for each million. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose beyond the fact this suggestion serves no real purpose, it perpetuates the false idea that the encyclopedia benefits from having large numbers of mostly-crap articles. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
    • @Chris troutman: It's still a milestone that a lot of people and press will jump on. We can use this as an opportunity to educate people about the strengths and weaknesses of the site. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Depends on what the logo would look like. As a way of showing the scale of the project, I quite like the following image. Andrew D. (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
3452 volumes
18 stacks
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                     
                                       
                                       
  • Oppose per Chris Troutman. BethNaught (talk) 10:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support 'tis a problem, the level of stubs, but a major milestone nevertheless. We can't ignore such a milestone. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 17:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Chris Troutman. Moreover, Far too much time and effort here is spent patting ourselves on the back, and celebrating our lack of quality control is particularly inappropriate. And, in keeping with an important element of the basic philosophy, we shouldn't do things like this unless independent, reliable sources report this as a significant milestone or achievement. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I would just like to note that we changed the official logo in 2011 to celebrate the 10th anniversary of Wikipedia's creation, so there is in fact precedence for doing this. Also, our notability policy only applies to articles, not the temporary design of our logo. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. This is normal, both for the English Wikipedia and for other Wikipedias. It's not often done by other WMF projects, as far as I can tell, but it's routine for Wikipedias. See Commons:Category:Wikipedia commemorative logos for various examples of such logos; there are 333 different images in the category, and many of the images in the subcategories of Commons:Category:Wikipedia logo variants by language are logos that belong in the commemorative category but aren't included there. Nyttend (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I was originally ambivalent, but the tenor of the sourpuss opposes now leads me to support. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too much a focus on quantity instead of quality - take away the crap articles and you have way fewer than 5 million. I would support a similar idea for featured articles and featured articles only. Sure, other Wikipedias have a celebratory logo, but it's a greater milestone due to their relative size. Esquivalience t 23:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
My only response is Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress. Indeed, a great deal of our articles really aren't that good. But the idea is that they are starting points for future development (and those articles without the potential to be developed go through the deletion process). That we are approaching 5 million articles about notable subjects is to me an indicator of progress. Yes, quality should be a concern, but we shouldn't lose focus on the fact that we're not done yet, and we are actively making the encyclopedia better every day. (If that weren't true, either the project would have died a long time ago or the project is currently on an inevitable course to failure—the fact that we all still choose to volunteer our time here should mean something.) Mz7 (talk) 02:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Quick note building on my previous support — having checked all Wikipedias with more than ten thousand articles, I've discovered that seven of them are currently using celebratory logos instead of a normal puzzle globe. See the Swedish, Bulgarian, Chechen, Belarusian, Bashkir, Aragonese, and Asturian logos. Nyttend (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support As other wikipedias do it so I think the English Wikipedia should as well A8v (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I'm going to agree with Esquivalience. A more telling metric is the total number of articles that have at least a good article rating. That total recently passed 30,000; why was there no celebration of that quality quotient? Praemonitus (talk) 04:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with Chris Troutman and Esquivalience -- we need to emphasise the improvement of existing articles as opposed to the creation of new ones. We are well into the regime of diminishing returns when it comes to creating new articles about actually encyclopedic subjects (as opposed to the exponentially increasing quantity of advertisements, paid advocacy, vanity and other crap). MER-C 06:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - this is a major milestone and advertising the milestone with a custom logo would provide Wikipedia with free advertising from third-party coverage. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 09:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Very little worth celebrating, per Troutman. Brustopher (talk) 09:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It will give the media something to jump on and enjoy. Everyone here is looking at this from the perspective of a Wikipedian, with an insiders view to how many stub articles there are, quality etc - but the public won't know about this one bit. Let's give the site a nice promotion. ~ NottNott let's talk! contrib 15:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Naw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.108.128.3 (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I voted support, but I understand that there are some serious concerns about article quality and respect where the opposes are coming from. I think that a bit of a compromise can be reached on this issue. I strongly believe that reaching five million articles should be celebrated, but we should use the celebration to bring attention to the problem of quality, urge the betterment of already existing articles and provide brief guidelines on how to do this. If we just pretend that nothing significant has happened when we reach five million articles, then the status quo of poorly written stubs will continue. However, using this compromise approach may successfully shift focus towards quality (if only slightly). Also, I think that per Praemonitus we should also have celebrations when we reach a milestone number of good or featured articles, although this is a subject for another village pump post.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
This is actually sort of what I was aiming for when I talked about an open letter from the community in my initial support. I've started an incomplete draft of what I envisioned here: User:Mz7/sandbox/5 million articles. Mz7 (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I like the draft letter you've prepared. I think it strikes a good balance between celebrating five million articles and emphasizing the need to expand our numerous stubs. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - 5 million articles is definitely a big thing to celebrate. Of course, the article should focus on the quality of articles as well. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I could see a special logo for commemoration on our 5 millionth article, but before supporting I'd want to look at the proposed designs. I'm in favor of something unique, but tasteful; if all we get our eyesores then I would refrain from moving forward with this. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
    @TomStar81: What about something like this or this (obviously translated into English and 100,000 changed to 5,000,000). --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 04:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I like the Bulgarian one; it's less obtrusive. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Then I'm in. Those are tasteful and would be a good way to commemorate the occasion. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a major milestone, and something worth celebrating. APerson (talk!) 22:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support As long as it's the WP logo engraved with the regimental crest of two crossed dead Frenchmen, emblazoned on a mound of dead Frenchmen motif. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and I also like the open letter drafted by Mz7. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support because you only hit 5M article once. Unless of course something gets deleted and we drop below 5,000,001. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support As others have mentioned above, we can use this to promote improving existing articles by advertising that we now have plenty of stubs. KSFTC 00:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Positive publicity is priceless. Asgardiator Iä! Iä! 04:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Definitely a milestone having that many articles regardless of whether they are complete or not. Tortle (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I actually came to Oppose but fuck it unless the entire site gets nuked than we're never gonna hit 5 million again so why not, Sure some of the articles here are beyond shite but meh as I said we're not gonna hit 5 million again so may aswell celebrate it in some way... –Davey2010Talk 23:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I feel many of the curmudgeons which roam around here would be happier without this "other people" thing they have to deal with on the project and often go out of our way to quash anything approaching human emotion ("I laughed once, didn't care for it") so celebrating a milestone they don't respect is obviously too much and probably would find a way to blame the WMF for it. We celebrate to show our readers and the world what we've done and the size of the project, we could celebrate say 75K GA or better articles but then that's just for the select few editors with several GAs and FAs under their belt to tell themselves "good job, us", we'd still be seen as untrustworthy when it comes to facts. Yes, it's a lot of stubs and junk but as everyone has been told at least once for pointing to the elephant squeezed under the ottoman, "so fix it", five million remains five million and we don't have a final date for completion. tutterMouse (talk) 10:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Other Wikipedias have done it without controversy. Why shouldn't we do it also? OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: We can always use new blood. Publicity is a good way to get new blood. A milestone that the media can stick into a one-paragraph bulletpoint is a good way to get publicity. If you're POed at bad stub articles, do something about it. Ravenswing 15:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Yes, I'm being curmudgeonly, but I agree with the views of Chris Troutman and MER-C on this point. Neutralitytalk 23:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support definitely worth celebrating and promoting. The fact that most of the five million articles are not perfectly written and at GA/FA level or some other arbitrary standard is irrelevant. This celebration will be a time to reflect on the good and bad of English Wikipedia over the past 14 years and a time to think about what can be done to improve the encyclopedia further in the future. We will always be a work in progress even hundred years from now. Closing the door serves no purpose. Gizza (t)(c) 07:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice idea for some positivity. — Cirt (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – With a lot of the negatives surrounding Wikipedia garnering headlines lately, this is a nice idea to remind people that we have accomplished a lot in a relatively short amount of time, even though we still have more to do. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: "x thousand featured articles on Wikipedia" means nothing of interest to the average Wikipedia reader. "5 million articles on Wikipedia" means something. Yes, it's just an arbitrary number that simply happens to be a neat multiple of the denary number system we use—we might as well use 8,388,608 as an important milestone—but it's something people will find interesting and a good point to both look back at the work we've done and look forward at where we can go next. User:Spirit of Eagle/5million would be a nice place for the logo to lead to when clicked, and it certainly emphasises that work is nowhere near done and that a lot of the current articles have major problems. As others have said, there is tons of precedence for this and it will be a major milestone for Wikipedia in general as well as just us English people (no other language edition has this many articles). My only concern is that I seem to be !voting for the vague idea of using a logo rather than an actual logo or concrete plan. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 22:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Even though many articles aren't worthy of inclusion, I think it's something to be proud of. Robvanvee 08:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Sovereign Sentinel. This is a major milestone and will attract a lot of new readers to Wikipedia. 59.93.229.82 (talk) 12:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. We should be proud of reaching this milestone, and make the most of the publicity it will generate. AGK [•] 20:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
How feasible would my 'number systems variant of the WP globe' with 5 million in several systems be? (The main advantage is that it can be readily adapted for successive significant numbers). Jackiespeel (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC) (accidentally omitted signing my remark)
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.

A redirect I want to turn into a disambiguation page

I would like to turn the redirect Mohammed Ali Shah into a disambiguation page that goes to both Mohammad Ali Shah Qajar and Muhammad Ali Shah. I am not sure why it redirects to Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay; the closest name there appears to be Ali Shah Mousavi (and Talk:Mohammed Ali Shah redirects to Ali Shah Mousavi). Given the history associated with [[Mohammed Ali Shah]] and [[Talk:Mohammed Ali Shah]], is there some sort of appropriate bureaucracy that should be done before someone (probably me) turns [[Mohammed Ali Shah]] into the disambiguation page I initially described? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done @Biosthmors: there is no bureaucracy to answer to on that one. I just created the dab for you. Edit it was you wish. — Maile (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Maile66! Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 00:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

NYT and subscription=y

I subscribe to New York Times online, so I don't think about their paywall when I edit. Conversely, I hit WSJ's paywall often, so I usually code |subsrciption=y in CS1 citations for WSJ. Do editors who don't subscribe to NYT run up against their paywall a lot, and should NYT cites include |subscription=y? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't encountered this problem, and I recall seeing something about their paywall not breaking links from external sites (back when their paywall was a new idea—things may have changed since then). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

New Page Patrol - backlog

There is now a serious backlog patrolling new pages. This is approaching the 2012 levels. Help is required, but please from genuinely experienced editors only. See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps that's why there is a backlog, not enough experienced editors. Is there no way to "coach" some potentially interested editors, like myself? Robvanvee 05:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Rob I believe he meant experienced editors, not experienced patrollers. The project page suggests people have a minimum of 500 mainspace edits & minimum 90 days registered. (You're slightly qualify, grin.) With your experience I'm sure you'll find nearly all of the instructions on the project page to be blindingly obvious. I've barely touched NewPagePatrol myself, but in a nutshell I'd say simply follow policy: Don't bite, Speedy if appropriate, AFD if non-viable, fix or tag problems, approve if good, skip if unsure. The WMF built an easy-click tool to automagically handle each option. Check the Patrol-tool video for quick confidence in how it works.
Oh, and be sure to start from the OLD end of the list. I had a patroller start from newest-created-page, and he quick-tagged my half-built article in between my edits. Doh. Alsee (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Cool Alsee, let me be bold and see if I can assist. I'm getting a little bored with recent change patrolling anyway...Robvanvee 06:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Just found an article not patrolled from 2003. We have a backlog ladies and gentlemen LorTalk 00:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
2003 most likely means it was recently briefly turned down into a redirect. Our regular backlog starts from August 2015, but it is still very big.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Remember that the #1 purpose is to get CSD-able stuff sent to CSD. If an article doesn't require deletion, then please mark it as patrolled. Patrolled == doesn't require immediate deletion. Everything else is optional. You don't have to edit, tag, etc. unless you feel like it (and please don't tag it if you're looking at a very new article. Alsee probably recovered from that unfortunate edit conflict, but less experienced editors often can't.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry to disagree, but this is not what WP:NPP says. It says New pages patrol is a process by which newly created articles are checked for obvious problems. If a new article is not a CSD material, it still might have (and many do have) obvious problems such as absence of categories or sources or whatever. If they are mark as patrolled but do not get repaired (best option) or taggen (next best option), it means they likely remain with these problems for years.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Tagging the problems doesn't solve the problems, either; if it did, then we wouldn't still have dated maintenance tags from 2007. So the practical question is: if you have just determined that an imperfect page does not qualify for deletion, should you (a) mark it as patrolled, so that nobody will repeat the work you just did, or (b) leave it in the list, so that we waste the scarce resource of patroller's time on doing what you just did?
WP:NPP is clear that Option A is acceptable. If you want to spam an article with tags, then you can do that—so long as you do it in a collegial manner, which includes things like not creating edit conflicts for articles that were last edited 10 seconds ago. I'd particularly avoid tagging with {{uncategorized}} in that situation, because there is no chance of the uncatted page being lost to follow up. Special:UncategorizedPages collects all such pages automatically. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
If this is a personal question to me, I always resolve all the problems before marking the page as patrolled. I very rarely tag anything, and only old articles which have some problems I can not fix immediately.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Single-file index of all articles on Wikipedia

Hi and apologies if I have placed my request on the wrong page.

I'm a long time editor and fan of Wikipedia. I want to use an index of all articles on Wikipedia as a library of search terms to run against a large database of documents I have.

I am aware that an index of all pages on Wikipedia does exist at Special:AllPages, but I calculated there have to be around 7,000 pages in that index and the data still need to be parsed and sorted.

Does a single file index of all articles in Wikipedia exist? It would be large, close 5 million entries, but a text file could handle that.

If one doesn't exit, does anyone with technical know how already know how to parse the wikipedia "All Pages" index using a program such as curL?

Thanks in advance. Regards. David Straub (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@David Straub: You probably want to visit the database dumps. This file is what you may be looking for, though that includes redirects. If you want to remove redirects, I guess you could download this file (all redirects), and then write a program to remove from the titles list anything that also appears in the list of redirects. Hope this is helpful. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 15:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I appreciate it. I'll check out those files. David Straub (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Added step with move

I don't know where to ask about doing this, but today I thought I had deleted my user name when moving a userspace draft to mainspace. I discovered I hadn't, though the reason may have been the computer getting slowed down with some ad-related problem. On that computer lately, I will think I've turned something blue to replace it or copy and paste it or delete it when it didn't happen. But people get so confused with all those options on the left that it might be a good idea to show the new name and ask if this is what you really want.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


Actual logos

 – Mz7 (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_50&oldid=1089643621"