Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 49

Village pump
- Policy
- Technical
- Proposals (persistent)
- Idea lab
- WMF
- Miscellaneous

Village pump (miscellaneous) archive

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78

Category membership watchlist beta testing

There is a new tool on labs that allows watching category membership changes (pages added/removed) to user specified categories. It can also monitor template addition/removal. Here is a sample watchlist. There is also a recent changes list that displays recent categorization changes. Feedback can be left on the bots talk page. --Bamyers99 (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Esperento / Ido

Where is the apropriate place for this suggestion?... Does it belong somewhere on the WikiMedia site? Or on the Esperento or Ido wikipedias? "As as esperento and ido are closly similar contributions to one wikipedia should be added to the other wikipedia as well thru machine translation " --Thank You Naytz (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Or perhaps at village pump(technical) ? Naytz (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I would say you would need to discuss on the two wikipedia's involved to see if it is something they want to do. It does not involve the English wikipedia so would not be something to discuss on this wikipedia. Davewild (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Naytz: It's certainly not an English Wikipedia matter; I suspect that it's something to bring up at meta: you could try the talk page of the Language committee on Meta. See also m:Proposals for closing projects. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

You might talk to User:Amire80, who can probably tell you about the pros and cons of this idea. (Short answer: it definitely depends on the quality of the available machine translations.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Whatamidoing :)

Esperanto and Ido are indeed similar, and a machine translation engine for them can be made relatively easily. As all machine translation, humans will have to check the quality of the text, but the initial output should be very good. Apertium is a good Free package for building machine translation between similar languages. It already has some support for Esperanto, but not Ido. Someone actually has to invest time in building the language pair files for Esperanto-Ido translation. If that is done, it will be easy to integrate it with ContentTranslation. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Listing of articles in categories

Hi all - sorry if this has been mentioned before (I couldn't see it on a quick scan through the archives). Categories seem to have become weird, annoying, and difficult to use for me recently. Whereas up until a week or so ago, a category with over 200 articles would list the first 200 on its first category page divided neatly into three columns of 65-70, they now seem to be broken into columns dependant upon their first letter/number. Which means that for big categories, often you'll get two columns, one of, say, 170 As and one of the first 30 Bs, or just one long column. Small categories seem to be equally haphazard. Is there any preferences and/or java changes I can make to restore the previous method (if it's a glitch with me alone, FWIW I use Google Chrome 41.0.2272.104 and use the monobook skin) Grutness...wha? 00:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it every category, or just some? I know there were some changes, but I thought they were just about the formatting of the columns. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Grutness: This is Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 135#Have categories been messed with?. The display is optimised when page names are evenly-distributed through the alphabet, but that's rarely the case. It's best to provide examples.

@Whatamidoing (WMF): For a single-page example, try Category:Heart of Wales Line where the high proportion of railway stations beginning "Llan" (this is Wales, remember) forces all the Ls into the last column, causing the centre column to end after just four entries - 12.5% of the category, instead of after 10 or 11 entries, for 33.3% of the cat. For a multi-page but moderate example, try Category:Former London and North Western Railway stations which has A and B in the first column, D, E and F in the second, G and part of H in the third - notice the large gap below the last of the Hs. For a more extreme example, have a look at Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates; this is a maintenance cat which I work through alphabetically every few months; when I came to it about a week ago, there were some 1200 pages in the cat. I've been working at it at about one or two letters per day, and last night I did the I's and J's, and it got down to about 550 - but after 10 hours it's now up to 628 again. It fills up pretty quickly (because inexperienced users simply do not understand that adding {{pp-move-indef}} or {{pp-pc1}} is only appropriate for pages which already have with an indefinite move protection or level 1 pending changes) and is a never-ending task, but for the moment it demonstrates the problem very well, since letters up to J have few pages compared to later letters. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF): - here are a few good examples of the problem: Category:Main Belt asteroid stubs, Category:Living people, Category:Chatham Cup, Category:Years, Category:English writers Category:United States Navy ship names... and basically any other category with over a couple of hundred articles or with unevenly distributed article names. Which is a LOT of categories. With smaller categories the effect is often disguised because there will only be a handful of articles beginning with each letter or number - but with big categories it's a nightmare. Grutness...wha? 10:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. That is pretty awkward. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Statistics about my deletions

I wonder if it is possible to get statistics for how many article I prodded, or nominated for AfD, and how many of those were successful? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Your AFD stats ostensibly show you making 294 nominations and 119 resulting in deletions. However, the table has counted you as !voting keep in some, for example Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Helga_Guitton, where you do not seem to have actually changed your !vote although you acknowledged the work done to save the article. Thincat (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Thincat: Thanks. Is there any tool analyzing proposed deletions? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Piotrus, I don't know of any tool for PROD statistics. But your last 100 deleted edits go back to 2 February, and your edit summaries include the word 'prod' for 44 of them. For unsuccessful prods you can survey your own contribution list for the word 'prod'. At least one user has been keeping a table of the results of his own proposed deletions. See User:Blanchardb/Prod statistics. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Doesn't one have to be an admin to view (any)one's deleted edits and their edit summaries? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Both PROD and CSD have the problem that non-admins can't see the deleted articles. But notice Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#PROD (proposed deletion) for another way of tracking prods. It allows you to create a userspace log of your prods. EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Why on earth would you want that? Wikipedia Isn't a race for the most deletions! Magnus bjerg (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

4 year old hoax reverted

I just reverted a hoax that was inserted in November 2010 and had gone undetected for 4 years. Amazingly, it survived the scrutiny of such venerable editors as Roger Davies, Missvain, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, Waacstats, and Lockley. Also, I'm amazed that Adrienne Monnier's article is so tiny. Kaldari (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Not surprising. That page has 9 watchers, and averages about 15 views per day. Vandalism gets through, and sometimes people miss it. No one is to blame, and no one is to be made to feel bad for that. We fix it, we move on, and we don't hold other good-faith editors to blame for missing it. This isn't a game, you don't win because you made others feel bad about themselves (or tried to. Not sure you succeeded in much except revealing your own pettiness). Just revert, move on, and forget about it. It's what the cool kids are all doing. --Jayron 32 01:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jayron32: In case you misread what I wrote, I actually complimented the editors that I listed. I called them venerable, which means worthy of veneration. Some of those editors are my personal friends and I certainly had no intention of making them feel bad. I was just surprised that no one had caught it before me. The post was meant in good humor, and if anyone felt like it was a criticism I sincerely apologize. Could you please retract your personal attacks against me? Kaldari (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Kaldari, thanks for finding and fixing that problem. Thanks for calling us venerable. I'm putting that on my CV right away. Here's wishing that you and Jayron32 can both, in good humor, let any misunderstanding slide. I say this with mellow voice from my rocking chair through my long white mustache. Cause I'm freakin' venerable and no one can stop me now. --Lockley (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

We need a "venerable" badge to put on our front porches (User pages). Maybe something with a rocking chair in it. Where can I suggest such a talisman? Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards seems like a good place. I'm a terrible graphic artist, but someone should be able to knock one out pretty easily, if they know what they are doing. --Jayron 32 16:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Only 4 years? - X201 (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure which is worse: finding a 4-year-old hoax like that, or writing an article then returning to it 4+ years later to find a glaring typo no one bothered fixing. (The former implies our information is not accurate; the latter that, for the most part, no one is really reading it.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Emoji on Wikipedia.

Hi!
I made a template to insert emoji on discussion pages! You can find it at: {{emoji}}.
They supplement the already available emoticons with a larger set of symbols. There are options for size and for different visual themes (available from Commons); you can see them on the documentation page at Template:Emoji. There’s also a palette of available emojis there.
Have a nice day!
~ Nclm (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

See {{smiley}}. -- Gadget850^talk 12:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I knew about {{smiley}}. Emoji is simply a Unicode standardised set of emoticons. They form a larger ensemble, and are in a more consistent style, than other emoticons templates are. We’ve got three free licensed entire themes of emoji on Commons, so I think it’s an interesting alternative. Nclm (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Nclm: Did you know that most licenses, including the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license used on File:Emojione 1F60A.svg, require a link to the image page to satisfy the attribution requirement? Anomie ⚔ 20:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you’re right! I’m quite ashamed not to have thought about this.

Thanks for editing the template and putting things right! Nclm (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Using USGS Quads?

I want to use an excerpt from the USGS Flushing NY Quad to illustrate an article. Since the USGS is part of the US Government, I assumed that anything they do is published without copyright, but I'm unable to find a place to download the quads from that looks like a government site. The best I found was https://www.topoquest.com/map-detail.php?usgs_cell_id=15664, which is a commercial site that looks like it re-publishes the government charts. Does anybody know where I can find a free image of the USGS topo charts? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. I found Libre Map. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Ten years of Wikipedia:Wiki-Hell coming up.

As we are less than one month away from the ten-year anniversary of the creation of the Wikipedia:Wiki-Hell essay, I propose that we celebrate by making it policy. I may be four days late in asking for this. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Synonyms Available in Wikipedia

[copied post removed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanus444 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

This was also posted to Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Synonyms Available in Wikipedia. Please only start a discussion in one place. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Manikin

Is the image here called a Manikin? In the article only the life-size version is mentioned. I'm asking to make correct interwiki links to the Dutch article Ledenpop, the German article Gliederpuppe. Thanks Ellywa (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I would think Manikin should be merged with Mannequin. They're really just two spellings of the same word. See, for example, [1], where the two spellings are used interchangeably. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

You are right. Who is going to do it?--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

How strange, in Dutch we have different names for the items in a shop or on a table of an artist. So a correct interwiki will not be possible then. Ellywa (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Sixty Minutes does a piece on Wikipedia

60 Minutes is a high-profile news program here in the US. link I was hoping someone had seen or heard the piece & had started a conversation here about their response to this. (And yes, Gregory Kohs already submitted his opinion in the comments to that article.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a fair amount of discussion here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Wiki_Wiki_Buses. --Mrjulesd (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Automatic citation formatting is on its way

Citoid, the automagic citation filling tool, is on its way at last. It's been up at the French and Italian Wikipedias for a while, with positive feedback overall. The time isn't firmly settled, but Wednesday evening UTC is most likely. This has been one of the most-requested features from experienced editors.

Citoid depends upon good TemplateData. Wikipedia:TemplateData/Tutorial explains how to write the basics by hand, but the TemplateData GUI tool is usually faster and easier. It also depends upon external services like Zotero. If your favorite website isn't working, it probably needs a new Zotero entry. The design is less than ideal. There is a book-with-bookmark button for Citoid, next to a now-unlabeled "Cite" menu for filling in citations the old way.

If you have suggestions on how to improve the design, then please leave your comments where the designers are most likely to see them, at mw:Talk:VisualEditor/Design/Reference Dialog. If you have any other suggestions or run into problems, then please leave feedback at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. If you would like to see Citoid at another wiki, then you may make that request in Phabricator: by creating a new task under the "Citoid" project. Most requests will probably not be granted for the next couple of weeks, but evidence that TemplateData is current on your main citation templates will likely improve your chances.

Here at the English Wikipedia, you will need to opt-in to VisualEditor via Beta Features to see Citoid. Pre-deployment testing can be done here on Beta Labs. (Before you ask: yes, after getting all the bumps smoothed out, the plan is to make it available in the wikitext editor as well. However, that will likely not be for some months yet.)

Happy editing, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: This is being delayed for a few days. Monday (late) is the most likely time now. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

All very nice, but from the average editor's perspective just what does this do? I've read thru the links provided, but there's not one hint (or example) about what text an average editor types in & what formatted MOS-compliant text comes out. I have no idea if "Citoid" modifies existing citations or needs the data arranged in a specific way to produce citations that are compatible with {{cite}}, or perhaps some other standard. Or maybe it has nothing to do with creating citations for articles... The people involved assume all of us humble editors know a great deal about Citoid -- which is something I just learned existed. (And if you want people to use it, many of whom are not up to date on the latest Wikimedia software, Foundation employees need to do a much better job of explaining matters like this.) -- llywrch (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi llywrch,

I apologize for not being clear enough. It's live now, so you can try it out.

Open VisualEditor ("Edit", not "Edit source"; opt-in here).
Click where you want to add a ref.
Click the "book with bookmark" icon (not the unlabeled dropdown menu right next to it; that takes you to the manual options).
Paste in your URL.
Click the "Look up" button.
Get formatted citation back, like this.

It uses citation templates. It'll show you what the citation will look like so you can spot any problems. You can edit the citation afterwards, which is especially useful when websites have gotten redesigned and now all of the information is 'lost' again. (Both BBC News and Google Books were having this problem last week, but I don't know what the current status is for them.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Which still fails to explain just WTF "citoid" is or why I should care. -- llywrch (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@Llywrch: When you cite, you enter the URL and citoid fills in all the rest of the data (author, date, title, etc). That's the idea. Saves time for experienced editors, and for new editors helps avoid link rot. It doesn't always work yet. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Changes on the user page, the user talk page, and the user's sandbox?

Personally, I never change a user page, or a user's sandbox, except by mistake, rarely. I do post to a user page, and I occasionally add colons as a matter of formatting.

Recently another editor made some quite correct updates to a draft article well down on my user talk page. As a matter of policy, should other editors do this? What about articles in my sandbox? What do other experienced editors do? What is the policy?--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

They shouldn't, unless it's to deal with an attack or a copyright violation, and possibly in the case of a blatant misuse of the page for advertising or as a portal to one's own website. (FYI, your user talk page really isn't a good place for drafting articles, as its purpose is to serve as a venue for people to communicate with you.) If you were drafting the article in the Draft namespace, that would be a different matter. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I did one article in the Draft namespace, and another editor published it before I was finished. You are right, I got started with draft articles on the talk page, and have done more on the sandbox. Is there any easy way to move talk page drafts to the sandbox?--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOBAN. This is a wiki. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Automatic citation formatting is on its way

Citoid, the automagic citation filling tool, is on its way at last. It's been up at the French and Italian Wikipedias for a while, with positive feedback overall. The time isn't firmly settled, but Wednesday evening UTC is most likely. This has been one of the most-requested features from experienced editors.

Citoid depends upon good TemplateData. Wikipedia:TemplateData/Tutorial explains how to write the basics by hand, but the TemplateData GUI tool is usually faster and easier. It also depends upon external services like Zotero. If your favorite website isn't working, it probably needs a new Zotero entry. The design is less than ideal. There is a book-with-bookmark button for Citoid, next to a now-unlabeled "Cite" menu for filling in citations the old way.

If you have suggestions on how to improve the design, then please leave your comments where the designers are most likely to see them, at mw:Talk:VisualEditor/Design/Reference Dialog. If you have any other suggestions or run into problems, then please leave feedback at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. If you would like to see Citoid at another wiki, then you may make that request in Phabricator: by creating a new task under the "Citoid" project. Most requests will probably not be granted for the next couple of weeks, but evidence that TemplateData is current on your main citation templates will likely improve your chances.

Here at the English Wikipedia, you will need to opt-in to VisualEditor via Beta Features to see Citoid. Pre-deployment testing can be done here on Beta Labs. (Before you ask: yes, after getting all the bumps smoothed out, the plan is to make it available in the wikitext editor as well. However, that will likely not be for some months yet.)

Happy editing, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: This is being delayed for a few days. Monday (late) is the most likely time now. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

All very nice, but from the average editor's perspective just what does this do? I've read thru the links provided, but there's not one hint (or example) about what text an average editor types in & what formatted MOS-compliant text comes out. I have no idea if "Citoid" modifies existing citations or needs the data arranged in a specific way to produce citations that are compatible with {{cite}}, or perhaps some other standard. Or maybe it has nothing to do with creating citations for articles... The people involved assume all of us humble editors know a great deal about Citoid -- which is something I just learned existed. (And if you want people to use it, many of whom are not up to date on the latest Wikimedia software, Foundation employees need to do a much better job of explaining matters like this.) -- llywrch (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi llywrch,

I apologize for not being clear enough. It's live now, so you can try it out.

Open VisualEditor ("Edit", not "Edit source"; opt-in here).
Click where you want to add a ref.
Click the "book with bookmark" icon (not the unlabeled dropdown menu right next to it; that takes you to the manual options).
Paste in your URL.
Click the "Look up" button.
Get formatted citation back, like this.

It uses citation templates. It'll show you what the citation will look like so you can spot any problems. You can edit the citation afterwards, which is especially useful when websites have gotten redesigned and now all of the information is 'lost' again. (Both BBC News and Google Books were having this problem last week, but I don't know what the current status is for them.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Which still fails to explain just WTF "citoid" is or why I should care. -- llywrch (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@Llywrch: When you cite, you enter the URL and citoid fills in all the rest of the data (author, date, title, etc). That's the idea. Saves time for experienced editors, and for new editors helps avoid link rot. It doesn't always work yet. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Changes on the user page, the user talk page, and the user's sandbox?

Personally, I never change a user page, or a user's sandbox, except by mistake, rarely. I do post to a user page, and I occasionally add colons as a matter of formatting.

Recently another editor made some quite correct updates to a draft article well down on my user talk page. As a matter of policy, should other editors do this? What about articles in my sandbox? What do other experienced editors do? What is the policy?--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

They shouldn't, unless it's to deal with an attack or a copyright violation, and possibly in the case of a blatant misuse of the page for advertising or as a portal to one's own website. (FYI, your user talk page really isn't a good place for drafting articles, as its purpose is to serve as a venue for people to communicate with you.) If you were drafting the article in the Draft namespace, that would be a different matter. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I did one article in the Draft namespace, and another editor published it before I was finished. You are right, I got started with draft articles on the talk page, and have done more on the sandbox. Is there any easy way to move talk page drafts to the sandbox?--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOBAN. This is a wiki. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Publicizing a discussion on Talk:Bengali people#Proposal

Due to ensued edit war, and continued disparity; we have started a discussion for finalizing a list of people to appear on the collage at {{infobox ethnic group}} in Bengali people article. We need input from wider community for reaching an unbiased consensus. That is why I am canvassing this discussion here. ~ nafSadh did say 03:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Which template defines the "undo" edit notice?

I'm talking about the one that says:

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

I have a suggestion to improve the wording. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Undo-success. Add ?uselang=qqx or &uselang=qqx (if there already is a ? in the url) to the end of a url to see the name of the used messages in the MediaWiki namespace. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Great, thank you. And in case anyone is interested, I've posted my suggestion for a non-policy impacting wording change on the talk page. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Flurname

Please translate this article de:Flurname — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.129.143.91 (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2015

Please see WP:RFT. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

A "national flag" without secondary sources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Stop forum shopping, as mentioned below. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

What I ask you to do is simple:

look over the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#RfC: Flag of Ryukyu and answer to the question: is it OK to put this flag on hundreds or thousands of articles?

This is request-for-comment stuff, but I post this here because, at this stage, no expert knowledge is required to make a judgment. You might be puzzled by details, but I bet they are unimportant. This is a Japan- and history-related topic, but all you need is common sense. I need your third opinions because now I feel like I'm talking to an alien from outer space.

In my earlier posts at the discussion, I assumed that readers were knowledgeable about the Japanese language and history. Here I provide background information.

The flag in question was supposedly used as the national flag of a pre-modern polity called Ryukyu, which was dissolved around the time when Japan embraced the Western notion of national flag. This file has been hosted on Common nearly for a decade. However, this flag has puzzled me (and some other Wikipedians) because it cannot be found in major history books. For example, Okinawa Prefecture, the successor of the pre-modern polity, published the 5 volumes of the History of Okinawa Prefecture (2000–2011, and one volume in preparation) and the 13 volumes of the Visual History of Okinawa Prefecture (1998–2004). Neither series makes mention of the flag. No secondary sources identify this as the national flag of Ryukyu. In my earlier post, I used the following analogy: pick up a book on the history of the United States, and you cannot find the Stars and Stripes. That's what's happening here. Of course, we cannot conclude that this flag has never be the national flag of Ryukyu because that's probatio diabolica. But common sense tells us that a national flag is something we can easily find in the literature. If we cannot, that's not what we consider the national flag. We can safely conclude that we cannot put it on hundreds or thousands of articles because it gives extremely undue weight to the flag.

The above is enough to make a judgment. Before move to the next, I must clarify that what follows does not change the conclusion.

I did serious research on this subject and posted key findings at the Commons image description pages. I suspect some portion of my posts are borderline cases of original research because there I rely on primary, not secondary, sources. But I believe the looser policies of Commons allow me to post them. All I could find was three catalogs published in mainland Japan (i.e., primary sources). In my earlier posts, I explained why they are unreliable, but that's not so important here. Ryukyu is known for its diplomatic negotiations with the U.S., the Netherlands and France in its final years. But the studies on this subject make no mention of the flag. No secondary sources after serious research. We can reconfirm that the flag is not something we consider the national flag.

After I updated the Commons image description page, I started removing the flag from articles. And Sturmgewehr88 (talk · contribs) started RfC to reinstate the flag. The result is what I asked you to read. After the discussion, he started mass-reverts and I opened the AN/I report. I can hardly believe that an educated person interprets the discussion as a green light. So I request for third opinions.

Some notes on Sturmgewehr88. He uses the flag for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Ryukyu task force (located in the Wikipedia namespace, but virtually his personal project). He intensively advertises the task force at talk pages, and you can check the current status here. He may feel that he has passed the point of no return. That's only a speculation. Also, he has a record of accusing me of pushing a fringe theory[2]. So he is supposed to know what fringe theories are. --Nanshu (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:FORUMSHOP. There's already an RfC and an ANI thread about this exact issue, you even provided links. Bringing up the same issue in multiple places makes it very difficult to follow the logic and determine what the community's opinion actually is, and can be seen as disruptive. I encourage you to close this thread and keep your comments with one of the two other discussions that are already going on about this. Ivanvector (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is indeed RfC stuff, which is why there is an RfC currently open. Nanshu opened a case at ANI against me for reverting the majority of his mislabeled edits and now, since he's either not gotten the response he wanted or none at all, he's opened a discussion here. This is textbook forumshopping. The issue isn't wether it is the national flag or not (Nanshu himself said he can't prove it's not), it's wether it was ok for him to remove it as a "Wikipedia hoax" or not. It's simple: was it claimed that this was the national flag of Ryukyu before the image was uploaded to Wikipedia? The answer is a definite "yes", which means that this flag didn't originate here nor is a hoax, therefore not a Wikipedia hoax. Again, I have an absolute right to revert him for making mislabeled and/or misleading edit summaries, which he has a history of.

It's funny, because he also has a history of harassment and making personal attacks against people who don't agree with him. Now for the third time that I'm aware of, he doesn't make a single edit in months and suddenly reappears to make sweeping changes to 100+ articles and expects no one to challenge him, and when someone does, he calls them a knowledgeless control freak] or that they have no talent for historiography. He claims at ANi that my reverts are "disruptive edits", that I "[challenge] the way Wikipedia works", and that I "[pose] a real threat to Wikipedia", which is ironic given his past and current behavior.

In regards to WP:RYUKYU, it's as much my personal project in the sense as WP:JAPAN is the personal project of User:Nihonjoe. Yes, I started the taskforce and am the most active contributor there, but so what? The Ryukyu Islands are my main interest on Wikipedia anyway, and I'm not the only one listed on the participants page. And "intensively advertises" is quite a claim, considering that I add other WikiProject/taskforce templates as well (since when is it a bad thing to add or update WikiProject templates on talk pages?). ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposal: more friendly deletion of newbies contributions

So we know (from studies of volunteer retention) that we are bad in handling newbies; we template them and show them the inhuman side of our project. Yet we also know that with few volunteers, there is no way to change this: telling people to be more friendly to newbies is not going to fly. How about this, then. Instead of deleting their contributions (tests, promo, etc.), how about we move it to their userspace, and leave it there for a few months? We are not paper, userspace is not searchable from search engines so spam fails, and we would make some people less stressed / angry at us if instead of "my content was deleted" they would be in "my contest was send back for revision" instead. And moving is about as simple as deletion... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Userspace is searchable, unless each individual page is set up to deny search spiders: either by the direct use of __NOINDEX__ or by adding a template that includes that. Many of these templates are in Category:Wikipedia templates which apply NOINDEX, although some will only NOINDEX if explicitly told to do so, such as {{user page|noindex=yes}} --Redrose64 (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Good idea, and on at least one occasion I have done this. I think Template:Userspace draft is a good template to prevent the page from being searchable. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

URL in citation is dead and you have two choices - revised URL or archive.org

I was updating a citation link at GE Consumer & Industrial and came across this case:

original link was http://www.genewscenter.com/Press-Releases/Calculating-the-Future-GE-Unveils-Platinum-LEED-Certified-Data-Center-a-Sustainable-Investment-Supporting-Global-Business-Growth-32d4.aspx
original link was dead, but was preserved in archive.org --> https://web.archive.org/web/20140911001748/http://www.genewscenter.com/Press-Releases/Calculating-the-Future-GE-Unveils-Platinum-LEED-Certified-Data-Center-a-Sustainable-Investment-Supporting-Global-Business-Growth-32d4.aspx
the same press release appears under a new URL published by GE --> http://pressroom.geappliances.com/news/calculating-the-future-ge-unveils-213599

When I say "original link was ... preserved in archive.org", this is not a certainty but a supposition; the original was retrieved on 19 July 2013, but the archived version is from 11 September 2014.

When I say "the same press release appears under a new URL", this again is not a certainty but a supposition ... inline photo in the old version has been replaced by a right-margin image gallery, for instance.

Let's assume that I've carefully vetted the content of the article on wikipedia against both the available online pages, and either one will work in supporting the article.

Is it a purely stylistic matter which you would choose in this case? Or would you go with the archive.org version, as it is "closer to original"? Or would you go with the new GE version, as this is placed in a more up-to-date site context? Or would you put both? In the present case, I chose the archive.org version.

I don't think there is any policy or guideline which covers this particular bit of pedantry, but it does come up from time to time when you are fighting link rot battles and I thought I would just push this out there for come comments.

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Does the information in the new link verify the information in the article? If so, use the new URL. --Jayron 32 02:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Archive.org is not always available, sometimes because pages were not preserved there at the time the information was present. I have proposed in the past that we should automate triggering archive.org to create an archive when a crawlable page is linked on Wikipedia, and then use that page, since it will remain stable thereafter. bd2412 T 02:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC on guidelines regarding list items

Publicizing an RfC on the Film Wikiproject regarding notability of items on List articles (hopefully this is the correct section). More input is appreciated. Lapadite (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Please note that Thelma Coyne Long died 16 april acording to Google. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2015‎ (UTC)

I'm not sure quite where on Google you are seeing this, but in any case there isn't much that Wikipedia can do about mistakes on Google. If you wish to point out to Google their error, you could quote the source given in the Wikipedia reference, and you could also tell Google about the numerous sources (found in a Google search) which are dated before 16 April and which report the lady's death. I have reverted your edit to the Wikipedia article. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, thank you for calling your error to our attention, as it might have gone unnoticed longer otherwise. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Experiment in the works

Quick heads-up: Several editors have suggested testing VisualEditor on wiki, rather than something like usertesting.com with non-editors. It looks like User:EpochFail is going to run a short, real-world test. Nothing will change in your account, and logged-out editors will not be part of this test. A barebones draft is at m: Research:VisualEditor's effect on newly registered editors/May 2015 study. In the meantime, if you’re interested in testing, please opt in via Beta Features and leave feedback at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. The new automagic mw:Citoid tool (paste in a URL like http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25609764 and get a fully formatted citation template back) isn't perfect and doesn't cover all possible sources, but it is pretty awesome when it works. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

URLs in citations

Is there any standard for using URLs in citations when the link is to a subscription site via a specific library login? For instance, this takes the reader to the Wellcome Library (through which I accessed the information) and is of no use to readers who aren't members. This one does the same, to the City of Westminster Library. The sites accessed via Wellcome and Westminster do not provide stable URLs of their own as, say, JSTOR does. What should one do in such circumstances? Tim riley talk 18:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I would provide two refs. On the subs-only one, remember to set |subscription=yes, see Template:Cite journal#Subscription or registration required. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Ocaasi with WP:The Wikipedia Library might have some ideas for you. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Great question. If you are linking to a particular library, you can use the |via parameter, such as |via=Wellcome Library (which is distinct from |publisher= ). Also use the subscription required in that case. Ideally you also find and provide an 'open web' url that is [more] generally accessible. I would do so in the same citation. You can check out some of the citation examples on pages like WP:HighBeam. Cheers, Jake Ocaasi^{t | c} 02:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

!vote strength

Do closers weigh the stated strength of each !vote? Is there a progression, as Keep, KEEP, Strong keep, STRONG KEEP? I saw one today that said, all boldface, STRONG KEEP, have never felt more strongly. Seriously. If I don't have a somewhat strong opinion, I don't !vote; so should I begin all my !votes with the word Strong? ―Mandruss ☎ 13:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is a recognized level of vote strength, except in the term of Speedy but even then Speedy should only be used in blatantly obvious cases for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cnstimes. The use of strong and any variation is a tactic(not necessarily purposeful) by commenters to either sway others or emphasize their position. The vote should be backed up by policy or previous consensus on the same topic otherwise it is just words and should probably be disregarded as not adding to the discussion at hand.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not a vote, so there is no vote strength. Only reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments matter. The bold text is just there to give you a general impression of what course of action editors recommend. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Meanders off-topic - collapsing to stay on topic

It's not a vote, hence the ! (Boolean NOT symbol) before the word "vote". ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

"It's not a vote, so [...]" seemed like a nice way to start my feedback, seeing we agree it's not a vote. (I know about the boolean not symbol; I'm a programmer. By the way, I'm on IRC a lot, where bots are being addressed with exclamation point commands. If I want to vote there, I use !vote. ;) --82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I misread you. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

On IRC the ! symbol is not indicative of "not" in the programing sense. It is actually a pling or bang command to indicate to the bot that what is following is intended to be read by the bot as a command (assuming the bot knows that command and the annoying ones say "I don't know what blah is" (it's only annoying when there are multiple bots in a channel with difference command sets that all use the bang symbol)). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't imagine you are trying to tell Mandruss more about IRC bots, so you must be talking to me. I did not write that, on IRC, "!" is indicative of "not" in the programming sense. Everything you write is old news to me. I've created various IRC bots in multiple languages. The sole reason I mentioned IRC bots is as an example of how !vote can mean something else in a different context. I really hope we're done posting in this sub-thread. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Some users (I try to be one) will comment on matters they WP:DGAF about. I think the idea of a strong vote is to be the opposite of weak vote. A "weak keep" indicates that the user sees a reason to keep the article, but does not especially care if it's kept, and probably will never edit it beyond maybe reverting vandalism (if they add it to their watchlist at all). I'd recommend saving strong keep for cases where you plan on improving the article beyond saving it from deletion.

Likewise, strong delete would indicate that the user is likely to hold the article to Vogon level standards with regard to policies and guidelines and nominate it for deletion or redirection again for any technicality; and a weak delete would usually indicate that the user doesn't think the subject deserves an article at this point, but could in the future. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying that closers do consider that, in addition to the rationale following it? Seems like little more than an I just (don't) like it prefix to me. What counts should be the strength of your argument, not the intensity of your feelings on the matter. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It wouldn't quite be taking into account feelings as the likelihood that the article is going to receive any further work. If an article has no sources that demonstrate notability, but everyone says "weak keep" for some reason, they're probably not going to find any sources for it and so it's safe to delete it despite an apparent consensus to keep. If an article is on the fence, but there's an equal amount of "(regular or weak) delete" and "strong keep" votes, the strong keeps will likely give the article the work it needs to avoid deletion (though they should cite the sources that would be used to improve the article in the discussion). Many users simply don't work on stuff they don't care about, so "I will improve this article" does mean more than "it could stay, but I don't care." Ian.thomson (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a confusing question. Do !votes have a level of strength? For me, as a person who has closed discussions, STRONG KEEP holds no more value than weak keep. However, a person who votes weak keep: Deleting this for <reason stated in OP> goes against <insert policy or common practice here> in that <valid example of why it is inconsistent with the cited policy>. Not to mention, this is a well sourced - [http://nytimes.com/story/...][http://washingtonpost.com/...][http://bbc.uk/articles/...] for example, and neutrally written article with no obvious copyright violations{{copyvios|page=pagename}} has a much stronger vote than the person who says STRONG KEEP: How could anyone even consider deleting this wonderful article full of inspiration and wonder?. I tend to "score" each persons vote, they get 1 point per point they make and one for their summary !vote. So, in my example, !vote number 1 gets +6 points towards keep (+1 for their !vote, +1 for their citing how it would violate a policy, +2 for the verified claim it is sourced (assuming the links are valid proof (this is scaled +1 for 1-2 sources, +2 for 3-6 sources, +3 for 7+ sources)), +1 for pointing out it is neutrally written and +1 for pointing out there are no CVs as far as they know) whereas !vote number 2 only gets +1 point towards keep (for taking the time to !vote and summarize their thoughts). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technical 13 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- What about people who !vote Delete per nom? Do you then re-add the nominator's points? What if there are a dozen people who merely agree with the nomination, and one who votes the other way and throws out a wall of arguments. bd2412 T 17:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  - Points can only be made once. It's not the people or the entries getting the points, it's the points made getting points. So, if user 3 comes along and says Keep': Per !vote 1, deleting this for <reason stated in OP> goes against <insert policy or common practice here> in that <valid example of why it is inconsistent with the cited policy>. This is well sourced - [http://timemagzine.com/2014/August/...][http://blogspot.com/Randys_radical_blog/...][http://Some-primary-source.com/advert3.htm], neutrally written article, and has no obvious copyright violations, then that !vote would get +2 points towards keep (+1 for taking the time to !vote, and +1 for the one new RS they added to the discussion, no more since the other points were already made). Delete: per nom is +1 for delete (for taking the time to !vote and summarize their thoughts) Delete: Violates WP:NOTSOAPBOX and is not reliably sourced (and there are no sources to be found on Google, Bing, or Yahoo). gets +3 for delete (+1 for taking the time to !vote, +1 for pointing out is violates a policy, +1 for showing they spend time checking xx search engines and could find no sources making it more probable good sources don't currently exit). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    - What if we're not talking about something as defined as a keep/delete vote but a dispute over style, for example over which of two sections should go first in an article? Does each participant in the discussion need to make a unique point about why the section on aspect X should go before the section on aspect Y? bd2412 T 18:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
      - I feel like you're just trollolololing me now, but in the interest of good faith, unique points earn points, showing up and saying something earns a point, and those points show me a general consensus. If the discussion leans way to one side in points then that is the consensus. If the discussion seems to be a nail bitter and neck and neck the whole way through, it is a no consensus situation and that's okay too. Everyone brushes it off and goes to work on something else perhaps to revisit the idea at a later time. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Speaking as an admin, when closing discussions, I generally ignore the emphases such as "Strong". What I tend to look for in assessing consensus, in order are: 1) Overall vote strength of the discussion. If 20 people voted, and 18 voted "Keep", it's probably a keep, unless shenanigans (rampant sock/SPA problems) are happening. 2) Strength of rationales: comes in to play most frequently with closer discussions. If the discussion is closer to 50/50, but one side has a much stronger rationale, while the other rationale is spurious, go with the better, more sound rationale. If both sides have equally strong arguments, default to "no consensus" 3) Trend: Is the discussion trending a certain way. Early votes may have been based on different evidence, if I see lots of people changing their votes, or new votes trending a certain way, that can weigh in as well. Ultimately, however, when people add histrionics to their vote, it doesn't actually improve the weight of the vote. On the contrary, when someone says STRONGEST POSSIBLE DELETE I CAN IMAGINE AND IF YOU THINK DIFFERENTLY YOU'RE STUPID in giant, bold, red flashing letters, I tend to ignore that vote as likely not rational. The more emotional a vote is, the less likely it is to be based on rational thought processes, so the less strength I give it. --Jayron 32 18:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Future air dates exempt from verifiability and original research?

In my day to day activity, I normally remove future air dates of broadcast anime television series that do not cite a reliable, published source. However, editors continue to add these dates back in. Recent, Wonchop reverted such a removal makes the claim that because broadcasts are on a regular schedule, references to future air dates are not needed unless there is a schedule change.[3] My position was that all information must be verifiable through a reliable, published sources and that future air dates are no exception. Wonchop once against restores the future air dates, but the source he provides only verifies the next air date, but not the dates of the rest of the series.[4] He against asserts that because the series is on a regular schedule, requiring sources for future air dates is not need. Does this compile with everyone else view of verifiability, or is calculating future air dates a form of original research since those dates have not yet been published and are subject to change? —Farix (t | c) 13:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Future air dates are subject to change, regardless of schedules, even when episodes are almost certain to air. The TV project always requires citations for future air dates, but even then we still get the occasional change. There is no reason not to provide citations because air dates are easily cited. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Short answer...they need to be reliably sourced. There is no such thing as a "regular schedule" for TV. They have winter breaks, summer breaks, and to try and predict when they may take a random week of (which is not a schedule change, but a scheduled break) is impossible without a source. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't that long ago that a number of anime series were delayed in Japan at short notice due to various reasons, which should be enough to show that airdates are not guaranteed even if you can make a reasonable assumption (which violates OR of course). Although personally I don't think including a date, regardless of sourcing should be done until after it has aired if it's an episode during the series. If it's the start and finish date of a as-yet unaired series and can be reliably sourced, fair enough , but do we really need to include dates for individual unaired episodes?

You could set up an editnotice, containing {{future episodes editnotice}} --Redrose64 (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

That should be on every "List of episodes" page and season article although, ironically, TV Guide is often not reliable. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

And given the context here (Japanese television), completely useless. However, this does put my mind at ease that my removal of future air dates without a direct source is within Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and original research. But that I don't want to continue an edit war on Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha ViVid over those future air dates, anyone else care to enlighten Wonchop on the matter? —Farix (t | c) 16:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not completely useless, since the template can be customised - see for example Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Doctor Who serials. To do that, I gave it provision to search Radio Times instead of TV Guide with this edit. The same thing can be done for other listings magazines; the main thing that you need to do is to decide on a reliable Japanese listings magazine, and find its search URL. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I've put in an edit request to remove TV Guide from displaying by default. TV Guide shouldn't be displayed by default because is US-centric publication and it's presence in the template is a point of systemic bias. —Farix (t | c) 16:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Basically the next episode's date is usually supplied in TV listings (though I'll admit there's no real easy way or referencing these kinds of things) and the rest are hidden until the following episode's revealed anyway and are only filled out for the sake of easier editing. There's generally an indication of when the next episode airs following an episode's airing (even in a listing or the show blatantly telling us which day of the week it airs on), and some schedules can also list episodes and there titles for several weeks ahead. Far as I can tell, the weekly schedules have been generally reliable, and there's usually something mentioning if there's a change to that schedule (eg. if a show has a week long break due to football or New Year's). In the case of ViVid, it's website states that it airs every Friday so there's no reason to assume it won't at present. Wonchop (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability states, "[Wikipedia's] content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." WP:No original research states, "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." To calculate a future air date by adding 7 days to the previous air date is, by definition, original research. Since the dates calculated cannot be cited to a previously published reliable source, it also cannot be verified. Just because some dates are temporarily hidden doesn't mean they are except from these two core polices. If something cannot be referenced to a reliable, published source, it should not be on Wikipedia. —Farix (t | c) 20:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the encyclopedia should not make predictions. Doesn't WP:Crystal cover that? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Pointing to that policy has been completely useless in the past. In part because future air dates aren't specifically mentioned and editors adding them believe that they are "almost certain to take place". —Farix (t | c) 11:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

As long as there is a reliable source for the information, it's perfectly acceptable to list a future airdate in an article. They are not exempt from WP:OR and WP:V. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Numeric(al) order... a struggle to find things; missing links and non-existing pages.

Hopefully I'm making the right choice by posting this here instead of at Wikipedia:Help desk, because the following goes a bit beyond how to use or edit Wikipedia. It all started with me thinking

If alphabet(-)ical is "according to the sequence of the letters of the alphabet", then how would I say number(-)ical? It is not numerical because that is "of or pertaining to numbers" and not (enough) about a sequence/order. Nor am I looking for "numerical order" or "numeric order", because those would be the equivalents of "alphabetical order" (with the word "order").

So I visited alphabetical to look at its See also section. Alphabetical redirects to alphabet. At Alphabet, it has one hatnote; a link to Alphabet (disambiguation). However, the lead of Alphabet (disambiguation) says "Alphabet or The Alphabet may also refer to:" without "Alphabetical", and aforementioned disambiguation page also does not include Alphabetical order. So I used the URL bar to manually visit Alphabetical order. Its Alphabetical order#See also section mentions only Collation, and at Collation the lead includes the text "numerical order". That text links to number. So then I was wondering, does numerical order exist, and it does not; not even to redirect to something. Then at Sorting I saw the text "the order is alphabetical", which refers to an alphabetical order. At Help:Sorting it says "the order is numeric", doesn't that refer to a numeric order (note: "numeric", without "al")? That too is a page that does not exist; not even a redirect to something. I really think I should not have ran into some of a things described above. However, I don't know what would be good solutions for the various issues, so I'm asking for feedback here. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you're looking for a descriptor of a linear order rather than a lexicographic order? Praemonitus (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help, but this is not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for an editor who understands why it is - and hopefully agrees with - my opinion that Wikipedia needs several changes to fix the various issues I ran into while searching for answers. As the heading of this section summarizes, there are missing links and non-existing pages where there should be links and pages. There are various issues I point to in the text I wrote. The first, to give you an example, is that a reader who visits alphabetical is being forwarded to alphabet, but the hatnote of that target page only points to Alphabet (disambiguation) where the lead only mentions Alphabet and The Alphabet, and the body has no link to Alphabetical order. A Alphabetical order#See also with only one link. A link at Collation from "numerical order" text to number. Missing numerical order and numeric order pages. It's not about what is the/a correct answer to my question; the problem is that Wikipedia is making it a struggle for me to find things. I created this section because there are various issues and I don't know what would be good solutions for them. Of course I have some ideas, like I could simply add Alphabetical order to Alphabet (disambiguation), but I'm not sure that would be the best path to take. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 05:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I see what you are driving at, but I feel you should be WP:Bold and make the fixes yourself, inviting comment from others in a WP:BRD session. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo's succession plan

In summer 2009 Jimbo declared that in case of his untimely incapacitation "the Arbcom is authorized to figure out what to do, subject to ratification with a 50+1 vote of the community" & that he would "amend that succession plan from time to time upon recommendation of the Arbcom and Community". Could anyone say when he amended it last? 54.152.112.11 (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I asked this question at Jimbo's talk page on April the 3rd, but received no reply. 54.152.112.11 (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo doesn't need a succession plan, since he doesn't actively direct anything here. He's somewhat a figurehead. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Proton therapy talk page has a bizzare SPAM paragraph

Talk:Proton_therapy

[removed unnecessary copy of spam Thincat (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC) ]

1) How do we delete this paragraph? 2) How do we STOP this individual from posting this crap again?

Bgordski (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It has now been removed from the talk page. I expect it was a competitor trying to damage his trade. Thincat (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Portal:Ancient Near East poor rendering of pictures on the main page

On at least three accounts it shows the wiki syntax like: Image:|140x170px|left|Relief from the palace of Ashurnasilpal II in Nimrud instead of a proper image. Selected article, Selected picture, and Did you know entries. I'm posting here because nobody acted there. Cheers, --Zvizdanche (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Zvizdanche: You posted to Portal talk:Ancient Near East#Selected article's picture rendering eight minutes before here. That is an extremely short time to wait but the page does have low activity so there might not come an answer. I currently see images everywhere at Portal:Ancient Near East but the page is coded to transclude some randomly selected subpages and some of those are missing their image. Your example was removed as far back as 2008.[5] All of Portal:Ancient Near East/Selected article, Portal:Ancient Near East/Selected picture, Portal:Ancient Near East/DYK and Portal:Ancient Near East/Selected biography are missing one or more images. I'm not fixing it. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Biotecnika Magazine

Naming convention, content of user page, and possible COI. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Please move to WP:COIN. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Done 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Paid editing (yet again)

What, if anything, do we know about these folks (getyourwiki.com)? Are they disclosed as paid editors? If not, has there been any investigation to uncover who might be editing with an inappropriate agenda on their behalf? - Jmabel | Talk 03:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

For fun I contacted them. I got an email reply from "Jolie Short, Wikipedia Consultant" and a phone number in the US (+15128883xxx) to discuss details and pricing. Of course I cannot check if that is a real name or person. There is an entry on LinkedIn for a person with that name, working for "Status Labs". Status Labs is also mentioned in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-02-19/News_and_notes . --Malyacko (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I would like to point out that on this page there is a quote from one Scott Jacobson who might work here. So the diff might be interesting. A Who-Is Shows us that the site was registered on 15 Jan 2015. I don't know if that means anything but... BlueworldSpeccie (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I also emailed them and received a reply from someone who works at Status Labs. I rather suspect that GetYourWiki is simply WikiPR in disguise. Sam Walton (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia store relaunch

Hello everyone,

The Wikipedia store has been relaunched. We have redesigned the website and also introduced new items!

The Wikipedia store looks forward to collaborating with the community, vendors, designers, artists, and people with similar visions to create meaningful merchandise for our community and readers. In the near future, you can expect creative representations of Wikipedia and its sister projects with these collaborations. Our vision for our merchandise is to motivate you and people around you to help spread knowledge via Wikimedia projects.

As a reminder, the store is engaged in giveaway programs rewarding volunteers, supporting editathons and engaging in hackathons and other community conferences. As usual, all sales support and reward contributors all over the world.

Spread the knowledge about the Wikipedia store and please follow @wikipediastore on Twitter and Instagram! VShchepakina (WMF) (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Do not put it in the sidebar, please. I've seen the testwiki: test, and the Meta UI is already flooded and drowned by WMF spam. –Be..anyone (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Nominations are being accepted for 2015 Wikimedia Foundation elections

This is a message from the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee. Translations are available.

Greetings,

I am pleased to announce that nominations are now being accepted for the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections. This year the Board and the FDC Staff are looking for a diverse set of candidates from regions and projects that are traditionally under-represented on the board and in the movement as well as candidates with experience in technology, product or finance. To this end they have published letters describing what they think is needed and, recognizing that those who know the community the best are the community themselves, the election committee is accepting nominations for community members you think should run and will reach out to those nominated to provide them with information about the job and the election process.

This year, elections are being held for the following roles:

Board of Trustees
The Board of Trustees is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long term sustainability of the Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. There are three positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at the board elections page.

Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)
The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) makes recommendations about how to allocate Wikimedia movement funds to eligible entities. There are five positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at the FDC elections page.

Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) Ombud
The FDC Ombud receives complaints and feedback about the FDC process, investigates complaints at the request of the Board of Trustees, and summarizes the investigations and feedback for the Board of Trustees on an annual basis. One position is being filled. More information about this role can be found at the FDC Ombudsperson elections page.

The candidacy submission phase lasts from 00:00 UTC April 20 to 23:59 UTC May 5 for the Board and from 00:00 UTC April 20 to 23:59 UTC April 30 for the FDC and FDC Ombudsperson. This year, we are accepting both self-nominations and nominations of others. More information on this election and the nomination process can be found on the 2015 Wikimedia elections page on Meta-Wiki.

Please feel free to post a note about the election on your project's village pump. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the talk page on Meta, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-elections -at- wikimedia.org

On behalf of the Elections Committee,
-Gregory Varnum (User:Varnent)
Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, 05:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Language --> Add Links

I tried to use the 'Add links' entry under the Languages section (at right) to add non-English language links to an article. However, it gives me the error message 'You need to be logged in on this wiki and in the central data repository to use this feature'. Well I am logged on to the central data repository and yet I still receive this message. This seems completely non-beneficial; it could at least have a help link so I can navigate the correct process. Praemonitus (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Praemonitus: This q might be more suited to WP:VPT. However, when you visit this link, do you appear to be logged in or out? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I show as logged in, although I don't have a user or talk page on that site. Praemonitus (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes when going from one wiki (like English Wikipedia) to another (like Commons), I appear to be logged out, because all I see top right are the "Create account / log in" links. It usually means that the cookie didn't get through. Forcing the page to reload usually fixes it, although on occasion I do need to log in separately. Having (or not having) a user or user talk page should be immaterial. If you get these links (red or blue), and the user page link shows "Praemonitus" and not something else, you're logged in on Wikidata, which is where the interlanguage links are now held. Make sure that is the case, and try again. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it still fails. I did a forced reload (ctrl-f5) on both the Wikipedia and Wikidata sites, and the Wikidata site reports that I am logged in. It appears to be broken, for me at least. I tested it on another page that already has language links, and that does work. Hence it appears to be an issue with pages that have the 'Add links' link. (I confirmed that is the case with the The Thinker (horse) article.) Praemonitus (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I sent a note to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 136#Language --> Add Links. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It works for me. Does https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:NewItem?site=enwiki&page=The+Thinker+%28horse%29 work for you? That's what I get in Firefox by right-clicking "Add links" on The Thinker (horse) and selecting to open the link in a new tab. The process is different from the small box which should appear when "Add links" is left-clicked. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that link brought up a new item editor, as does right-clicking to open in a new tab. However, left-clicking still fails. Can I take it this is a bug? Praemonitus (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

USA train pictures

Commons:Category:Images uploaded by Natuur12 (clcean up2) has a lot of train pictures taken in America. These are taken by Peter Van den Bossche and downloaded from Flicker. I already classified a lot of his European pictures but I am not familiar with the USA scene. Could someone help with classifying these pictures? Smiley.toerist (talk) 07:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Searching for URLs in article space

There is a way to find all usages of, say, nytimes.com in article-space but I cannot recall it offhand. Anyone here know? A WP page that lists those sorts of helpful search aids in one location would be desirable too, if one exists. Thanks. Tarc (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure you can limit it by namespace but Special:LinkSearch.©Geni (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

^ That's the one Tarc wants. Special:Search does a pretty good job of this now also, and you can use regex if you want there. --Izno (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep that was the one. Rooting out some leftover copyvios, thanks. Tarc (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Repeatedly recreated user page

I have discovered a user Allen terry (talk · contribs) who is persistently recreating the page User:Melanie Specht. This is a user page of a user that doesn't exist, and is being deleted as U2 every time it is created. What I would normally do in a case where a page keeps being recreated is request its create protection. However, since it's a user page, I'm afraid it would present a problem in case someone comes by and wants to register that name. I have two options:

Request create protection on that page. This will stop the persistent disruptive editing on that page, but will present a problem if someone registers that username and wants to create their user page.
Register that username myself, and create a page to go along with it (to disclose its connection to me), and request that the page be protected. If someone wants to register that name, they can contact me (how?) and I'll have the username of that account changed so that they can register it. More complicated, but doable.

What should I do? Gparyani (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Right now he is blocked for 7 days. He can't do anything. This isn't the only page he has done this with. He makes userpages out of articles and says he is using them to practice editing. If he comes back and does the same thing again, there is a good possibility he will be indefinitely blocked. -- GB fan 19:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@GB fan: See below for combined response. Gparyani (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

How about an Edit Filter to stop them creating pages in user space, except for their own?. - X201 (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@X201: Given that he's created "test" pages in the userpages of many users, this may be beneficial. However, I'll only request this filter if he does this after his block expires and/or uses sockpuppets to evade the block. Gparyani (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Why, instead of deleting them, does someone not move his test pages to his own userspace? E.g. User:Allen terry/Melanie Specht? That way he can experiment all he wants, and maybe he'll get the picture that drafts and sandboxes go in HIS userspace. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn: Because they're eligible for deletion under criterion G2. Also, some have been moved, but have later been deleted while in his own userspace. Gparyani (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Gparyani: No, they're not eligible under G2. G2 "does not apply to pages in the user namespace".~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn: Sorry, I meant U2 :( Gparyani (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Gparyani: But if we moved them to his own userspace they wouldn't be eligable for U2 either, because they'd no longer be pages of non-existent users. (see my original comment) P.S. That said, looking at his talk page, I see others have tried that approach to no avail. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn: Then why were they deleted while they were in his own userspace, then? Also, the redirect would be eligible for U2 unless it is moved without leaving a redirect. Gparyani (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Repeatedly recreated user page

I have discovered a user Allen terry (talk · contribs) who is persistently recreating the page User:Melanie Specht. This is a user page of a user that doesn't exist, and is being deleted as U2 every time it is created. What I would normally do in a case where a page keeps being recreated is request its create protection. However, since it's a user page, I'm afraid it would present a problem in case someone comes by and wants to register that name. I have two options:

Request create protection on that page. This will stop the persistent disruptive editing on that page, but will present a problem if someone registers that username and wants to create their user page.
Register that username myself, and create a page to go along with it (to disclose its connection to me), and request that the page be protected. If someone wants to register that name, they can contact me (how?) and I'll have the username of that account changed so that they can register it. More complicated, but doable.