User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Infoboxes in biographies of classical musicians

Hi, wondering if Jim or a page watcher would care to look at the discussion at Richard D'Oyly Carte about the appropriateness and usefulness of infoboxes in the biographies of classical musicians and related articles. I was so astonished at the stance there I briefly dipped into some facetiousness before hauling myself back out. Yopienso (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Huh, if theres one thing you should avoid on wikipedia is adding infoboxes to classical music biographies. They are strongly detested by the opera group.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So I discovered yesterday. My question is, what does Jimbo think about a bloc of editors commanding such power over a complete set of articles? Yopienso (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• That is why we need more rules to deter bullying which stops improvements. Perhaps they should read "WP:Thinking outside the infobox" as to how using infoboxes speeds translation of thousands articles into many other languages, because the infobox is standardized for simplified bot translation of many article stubs. Is there some hidden reason why they will not allow infoboxes when traditional theaters have "opera boxes"? -Wikid77 (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Any examples of such articles created by bot translation? I was not aware that this really happens and is approved on Wikipedia. I know that some of the artificial language wiki's are populated by bots translating articles on populated places, but I don't think that giving any support for such fake encyclopedias is what we want to do. I haven't noticed any biographies being translated from or to English by bots at all though. Fram (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of bulk-load edits of new articles, but I do not know of any interwiki bot translations yet. Most of the copied infobox stubs seem to be from people repeatedly hand-translating stubs. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So basically your argument pro infoboxes was baseless? Please refrain from introducing such arguments in discussions, they only serve to muddy the waters. Fram (talk) 06:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Would never get consensus to do so on here. Although I'm thinking of proposing a bot which translates German/French/Spanish/Poish wiki articles using google translate into the wikipedia work space and which can be moved into the mainspace once proof read and sourced. But given that articles need to be proof read it would just as easily be done manually whenever an editor wants to translate one. If google translate was perfected a bot translating articles would be useful but the articles would still need to be placed in categories of "needing proof reading" and given the millions of articles needing translating and lack of editors would be years before they could all be checked and in the meantime could contain mistranslated and incorrect info so overll would be a bad idea... In regards to infoboxes I quite like the fact that composer articles just have a photograph, in fact I dislike infoboxes in biography articles. I only see their use really for articles which have a lot of facts like aircraft etc or to display pin maps for places and buildings.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In 2004, Google Translate was formerly translating articles correctly between several languages, including conjugation of verbs and declension of nouns, with proper word-order placement. However, I think it was considered "too slow" or limited to just a dozen languages. If we could find another old-style language translation site, then we could quickly expand the "big articles" to have text from other Wikipedias, by copy/paste/translate, with first masking "Frankenstein" as "XFrankenstein" (or such) to avoid getting "French stone" in the translation. Some of the Google Mutate results are totally incomprehensible, and take hours to re-translate. However, as I remember, translation from Swedish-to-English was better, so perhaps find a German article, get the Swedish and translate that as a start. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

What of course we are trying to achieve is for there to be the same quantity and eveness of coverage and quality of articles across all 260 wikipedias and some sort of system where as every article (missing) is created on another wikipedia we have the chance to have it started at the same time in english and in any other language so the effort put in by any wikipedian in any language can benefit all of the other wikipedias. Maybe in the future if google translate is perfected we could have a go at sorting a bot to bridge the gap in badly needed areas where the general quality on the other wikipedia is high. Ultimately of course we want everything to be human written and checked but it could certainly be very useful to do to gruelling work needed initially on articles such as our empty one liners on German municipalities and French communes in fleshing them out..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I find it curious that half of the infobox supporters in a recent straw poll there (Talk:Richard_D'Oyly_Carte#Count) are WP:ARS regulars. Rather than asking "what can we do about a bloc of editors commanding such power?", perhaps the question would be "why do a bloc of editors insist on imposing editing styles on a wikiproject?" As noted in the discussions on that page, boxes are not mandatory. Tarc (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to do with the ARS. DGG and Michael are ARS regulars, sure, but they are both also heavily involved in numerous areas on Wikipedia. And i'm not sure if any of the other supporters are members, i'm not going to bother checking though I believe Noleander is, but unless you're saying that all 300+ members of the ARS are "regulars", you have absolutely nothing. Now I would respectfully ask for you to stop badmouthing the ARS everywhere you go when we have absolutely nothing to do with a discussion. Silverseren^C 19:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually I often save articles from AFD and I voted oppose..♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Seren's spirited defense of his cohorts aside, the question remains; why are editors trying to impose infoboxes onto a project that feels the articles are better off without them? Wikiprojects do not own their respective articles, sure, but they are more familiar with the subject matter than non-members are at times. This seems to be one of them, and editors trying to enforce some sort of "there must be infoboxes everywhere!" sameness/uniformity is a bit pushy IMO. Tarc (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Please be more careful in alleging conspiracies. You are mistaken, at least on my part. Please answer my question instead of posing your own.

My answer to yours: Speaking for myself only, not editors, plural (There is no cabal.), as a user--and I use much more than I edit--I appreciate uniformity for multiple reasons.

• First and foremost, I know where to find things. If editors on any given page had the leeway to choose different styles for titles and subtitles and general outlines--that is, if each page had its own look--it would be confusing. (And, yes, editors do have the leeway to include or exclude infoboxes; I'm just answering your question.)
• Second, uniformity gives the encyclopedia a more professional appearance.
• Third, uniformity makes for easier editing. This is a case in point. Never did I imagine there was a bloc of editors who closed ranks against infoboxes. So here I've waded into something I very reasonably thought was an anomaly--and it is, really, compared to the bulk of WP where I've never encountered a dislike for infoboxes--because of a lack of uniformity. Having different rules for different pages creates confusion.
• Fourth, and this is in regards to infoboxes specifically, not uniformity in general, the infoboxes are a great aid to the general reader who perhaps never heard of the subject before. The opera group (There is no cabal.) seem to want to have a snooty enclave in Wikipedia aimed at scholars opera experts. Now, I could be mistaken about this, and please point to the policy if I am, but I understand the project is aimed at informing the general public, not scholars. Scholars supposedly don't use general-reference encyclopedias, anyway.
• Last, this seems like a states' rights v. federalist struggle: is each Wikiproject a sovereign entity, or is Wikipedia one big umbrella project with many sub-projects?

Well, in any case, as a drive-by editor, I'm respecting the consensus on those pages. Thanks to each for your perspective and best wishes to all. Yopienso (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Making any sort of connection between infoboxes and subject specific knowledge of a user (Wikiproject or not) is a fallacious argument. Infoboxes are not subject matter, they are a formatting opinion. The opinions of users in regards to them all count equally and members of any Wikiproject, regardless of their subject specific knowledge, does not count any more than any other user. Infoboxes are purely an opinion and the use of them should be done through consensus. That is what was done in this situation and done properly, consensus was re-established and there is nothing wrong with that. Please stop trying to make it seem like there is some sort of infobox conspiracy going on. Silverseren^C 22:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh seren, if only it really were as simple as you proclaim. However, we have the topic initiator who is "astonished" that a "snooty enclave" wasn't interested in his infoboxes, and came calling on Mr. Wales for his input. Then Wnt decries the "bullying" by the opera project members. Yopienso drops "bloc" into his commentary several times, which is indeed asserting that the wiki-project is acting like a cabal, despite his protests that he never meant that. Yes, infobox use can come about by consensus. The consensus rejected the usage, but Yopienso and Wnt come here to Mr. Wales talk page acting like a pair of missionaries who just can't understand why those operatic heathens couldn't accept their enlightened view of the Wiki-world. I also noted how some of the usual players in these sorts of things cropped up in the original discussion, which made you extra-testy. The matter here is quite simple; an editing proposal was made, consensus came down against it, and the originator is complaining about it. Tarc (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not even going to bother. Your constant incivility is the worst out of anyone on this site. Silverseren^C 03:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yopienso's summary was well put. I expect "snooty" referred to some statements in the infobox discussion, particularly the one stating that readers should have to read the entire article, not encouraged to skim an infobox. iow, implying Wikipedia is not here for the convenience of our readers, but to "educate them" in the precise way a few contributors deem correct and proper. Whether that was the consensus of the group or the opinion of a specific Wikipedian wasn't clear. (Tarc, thank you for pouring petrol on the fire. You never fail to delight in that regard.) 99.50.186.180 (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, Roi. Pontifications aside, is is still puzzling to see why this matter ever came to Jimbo's page at all. If editors have reached a consensus that a box detracts from the article rather than enhances it, and no policies are being violated by this consensus, then is there a legitimate beef here? All it seems to boil down to here is "I disagree, so I will appeal to another authority", similar to the sentiment that one sees in many flawed DRV filings. Tarc (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, did you miss the memo? Everyone, for whatever reason, is allowed to post here, without being accused of forumshopping, canvassing, or anything else (at least, without being accused of these things by Jimbo, what other people think of it may be different...) Fram (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say "don't post here", I asked "why are you posting here?" Yopienso begain this discussion in a fairly combative tone, and I think it is fair to ask of him and his supporters just what is to be accomplished by this. Tarc (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Given the division of opinion over infoboxes I'm not sure why the option in "my preferences" isn't introduced to hide all infoboxes and those who want them can have them and those who detest them can simply hide them and by default just feature whatever photo is in the infobox to be thumb nailed at the top. Flexibility is the key...♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

And where does that end, exactly? The real issue is: What constitutes a consensus? The people who happen to be working on a particular article or project at that particular moment in time? (Remember: no canvassing!) What about overlapping projects, such as Biography and Opera, which come to different consensuses? What about the views of users/readers which are currently only being represented by editors? Editors who are purportedly mostly young educated males from western countries, according to Sue Gardner? What about those who lose a given argument, but simply wait a bit until a new group with a different consensus shows up? Or run to a different but similar article? And then the 'other side' does the same? This is the same problem every single online volunteer community project has faced as volunteers and users and popularity hit the tipping point. Volunteers often start in some particular area of interest. As they contribute (and look) beyond that, and as time passes and others do the same, they expect some consistency: "We've tried several alternatives, now let's settle on some standards for a better user experience." That's when these arguments start and long-time volunteers disappear. It's pointless to spend time and effort if your contributions will likely be deleted at some point in time, on the basis of whim or personal preferences of a few people wearing the cloak of "consensus". Those contributions aren't likely to be restored later, as who would even think to search for them? You don't know what you do't know. All it often takes is once. It's pointless to spend time and effort if one's contributions have to be re-justified in each and every article when the facts and reasons are the same, but the "consensus" (meaning the people participating) varies. It becomes a charade, and we lose contributors. This is our biggest current problem, and won't be solved by Eddie Haskell-style "politeness". Truth to power: Solve the problem. 99.50.186.180 (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo, this is a small individual kerfuffle, but illustrates the general issue of real content writers leaving the Wiki. When you have someone actually writing actual content, it is a complete buzzkill to have these Aspie infobox-adders or taggers come by and try to imose their desire for format on articles. It is significant valuable work to read books, structure a page, write multiple paragraphs, decide what to exclude versus include...all the work of composition...and even worse having to do it in the wiki markup language and a non WYSIWYG window. Oh...and no lectures about everyone is equal or AGF or NPA please. This is a serious thing to let Jimbo know. We are ten years into this thing and vast spaces of vital articles are not written. There is a reason. The real content contributors are turned off by the over aggressive gnomes and bullies. They vote with their feet...07:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Those edit requests

If you have a sec, please take a look at the;

• 2 COI edit requests: Talk:Banner Lassen Medical Center , Talk:Ejaculation
• 19 semi-protected edit requests: Talk:Armando Montelongo , Talk:Bambi II , Talk:Bear Grylls , Talk:Brazil , Talk:Ed Sheeran , Talk:Ejaculation , Talk:Elizabeth Warren , Talk:Feminism , Talk:Hipster (contemporary subculture) , Talk:Human height , Talk:Jat people , Talk:Mona Lisa , Talk:Muhammad Ali , Talk:Niggerhead , Talk:Occupy Wall Street , Talk:Onomatopoeia , Talk:Peggy Lehner , Talk:Rihanna , Talk:Tamara Toumanova
• 5 protected edit requests: Talk:1919 Hungarian–Romanian War , Talk:Paragliding , MediaWiki talk:Gadget-defaultsummaries.js , Template talk:Multiple issues , Template talk:Multiple issues/message

...and, of course, WP:FEED. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  21:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Especially WP:FEED. Isn't it a bit crap, how we ignore people trying to add encyclopaedic content, whilst worrying over bureaucratic crap?  Chzz  ►  22:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a lot of stuff to look at, and some of it involves looking at the talk pages of articles that annoy me so much that I mainly try to pretend they don't exist. :-)

Can you sum up your point? I think what you are saying is "Many people request edits and then get ignored" although several of the examples that you linked to now have responses, though maybe that's because you posted them here? If I've missed your point, I apologize, and please clarify, thanks! :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Since he's the one who started the "let's delete lots of External links because that's my personal interpretation" bit, I assumed this is his attempt to distract people from discussing that and similar "bureaucratic crap" (his term) so he can continue on his idiosyncratic way, unimpeded. No? 99.50.186.180 (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jimbo Wales. You have new messages at Maunus's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Italian WP unblocked after 16 million forced pageviews

I don't agree with Wikid77 and found his comments disruptive and unhelpful
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As noted above, editing on the Italian Wikipedia has been restored (by mid-day) to no longer View-source when trying to edit an Italian-WP article. I have started an essay to log the event: "WP:Italian Wikipedia lockout October 2011" Forced views of the protest page ("it:WP:Comunicato_4_ottobre_2011"), displayed from every article, managed to log 8 million pageviews per day (16,138,544 in 2 days), although that does not mean that all viewers actually read the contents of the rant, and discounting the repeated views, there were certainly fewer than 4 million people who viewed the protest page. Pageviews of other articles doubled (such as "Roma" or "Napoli") as people perhaps tried twice as hard to view their topics, then being forced again to the protest page. The total-articles counter has resumed at about 847,150 articles, growing by 25 articles per hour. Because people in Italy are probably well accustomed to fascist actions, then editor activity might resume without fear of losing total access to the Italian Wikipedia. I am not sure how quickly new articles had been added to Italian WP, formerly, before the forced shutdown blocked all editing by general users. The fear in Italy used to be swarms of children pick-pockets taking everything not chained to a person (wallet, watch, money-clip), but who knows what the Italian Wikipedia will do next. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC) "Because people in Italy are probably well accustomed to fascist actions", "The fear in Italy used to be swarms of children pick-pockets taking everything not chained to a person", ??? Are you deliberately insulting Italy and the Italians here? Fram (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC) I didn't write that they are Italian children, so there is no need to attack me by insinuating that I am "deliberately insulting Italy and the Italians" when I am merely stating facts. Also, please read and learn: "Fascist Italy" and "Italian Fascism" to help understand what other people are writing. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC) While those statements are a tad provocative I'm not sure I would read this as directly insulting to Italy or Italians. Let's not make mountains out of molehills, and try to AGF here. Also, when I tried to find more information about this event, and about the bill in question, I can across heaps of comments from Italians about how "fascistic" they feel their government is becoming. Take that as you will. And I wouldn't be so sure that the "swarms of children pick-pockets" is actually directed towards "Italians." Usually people blame those types of activities on a pan-European ethnic group with large permanent populations in countries like Romania. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Great, so in defending Wikid77's statements, you decide to insult the Roma instead? Could you explain what these "swarms" have to do with the topic at hand and how they are not gratuitous disparaging remarks? Fram (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Excuse me? I've insulted no one. Pointing out to you that when people talk about child pick pockets they are usually talking about the Roma is not an insult to the Roma, it is an observation about those people who are talking about child pick pockets. I did not call them pick pockets, nor did I say anything at all about them. I think that should be abundently clear. I'm also not "defending" his comments. I'm pointing out that you're being overly dramatic about them. I think your response to me shows rather clearly that you need to calm down. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Allright, you weren't indeed stating anything about the Roma, sorry about that. But whether Wikid77 was insulting Italy and/or the Roma is not really the point, for some reason he felt the need to make needlessly insulting remarks about Italy and groups of people living there (the swarms of pick-pockets have little to do with the self-serving laws of some Italian politicians and the impact those have on Wikipedia). Fram (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Protests are intended to be disruptive. That's how they attract attention to the issue. They knew their readers would be inconvenienced when they did it, just as a peace march disrupts traffic flow. Dcoetzee 20:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC) In the form it was first presented, the bill would never have been passed. I never knew about this terrible fear of child pickpockets in Italy or that it's people are "well accustomed to fascist actions" Perhaps as I'm not over 70, I'm too young to be accustomed to these things. Odd, some of the rubbish one reads on wikipedia. Giacomo Returned 23:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC) It's not only the pickpockets, one also has to keep one's eye on their bicycles, too. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Giacomo are you being serious about the pickpockets? Perhaps the number one fear of tourists traveling to Italian cities is being taken by pickpockets. I'm not saying that to insult your country. I'm an American and tourists might legitimately fear being killed while visiting my country, so trust me it's not meant as a criticism, but this perception certainly exists. I've only been to Italy once and I was never robbed so I can't speak to the reality behind the perception but the perception is most certainly out there. Try Google. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Yes, I had a feeling you might be American; a member of that crime free nation renowned for its grip of international affairs and happenings. Anyway, I am glad you managed to survive you brave and fearless expedition to Italy without being pickpocketed, kidnapped or attacked by the Mafia or die from over exposure to spumoni icecream and spaghetti (Italy's sole national products, all made and sold by out of work opera singers). Giacomo Returned 06:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Giacomo I find it odd that after I quite explicitly offered up an much worse perception about my own country you still felt the need to start a pissing contest about whose country is better. Crime in the U.S. is much worse than in Europe in my opinion, if only for the fact that it is usually more violent and life threatening. I have no problem admitting that, or that fact that like every nation we even have, gasp, pickpockets. In fact, if the worst concern a tourist can have when visiting a city is being pickpocketed, that's not much to complain about. I never worried about having my property nabbed when I was in Italy, nor was there anything particularly brave about my trip, with the exception perhaps of driving the narrow mountain roads around the Parco Nazionale dei Monti Sibillini (I'm a bit scared of heights you see). The only reason I expressed surprise Giacomo, is that I feel the perception of high pickpocket activity in cities like Rome (and Paris, Prague, etc.) is very common. I'm not a criminologist so I have no idea if this perception is based on fact or fantasy (or a little of both), but like I said it's a real perception. And it isn't only an American one either, [1], [2]. There is another perception out there that is amusing me right now, and it is that Americans are the worst when it comes to unquestioned national pride. I think I missed that memo clearly. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Or are you serious about pickpockets Griswaldo? You point to a mere 303,000 pickpockets entries for Italy What about 1,270,000 for France, 1,930,000 for Britain and 2,470,000 for Germany? --Epipelagic (talk) 04:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC) That would be a good point had I ever said that Italian cities were the only ones tourists worry about pickpockets in, or even the worst. I've said neither. Your links only suggest that this issue is discussed regarding other cities as well. Incidentally.Griswaldo (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Sources for true "rubbish" found on Wikipedia: There is no need to question if someone is "serious" when claiming no knowledge of child pickpockets but just list some sources: • "Child Pickpockets in Venice Italy" • "Pickpockets on the Cinque Terre - a warning | Travel | ITALY" • "How to Avoid Pickpockets in Italy in Frommers.com" • "Pickpockets & Scammers may cancel our first family trip to Italy" - Fodors.com There is a lot of common knowledge which is not yet properly covered by Wikipedia, so please feel free to write about child pickpockets in Italy (or France or Britain or Germany...). -Wikid77 (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC) An article from a site selling travel safety stuff (so one that benefits from scaremongering), and three fora / blog posts. I hope the quality of your article work, and the sources you use there, is better than what you present here. That you aren't the only one with your prejudiced and insulting views doesn't mean that they are any more correct or relevant. Every country has crime, bad politicians, and a lot of stereotypes. Taking the worst of them and spreading them on high profile pages without any actual reason as to why they would have anything to do with the topic at hand, and trying to defend them with "impressive" sources (Frommer's! Fodors!) which are not really the source of the info, is not the way to go. Fram (talk) 07:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

	A belated thank you
	Thanks again for coming out to The Children's Museum of Indianapolis last month! I wanted to share some WikiLove, courtesy of my son Teddy: LoriLee (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, here are the images from your visit: Commons:Category:Jimmy Wales at The Children's Museum of Indianapolis. LoriLee (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ohio politicians

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE help to stop the terrible attacks and deletions of articles pertaining to Ohio politicians by User:Marcus Qwertyus. He has consistently been on attack against one user and is now creating a terrible drain of information on Wikipedia. EVERY and I mean EVERY article he has deleted has been stocked with credible sources and are liable. He is creating a great disservice to individuals in Ohio, especially in an election year. Can you please see that each of articles on a Ohio politician that he has deleted are has submitted to be deleted is reinstated. I am willing to do whatever it takes to ensure that this does not continue to happen. I am greatly outraged! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.215.130 (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This editor is a serial copyright violator and the Contributor Copyright Violations page is not working. Marcus Qwertyus 17:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)