Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for a week.

« Archives, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79

Flags for Bulgaria and South Korea at the Olympics

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

---

Hello! Is it possible for you to correct errors regarding flags of Bulgaria and South Korea and also Spain at the Olympic Games. In the 1948 Winter Olympics the Bulgarian flag should be that from 1948 until 1967 regarding that they changed the flag three days prior to the games. South Korea used the variant until 1948 in both the 1948 Summer and Winter Olympics because they changed flag in October of that year. In the 1984 Summer and Winter Olympics they used the flag until 1984 on both occasions until they changed flag in October of that year. Spain's flag at the 1980 Olympics should be the Spanish Olympic Committee flag and not the Olympic flag. Check sources and see what you find out. Sincerely yours, Sondre --80.212.169.236 (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sondre, and thanks for pointing out those errors! Could you give us the names of the specific articles where you are spotting the incorrect flags? I'm guessing that they are probably relying on {{Flag}}, a quite complex template. Fixing the data used for that template could resolve the issue not just for those articles but for others as well. I'll put a message at that template's talk page and see if we can find anyone who can help. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

If it's the Olympics, it's likely {{flagIOC}}, but either way ping me when someone posts an article link. Primefac (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Sdkb § Articles where i spot the incorrect flags

 – Courtesy pinging Primefac. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I meant the articles for Summer and Winter Olympics. In the 1948 Winter Olympics for example Bulgaria used the flag from 1948 until 1967 they changed to that flag three days prior to the games. South Korea's flag at the 1948 Winter Olympics they used the 1945 flag until October of that year and they also used the same flag at the Summer Olympics. South Korea used the 1949 flag at the 1984 Summer Olympics and Winter Olympics until they changed flags in October of that year.

Sincerely yours, Sondre --80.212.169.236 (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello! The articles which i spot the wrong flags is in the countrys own article for the specific Olympic Games. en:Bulgaria at the 1948 Winter Olympics, en:South Korea at the 1948 Winter Olympics, en:South Korea at the 1948 Summer Olympics, en:Spain at the 1980 Summer Olympics, en:South Korea at the 1984 Winter Olympics and en:South Korea at the 1984 Summer Olympics.

Yours sincerely, Sondre --80.212.169.236 (talk) 10:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Suggestion for banner ads

I just want to put a suggestion to whoever is in-charge of putting the banner/ads which we see occasionally. Which is the right venue?

I've been a longstanding editor and it doesn't reflect well that I myself don't know where to post this. Ugog-public (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ugog-public: See meta:CentralNotice/Request, I believe. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Will check Sdkb, thanks! Ugog-public (talk) 06:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Unpaywall

Sailing moose just told me about Unpaywall, which is a browser extension that lets you locate free versions of paywalled scholarly articles. Just spreading the word about what looks like an amazingly useful tool. If you belong to a wikiproject that works on academic research topics, please let them know about this. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

A caution is that while this can be helpful in finding and using those sources one's self, some results from Unpaywall should likely not be linked, though we can still cite completely, as there are copyright issues at play. For example, papers that end up at academia.edu or researchgate.net, even if uploaded by the author of the paper, are technically copyright violations with respect to the journal publisher. You can still create a full citation , but I would not include a url and accessdate to these versions on WP. This is not saying all results from Unpayall are necessary impossible to link, just care should be used. --Masem (t) 14:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Masem, For sure, our citations should still just be to the doi. The rerouting (yeah, I know, copyright != censorship) takes place entirely on the browser side. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Also probably worthwhile to remind editors that your free Wikipedia account includes access to the Wikipedia Library Card platform where several academic publishers have granted access to their collections for free for WP editors. It doesn't include all major publishers, but a good chunk are there. --Masem (t) 16:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Be careful about April Fool's Articles

As I type these words, it is April 1 2021, which is Maundy Thursday in 2021. It is also April Fool's Day. Can I therefore ask all Recent Changes Watchers to be especially vigilant of newly created articles today, as some of them might be hoaxes as April Fool's Day jokes. There was a very famous hoax in which Panorama declared that spaghetti grows on trees - it was an April Fool's Day joke. If it was not Panorama, it might have been Horizon. Rollo August (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan have an admin template on it?

Should Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan have an admin template placed on her article due to User:Xaosflux/Requests for adminship/Wikipe-tan? (Oinkers42) (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

April Fool Day nonsense

It is time we ended this nonsense. It was all very well when wikipedia started, but now wikipedia is serious. No other encyclopedia runs close to the influence wikipedia has. Also, the April Fool Day fun is restricted to a very few countries and many users of wikipedia will have no idea what it is about. (originally posted at the Teahouse) --Bduke (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this about the "featuring" of Groundhog Day? If so, I thought that the way it was done was an attempt at wit that unfortunately didn't work. I'm all in favour of what I think is the regular pattern: the "straight" featuring of an article that might, especially on 1 April, be mistaken for hoax, but that is actually not a hoax at all. The featuring of Groundhog Day looked like a well-meant exception to this, and unfortunately a dud. (For one thing, if you have to exclaim ^{[April Fools!]} within your foolery, something has gone very wrong.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC) PS I should have said "Groundhog Day (film)". -- Hoary (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

No, it is about making a serious of silly alterations to many articles on April 1st which are later corrected. See Wikipedia:April Fools which I have just found. Your comment however indicates the problem. I live in Australia and earlier in my life in the UK. I have no idea what Groundhog Day is and you have no idea what April Fools Day is. So neither should be used for joke alterations to articles for a brief time. --Bduke (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I have a pretty good idea what April/All Fools' Day is. Being in Japan was no bar to my hearing of, or viewing, Groundhog Day. And it seems to be known in Australia, too (example). From time to time I encounter the "featuring" of an article whose subject is utterly unknown to me: an excellent example would be the Honan Chapel, "featured" today. Wikipedia invites me to educate myself about it. If any article has been tampered with as part of this "nonsense", then I don't understand how your or my knowledge of its subject should be a factor in whether we disapprove of (or condemn) the tampering. You point to Wikipedia:April Fools, but this is merely a list of lists; as you view Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2021, could you please point to two or three items that were problematic, and say what the problem was? -- Hoary (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

My main point is that we should not be mucking about with articles, even if they are rapidly corrected. You may know about April Fools' Day. You suggest that people in Australia know about Groundhog Day. Maybe some do, but I have never heard of it. April Fools' Day is not well known in Australia, but I remember it because I lived in UK for 50 years. Wikipedia is now serious business. No other encyclopedias are getting a look in these days. When we started 20 years or so ago, it was all fun and not serious, but it has become serious and we need to take that into account. I've been editing wikipedia for 15 years or so, and I have seen how it's importance has grown. Jokey stuff that was OK 15 years ago is not OK now. --Bduke (talk) 07:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Rules for Fools says: "April Fools' Day jokes are a controversial practice on Wikipedia. Such jokes must be kept out of mainspace and should be tagged with {{humor}} or similar templates." Are you suggesting a stricter rule, stricter attempts at enforcing it, omitting odd/misleading main page content, or something else? PrimeHunter (talk) 09:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I understand the gist of what you're saying, Bduke, but I'm unconvinced, because you haven't deigned to give a single example of inappropriate levity. As for me, I didn't notice any. Realizing that it was 1 April and thinking that the "featured" article might be something odd (exploding whale or whatever), I (unusually) looked at the top page and noticed that it was Groundhog Day (the film, not the event) -- and that was all. You haven't heard of Groundhog Day, I haven't heard, or have barely heard, of most of the films, pop songs, anime, etc that are "featured" -- and so what? Yes, Groundhog Day received silly edits during 1 April; I believe that it's normal for articles to receive silly edits whatever the day during which they are featured. Do you have a suggestion? -- Hoary (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Main page joke was fine ....but agree this junk takes up time for editors to deal with. Fake articles summited for review, offensive edit notices, joke move requests, fake RFC's, fake bot requests.--Moxy- 12:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Bduke, I'm sympathetic to your overall point that Wikipedia needs to behave responsibly to avoid accidentally spreading misinformation during April 1, and I'm particularly irked at DYK's continued use of misleading hooks that do exactly that. But it's not just a binary between undisclosed jokes in article-space (clear consensus in opposition) and jokes in WP-space with disclosure notices (clear consensus to support)—the giant discussion at WP:AF3 covered many gray areas. Until you respond to the question that Hoary and others have asked you here, it's not clear what you are seeking. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

A way to archive Youtube scripts?

I was just curious if there was a website out there that maybe doesn't preserve the video format, but the content of the videos. Videos are harder to archive so i was curious if there was an alternative out there.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

For some videos you can see the transcript (though it lacks speakers and is often the result of machine's interpretation). But then saving and archiving that is harder. It is likely better to use the "quote" of the cite templates to cite the key part that you need to have present for sourcing. --Masem (t) 13:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:Modern Honda vehicles

This template need some rework. The Type row made this template weird.--John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 14:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

John123521, I remove that second column that made the template weird. Looking through the edit history I noticed that some of the timespans for products were shifted in earlier edits (perhaps due to the extra column) so those might need to be looked over. – BrandonXLF (talk) 07:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

NEW Challenge page

It’s Wikipedia:Wikipedia Challenges, I have a BFDI-related one and you can suggest your own. Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Discrepancy between the preview from Google and the page itself

When "Curtido" is searched in google, the wikipedia preview says the country of Origin is Mexico, but in the page itself on Wikipedia it says El Salvador. I have no idea how to correct this. Just reporting it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:4100:6140:55DB:A9C:79A8:F3D7 (talk) 09:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The Google Knowledge Graph pulls information from many sources, it can often look like it is coming from Wikipedia when it is not. If there is a problem with what Google is showing, you need to report it to Google. RudolfRed (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata also has El Salvador, so assuming that that's the correct value, it seems the error is not coming from us. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• It seems to have been corrected at Google... at least when I search for the term. Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

New tool (updated)

Study registration didn't get any bites, so we are changing course for the rollout of my new tool. Registration is no longer be required for use.

• Click here to use the tool. (link will begin working shortly)
• Click here for instructional videos.

Be sure to save the links so you don't lose them. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct – 2021 consultations

Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) provides a universal baseline of acceptable behavior for the entire Wikimedia movement and all its projects. The project is currently in Phase 2, outlining clear enforcement pathways. You can read more about the whole project on its project page.

Drafting Committee: Call for applications

The Wikimedia Foundation is recruiting volunteers to join a committee to draft how to make the code enforceable. Volunteers on the committee will commit between 2 and 6 hours per week from late April through July and again in October and November. It is important that the committee be diverse and inclusive, and have a range of experiences, including both experienced users and newcomers, and those who have received or responded to, as well as those who have been falsely accused of harassment.

To apply and learn more about the process, see Universal Code of Conduct/Drafting committee.

2021 community consultations: Notice and call for volunteers / translators

From 5 April – 5 May 2021 there will be conversations on many Wikimedia projects about how to enforce the UCoC. We are looking for volunteers to translate key material, as well as to help host consultations on their own languages or projects using suggested key questions. If you are interested in volunteering for either of these roles, please contact us in whatever language you are most comfortable.

To learn more about this work and other conversations taking place, see Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations.

-- Xeno (WMF) (talk)

20:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

English Wikipedia Request for comment: Universal Code of Conduct application

Further to the above, I've opened an RfC at Wikipedia:Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultation, and community comments are invited. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)