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 pages, or - for assistance - at the help desk, rather than here, if at all appropriate. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

« Archives, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78

US military propaganda?

Hi. Info@ received an e-mail pointing out that the U.S. military has announced plans to use Wikipedia to get its message across. Specifically, in this Fox news report, it says:

Speaking to the general's character, current and former U.S. military officers who worked with Caldwell said he is an example of a modern Army officer who was trying to bring the Army's "strategic communications" into the 21st century, encouraging the units he commanded at Ft. Leavenworth, the Army's premier training facility, to use social media, blogging and Wikipedia as part of their efforts to shape their message. Defense Secretary Robert Gates praised Caldwell just last week for his efforts training Afghan forces.

I guess we can trust that the usual Wikipedia model will guard against this, but should Wikipedians be asked to keep an eye out for it? If so, what people? Where? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sufficient unto the day. There are a great many groups who are active on WP - from many nations, religions, etc. This sounds like one of the least offensive, truth be told. And we must be sure it is not used by anyone to try claiming a person is a "sock" who happens to be a member of the military of any nation, or work for the government of any nation. Collect (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I've left a note at WT:MILHIST. EyeSerene^talk 11:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it has been shown in the past that the Wikipedia model will not guard us against this. There is very little that can be done against highly organised groups of editors. If their members outnumber the regular neutral editors, they will succeed in pushing their agenda. Nanobear (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Something in me doubts that the US Army is going to commit all 800K of it's personnel to editing Wikipedia articles. If something like this were to happen, it would be up to the few public affairs offices that have a dozen personnel at best to work. I don't think there is anything to worry about here.--v/r - TP 13:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The military would be able to generate enormous amounts of IPs though, but I don't think there is anything to worry about.AerobicFox (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree although there is only 1 IP for 90+% of the USMC and Navy and its currently blocked indefinately. --Kumioko (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Where POV-pushing has been most effective/controversial has generally been topics without lots of editors familiar with the subject watching them (the Balkans, for example). If these people are going to start editing pages like Iraq war, I think more people are going to notice. We have quite a lot of editors familiar with the US military, even low-importance pages. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The concern is valid and this is something I've been following for a long time. The best way to begin addressing the issue is to get some closure on how to deal with sleeper accounts, because this is the most common point of entry. This also means deciding what to do about admin accounts that are used rarely if at all. Viriditas (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Although I agree that there is little need to worry at this time I still think if we create a report of Military IP, editing like we do for the Congressional edits that will help. In response to the comment about sleeper accounts, and its a little off topic. I have long thought that if someone was gone for a while and had admin, AWB or a variety of other things, they should be temporarily dsiabled (the person can simply just request for them to be restored without much fuss) but I think that its a potential for exploitation. I also think that we should, via a bot or something, drop a template on User pages if it has been inactive for 6 months or more. That will put the account into a category that can be monitored for activity. --Kumioko (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree, but let us also pay heed to what Collect is saying. This is not merely a military issue, but one that will be quickly seized upon by any interested organization, and has, IMO. A good way to help users keep on top of this situation is to encourage people to use the toolserver to provide simple apps for any editor to utilize. One can already use intersect or "wikistalking" toolls to view matching contribs, but in a situation like this, we also want to see account creation dates and edit histories. Last year, I was blocked by an admin who had not been active for five months, and who appeared to have been contacted offline by a user involved in a content dispute with me. Looking into it further, I found that the two users had been working closely for years, supporting each other across the project. More recently, I was involved in protracted dispute with a user who received support from another user who appeared to have an account creation date separated by a matter of hours, making me suspect that something wasn't quite right. This kind of thing goes on all the time here, with admins and users making use of multiple accounts and gaming the system. If we can put tools in the hands of users, giving them the ability to check out the contribution histories themselves, this will go a long way towards educating editors about the potential pitfalls and empowering them to protect themselves and each other. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I can tell you right now that there is not an organized conspiracy to edit or take over Wikipedia. Military public affairs generally regard Wikipedia the same way as any other website, in that they know that they can't control the content effectively (ironically enough) and that it should be taken with as much a grain of salt as a blog. I've seen the occasional unit public affairs office try to edit, and generally, thier edits are unreferenced, POV, and usually unencyclopedic jargon; they get frustrated that thier edits are reverted and give up. I've had a couple find my name on my userpage and contact me, and when I explain to them our policies, they tend to be daunted by the fact that there is really more to it than just copy and pasting from thier unit's website. Just like any other organization (like a corporation), some units see Wikipedia as an opportunity to "advertise", some have genuine good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia (but with generally poor success), and most just ignore it. TLDR: our current practices are more than sufficient to guard against the low-level spam, NPOV, and COI issues we get from military members editing Wikipeida. I will continue to be a watchdog on my brothers and sisters. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I am seriously concerned. The US Air Force solicitation for persona management software that allows up to 50 users to play up to 10 personas each that are "replete with background, history, supporting details, and cyber presences that are technically, culturally and geographacilly[sic] consistent" [1] did not specifically mention Wikipedia, but if the US Air Force treats Wikipedia like every other website we can assume that this software will be used against us. The required design is such that it would presumably fool checkusers.

If "encouraging the units he commanded at Ft. Leavenworth, the Army's premier training facility, to use social media, blogging and Wikipedia as part of their efforts to shape their message" is a euphemistic description of astroturfing including at Wikipedia, then I see potential for an Arbcom case similar to the climate change case. I don't like the idea that our checkusers might find themselves in an arms race with the US military. Hans Adler 20:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not see it as very likely that checkusers would find themselves in an "arms race" of any kind with the US military. If the military actually was fully committed to using Wikipedia in order to subtly influence public opinion (or whatever), we would be hopelessly outclassed. I am not an expert on either behavioral analysis or in networking technology. I work on Wikipedia in my spare time (what little of it I have...). As a hobby. As far as I know, most checkusers are quite similar (there are a few who really know their stuff, but they still don't do this for a living). The reason we have been (mostly) successful is because thus far, no sufficiently large group has put up the necessary manpower and cash to mount a concerted effort (or maybe someone already has, and we don't know it yet...) Regardless, putting 30-50 or so volunteers/hobbyists up against any determined and well-funded group, let alone the largest military force on the planet, would redefine the term "curbstomp".

Despite this, I don't see the US military as a major opponent. For one thing, I doubt that the military would be willing to allocate the resources to launch a campaign to subtly influence Wikipedia. As I see it, the risk/reward factor is far too small. The potential for massive embarrassment and scandal if they were caught would, in my own opinion, far outweigh any benefits they could gain by using Wikipedia to, say, distribute propaganda, disinformation, influence public opinion, etc.

To me, this means that even in the (imo) unlikely event that the US military decided that it would be worth it to use Wikipedia as a platform, in order to avoid embarrassment, they would have to allocate a serious amount of manpower towards the project, which would invoke the curbstomp scenario mentioned above. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You may be right, but there is generally a lot of incompetence and sometimes also criminal (e.g. anti-constitutional) energy in all levels of government, in practically all countries. The potential for embarrassment is of course precisely why even if my suspicions should turn out to be right the game might be rather more equal than you described it. So I think it's just worthwhile for us to keep our eyes open in this direction and rely on behavioural more than on technical evidence. Of course there is no reason for panic. Hans Adler 01:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've opened a related thread over at Wikipedia_talk:Activist#Scope_and_title. Comments are welcome. Personally, I am less concerned about the U.S. military, and more concerned about PR and political organizations that could do the "dirty work" for anyone that pays. Fortunately, I'm convinced that it is possible to develop countermeasures. There are already ways to monitor articles in real-time, and to watch for unusual connections between editors and topics. Using the toolserver to make these methods public, would allow anyone to watch groups of articles (under a project banner, for example) and empower individuals to "watch the watchers". This is the ideal way forward. Viriditas (talk) 04:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Over long articles on pop culture topics?

Only Girl (In the World) has 49,595 bytes, while Eve has only 37,308 bytes. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but there are a greater number of reliable sources for Only Girl. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps both are fiction, but one seems like a bit more important treatment of the theme. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Who cares? These "omigod we have longer pop culture than proper culture" comparisons are tedious and pointless. The length of one article has no bearing or impact upon another article. Fences&Windows 03:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a serious issue. Wiki doesn't have a faultless reputation for making the right choices on which content to promote. Maybe a purge on "pop culture" subjects is needed? doktorb _words^deeds 07:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm Yoenit (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I really think a single paragraph could give all the notable information on "Only Girl". Then a link could be given to the video. Watching it would be a much better use of the readers' time than wading through all the trivia now in the article. I do like the song, BTW. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not in charge of what news covers and we can only make an article based on the sources that are out there. However, this discussion is pointless, since it's quite obvious that Eve can be expanded by a significant amount, since there has to be more information out there than is currently in the article. Instead of complaining here, maybe you should go and actually work on improving the Eve article? Silverseren^C 08:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, no because what an encyclopedia should do is give basic information on a topic in an article that is of a length that almost every reader who starts it will finish it in one sitting. Not to give every documented fact and published opinion about a topic. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Besides, raw size of an article's source code is not a good judge of its length. That's because there are formatting issues that affects the page's size, such as using tables. Eve actually has more content, but because Only Girl (In the World) uses several tables, its source code is larger. The number of references will also affect the overall size of the page. —Farix (t | c) 11:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to purge these tedious articles about boring military history, religions, trains, and species nobody has ever heard of. Total and utter cruft. And why is some dead chick squatting at Eve? That should be a disambig page as Eve Online and Eve (entertainer) get waaaaay more Google hits. Fences&Windows 21:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the flaw of a wiki system: people will write about what they want to write, and specific topics of more limited interest will have less editors working on them. Let's suppose for a moment that we go on with this proposal, and cut down the information about pop songs because there are more important topics. What will happen next? Will the users that write about Rihanna's songs or Shakira's CDs "become academic" and write about Eve, Eva Perón or Susan B. Anthony instead? or would they simply get upset about an arbitrary abuse and simply leave the project?

Have in mind that including popular culture items can benefit the "important" topics in an indirect way. Somebody may start in the project writing about frivolous things (a non-paid and non-mandatory activity must give pleasure, otherwise, people don't do it), and then shift to other more important topics. Perhaps to "gain prestige" among a community of users of a web site (namely, us), perhaps to fancy to friends or relatives "look, I wrote an article in wikipedia and it was selected as a featured article!" (and articles on history or science would be better than the frivolous topics), perhaps as a self-challenge, perhaps just by the simple reason of helping the distribution of information that may be actually useful for other people... MBelgrano (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I wasn't seriously proposing that WP policy change to force people to write shorter articles. What would be good is if people were to get the concept that articles exist for the readers. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Chinaraileng38265

There's something odd going on here — this user is mass-creating stubs on Chinese railroad articles, many (e.g., Sandu Railway Station, Guiyang Railway Station, Xiaoxian North Railway Station) with cleanup tags already in place. This smells of a cut-and-paste move or recreation of deleted material. Can someone look into this? Feezo (Talk) 06:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, the editor's speed (7 new articles in 2 minutes) is such that I have to question whether this is really a single user. Feezo (Talk) 21:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

They're all completely unreferenced as well, and concerns have been voiced on their talkpage. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the first thing I though of. Reach Out to the Truth 02:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Any way to tell if that's what's going on, or can we just guess? It seems consistent with there being absolutely no references whatsoever in them. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, now it's moving into disruptive. It's flooding Special:NewPages with enormous amounts of unreferenced stubs, and is creating a lot of extra work. I would advise that someone give another warning (see the talkpage history for the first one), and if nothing happens block this user until they agree to at least reference their articles. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes references are mandatory. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Percentages

Working on a table of incunables, I have encountered two challenges. First, I'd like to have the numbers sorted one below the other by place value, but {{0|0}} somehow interfered with the sorting function. Second, is there a way to include the percentages automatically from the total into the % column? A function which goes like "21,193/21,193+3,265+414*100". And another for adding automatically the number of editions, please.

Rank	Language	Number of editions	%
1	Latin	21,193	<percentage calculated automatically from total>
2	German	3,265	<percentage calculated automatically from total>
3	Italian	414	<percentage calculated automatically from total>
		<total calculated automatically from Latin, German and Italian numbers>

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody? What I am asking for is actually the very same system as with Excel. Can we do these calculations also in a table here, with a template or something?

A	B	C	D
1	Latin	21,193	=C1/C4*100 in %
2	German	3,265	=C2/C4*100 in %
3	Italian	414	=C3/C4*100 in %
4		=C1+C2+C3

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, you can use {{Percentage}} to calculate percentages, but you are still manually gonna have to enter the numbers. Yoenit (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, and any template for the field C1+C2+C3? The data is pretty dynamic, you know, so I don't want to recalculate the totals every time I make a change in the list. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There is the parserfunction #expr for the mathematical part (see Help:Calculation), but I am not aware of anything which would allow you to refer to table entries the way excel handles them. Yoenit (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

And..you know how sort to the numbers in the "Number of editions" column by their place value? I tried to use {{0|0}}, but it did not work properly. I could align them to the right, yes, but I'd prefer some solution with the numbers aligned to the left. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Can a talk page be speedied?

Two or three times I've encountered a newly created File Talk page with spam-like text including an email address. I have blanked the text but wonder if the talk page alone (not the associated file) can be deleted under CSD. If so, under what criterion? Rivertorch (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Any of the general (G) criteria works for talkpages, with the exception of user talk pages, which are almost never deleted. In this case just tag them with wp:CSD#G11. Yoenit (talk) 09:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Yes, I think that would work. Thanks. Rivertorch (talk) 09:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Just as an aside; there is one exception I can think of to the not deleting user talk pages rule. IP talkpages with only one revision containing an obvious legal threat usually get deleted as G10, then recreated with the block message, which makes sense because we don't want to stigmatize the next person who might use that IP who's done nothing wrong. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Lyltry

[Redacted attempted OUTing. Not appropriate to OverSight and RevDel would snarl up much of the rest of the page, so just blanking, but please don't do this in future. James F. (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)]

We need more New Page Patrollers

As one can see from a thread near the top of WP:VPT, there seem to be a very few people doing the vast majority of NPP right now. Kamkek and I did over 7000 pages from February 1-26 alone), and the same is happening at New Article Review. I can only speak for myself, but I've been attacking around 200+ pages a day to try and keep Special:NewPages from flooding again; the other day, I patrolled about 350 pages. I can handle going at that rate, but Kamkek and I aren't online all the time. It's obvious when neither of us are doing NPP because it backs up very quickly during that time. We badly need one or both of two things. First, we need more people to help us; that way, we might have the time to actually reference that BLP instead of having to cut our losses to keep up with the new pages by BLPPRODding it right away, which is the situation now. Second, there was a proposal some months ago about making editors become autoconfirmed before writing an article. I want to raise this as another possibility; I think this would greatly reduce the number of completely useless pages that turn up every day on Special:NewPages, and simultaneously prevent newbies from feeling bitten because they tried to create a new article that wasn't suitable for Wikipedia, because creating an article now requires a fairly high level of skill (I just created my first article in January, and it took me about an hour to get it together; mind you, the article in question is basically start-class, nothing fancy). This has its drawbacks, the most obvious one being that it removes the instant gratification of being able to create an article right away, but there are solutions to this as well (i.e. promote using AfC). This doesn't seem to neatly fit any of the other Village pumps, so I put it here; if people think this belongs elsewhere, then please say as much. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have been thinking of raising a similar proposal, although for a different reason. Some little tests I did show that around 80% of the pages created by new users is deleted. Freaking 80%! I would argue deletion of a page is inherently wp:BITEY, no matter how you bring the message. Even if you userfy the page the newbie is still gonna feel rejected. Combine those two and I can only reach the conclusion we should stop new users from creating pages until they reach autoconfirmed, sending them through some pre-review system like wp:AFC instead. (Note this will not drastically affect the amount of patrolling power needed, it will just move most of the pressure somewhere else). Yoenit (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a start; that'll at least ensure things get looked at. But that's only one half of the problem, then; how are we supposed to encourage more people to get involved? The problem with NPP is (as I've said at my newly opened editor review) outside editors only see the plane that crashes. Unlike just about every other part of Wikipedia, there are extremely rigid CSD rules (just look at some of the discussion on WT:CSD if you don't believe me; you'd think IAR said, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, unless it has to do with CSD, ignore it.") and no matter what you do a lot of people end up not liking you. Vandal fighting can bring, if not adminship, glorification in many corners; NPP gets you just about nothing. We're way overworked right now; that doesn't mean we don't enjoy what we're doing, but we're still way overworked, and we need ways to spread it more evenly. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That's too much. Maybe we need to find a way of throttling back new page creation? Perhaps a form of "Pending changes" for new pages, to leave new articles created by new accounts in a hopper until they can be vetted?   Will Beback  talk  08:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

And there they'll sit gathering dust, the sublime alongside the ridiculous, yet another growing backlog to eliminate. The autoconfirmed proposal seems well worth exploring, though (perhaps in conjunction with a tightening of the requirements for that status). Rivertorch (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Rivertorch is correct — we don't need yet another backlog. In fact, we already have a perfectly good "pending pages" system: Articles for creation. I am in favor of requiring autoconfirmation to create articles; Yoenit's statistics confirmed what we've all known intuitively, but it's still surprising to know that 4/5 of the pages created by new accounts end up deleted. By requiring autoconfirmation, we would not only cut down on the creation of junk pages, but spare the newcomers who might otherwise have their good-faith contributions deleted. The latter factor should not be underestimated: if a new editor receives constructive criticism on AfC that allows them to create a respectable and worthy article, we are far closer to acquiring a new and valuable member of the community than if their page had been unceremoniously purged. Feezo (Talk) 10:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to go the autoconfirmed route, then I would suggest a total moratorium on non-autoconfirmed editors creating articles, like Feezo. New editors can learn from improving existing articles; that'll be better for everyone, really, on a lot of levels. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

So where do we go from here? It's been a couple days now since anyone's said anything. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a very interesting RFC here on the opposite idea Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Allow IP editors to create articles. I would say there is enough support to start a {{cent}} listed RFC to see what the larger community thinks about it. Yoenit (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support "requiring autoconfirmation to create articles". The years have moved on since creating a stand alone article, over editing existing pages, was a more realistic option for even the most specialised or peculiar newly arriving volunteer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• I've supported this idea for years. As a matter of fact I tried to get this done in late 2009. See Wikipedia talk:User access levels/RFC on autoconfirmed status required to create an article, which was closed with no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons I advance at Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Allow IP editors to create articles. MER-C 03:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Wikipedia: The Encyclopedia Anyone on the Autism Scale Capable of Paying Obsessive Attention to Painstaking Minutia and Bureaucratic Detail Can Edit. SmashTheState (talk) 04:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I support the restriction on new page creation (that is not my point though). My point is why don't the New Page Patrollers give any props to the PASSING new pages? The whole thing seems like all stick, no carrot. Look someone has made a new article. If it passes, and the NPP is the first or only one in a while, to look at it, why not make some talk page comment on it. A quick attaboy, even with comments on upgrades (some kinda feedback) would just be good. I'm dead serious. Rethink the whole purpose of NPP! Oh...and I would just lurve it if someone said "dayum" your new page had a source and cats and a bolded first sentence and all...you go gurl! TCO (talk) 07:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If a stumble upon a proper article by a new user I always welcome the new user and give the article a fixup (wikify, categories, typos) if required. To be honest they are quite rare though. Yoenit (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. That just doesn't happen very often; instead, the great majority of pages are deleted, and those that aren't are almost always require a tremendous amount of work to bring up to even a start-class. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, so than it wouldn't be much work to give an attaboy to the ones that pass. I've never gotten any positive comments on my stubs that did pass and gotten one (improper) PROD for an article that was a spinout of a section that got too long. I'm not saying to stop being negative to all the failing articles. It's just a mindset change to think about a comment on the passing ones. Or is there something about the psyche of NPPs where they don't care about the new good content coming out?TCO (talk) 06:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It has to do with the fact that, by the nature of NPP, we tend to only get involved in low-quality articles. A decent, well-referenced, wikified article doesn't need any more than the few seconds it takes for us to hit "mark as patrolled", so you do tend to notice the bad ones more because those are the ones needing attention. That said, if I find a decent article from a newbie I will give them a welcome. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a mindset change, but why not make a comment on the good ones from established users as well? You have completely defined yourselves as defenders against vandals, and I'm suggesting to be more holistic. I HEART you for blowing away the crud. honest. NUKE IT. But when I see no interest in the creation...that worries me...TCO (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Why should I be congratulate people every time they create a new article? Should I also congratulate them if they fix 20 typos, add references to 5 BLPs or seriously expand an existing article? We are all here to build an encyclopedia and adding content is part of the job. If we kept congratulating each other for every improvement we would spend most of the time knocking each other senseless and get hardly any work done. I do hand out a barnstar from time to time, but I do so sparingly on purpose. Yoenit (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Find some way to meaningfully engage usin?g your basis of experience in off wiki writing and deep life experience, and on wiki writing. It's only a FEW pages, remember. You should be INTERESTED. TCO (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not like I never stop to work on something; I turned Chihiro Iwasaki from Engrish to English, for instance, after coming across it on NPP. In my case, that's because the subjects I tend to be interested in (Ainu and Burmese history) aren't things that come up too much on NPP; my article work and NPP work tend not to mix all that often. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Long overdue common-sense solution. Less throwaway SPAs making an article about a schoolkid they hate and then disappearing? Less newbies feeling bitten? Less terrible articles? Less spam? Less backlogs? Sounds great! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Give new pages longer to develop

Imagine you're using a website for the first time, with a complex interface and strict user rules. You start to create an article. It takes a while for you to figure out how to do headings and formatting. You add a few more sentences. You receive a message saying that you must include references. You follow the link to read what's needed and then search the web for some. Then you try to figure out how to add references, which is strangely complicated. How long has all this taken so far - 30 minutes? Maybe an hour, if you went and had a snack in the middle?

Your page by now has been deleted. Maybe you work out how to use a talk page and send a frustated message to the new page patroller. Maybe you recreate the page - now you get told off for recreating a previously deleted page...

WP:NPP recommends that "A good rule of thumb is to wait until at least 15 minutes after the last edit before tagging the article" How many new users can create an acceptable article in 15 minutes? No wonder 80% are deleted. Either we need to give them much more time, or we should force them to develop new articles in their own user-space until they're acceptable.

Hope it wasn't WP:TLDR. I recognise many of you are friendly to newbies and are working hard on a large backlog. But I think the process currently tends towards biteyness.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphan Talk Pages

I have discovered three talk pages with no associated articles.

Discrete computer was deleted and redirected to Computer, but Talk:Discrete computer was left in place with no pages linking to it.

Ultrahard fullerite was deleted and redirected to Aggregated diamond nanorod, but Talk:Ultrahard fullerite was left in place with no pages linking to it.

Weak-field approximation was deleted and redirected to Linearized gravity, but Talk:Weak-field approximation was left in place with no pages linking to it.

Should these orphan talk pages be deleted, and if so, what is the procedure for doing that? WP:PROD? WP:AFD?

If these should be deleted, is there a way to find all such orphans? If I found three, there may be many more out there, and there is no way for anyone to reach them unless they type in the page name. Guy Macon (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

They qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G8. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

If the associated article is a redlink (rather than a redirect) you can tag with {{db-g8}}. But in the cases you refer to the talk page is still relevant to the redirect page. – ukexpat (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how a 2006 discussion about a now-deleted page on discrete computers - a page that cannot be accessed from anywhere else on Wikipedia - is relevant to a 2011 page about computers. How would anyone editing Computer even know that Talk:Discrete computer exists? Guy Macon (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The page is not deleted, merely redirected. Is there a reason why the talk page should not be redirected as well? The discussions on that talk page are about content that is still visible in the page history for those who wish to look. Reach Out to the Truth 22:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

As stated above, orphan talk pages can and should be speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G8:

"Such as talk pages with no corresponding subject page"

AerobicFox (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I just CSD G8 tagged all three. Thanks! Guy Macon (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I've restored those pages; they should never have been speedy deleted because the history of their corresponding article pages is still intact. They are harmless; just leave them there. If all of these kinds of pages were deleted, we would lose a lot of historical discussions. Graham87 03:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Redundant Article and Read tabs

• OK, so I'm stupid. Why is there both an "Article" and a "Read" tab atop the page, when they... you know... do exactly the same thing? GlitchCraft (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, on the talk page, the "Read" tab points to the talk page. Which is still redundant there, but makes it different from the article tab. The point, I believe, is that the two tabs on the left are for toggling between the article and it's talk page, while the three on the right (along with the star for adding it to your watchlist) are for things you can do with the page your on, namely read it, edit it of view its history. That's why they are in separate groups. oknazevad (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

But it is still redundant, no matter what page you are looking at. So we have a redundant tab whose sole function is to contribute a (misplaced) sense of fullness and balance to the organization of the tabs... I think. GlitchCraft (talk) 06:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I like the way the tabs are currently arranged. Just because the standard viewing mode is "read" does not mean the tab is redundant. Going from edit/history mode to read is a lot more intuitive than clicking the article tag. Yoenit (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you are only saying that you think labeling the tab "Read" is a lot more intuitive than labeling it "Article". So..... keep only one, and label it "Read". No need for two. Redundant. GlitchCraft (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

So how would you switch from the talk page to the article page then? With a button labeled read? Yoenit (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

My point is this: Label the button anything you like. Call it macaroni. But it's poor design to have two buttons that do the same thing so very close to each other, just because we can't make up our minds what to label the button. GlitchCraft (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I am stupid, but what difference does it make if there are two buttons that do the same thing? 67.162.249.232 (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello! The "read" tab is not for switching between an article and it's talk page. It is for switching between reading a page and editing a page. It's not the same thing as the "article" tab at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No, that's what the "Edit" tab is for, surely. There's also a "New section" tab which is for editing, but the difference between the "Edit" and "new section" (and there is a difference) is a meaningful & useful one. Meanwhile, I am not aware of any difference btw "Article" (which sometimes shows as "Project page" etc., depending on the page you are viewing) and "Read". GlitchCraft (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Use the Classic skin like those of us who have been editing for the last ten years and your problem will literally disappear along with the tabs. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That would hide the problem from my eyes, but wouldn't solve it. ;-) GlitchCraft (talk) 05:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand that there are 2 different tabs that do the same thing, what I don't understand is why is that a problem. 67.162.249.232 (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Poor design. Annoying. Misleading. Waste of real estate on the page. Just plain pointless and therefore unwanted. Take your pick.... It is intuitively misleading to have two tabs with two different labels that perform precisely the same function (especially when they are so close together); it implies that there are two different functions. It looks dumb, therefore.GlitchCraft (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

So there really isn't a problem, it is just that you don't like it. 67.162.249.232 (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The buttons do not have "precisely the same function" as has been explained repeatedly. The tabs on the right switch between read/edit/history for whatever page you're currently on. The tabs on the left switch between the article/talk pages of the page you're at. On a purely technical sense the read tab does link to the same place as the article/talk tab depending on which page you're on. But the technical function is irrelevant, what matters is how it appears to users. The argument that it's a waste of real estate is just nonsense. If the tab wasn't there, there would just be more blank space between the tabs. Mr.Z-man 15:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Try an experiment; it will prove you're wrong. Regardles of what page you're on, whether it's an article or a talk page or Wikispace or whatever, try clicking first the Read tab and then the far left tab (on the page where we are now, that tab reads "Project page"). Then click the "Read" tab again. Then click the far left tab again. Then click the Read tab. And so on, ad nauseum. Here's a little spoiler: absolutely nothing will happen. Absolutely nothing will change. The extra tab doesn't provide any extra help moving back and forth between Talk and the project page or Article; The Project page or Article tab already fulfills that function adequately. So we have a tab that does absolutely nothing. If that isn't poor design, then I'm Phyllis Diller. GlitchCraft (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't tell anybody ms. Diller, but clicking the Wikipedia logo in the top left and the main page button below it both lead to the main page. Also, there is an "about wikipedia" button on the left and one on the bottom, while the "Terms of Use" are linked twice below my edit box. Clearly those were not added with usability in mind, but are part of an evil conspiracy to reduce the amount of whitespace on wikipedia. Yoenit (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• The globe is not labeled as a link. Moreover, all those links you mentioned are located on the periphery of the page. They are small and peripheral. They are not situated in areas that are designed to direct the main functions of Wikipedia viewing and editing. Redundancy serves a function in the periphery of the page, because folks might miss one or the other of those links, and so the extras are helpful. Redundancy in the periphery is not misleading; in fact, it is beneficial.. OTOH, this redundant "Read" is is up front and center, and located in an area explicitly given over to the purpose of directing editing activities... Your statement concedes my contention that the tab serves no real purpose. GlitchCraft (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No, if you're on a talk page, the read tab will keep you on the talk page, the far left tab will bring you to the corresponding article. The read tab is (on technical function basis) redundant to one of the two left tabs, but which one depends on whether you're on a talk page or not. The read tab is not designed for switching between talk/article, that's what the left tabs are for. The read/edit/history are designed for switching between read/edit/history views. Mr.Z-man.sock (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

basically the tabs on the left help you know which page your own, the tab on the right shows you what you can see from that page, such as simply reading it or editing it (if there's no section or you would like to edit the opening paragraph). for example, if i want to see the history, the page on the left helps me see which history i'm looking at. either the main page or the talk page. it's not redundant.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• The tabs on the left are for navigating back and forth from Talk to (article or project or whatever). That's excellent. Left side = navigation between views. Easy to remember. The tabs on the right are for "under the hood" stuff... implementation details... editing and viewing history. Excellent. Right side = implementation. Easy to remember. Those four (sometimes 5) tabs are all we need, end of story.
• So, if you are on the talk page and want to switch to the article page (or vice versa), there's a navigation tab on the left to do so. Easy as pie; clear as a sunny blue sky. If you want to go "under the hood", there's a tab on the right that is appropriate. For example, if you want to edit the entire page, there's a tab marked "Edit". If you want to edit, but only want to edit in a new section, there's a tab called "New section" or "+". If you want to look at the history of the page, its tab is also clearly labelled. Easy as pie; clear as a sunny blue sky.
• Look. People have been deriding me for daring to mention whitespace/real estate, which shows poor manners etc., but I was just talking off the top of my head. The real problems are these: 1) It misleads the users into believing it offers some unique or useful functionality, and 2) there is just no stinking need for it. Unlike other links repeated on the periphery of the page, there is no way anyone could miss these links (see my response to Yoenit above), so duplicating the functionality of one tab in another tab of a different name offers absolutely nothing. So why deliberately add a useless and misleading thing? GlitchCraft (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• it's easier to move to read if your cursor is already near edit or view history. and it does serve a purpose, but it's automatically in use.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• You're arguing that we want to spare editors the effort of having to move their mouse about one centimeter or so, even though both tabs are in the same area, and both are impossible to overlook? That's a new and unique argument. GlitchCraft (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• no, i'm saying it serves a purpose. and they're not really in the same area, one is top left the other is top right. really, it seems too trivial to even argue.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have shown that your "it's closer" argument is invalid. I have explained very carefully and in great detail why that tab does not serve any useful purpose, providing clear examples that anyone can follow on their own computer. You simply assert that it does serve a purpose, and the fact that you say it does constitutes your entire argument... ummm.... how should I respond?GlitchCraft (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
• i'm not playing nice anymore. be blunt with me, or don't bother talking back. i said it's useful, but it's also too trivial to argue for it to be kept. it's nothing like affecting articles from reaching GA status or featured. so why should it pother me so much? why does it bother you so much? just because you assume it's insignificant? well no matter what it serves some purpose, saying it doesn't is ignoring the facts.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• I will continue to play nice. I am being blunt with you. Look... here we have a feature in the user interface. I have argued that it is unnecessary and misleading. I have provided detailed support for my argument. The way for you to respond is to provide detailed support for your argument. If you can't do that, then you will only grow increasingly frustrated if you continue to argue, and that scenario could very well cause you to fall back on teeth gnashing, name calling, etc. As for "it's not important", well, I couldn't disagree more. The user interface is a significant factor in newcomers' stay/not stay decision. The user interface plays an important role in every editing task imaginable (well, unless using AWB or whatever). If the interface is trivial, why did we switch from Monobook to Vector? we did so because the interface is not trivial. That's about it... GlitchCraft (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• not really. and misleading? not that much. and if you have proof that it is, please get a significant number of new users that have previously complained about it. it isn't misleading because it's already on that tab. i'm just saying that you're overreacting to the littlest thing that does eserve some purpose, but you refuse to see it.Bread Ninja (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a general observation, each side in this discussion believes in their position and that they have explained why their position is right. The problem is that neither side has convinced the other side. From the status of the conversation I don't see that happening. GB fan (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Venezuela

Hello everybody, I'm writing to let you know that a group of venezuelan wikipedians (including myself) are working together towards the establishment of the local chapter named Wikimedia Venezuela. Wikimedia Venezuela (WM-VE) is our initiative to create a NGO for promoting all the free-knowledge projects operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. We are looking for people collaborating in any of the projects interested in working with us and organizing our first general (and formal) encounter on May 15th (This day will be the 10th anniversary of the Spanish-language Wikipedia). More information available in our web site or through IRC, on the channel #wikimedia-ve. Best regards, --JewBask (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone please write an article on the recovery of the American alligator

This topic, is well, well, WELL notable. There are a bazillion RSes on it (GIYF). I would do it myself, but I feel like there is so much to do. Someone please write this article. I will {{hug}} you if you do. I tried going over to the request an article desk, but I can't make head or tails of how you actually POST THE REQUEST there.

Oh...and yeah, there is a section in American alligator on this topic, but it is unsourced and REALLY this is a big enough topic to be an article. Have been documentaries and all on this. It's famous. We need a full article and that thing can stay a section. Umm...and maybe get some refs. TCO (talk) 06:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You've been here since 2008. Do what Wikipedians do: Enlist the aid of a WikiProject, and then {{sofixit}}. It will probably be fun... GlitchCraft (talk) 07:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The only project that exists is (maybe) Milhist.TCO (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

In your edit summary, which says "{{sobiteme}}", I will WP:AGF and assume that you were indicating that I had WP:BITTEN you. If that's the case, then I apologize. If, OTOH, you were employing an extremely common, vulgar and dismissive interjection, then perhaps you should apologize... Meanwhile, you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles. I don't see a post on their talk page regarding this. I do see a few familiar names, such as User:Ucucha & User:Enlil Ninlil, plus I see some who have the general air of at least some level of expertise. perhaps contacting them would be a good first step. There's also Google Books, Google Scholar etc. as easily accessible resources... GlitchCraft (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I might help out too. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Daily Pictures

Why are there so many pictures from Australia and especially Tasmania? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.11.219.190 (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to to arbcom-en-b@lists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with any other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 31 March 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 00:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Lists of non-English actors

1. List of non-English Total Drama voice actors
2. List of non-English Phineas and Ferb voice actors
3. List of non-English Family Guy voice actors

Are these really notable intersections? Why not list all the actors? The first two were created recently by the same editor, and the third is from 2009. Feezo (Talk) 11:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at these pages, these are lists of the actors who dub these cartoons in other languages. Seems like a reasonable topic for a list article; they certainly would be too long for a section on the main series article.

Honestly, I'm not sure what your concerns are. The choice of "intersection" in your comment reminds me of a CfD discussion, but these aren't categories. And what do you mean by "all actors"? The lists look pretty comprehensive. If you mean the English-language casts, they're already included in the main series article, which is more than appropriate as these series are originally written and produced using the English language. oknazevad (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, those page titles are not helpful at all. I read them as "people on the Family Guy show who aren't British" and not as "voice-over actors for Family Guy in other countries." Should they be given a more informative name? Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly. At the very least, it should use "non-English language" so there's nonpotential confusion with the English nationality, as you thought. oknazevad (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Where's the direct link to the search page?

There used to be a link in the left-hand menu that took us directly to a search page, which would list all the relevant results, unlike the search box, which takes you directly to an existing article. I know that I can get to the search page by using the search box to find a non-existent page, but I'm wondering if there's not a direct link to the main search page. There are times when I want to search for terms so that I can link them to the relevant article, but I have to force the search box to take me to the search page before I can do that. Where did that direct link go? Is is still there and I'm just not seeing it? Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)