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, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80

Help settle the Calton Hill dispute

If you are or have been a resident of Edinburgh, Scotland and are familiar with the Calton Hill, you might like to contribute to a current editorial dispute on its Discussion page. Your views would be greatly appreciated to help resolve a stand-off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim Traynor (talk • contribs)

Resolved

as of 2012 January Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 23:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Annotated images at Wikimedia Commons

When posting images to Commons for use on Wikipedia pages, I make use of the annotation feature. However, the message on the Commons file (This image is annotated: View the annotations at Commons) appears well below the image and can only be found if a reader scrolls down sufficiently; which many may not do. Do other users agree that it would make much more sense if the message appeared immediately below the image and before the licencing and other info? Kim Traynor 01:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you give us an example? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at the maps on the Battle of Pinkie page, the Edinburgh University page, the Parliament of Scotland page. These are just a few examples of images I have annotated. It's unlikely anyone will get the benefit, as the annotation message needs to be more prominent to be easily spotted. I think when one has the Commons file up, the message should appear either before or immediately after the description, rather than in its present position. Kim Traynor 12:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

So when I go to commons:File:St. Giles and Parliament House c.1647.JPG, I see the yellow boxes and labels. But in Parliament of Scotland, or if I click through to the English Wikipedia's image page, I get nothing. I don't see any messages in the article about the existence of the annotations. The note appears only on the image page (underneath the licensing section). I think we need something in the article itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

New Wikmiedia/Wikipedia Shop now open for community launch

The Wikimedia Foundation has just opened a store to sell merchandise to community volunteers and the general public. The goal is to help reward it's volunteers and spread the Wikimedia and project brands around the world. To that effect we want to build a wide reaching store that is able to provide good value and fast shipping around the world with the help of a world wide distribution system. The revenues from the store will support the Wikimedia Foundation and the chapters with most of it, especially at the beginning, going to subsidize merchandise and/or shipping for more expensive locales and eventually to help provide free or subsidized merchandise to world wide volunteers as a reward and thank you for their service. This store is going to completely replace the old CafePress shop that is being shut down.

We have a lot more merchandise already in the works and are looking to constantly bring in (and eventually retire) more options but decided we were ready to publicly release it to the community to give them first crack and get feedback on every aspect (everything from the shop, to the products to the packaging if you order something). There is a full FAQ and feedback/design request page on the Meta-Wiki Wikimedia Merchandise page but you can also go there from here:

• The shop is located at shop.wikimedia.org (as well as shop.wikipedia.org and the other project names).
• At least for the next 2 weeks we have a community launch discount of 10% if you type in CLAUNCH (or Wikimedia Community Launch) in the discount code box at checkout
• There is a $10 maximum shipping fee for most orders worldwide. We've limited it to about 5lbs of merchandise which covers most orders (up to a couple sweatshirts, shirts and some pins or something). For bigger orders if shipping becomes a problem we'll help out with that. We're looking to find ways to keep this shipping cost for good.
• Please give feedback! The best place is on the Meta-Wiki talk page but you can also leave comments here or email them to merchandisewikimedia.org or Email user.
• We're looking at ways to do a good permanent discount for community members.

Jalexander--WMF 21:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool, although the shirts at Cafe Press are way funnier! Kidding. I like it. Thanks. RJH (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh, they were realllly bad quality though :( lol.. I downloaded all of the data from the cafepress store so we may reuse some of those ;). More Design ideas! though. We plan on expanding this quite a bit actually starting very quickly (I already have a bunch of stuff ordered). Jalexander--WMF 01:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

shop.wikipedia.org uses an invalid security certificate.

The certificate is only valid for the following names:

• .wikimedia.org , wikimedia.org

(Error code: ssl_error_bad_cert_domain) Josh Parris 22:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

shop.wikimedia.org uses an invalid security certificate.

The certificate is only valid for the following names:

• .myshopify.com , myshopify.com

(Error code: ssl_error_bad_cert_domain) Did you guys... uh... test... this? Josh Parris 22:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes we tested it and yes we know :). This is on the Meta FAQ at the moment. Sadly it's a limitation of the software and infrastructure that we're working with them to fix (sadly not as easy to do as I would like). There should not be any links to https content and so most people (and I assume you) are getting these issues because they are using the https everywhere extension which assumes that all *.wikimedia.org sites have an https version (and this doesn't). HttpsEverywhere has already committed a change that will exempt the shop.wikimedia.org address from the extension and so will stop the warnings for people during their next release. I'm hopeful that we'll have the issue fixed and I can have them before that (and I can have them revert the change) but I wanted to be sure. The checkout pages do in fact have correctly matching certificates and so don't have this problem.

I'll be following up with shopify, again, on this Monday by phone as well Jalexander--WMF 06:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Not using any extension, just came here via https Josh Parris 23:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh we're passing it too... I'll check with ops to see if we can do anything about that for now too... I've tried hard to avoid protorel links for that reason ;) Jalexander--WMF 00:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

What determines an article's prominence in the searchbar?

Does an article's popularity determine its prominence on the searchbar? I've always wondered about this. It seems strange to me that Robert Christgau would show up on the searchbar before Robert F. Kennedy, Robert E. Lee, or Robin Hood. Trektosaturday (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Alphabetical order? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

No. Nor order of creation date. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

According to User:Rainman, the prominence on the searchbar "is derived based on link statistics, however, the links needs to be in the article, and not generated by wikitext magic." --Yair rand (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

And there are indeed thousands of incoming links to Robert Christgau (but no Jarry1250's counter showing). Rich Farmbrough, 17:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

Question regarding re-directs

I have been told that articles that are re-directed maintain their history. Is this always so?

For example I found an old version of Copernic Inc. which according to its history was started in 2005, but as Mamma.com. However, when I look at the history of Mamma.com I see it was started in 2007?

What am I missing? Thanks in advanceOttawahitech (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The page history is moved to the new title. The old title only shows the move. See Help:Page history#Moved and deleted pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It's easier if you think of it as a rename and a new page creation (the redirect). Which is what it is. Rich Farmbrough, 18:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

4 Millionth Page

Just curious, but as we approach this milestone, was anyone thinking of having a party to celebrate? :-) SmokeyTheCat 15:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC) And, should there not be some small prize for the creator of the 4th million page? (Assuming it's notable of course.) SmokeyTheCat 15:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Chances are the page will be deleted and a new one will take its place! And SmokeyTheCat you yourself can award something if you want to the creator of the 4 millionth page, perhaps a plate of biscuits. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we should party all the way form the 4 millionth to 5 millionth articles. Then get focussed. Serious business. Rich Farmbrough, 18:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

Next year we are coming up on the 10th anniversary of the creation of the WP:FAC page: June 24, 2003.[1][2] That might be worth a little horn tooting and retrospective commentary. Milestone celebrations are good for building community. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Preview Wipe-out

I just spent about 15~20 min. editing. Then, so I wouldn't put up a mistake, I hit "Preview." That gave me a notice that the URL was too long [Huh? I did include a URL in the text. I don't recall that it was longer than usual.]. When I tried to go back, all that I had written was gone. Does any-one have a clue? Kdammers (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know a message about URL too long. I just made a preview test with a made up URL with 3000 charaters. That gave no problems. It's your browser which determines whether the content is in the edit box when you go back. It's always there for me in Firefox. In case of problems I often copy large edits to a text editor or just to the clipboard with Ctrl+A (mark all) followed by Ctrl+C (copy). Then it can be inserted with Ctrl+V. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates in need of reviews

March is proving a very active month for the project; however, we're a little short on reviews right now. Please take a look at the criteria and help us review our backlog. Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Slow...

Is it just me or does Wikipedia seem to be really slow today? It takes forever just to load a page. Maybe there's a hangup with the back-end system? Regards, RJH (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes there is a server lag in the scripts being sent by Wikipedia's modem to your computer's modem which results in a delay in pages being shown. Often, clicking the 'Refresh' button will fix the problem. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 00:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes I did try the refresh, but had limited success. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. If you want, I can show a more technical side to fix the problem, or do you just wanna cope with the lag? :) Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 01:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be working fine now. Not sure what happened, but things have cleared up. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is sometimes slow for lots of people. See VPT. Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Paleobotany

Hello, could anyone to work on this article? Biodiversity of New Caledonia. It is very important in Paleobotany and evolution. 85.251.99.49 (talk) 07:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Well I have fixed the disambiguation links. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam - advertising by stealth?

Hi all,
So, some selected editors get a free HighBeam Research account for a year. (And I am one of those who have applied.)

HighBeam is not like JSTOR or other online references that you can access from your local library. It is a for-profit enterprise.

Come April 2013, readers and editors will be looking for content added via HighBeam. Which will be behind this commercial enterprise's pay-wall.

Most won't sign up. But some might.

Thoughts? --Shirt58 (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me we should invest in things that have high WP:V. Some of the things stored by HBR seem to be materials that may be available at least in national libraries, so that would be a good thing. Some materials, however, won't be. Furthermore, we may end up in a situation where if they end this provision (which I'm sure they've granted themeslves the right to do), we'd have difficulty countering challenges of existing material, i.e. editor Anne inserts material based on source accessible through HBR and cites the source, editor Anne then leaves the project, editor Bob sees material and disputes it, editor Carly then finds herself in a position to remove the disputed material as no one close to Carly can confirm what the source actually said. So ultimately Anne's effort goes wasted. Alternatively, Dennis of the Article Excavation Crew might see no other solution than to pay for a subscription, possibly via the Foundation, to rescue the material. So I'm sure it's well-intentioned with a bit of hindthought. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

There has never been a requirement that sources used in Wikipedia be either free (gratis or libre) or online. WP:V doesn't mean that every single editor should be able to verify every single source's contents without leaving their couch. Should HighBeam decide to retire this arrangement with Wikipedia's editors, the original sources will still exist, and will remain available to editors who are willing to visit university or city libraries and archives (or who, in many cases, continue to enjoy online access through their schools or employers).

PLW2's hypothetical case could apply to nearly any news story more than a few years old; it's one of the problems that so badly slants Wikipedia's coverage towards the recentist perspective. Increasing the availability and accessibility of some of these harder-to-reach sources (even temporarily) will hopefully improve the breadth and depth (and decrease somewhat the skew) of our coverage. There is also the flip side of PLW2's example, which I don't think we should rush to discount—in the near-term, it will make it dramatically easier to verify the contents of many of these sources which are already cited in our articles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

So far, HighBeam has offered 1000 free 1 year accounts, and about 225 have signed up. HighBeam has expressed interest in keeping the account process going after the initial run; they really like the idea of collaborating with Wikipedia and realize the benefit for them. Although there's no guarantee, I don't believe they intend to end this after a 1-time go. Frankly, it's just too good for them in terms of visibility and links to their sources. In the 'expectations for use' I tried to guide the requirements so that we can avoid the kinds of Verifiability traps you mentioned. For one, bare links to Highbeam are never ok; original citation information must always be provided. That means that an editor can seek out the information on their own, either through a library, database, alternate research service, or most likely, through a newspaper's paywalled archive. I believe the benefit from of research in being able to access to more and older sources outweighs the risk of it being difficult to verify them in the future, which we have avenues to mitigate. To my knowledge, HighBeam doesn't exclusively host content, which means that it should be available elsewhere as well (I will ask them about this). Also, HighBeam, at least for now, offers free 7 day trials with a credit card. That means that verification could still be done, albeit with some hoops to jump through. I hope this answers some of your questions. I appreciate the thoughtfulness behind them. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 11:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't really understand. We have many, many references to paid works – books for example. If the author with the book leaves the project, then that's pretty much the same situation as when HIghBeam ends. I don't see that it's a problem. If we're really worried that the editor in question is mistaken (or deliberately so) about the referencing involved, we can replace or remove, as with books and other materials. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

As TenOfAllTrades and Grandiose point out, there is no policy outlawing the use of paywalled references on Wikipedia (although of course, a freely accessible reference has a huge practical advantage over a paywalled one with the same information and reliability - because vastly more readers will be able to check it - and therefore increases the reliability of Wikipedia in the long run). As for the concern that references might be only accessible through HighBeam, the "Expectations for use" at Wikipedia:HighBeam/Applications say that "Editors should always provide original citation information, in addition to linking a HighBeam article" (for a discussion of the second part, which actually seems to raise a more pertinent advertising concern, see User_talk:Ocaasi#HighBeam_.282.29). Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes perhaps that will incentivise JSTOR to offer 1000 free subscriptions... Rich Farmbrough, 18:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

I'm not done seeking out these 'partnerships' :) JSTOR is high on my list. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 11:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Until the class action lawsuit against Highbeam has been settled I think it would be unwise to get too chummy.[3] Considering too, they didn't approach the Wikimedia Foundation directly (which may have risked awkward question being asked upfront) but choose instead to approach an editor (to gain grass-root support?) it dose seem like a PR exercise. Advertising by stealth? Lets wait and see who we’re getting into bed with. --Aspro (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting link, but it seems that Ocaasi approached them, not vice versa. Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Aspro, we discussed that is just a class action allegation. No judge ruled anything. Moreover, it says very clearly at the top of the free trial page that the account must be canceled before 7 days to avoid being charged. That source is fair cause for awareness, but we'd never base anything off of it as a primrary, biased, source, and we should be similarly circumspect about doing so as pertains to these matters. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 11:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

So, as you admit, one has to read through it to discover what they mean by Free. Is that not proof they are not compiling with the guide to good practice – which is something very easy to comply with. So why over all these years and complaints, haven't they compiled? Case proven me Lord don't you think? --Aspro (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Since when is complying with non-binding guides to good practice a requirement of WP:V? How does that impact the reliability of their materials? It doesn't matter who we get legally permissible things from, as long as we acquire them legally and have reason to believe they possessed them legally to give to us. MBisanz ^talk 21:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The OP is asking the question : is it an attempt to advertising by stealth? You are making the same mistake of trying to introduce another Non sequitur (logic) – which is an attempt to misdirect away from the question... --Aspro (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

So it's stealth advertising and HighBeam beat GoogleScholar and ProQuest to us and therefore in five years, a slightly smaller percentage of our articles will link to sources behind their paywall. We get the same verifiable content and it's Google and ProQuest's loss that they didn't think of it first. MBisanz ^talk 23:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, the OP's question was: Is-this-advertising-by-stelth. There is a small army if WP volunteers that are manning Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam. If you have never worked in Sale, Marketing and Public Relations, then it might not ring bells with you. To me it sounds like some are saying: “See! the Greeks are not so bad after all. Open the city gates and let their Trojan Horse in.” Wanting to get their hands on the 'prize' over-ruled their common sense. Had they left it out side, in the blazing Mediterranean sun, for a 'just' a few days – don't you think Homer's account would have been drastically different? Can this lesson not learned by modern man?--Aspro (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Unclear category

I came across a pair of categories that are well populated but the actual purpose of the categories is both unclear and ambiguous. I tried looking for an appropriate problem template to post but I couldn't find anything suitable at WP:TEMP. In a case like this, is there an appropriate template I could use that asks for an explanation of the category purpose? Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

To which categories do you refer? Chris857 (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I've taken them to CfD, but I was hoping to address this in general rather than getting specific. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

New template to mark retracted publications

A new template as been created recently to mark retracted publications. See {{retracted}} for details.

Also, the associated Category:Articles citing retracted publications needs to be reviewed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

tube stations in London

I notice that the articles about metro station in London that are not connected to national rail station have al the word "tube" in the title. A lot of these stations are not used by the "tube" metro trains but are on subsurface lines, with a broad square load profile. The use of the word "tube" is inprecise and confuses. It is the same as calling al high speed trains "bullet" trains. Much better to eliminate the word or replace it with "metro".Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I started the discussion in High Street Kensington tube station discussion page.Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Can this Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations) be changed? Or is it set in stone? If the rule is ridiculous it should be changed. Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. If. If, on the other hand, the common name for London Underground is the tube, then all is well. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Replace the Tube with a Metro? Now that looks like a transatlantic flight of fancy... —MistyMorn (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Or, worse, French. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe it's some sort of a Tulip revolution: total football on the tube? Sounds interesting... —MistyMorn (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest, as a Londoner, that stations on the London Underground system tend to more commonly be referred to generically as 'underground stations' rather than 'tube stations' - though given the location of some, well above street level (e.g. Putney Bridge to pick an example at random - though come to think of it, not only is it not underground, it isn't in Putney either...), this is something of a misnomer). But whatever they are called, they aren't 'metro' stations. Personally, I think there is more chance of persuading the citizens of the U.S. to rename their misleadingly-labelled gridiron game as 'hand-egg' than there is of persuading the London populus to use the term 'metro' for the stations. In any case, it isn't Wikipedia's job to reform language, labels, or anything else in the outside world. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of admin tool?

An incident of where an admin may have misused their tools in a dispute they were involved in is being discussed at WP:AN. Feedback is welcome. Discussion is here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Editors should be able to easily make suggestions for articles.

Why is it so difficult to suggest new articles? Registered editors -- unlike people not logged in -- do not get a link to "request [a new article]" when they look for one that doesn't exist. I think this option should be re-added, along with the prompt to make a new article. Also, I think many registered editors currently search pretty much in vain for the place to make the suggestions, since they have to hit on the word "request" rather than also being able to use the word "suggest" or "suggestion." Kdammers (talk) 05:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean like the Wikipedia:Requested articles pages? I can understand that it might be a little difficult to find, but it is available about half way down under the sprawling Wikipedia:Community portal page. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Why can't that link and the suggestion come right up with other stuff such as 'do you want to right an article?'when one enters a not-existing title?Kdammers (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

not a factual fact

to whom it may concern i am a pot head like many others and i do value 420 but with the artical 420 (cannabis culture)they talk about the origins of 420 and what they say is not the truth 420 started way back long ago when that would be quiting time from work and they would relax by drinking tea and smoking cigarettes later on ppl started to smoke pot then too and that how it got started then they made a day out of it to celebrate 420 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redbunny666 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool story bro. --Golbez (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like your punctuation has gone to pot though. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Verification of reliability

The article on Jayne Mansfield has the following content.

First marriage

In May 10, 1950, a pregnant 17-year old Jayne married 22-year old Paul Mansfield at Fort Worth, Texas. One biographer, Raymond Strait, wrote that she married Paul publicly in May 6, had an earlier "secret" marriage in January 28, and her first child was conceived after the secret marriage. Some sources cite Paul as the father of the child, while others cite it to be a result of date rape. The marriage certificate of Jayne and Paul lists their date of marriage as May 6, 1950.

Can someone verify the following part of it?

The marriage certificate of Jayne and Paul lists their date of marriage as May 6, 1950.

I don't have access to the certificate and have no clue of its credibility. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

References

Check Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange to see if anyone has a subscription. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

How to handle potential problem user

In reverting some vandalism I've come across a user page that gives me some concern.

On the user page, the user claims to have plenty of experience editing Wikipedia, but that other accounts he/she has had were shut down due to a "lack of respect". In addition to several cases of egregious vandalism, the user has had an article nominated for deletion and been dinged for a copyright violation.

This doesn't seem to be a case of WP:CLEANSTART because the abandonment of the previous account(s) was apparently not voluntary. Could he/she be classified as a sockpuppet master? I'm assuming good faith but it seems that this person is here to be disruptive or, at the very least, has no interest in working with their fellow Wikipedians and simply wants to follow his/her own agenda.

So, should I bring this to the attention of Administrators? Which Noticeboard? Or should I just keep an eye on the user to see if more problems come up? I'd appreciate some advice from Wikipedians with more experience than me. —Al E. ^(talk) 16:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ongoing egregious vandalism (provided the term isn't being misused) is cause for a warning at least - but no Admin is required for this.
• There is no requirement to "work with" - the user will however need to make compromises or end up being called for edit warring and the like. So there's no real worry, you would think, leaving matters to take care of themselves.
• If you are concerned that there is abusive socking going on, then WP:ANI might be a good place to leave a note, although it's not really Admin specific. If you are aware if the previous accounts, you can request a WP:CHECKUSER.
• If the user has been warned about vandalism and continues, then WP:ANI or WP:AIV are the way to go.

Short version, good faith reporting rarely attracts boomerangs. But not reporting until you are sure can be a good move too. Rich Farmbrough, 19:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC).

Thanks, Rich. That's more-or-less what I thought. I'll just keep an eye out for further issues. —Al E. ^(talk) 19:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Another WP "money machine"?

Looks like we have more Internet noise when looking for references, thanks to a publisher called "Crypt Publishing" which publishes books of c. 100 pages for around £30. I am presuming the book consists of the WP page and some ancillary matter (history, linked articles, boilerplate etc).

Any confirmation? And do we have a place we list these publishers?

Rich Farmbrough, 18:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC).

I started Wikipedia:Republishers. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Article renaming

I've noticed two articles that are badly named, and may need moving: Isaac Asimov's Robot Series and Isaac Asimov's Galactic Empire series. The former's "Series" should be all lower-case, and both have the "Isaac Asimov's" prefix that is unnecessary and (as far as I know) unprecedented (disambig terms should be in brackets if needed).

I've proposed that they both be renamed in line with their more successful related series, the Foundation series, and raised it here and a few other places (their talk pages and projects), but was wondering if there's somewhere I can post it so that more people will join the discussion, and allow consensus to gather? If you know where's best please let me know, and if you've got an opinion please give your opinion there. Thanks! --xensyria^T 23:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Protection of DYK queues

Just drawing people's attention to Talk:Main Page#Protection of DYK queues. Rcsprinter (whisper) 17:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Instant-runoff voting in RfCs

Hello everyone, I am currently mediating a discussion at MedCab about the verifiability policy. The plan is to create four drafts of the lead section of the policy and submit them to an RfC so that the community can choose which one should be used on the policy page. We are still in the process of creating the drafts, but the idea has been expressed that it may be useful to use a form of instant-runoff voting in the RfC. That is, each member of the community voting in the RfC would rank each draft in order of preference. Now this wouldn't be used as the only way of determining what should end up on the policy page - we would likely include other questions in the RfC, such as what editors think of a particular phrase, or on the more general principles behind the policy. We would also expect administrators to take the strength of the arguments being used into account. The instant-runoff portion would be used as another tool in the toolbox for the closing administrator(s) to help them in their final judgement.

Now, what I have come here to ask is: would using instant-runoff voting in an RfC, with the caveats outlined above, be acceptable? I am well aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy and that polling is not a substitute for discussion, but would it be a good idea to use this kind of vote as one more way to assist in what may be a difficult decision? I would be very interested to hear everyone's thoughts. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 18:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm participating in that mediation, and came here by way of a note that Mr. Strad left there. I'm undecided on the issue, but I can identify some pluses and minuses. As noted, it would be important in any case to structure any such RfC in a manner that emphasizes discussion over simple voting; that can be accomplished with instant-runoff, but it needs to be made clear. Not everyone who will respond to the RfC will feel like their opinions are captured by a numerical ranking; some may support one proposal and completely oppose all of the others, whereas others may feel that two proposals are equally attractive. With a multiple choice offering, it's probably useful to get some sort of sense of how respondents rank the choices. But, in the end, I think there is no substitute for asking one or more trusted, uninvolved users to evaluate consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Why not give people the option of listing proposals in order of preference, or expressing support for one proposal only? Some state elections in Australia are done this way -- it's called optional preferential voting. The way this is done in Australia, you don't have the option of saying two candidates are "equally attractive", but here in WP, maybe that can be an option as well? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Endorse: If it's going to help the dispute be resolved and therefore, helping Wikipedia, by all means ignore those rules. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Bergkamp

I see that you have submitted to Dennis Bergkamp score only 87 goals for Arsenal. That is correct only for Premier League. He also score 14 goals in FA Cup, 8 goals in Liga Cup and 11 goals in Euro Cups playing for Arsenal. That means he score 120 goals in 423 games for Arsenal.

This is the official link that confirms the numbers listed above : http://www.arsenal.com/news/news-archive/dream-team-we-reveal-the-first-striker...