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

Extermination of “likely”

Moonraker (talk · contribs) (notified) makes a mass replacement of “likely” with “probably”. I think it is a silly stylistic tweak making texts to sound more scientifically but without actual sense, and shall be stopped and reverted. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

To me, in the UK, was likely written feels like an Americanism. "will likely" is listed as a common misspelling, citing WP:COMMONALITY. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

And to me in the UK (or anywhere else) it doesn't feel like an Americanism. So what does that prove? And what on earth is "will likely" doing in the misspelling list? -- Derek Ross | Talk 10:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

"Likely" is a good English word, in its place, and does not need to be "exterminated", but there is a real split between British and American English and also between formal and informal use. See (for instance) here, where oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com says "In standard British English the adverb likely must be used with a word such as most, more or very: We will most likely see him later. In informal North American English likely is often used on its own: We will likely see him later. ◇ He said that he would likely run for President." Moonraker (talk) 04:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

They seem like synonyms to me, so there's no reason to replace them. Likely or probably things must be sourced, remember. --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Moonraker here. "Likely" in the sense of "probably" (unless preceded by "most", etc.) is grating to my British ear and sounds extremely American. One might argue that we must be careful not to change "likely" to "probably" in articles with an unambiguously American subject, e.g. edits such as this one, but that would contravene WP:COMMONALITY. Ericoides (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• If Moonraker would agree to look more closely at each instance of the word "likely" and replace it with a variety of terms such as "most likely", "probably", "possibly", "almost certainly" and even no weasel word at all, I would have no problem with his continuing on his crusade. I just feel that some people use likely to mean "as far as we know", so to make the changes Moonraker should read the statements and use careful judgement. Abductive (reasoning) 06:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with Abductive above. Wikipedia needs variety. smileguy91^talk 23:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
• I remember when the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary declared American English to be the dominant dialect of English. I emphatically don't insist on that; I'd personally prefer a "live and let live" attitude in which no "crusades" against various national English usages are viewed as necessary in Wikipedia. I would definitely take it amiss were someone to edit my prose because it didn't conform to his country's dialect of English. I'd understand if the victims of the "crusade" mentioned above were to take exception to those unnecessary edits. I've striven to limit my edits of other editors' work to clear questions of grammar, fact, sourcing or other WP guidelines. If the crusaders above undertake to enforce Standard English ("English English") on Wikipedia, they've got a long row to hoe. The time to worry about such rarefied stylistic judgments is after we can convince everyone to back a statement with a verifiable published source. loupgarous (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with Moonraker and Ericoides. The usage indicated goes beyond mere Americanism and into the realm of the downright folksy/rustic. Even on decidedly American subjects, we wouldn't even consider substituting kinfolk for family, yonder for nearby, or darn tootin for certainly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• I admittedly have an American bias but I have always used "likely" and "probably" interchangeably and have been unaware of this particular usage issue until now. It is somewhat surprising because I have had great exposure to non-native English-speaking internationals and despite grammar being a frequent topic with them, this particular case has never been one of them. This lends me to think that perhaps a difference between the two words is largely a British distinction, and given User:Derek Ross's comment perhaps not even universally British. In fact, I was so surprised to learn of this possible oversight in my grammar that I consulted a couple of my books: Hacker's "A Pocket Style Manual" and Watkins and Dillingham's "Practical English Handbook". Both suggest "likely" may be used interchangeably with "probably" and do not point out any restrictions with "likely" as the Oxford dictionary link above does. (My books are however published in America.) Therefore, it seems to be simply a fact that "likely" and "probably" are, at least in American usage, synonyms and using them as such is perfectly correct grammar. As for WP:COMMONALITY, it is far from clear to me that it supports Moonraker's edits. Admirable interpretations of WP:COMMONALITY could also be given that advise against those edits because they would in effect be "insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option". I think the prudent thing to do before making such subtle changes in mass would be to discuss it and try to gain consensus. As it stands, without consensus and with at most very marginal benefit, I think Moonraker's edits may be more disruptive than helpful. As for Andrew Lenahan's "rustic" argument, I find it to be rather condescending hyperbole. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• I think it is a quirk in an editor's nature, but one that is really harmless, as long as he or she doesn't mess with direct quotes. In fact, I sent him/her a barnstar when he/she made this totally useless but amusing edit in an article I had written. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• The short case against the "crusade" to delete American English usage of "likely" is that there's no guidance from WP on this point, and the Oxford English Dictionary has held that American English is standard English usage in any case. So editing an American's edits to make them conform to the usage of a minority of English-speakers on Earth is unsupported by WP and the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary. loupgarous (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Funding?

There is presently a banner popping up requesting donations. It advises that Wikipedia does not use ads (which is fine) but it also states that Wikipedia does not use/receive and government funding. My question is (if I may ask it here) is; Why Not? If there were any kind of government funds (ie: grants, etc.) that were available, with no strings attached, why would Wikipedia not pursue this means of income? Nobody wants ad banners blinking across the pages, but I know I wouldn't mind a small notation somewhere that read something like "Sponsored in part by the U.S. Dept. of Education", instead of these huge pop-ups asking for money every few months. Anybody? - thewolfchild 00:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There are always strings attached to grants. GB fan 00:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Always? - thewolfchild 16:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

And there are plenty of people around the world who who might well be suspicious of the neutrality of articles in an encyclopaedia sponsored by all or any of the governments of the US, Cuba, India, Pakistan… [list continues]. Ian Spackman (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Donation banners: I got one of those, too, whilst I was logged out earlier today. I thought we only did a single fundraising drive in December?

Re: Government funding: It would be exceptionally difficult to decide on criteria, for who we allowed space to in a "sponsored by" banner. I.e. Do we allow all governments (even benevolent dictatorships), and all government depts (even the ministry of peace), this privilege? If the US Dept of Education donated $Xmillion (which they ought to be paying teachers with...), does that make them more noteworthy than the smaller foundation:Benefactors? TL;DR - it's complicated! –Quiddity (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the Department of Education pays teachers, although maybe they should. I have 5 teachers in my immediate family + 1 librarian. :-) -Steve Dufour (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I can promise you that any article funded by the US Department of Defense would provoke unfavorable publicity to Wikipedia, from the people opposed to DoD's less-selective push-button hits on people in the Afghan/Pakistani highlands. And any identification between the US National Security Agency and WP would be worse. loupgarous (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Who said anything about the "Department of Defense"? - thewolfchild 16:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I did. As an American who is all too aware of the bad publicity connected with my country's controversial actions in certain areas, I was exploring the alternatives to Department of Education grants-in-aid, probably intended to repair the public perception of our defense and intelligence agencies - and their impact on WP. loupgarous (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Lamentably, if grants in aid to the Wikipedia Foundation by (say) the US Department of Education were to become known, Wikipedia would inevitably become a lightning rod for political attacks against the politician or political party identified with the grants. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but it's certainly not something Wikipedia needs. loupgarous (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be like PBS. Really we shouldn't object to WP fundraising. You think you should get everything for free? Steve Dufour (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I should get everything for free, nor do I object to WP fundraising. Unfortunately I suffer from a rare illness which has prevented me making a living in fields for which I am trained, so that my contributions to Wikipedia have had to be in kind (editing articles). I do have professional qualifications in that field, so my "in-kind" contributions have some value to WP. loupgarous (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, wouldn't be worth the trouble and drama it would cause, and the resulting (perceived) loss of neutrality. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

While political argle-bargle is ubiquitous, WP deals with it pretty well for an Internet activity. Part of the WP editor's duties are suppressing lack of objectivity (perceived, even) on one's own part and deleting actual lack of objectivity from WP articles. If we undertake to delete ANY perceived lack of objectivity from our articles, one of those cheap terabyte hard drives will hold what's left of WP when we're done. But having worked in government, I think the LAST thing we need is to become an arm of it, even to the extent of receiving government-distributed largess. There's no such thing as making ALL the taxpayers happy. loupgarous (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

loupgarous, I Guess the "rare illness you suffer from" isn't hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia? Kidding aside, that's quite the verbose post you have left. But, thank you for the reply, none-the-less. - thewolfchild 16:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm seeing this in Australia when I log out. It says

“ Dear Wikipedia readers: We are the small non-profit that runs the #5 website in the world. We have only 150 staff but serve 450 million users, and have costs like any other top site: servers, power, programs, and staff. Wikipedia is something special. It is like a library or a public park. It is like a temple for the mind, a place we can all go to think and learn. To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We take no government funds. We survive on donations averaging about $30. Now is the time we ask. If everyone reading this gave $3, our fundraiser would be done within an hour. If Wikipedia is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online and ad-free another year. Please help us forget fundraising and get back to Wikipedia. Thank you. ”

It has mixed messages, saying "To protect our independence, we'll never run ads" but then "If Wikipedia is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online and ad-free another year" (emphasis added), and Jimmy says "I could have made it into a for-profit company with advertising banners, but decided to do something different.". Being ad-free is non-negotiable according to the Jimmy mantra; it isnt a year by year decision, right..? (worried look). But what is more annoying is that in many countries Wikipedia is funded by government grants, subsidies, etc. Those government funds don't go towards the servers and the WMF staff, but they do go towards programs and staff in those countries. e.g. just last week in Australia, 'Wikipedia' has just won a government research grant (its more complicated than than: see the bottom of Signpost NaN), and there are quite a few US academics also being funded to research Wikipedia, but in some countries the relationship between the government funding and Wikipedia is much more direct. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Why is the foundation running a fundraiser in July instead of December? This is odd considering that the December 2012 fundraiser was stopped early having reached its goal. I'll ask Mdennis (WMF) (talk · contribs) to comment. 64.40.54.47 (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, guys. :) The Fundraising team has discussed their reasoning here at meta:Fundraising 2013. July is the start of the fiscal year at the WMF, and as they explain there they are experimenting with spreading donations out more throughout the year. Just one banner is being deployed to ~5% of readers. They explain some of their main goals there:

• We're aiming to reach more readers throughout the year (not just people who visit in the few weeks that we run banners at the end of the year).
• We can get into the fun part of the fundraiser (A/B testing, finding issues, testing tech improvements live, learning about our readers, etc).
• Instead of being a mad scramble at the end of the year, we get to ramp up consistently and make improvements year-round.
• The fundraising team can work & improve with more consistent roles throughout the year.

--Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 01:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you 64.40.54.47 (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Clear as mud. Thanks for all the replies everybody. - thewolfchild 16:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Redirects being overwritten

I am not sure just how prevalent this problem is, but for just one acronym I've already found two cases: [1] [2]. Perhaps an edit filter should be set up to detect these? They represent a regretable loss of information that could go undetected for years (almost four years for my second link). --Njardarlogar (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

(just thinking out load) I'm not seeing an easy way (with our current technology) to detect the problematic redirect overwrites without also catching good redirect overwrites, resulting in lots of noise in the edit filter.

For LIJ, there are probably many notable terms[3]([4]?), so you could create a disambig page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Creating talk pages

Recently I came across an editor who was creating talk pages for redirects, and noting that most of our articles do not have talk pages, questioned the practice, and was directed to a discussion on a user talk page. I would recommend following the advice on the talkpage header template, do not create a talk page just to place this header here. As an editor, it is annoying to click on a talk page only to find that there is nothing there other than the headers. I know that we put project headers on talk pages, but I would recommend not doing that if that is the only content on the talk page. Talk pages should not be used to categorize articles, and certainly not used to categorize redirects. Apteva (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Didn't somebody code a script recently, that would change the tab-color if the only content on the talkpage was wikiproject-banners? I'll see if I can find it...

Yes! User:Anomie/talklink from the ever awesome Anomie. Tested. Loved. Talkpages that only have templates on them, have orange Talk tab labels, and talkpages that are redirects have green Talk tab labels (changeable in your css). So good. –Quiddity (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

We certainly can not expect 4 million editors to install a fix so that the talk page links are colored for them. A better solution is to stop creating talk pages that have no content. Apteva (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

That ship sailed a loooong time ago. There are better things to joust against.

(I vaguely recall mention of an Module or something, being built, which might deal with this type of problem, but I'm not sure how it will be implemented.) –Quiddity (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Didn't we just have this conversation? The rule against creating a talk page solely to place {{talkheader}} on it already exists: see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Creating_talk_pages.

By contrast, creating talk pages for redirects to put content on them, like WikiProject banners with WP:1.0 team assessment ratings, is perfectly acceptable if and only if the WikiProject wants to tag redirects (most of them don't). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia work hijacked?

A friend has brought to my attention the following advertisement for a book called Pipil grammar, edited by Jesse Russell and Ronald Cohn (whoever they are), which has a circle on the cover that says "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!". It is published by "Bookvika publishing". The book is stated to be available from Barnes & Noble; its announced price is $19.95, it is a paperback, and there is a 3% discount for ordering online, giving a final price of $19.26. There are four lines of "descriptive text" on the page. The text corresponds exactly to the opening lines of the Wikipedia article titled "Pipil grammar". It is a longish article which was substantially written by me single-handed a few years ago and naturally has since been improved through (as far as I know, only occasional) edits by fellow-Wikipedians. I think it is fair to say that in a moral sense I am the author of the work (or main co-author if you like). Now I am aware that Wikipedia is a collective product and editors of articles do not hold a legal copyright in a strict sense. On the other hand, I did not know that writing in Wikipedia gave other individuals the right to publish commercially the free content of the articles one has written with the intention of making it available free of charge to everyone! Is this in order? What is happening here? This seems to raise a number of questions. First of all I'd like to know what Wikipedia's policy is on this and what connection, if any, there is between Wikipedia itself and such commercial enterprises. E.g. is this happening with Wikipedia's knowledge and permission, or is it a rogue action, or is this even Wikipedia's own doing? What is the copyright status of the resulting publication, what rights do the so-called "editors" (the ones named on the cover of the commercial book, I mean) hold, and what (competing?) rights might I have as the actual source of the material? As it happens I am very active in the Pipil language and Pipil grammar, and there is a real possibility that I might want to publish a proper book titled "Pipil grammar" in the foreseeable future containing my own work. Am I now going to have to compete against a compilation of (ultimately) my own writing produced by a third party and also called "Pipil grammar"? Or even be accused of plagiarizing myself?? I'd appreciate anybody's clarifications, advice or comments. Thanks. A R King (talk) 07:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with WP policy, but I'm pretty sure this shouldn't be happening. If I write/edit articles for Wikipedia, I'm letting people on WP read it and modify it under the Creative Commons license. But reading it now, it does say that you give permission for them to distribute it. But I'm not sure about commercially... kikichugirl (talk) 07:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

See WP:REUSE - X201 (talk) 08:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

More info here. GeorgeLouis (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Buying Wikipedia articles in print or another form. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

So, in short, commercial publication is perfectly acceptable, and no, the Wikimedia Foundation had nothing to do with it, and does not benefit from it (except to the extent it helps the spread of knowledge).

Regarding this: there is a real possibility that I might want to publish a proper book titled "Pipil grammar" in the foreseeable future containing my own work. Am I now going to have to compete against a compilation of (ultimately) my own writing produced by a third party and also called "Pipil grammar"? Or even be accused of plagiarizing myself??

The answers are that (a) yes, you will (always) have to compete against what you contribute to Wikipedia; (b) while you can't do much to prevent someone else of accusing you of plagarism, you can point to your edit history to show that you were the person who contributed the information to Wikipedia in the first place; and [bonus answer] (c) you still have the advantage that you can modify the information you added to Wikipedia, and then publish that modified work, without being forced to license it under Creative Commons. But everyone else - if using Wikipedia as a the source for the bulk of their text - must release their modified work under Creative Commons - and thus cannot prevent others from (say) putting it up on the web, thus making to (freely, if they want) available to everyone. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. Not totally reassuring perhaps, but I do understand the viewpoints involved, though some of the imaginable results do still seem a bit ludicrous, but maybe I just need to get my head around it... Being all for freely sharing knowledge myself (which is why I contribute to Wikipedia), I am not averse to this, just wary of being a victim of a genuine rip-off that would damage my bonafide (and non-commercial) interests. --A R King (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a short comment: maybe you could use the situation to your advantage by mentioning in your work and when advertizing it that you are the creator of and main contributor to Wikipedia's Pipil grammar article. In anticipation of people looking for information on the subject. In a way the article is a showcase of your knowledge. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

when WebCite will be at last saved?

WebCite is going to close. if we would be able to save dead internet links anymore => we have to cancel Wikipedia:Verifiability as completely meanles and stupid! (Idot (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC))

PS http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WebCite give no results yet (Idot (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC))

Gunther Eysenbach (Eysen (talk · contribs)) of WebCite should apply for a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation by following the instructions at meta:Grants:Index and point to the discussion at meta:WebCite as support for the grant. Cheers. 64.40.54.109 (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

2013 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Call for applications

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams. Experienced editors are invited to apply for either or both of the permissions, and current holders of either permission are also invited to apply for the other.

Successful candidates are likely to be regularly available and already familiar with local and global processes, policies, and guidelines especially those concerning CheckUser and Oversight. CheckUser candidates are expected to be technically proficient, and previous experience with OTRS is beneficial for Oversight candidates. Trusted users who frequent IRC are also encouraged to apply for either permission. All candidates must at least 18 years of age; have attained legal majority in their jurisdiction of residence; and be willing to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation prior to receiving permissions.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 22 July 2013.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Hello

Please connect the english article of Anton Antonov-Ovseyenko to the russian one. Thank youScymso (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Place names and specificity

Following an editing disagreement, I was looking for guidance on how to decide whether a place should be identified in the style "Chicago" or "Chicago, Illinois" or "Chicago, United States" or "Chicago, Illinois, United States" or "Chicago, Illinois, in the United States" or some other form. Specifically, the concern is which style is appropriate (or at least which information to include) for the first mention of the place in the lead section of an article about an event that occurred in that place. This could be either a general rule for all countries or a list of rules for specific countries. I'm not going to mention the specific article where this arose, because I'm looking for a general guideline if there is one, but I will say that different contributors seem to agree in this particular case that there is a common-sense choice, but disagree about which one it is.

Considerable discussion of place names can be found in the WP:MOS and linked articles, but as far as I can see, most of it is about how to decide which of several possible names to use for a place (e.g. whether a place is in Spain, España, or Tarraconensis) and how to form the titles of articles about places. These are both irrelevant; we're not naming an article and we agree on what the name of the place. Likewise, the MOS includes style advice for lead sections, but there's nothing specific about the treatment of place names in lead sections. And it includes a section on style issues in articles relating to the specific country in question, but nothing there is relevant either.

Is there a style guideline that would resolve this "Chicago, Illinois, United States" issue, or do we have to fall back on common sense after all? And if there isn't one, what's the right place to propose that there should be?

--174.88.134.93 (talk) 06:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a guideline, but I think this is a good point. Too often I've seen things like "[x] is a singer from Milwaukee, Wisconsin", without giving any clue to the general reader where Wisconsin might be. And things like "[y] is a writer from New York City, New York, United States" which is stating the obvious — everyone knows where New York is. A certain amount of common sense is needed, and is often applied in articles, but I do wonder whether there should be a guideline (at the risk of further bloat of guidelines etc.!).

Perhaps such a guideline should say things like "Bear in mind the likely audience for the article. If the place name is well known (such as California, Paris and Tokyo, it is usually not necessary to add 'United States', 'France' and 'Japan'. Sometimes it will be necessary — for example, if the capital of France is mentioned in an article about Texas, 'Paris, France' should be used instead of just "Paris" to distinguish it from Paris, Texas."

Perhaps the guideline should list places that don't require their country to be appended (e.g., New York City, Paris, Moscow, Rio de Janeiro, Rome, London, and so on), but pointing out that most US states, Canadian provinces, Australian states etc. generally do require their countries to be appended.--A bit iffy (talk) 07:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, no. With all due respect, it is just ridiculous to say "Austin, Texas, United States." Where else would Austin, Texas, be? We assume some degree of awareness by our readers. As if some benighted soul doesn't know where Milwaukee, Wisconsin is, well, the context of the article should make it immediately apparent. And then there is always our internal link to take him or her to our fine article on that great city. GeorgeLouis (talk) 09:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that common sense should apply, and New York City is probably the prototypical example of an unambiguous city name, but defining a list of cities that don't require clarification is a slippery slope. Who decides? I can see edit warring and wikilawyering, with a risk that specificity will be removed if a particular city is put on the list. It would also necessarily result in inconsistencies.

I do think, though, that articles generally should be explicit and avoid making assumptions about whether everyone will "know" where we are talking about, as Wikipedia has a global audience and everyone has their own knowledge base (see Wikipedia:Geographic imbalance). As a general principle, I think the preference should be to include the full details (city, state/province, and country) unless: (1) a shorter reference is obviously understood and unambiguous within the context of the surrounding text; and (2) a longer reference would be overly cumbersome. How we judge these things is another question.

I don't think it needs to be in the format of "Chicago, Illinois, United States" necessarily, as the detail might be inferred from the context (e.g., "an American author born in Chicago, Illinois"). But the information should be there. It shouldn't be left for the reader to go searching it out though, nor should we be reliant on information in the infobox to clarify the body of the article (as this is not the purpose of infoboxes and I believe they may not be visible in all cases). —sroc (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I would add that the lead is meant to establish context; making the location where something happened is an important part of this. See MOS:BEGIN: "[The opening paragraph] should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time." —sroc (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

There are some things we just KNOW (or can get from context), like where the moon is, and where Wales is, and we don't have to say, "Moon, Solar System," or "Wales, United Kingdom." To do otherwise is to insult the reader, and I feel insulted when I read "the U.S. state of Florida." I mean, where ELSE would Florida be? Again, if we don't know, there is always the internal link to follow. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

As a brit, some states are obivous (New York, Texas, Florida), some are ambiguous (Georgia), some require a bit of thought to remember that they are in the US (Idaho, Illinois (unless mentioned with Chicago), Rhode Island), some I tend to mistake for being in Canada (Vermont), and some I probably wouldn't recognise until it gets pointed out (Wyoming). On the other hand, while I would consider it obvious that Yorkshire, Devon, Cornwall, Hampshire, and Merseyside are in England, I would probably still state that if I was linking them. No offence meant to residents of any of the above states! MChesterMC (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, Wales is a country, so it's not a relevant example. Nor is the moon. —sroc (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Gun control RFC

There is an RFC that may be of interest to this group at Talk:Gun_control#RFC. Subject of the RFC is "Is the use of gun restriction legislation or other confiscations by totalitarian governments (Nazi, Communist etc) accurately described as "Gun Control". Are such instances appropriate for inclusion in the Gun Control article. (Details at RFC in article)" Gaijin42 (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

This RFC could use additional input. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia likes to screw up.

See for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuddyBixby419 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You put an additional }} at the end of {{End date|2000|8|1}}. I fixed that for you. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuddyBixby419 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

middle=

Let's say the author is Kimberly Dillon Summers, last=Summers|first=Kimberly; then we just drop Dillon? Since there is no middle=, I think maybe the instructions are lacking in the 'what to do with the middle' department? --82.170.113.123 (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You can enter the name as first = Kimberly Dillon. That's what I usually do. --Jayron32 23:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Personal request for someone to clean up David Toussaint

I'm a close friend of his mother and I don't feel comfortable tearing out all the puffery myself for personal political reasons, but every time I see the page, I cringe. - Richfife (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I've removed a bit of peacockery and puff, and done a little MOS copy edit. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! - Richfife (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Is the community free to restrict an admin's use of some but not all admin tools?

I've asked for opinions at administrators' noticeboard regarding restricting an admin's use of specific admin tools - as a sanction less dramatic or draconian than de-sysop. There seems to be general agreement that ArbCom can impose limited restrictions on an admin's tool use. We are exploring whether the community (as opposed to ArbCom) may do that and, if so, whether and how the community should do that. (To keep the discussion in one place, please comment there, not here.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

looking for research on new article fates

Hi, can you all direct me to any research on new article fates? Maybe

• overall percentage deleted by some time point
• number of PROD, SD, AFD and % outcomes
• changes before/after AFC submission process was widespread
• percentage acceptance of AFC submissions to new articles

Thanks in advance and I realize different people may structure the questions differently, so whatever is out there, appreciate it.

TCO (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

If memory serves, you'll find that information somewhere in the WP:ACTRIALs pages. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not finding it. I just see a page for a trial that never ran. (P.s. Don't mean to be all "peel me a grape" but if anyone has the scoop, please ping me. This board is too active to watch.)TCO (talk) 05:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Symbols

(I figures I'd ask this here. If there's a better place, I'm sure some helpful editor will let me know)

I have a question regarding the use of symbols as indicators of the increase or decrease of a value or ranking in an infobox. There is widespread contradictory use of these symbols. For example, on some pages;

• upward is indicated as ({increase}) Green to indicate positive and the symbol acts as an upward pointing arrow. This is to indicate an increased monetary value or a higher ranking on a list.
• downward is indicated as ({decrease}) Red to indicate negative and the symbol acts as a downward pointing arrow. This is to indicate a decreased monetary value or a lower ranking on a list.

To me, this seems to be the appropriate way to use these symbols. I have found them used this way on most articles. Examples: Facebook, IBM, ExxonMobil and Chrysler.

However, other pages are using the symbols as follows;

• upward is indicated as ({DecreasePositive}) Again, green to indicate positive, but the symbol is reversed.
• downward is indicated as ({IncreaseNegative}) Again, red to indicate positive, but the symbol is reversed.

Here it appears that the wider end of the symbol is used to indicate "greater" while the narrow end is used to indicate "lesser", (like an upright version of the mathematical symbols), with the "greater" end indicating an increase in monetary value or a higher ranking on a list, while the "lesser" end indicates a decreased monetary value or a lower ranking on a list. I find this to be a somewhat confusing use for these symbols, (even the templates show the contradictions) and have only found them on fewer articles. Examples: Craigslist, Workopolis, Wikitravel and The Smoking Gun.

Can we determine just what is the proper use of these symbols, then set that as the standard for all WP articles? Thanks, - thewolfchild 04:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I answered this one over at Wikipedia:Help desk. Howicus (talk) 04:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

History question

When did the developers make it so that admin rights were required to edit MediaWiki pages? Looking through the history of MediaWiki:Recentchangestext shows tons of vandalism; I knew that Willy on Wheels had attacked it once, but now I see that he attacked it several times, using accounts that weren't even autoconfirmed unless the autoconfirmation standads have been changed. Nyttend (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)