Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:38, 22 March 2014

Table of contents
First discussion
End of page
New post

Shortcut

WP:VPM

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

"Grey Crowned Crane" or "Grey crowned crane"

This section is a violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing (specifically "Campaigning" as defined on that page). I would have removed it entirely, but it has already been commented on by a second person. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everybody.

On the page Talk:Crowned Crane, there is an ongoing discussion about how to capitalise the title of articles about bird species. Many of them are currently capitalised, apparently because some organisations and guidelines regarding birds recommend this. Some also pretend that animal species names are not proper nouns (!) and argue that capitals would be useful to avoid possible confusion is some cases (e.g. Common Starling). But they are not proper nouns and the secod argument is not valid as anybody can use link to Wikipedia articles to make everything clear (e.g. common starling avoid any potential uncertainty).

More importantly, the conventions of Wikipedia clearly say that one should not capitalise animal species name and page titles (WP:TITLE, WP:FAUNA and WP:NCCAPS). Finally, even if ornithologists like to capitalise species name, a convention clearly say that the general consensus of not capitalising animal species should prevail over a local habit (WP:CONLEVEL).

I think it is an important discussion and do not hesitate to come and give your opinion on Talk:Crowned Crane.

Mama meta modal (talk) 06:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

That's a fascinating interpretation. I don't keep up with that page, but hasn't FAUNA say something remarkably similar to "always capitalize the common names of bird species and subspecies in ornithology articles" basically since its creation? Perhaps you should check to see whether that guideline has been "accidentally" changed without consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments

There is now also an ongoing request for comments on the same subject: Talk:Crowned Crane#Request for comments.

Do not hesitate to come and comment on this question. Mama meta modal (talk) 08:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I have removed this from Village pump (policy), and had WhatamIdoing not commented above, I would have removed it here. Giving a completely one-sided summary and then asking people to comment at the RfC is canvassing, something that the community has a very low tolerance for.

How?

Hi, I want to know how to make a menu (variation 11) since I don't know the parameters, for more information on what I want, ask here and place a talkback notification on my talk page. Cheers! --Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa¹²³|UPage|_☺★ (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Marzan, since you asked here, I'm going to answer here. The code to do it is located here. It uses the table "pipe" syntax, which can be a little bewildering to the novice. Good luck! — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that guide doesn't help me enough, it's for making tables.Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa¹²³|UPage|_☺★ (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the menu you want IS a table, it just doesn't look like one. Here:

Click on this link. See all that strange syntax? That's table wikimarkup, which is explained in the link I gave above. But you really don't need to understand it to use it.
Copy and paste all that code to where you want it (which I assume is your user page).
You're done.

If you like, you can hunt through the code and change the images and wikilinks as you like. It will help to understand wikimarkup and the table pipe syntax to do it. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's bewildering me and making me mad just to understand this thing, I'm asking for the parameters (color and things like that), not that helpful. - Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa¹²³|UPage|_☺★ (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Andrei Marzan, you weren't that clear. There aren't parameters like a function call or anything. You'll have to look at the source and modify the "parameters" in there to change colors "and things like that". You can see the source by following step #1 above. It will be helpful to you to understand the table syntax first so you understand what the source means. If there is one SPECIFIC thing you want to accomplish (e.g. "I want to change the border color to blue instead of purple"), I may be able to point you in the right direction. Otherwise, you'll have to dig through the syntax yourself. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 22:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page view statistics for redirects

I make a lot of redirects (example). I click "View history", then "Page view statistics" to see if people are really using them; in this case, 14 times in the last 30 days. However, almost all those figures are in the range of 5 to 20, and it's too often to be a coincidence – although a few are used much more often, and Pom Pom Pull Away is only once in 30 days. So are real people using redirects like Phillip Ashton? Or is it counting how often bots look at them, which would account for similar statistics? Art LaPella (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You might like the FAQ I started and others have added to: User:Killiondude/stats. More specifically, "Are they real pageviews?" Killiondude (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS statistics for 2013

Hello all,

The Wikimedia Volunteer Response Team (also known as OTRS[1]) had an extremely busy year answering emails from Wikimedia users, readers and other interested people. We have once again prepared a statistical report of administrator activity and ticket volume for the year 2013.

I invite you all to review this report on Meta[2]. If you have any questions at all feel free to leave them on the talk page. If you wish to review the first report, published last year with data from 2012, you may also view that on Meta[3].

1 - m:OTRS
2 - m:OTRS/Reports/2013
3 - m:OTRS/Reports/2012

For the OTRS administrators, Rjd0060 (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment about General References vs Inline Citations in Afc submissions

Dear editors: I have started a discussion at the following location about whether and to what degree inline citations as opposed to general references should be required in Afc submissions before they are accepted to mainspace. My comments there are based on my understanding of relevant Wikipages such as WP:GENREF, WP:MINREF, and WP:Notability. I would appreciate discussion about whether I have interpreted these pages correctly. Here is the discussion:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Please comment about General References vs Inline Citations

—Anne Delong (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Tilde-Sign for Signature

Hi Village Pump, does anybody know why wikipedians use four tildes as a signature? IN German Genealogy the tilde stands as short cut for baptism, si that a possible background? BR Serten (talk) 06:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure we use 4 tildes simply because the tilde is rarely used in the English language. It's just a handy use of an otherwise unused key. I'm almost positive it has nothing to do with baptism. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 12:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that, as a squiggle, the tilde has a (very) vague resemblance to a signature, too. — Scott • talk 12:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the genalogical use is set. According the German "Auskunft", on a ADM-3A tilde shared the same type with "Home". Unix uses Tildes as shortcuts for /home/chris as well. Serten (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to query the original developers of the MediaWiki software. -- Gadget850^talk 15:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I got my answers: de:Wikipedia:Auskunft#Verwendung_der_Tilde_als_Signatur - MediaWikiversions included! Thnx nevertheless Serten (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: How does this happen?

I browse Wikipedia on a weekly basis and find numerous blatant errors (incorrect names, incorrect birth dates/years, blatant grammatical errors, blatant text errors, etc) almost every time. Usually I don't bother to correct them, but what I'll often do is make note of the article and come back every so often to see if the blatant error has been corrected. 90% of the time (even if it's months later) the error remains on the WP article. So here is my question: how does this happen, and how can WP be considered reliable and legitimate when these flagrant errors abound and remain uncorrected for long periods of time?

Two recent examples:

The Dennis Kozlowski article had an incorrect first name (a totally blatant error for an encyclopedia) going back to January 2011. That's over THREE YEARS where an article had somebody's name wrong.

In February 2013 a user added a second surname to the David Parker Ray article. I did a google search and could find ZERO reliable sources for that surname. So a completely made-up name remained on a WP article for over a year, again how does nobody catch this stuff?

24.193.119.220 (talk) 06:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody did catch it. You did. Trouble is that you didn't do anything to fix it. Why not? Wikipedia may not cost you money but there is still a price. That price is that you fix things that are wrong. You haven't been paying the price. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Vandalism happens, people purposely mess things up sometimes, but its typically someone making a mistake. The second one is pretty obvious vandalism [1]. The Dennis Kozlowski one seems to be a good faith mistake that predicates upon the assumption of good faith. [2] Neither of these articles are well maintained or properly covered - this stuff happens and fixing it is best. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Wikipedia is crowd-sourced, and could do with more manpower; such reports are always welcome. What would be even better is if you would help correcting any errors that you might come across. Cheers, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but it happens because people who notice the errors don't fix them. Van Isaac_WS^cont 13:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I can't quite understand is how so many people can come across a blatant error and not fix it. If 1,000 people visit a particular WP article over say a 40 day period you'd think that maybe ONE person would take a minute or 30 seconds and correct the error. However that seems to not be the case since I have been browsing WP for about a year now and numerous times an error can remain (again not a minor error but a MAJOR/BLATANT ERROR) on an article for months or even years. IMO this decreases the credibility and legitimacy of WP, and frankly is just embarrassing. 24.193.119.220 (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Art LaPella/Is this criticism constructive? Art LaPella (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's constructive, you tell me. Blatant errors abound on WP and yet it's supposedly the "go to" website for all sorts of information on various topics, bios of numerous noteworthy people, etc. (usually it shows up in the top five search results on google). 24.193.119.220 (talk) 06:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@24.193.119.220 You use Wikipedia daily but rather than contribute by fixing things, you prefer to chastise people for not fixing things? Pretty hypocritical. Either Wikipedia:SIGNUP or quit complaining. Also, read 1% rule (Internet culture) because it may give you some insight into how the Internet works. As for expecting perfection from an openly editable encyclopedia with almost 5 million articles, many which have low traffic, it's an absurd notion. Maybe after editing a while you'll better understand the nature of the project. It is what it is. If you don't like it, stop using it. Nobody is forcing you. And it's far more accurate than your summary judgment gives it credit. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just blow him off by saying he doesn't have a account. Thousands don't, and they have every right to notice and correct our mistakes. KonveyorBelt 15:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editors without accounts can fix almost any error they find, but that is not what is happening here. The OP finds errors and doesn't fix them, just jots down the error near their computer and then comes back months later and if no one else has found the error and fixed, then they will fix it. Then comes here and complains that there are errors that stay in articles for long periods of time and wants to know how this happens. GB fan 18:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WRONG. I do it to see if other people correct them first, it's sort of like an experiment I guess you could say to see how bad WP actually is. 24.193.119.220 (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What did I say that is wrong? From your own admission, you find errors, you jot them down next to your computer, you come back months later to see if they have been fixed, you then fix them if they haven't been fixed, you complain here that people didn't fix the errors and you asked how that happens. These are all things either you have said or have done, I didn't make any of it up and am not wrong about it. I didn't say what your motivations are, just what you have done. GB fan 19:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you find an error, but don't fix it, you're part of the problem, surely? doktorb _words^deeds 06:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify - what I would do is make note of a problematic article by jotting it down on a piece of paper I keep near my computer, then check back usually after several months (sometimes sooner) and approx. 90% of the time the error was still not corrected. I would then correct it myself if it was still unchanged. 24.193.119.220 (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question you're being asked is, why don't you correct it the very first time you lay eyes on it? Often, all it takes is clicking to the page history and hitting the WP:UNDO button, which is probably faster than making a note on paper. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could also just correct the mistake, and then look at the article's history to find out how long the mistake has been present.AioftheStorm (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also posted at WP:Help desk#Wikipedia: How does this happen?. GB fan 12:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first answer from ChrisGualtieri is the best answer to your question. Vandalism happens and not all pages are watched by a great number of editors. Some articles have incorrect information to start with, but, again, they're usually not high-profile subjects that numerous editors are likely to come across. Your best bet is to check sources that articles link to to verify information. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GB fan and Jason Quinn you are confused. The reason I'm posting here is to point out how inaccurate, unreliable, and riddled with double-standards Wikipedia is. I've noticed on numerous occasions how "WP Admins" or other editors who have been on WP for a while and have somehow "gained credibility" will squabble with "lesser" WP editors over a minute issue, or revert an accurate piece of information (usually because the source of info was deemed "unreliable" due to arbitrary rules that WP employs). 24.193.119.220 (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedians often miss the forest for the trees, because trees are what we can get volunteers for. Wikipedia has some mistakes, but if you really want to solve that problem, Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention is more likely to solve it than berating the people who are helping already. Art LaPella (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give an example of what I'm referring to. The past year or so that I have browsed and read articles on WP I've noticed the California Birth Index (CABI) is used as a reliable source for dates of birth (after all that website is about as reliable as you can get). I also have noticed on numerous articles (I'm fascinated by birth dates and number sequences, don't ask why) those very same references and DOB entries get removed because they are not "reliable". 24.193.119.220 (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think Wikipedia:Reliable sources is too strict, then its talk page is the best place to discuss changing it. Art LaPella (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dates of birth sourced solely to such primary sources should be removed from biographies of living persons, not because such sources are not reliable, but because of the sections of Wikipedia's policy about biographies of living persons on avoiding misuse of primary sources and privacy of personal information. Qwfp (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@24.193.119.220 Presumably you came here to discuss the accuracy of Wikipedia. The article Reliability of Wikipedia can help you. Concerns about accuracy are valid; however, the way you've framed your discussion seems to me nonconstructive and studies show you're exaggerating your case. Your talk about "WP Admins" vs "Lesser editors", it's a off-topic, unfocused, red herring. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Random statement: Have you checked the page view traffic on the articles you're using for this self-proclaimed "experiment"? Have you asked people you know have seen the article if they noticed the error at all? You may have been the only person who saw it and knew it was an error. What if no one has edited the article in a few years? That could mean that people aren't fixing it (whether or not they see it) OR that people who do not know they can edit Wikipedia are looking at the article. (Or in rare cases, it could mean no one is looking at the article, in which case, nothing will be fixed because, well, if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it...) - Purplewowies (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fundraising for laptops for the class of Sinenjongo High School

I am moving this to here from VPPR after it got reverted there ···Vanischenu (mc/talk) 13:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

While I am an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation, I write this email as a volunteer.

So now since the effort started by this class of students at Sinenjongo High School has had a level of success I thought - what could I do for them for all they've done that would also be good for the Wikimedia Movement? I asked a few of the students (all of whom have now graduated / matriculated high school) and they suggested that they could use some laptops for their schoolwork. I couldn't imagine being in college today and not having a computer, so I started a crowdfunding campaign here to buy one for each of the students involved in this effort

What everyone on this list needs to understand is that this whole class knows how to edit Wikipedia. Four Wikipedians (two from South Africa, one from Botswana and me from the USA) all showed them how twice during their one hour per week in front of a computer in high school. I blogged more about them here.

They all speak Xhosa natively - a language that could use some work (xh.wikipedia) and all I'd have to do is ask them to promise to keep editing that Wikipedia in exchange for the computers. They are very poor so this is a huge break for them - AND we'd get additions to xh.wikipedia.

That's my rationale for posting here - I don't think a grant for hardware like this on such a 'small' scale would warrant a WMF grant because its several thousand dollars that could probably be better spent in other areas, so I started the crowdfunding campaign. So far we have $500, which is enough for a little more than one laptop. The goal just over 20.

I'm open to ideas for what kinds of ordinary affordable laptops we could get that might be available in bulk in and around Cape Town, South Africa.

Also -

I'm saddened to say that one of the students in this class at recently passed away in a traffic accident last weekend. His name was Ntsika Kellem. You can see a moment I had with him here:

Ntsika Kellem talks about what Wikipedia means to him

Or you can see him at 0:15 - 0:20 mentioning the names of South African Cellular carriers here:

Ntsika at 0:15-0:20

We are putting finishing touches on the documentary about him and his class and their effort and we plan to dedicate the film to him or some other appropriate gesture.

Here is his memorial on meta

Ntsika Kellem

Here is his Xhosa userpage

If this is an inappropriate place to post this, or you have better ideas than I do about where this should go, please let me know. Thank you everyone, for reading.

Victor Grigas (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Odd user names

Over the last few months I've seen a lot of edits done by strange code names, such as these on

Judy Garland:

3/21, User:2601:7:1940:4b:617f:b78d:3953:27a

3/20, User:2602:306:2474:FA29:64A3:CC0C:B09E:FD50

3/18, User:2601:7:1940:4B:B8AA:FA0B:A89F:7BBA

Larry Fine

3/21, User:2601:7:1940:4B:617F:B78D:3953:27A

3/16, User:2602:306:37EB:49E0:2C73:2090:AA53:1EA1

1/13, User:2001:558:6031:2C:545A:906D:DCA3:85B6

12/27, User:2602:306:37EB:49E0:9D47:5B3:EBCA:B7D6

12/11, User:2602:306:37EB:49E0:477:2801:FC7D:21E2

11/26, User:2602:306:37EB:49E0:FD13:EDB:D02D:3E8D

Frank Oz

2/19, User:2001:5B0:23FF:3CF0:0:0:0:36

Some of these were clear vandalism and others seemed OK. What are these? --Light show (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IPv6 addresses. –xeno^talk 17:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helping our COI editors do the right thing

We ask editors with a COI to refrain from editing articles directly, and instead, request an edit on the talk page. We even provide a template, which creates a log of requests. Category:Requested edits. However, that list has 87 items, going back to November. If everyone watching this page addressed one item a month, we would catch up in less than two days. I do not realistically expect everyone to pitch in, but it would only take a few to get the backlog down to a less embarrassing level.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

choose more interesting subjects for featured article of the day.

First let me say I find Wikipedia itself to be a wonderful resource. But my comment is, I find the featured article to usually be of no interest. Rather boring subjects are chosen even though I have very wide interests. For comparison, please take a look at the article of the day , this day in history and news on this day, on the Free Dictionary by Farlex website. www.thefreedictionary.com/ I would like to see Wikipedia attain their standard for interest and presentation.