Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:20, 28 February 2016

Table of contents
First discussion
End of page
New post

Shortcuts

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, 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

Incest in movie

At the entrance of the movie "Terms of Endearment" omitted mention the incestuous relationship of the protagonists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.116.64 (talk) 08:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a suggestion for improving Wikipedia's article about Terms of Endearment, please post it at Talk:Terms of Endearment. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or the respective Wikiprojects. --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question on pronunciation

Good evening everybody! We are having trouble on pronouncing correctly the name of British actress Kathryn Beaumont. Her family name is beyond doubt a French one, but how is it pronounced in English? Since in the article in English is not given the name in IFA, please be kind enough to inform us on its correct pronunciation so we can write the corresponding article in Greek correctly. Thank you in advance. --Ttzavaras (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ttzavaras:I can't guarantee accuracy, but it's most likely like BO-mont. So, ˈbəʊ̯mɒnt, using International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects and received pronunciation, aka British English. Please correct me if wrong and pardon my rusty IPA. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Oiyarbepsy! --Ttzavaras (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Kathryn Beaumont" is spoken near the beginning of the video (duration 9:26) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9qLBksAI4E.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks once more for your response. --Ttzavaras (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia as a battleground for academics

There are now web services that track the number of times papers are cited in Wikipedia. They use this as a way to estimate the impact factor of a paper. Authors can get updates in near-real time on who added (or removed) their paper from a particular article; and apparently this technology is largely being facilitated by the WMF [1]. Am I wrong in thinking that this is a terrible idea, and one that actively encourages COI editing? Can we somehow encourage the WMF to quit encouraging people to see Wikipedia cites and links as a commodity? Add a few more things to WP:NOT? Geogene (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outside services seeing how often sources are used, be they scholarly or not, can be useful. Academics may want to analyse the use of sources across articles and languages to look for trends and biases, for example. This analysis of sources relies on URLs, DOIs, or citation templates and there is no way to block that, nor should we want to. We already have WP:REFSPAM in place to discourage COI citations. Fences&Windows 01:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This tool is not for looking for trends and biases, but to rank different papers (in part) by the number of times they are cited in Wikipedia, to keep the authors aware of how Wikipedia uses their papers and in which articles, and to notify them if their source is removed. What is the likely outcome of this? Geogene (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can't control how outside tools use our site; and we can't change our policies to deal with them, when our primary purpose is to create an encyclopedia.
If some academic wants to be sure that his/her article will gain popularity, it would certainly make sense for him/her to publish it in a journal which one of the top web sites uses as a source; whether or not this will actually gain him/her any popularity is unknown to him/her.
I believe that many academics may want to have some idea of which issues we tend to refer to and which ones we tend not to; amd to see that his/her wrk isn't misunderstood or abused.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Geogene, Wikipedia is i=mmensely popular and already prone to conflict of interests.

"Can we somehow encourage the WMF to quit encouraging people to see Wikipedia cites and links as a commodity?" I'm afraid we can't make academics to think how to perceive Wikipedia. --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Is Claudio Lotito dead? Morti nel 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our article about him does not say he is dead, which means he was most likely alive within the past day. In the future, please direct such questions to the Reference desk if at all possible. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is truth

Hello friends. i am a Wikipedia Writer in Persian Wikipedia and my English is not good do you think for article of Persian-speaking peoples, is name truth in English paragraph because Peoples is more peoples or just should be people? be people is multiplication. do you think what name is more correct to use?

Persian Speakers People
People of Persian Speaker
Persian Speakers
- __ Thanks. Qian Nivan Talking 20:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Qian.Nivan:

First, if you have questions on correct use of the English language I suggest you might want to try asking at English Language Learners StackExchange. That website is not part of Wikipedia but they are much better at answering questions about using English.

Second, English Wikipedia has many rules. I do not speak Farsi, but by using Google Translate I see that Persian Wikipedia has many of the same rules. We think those rules are very important. In all honesty the article you are trying to create does not meet many of those rules, and much of what you are trying to say is already said in the Persian language article. It is only a matter of time before someone will tag your article for deletion because of those rules. I suggest you read the rules carefully and then try and make the Persian language article better instead of trying to start a new one on the same topic. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 09:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Koala Tea Of Mercy: What? Qian isn't creating any article, he's just asking about the grammatical intricacies of a title of an existing one (which is admittedly pretty shitty but has lasted since 2007 as a quasi-disambig page). As far as the title of the article, it's gramatically correct - "peoples" here is the plural of "people", which indicates a singular group of individuals with a similar characteristic (speaking a Persian language) - hence it is a group of groups of people. ansh 666 04:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Qian.Nivan: Dear Qian, you could ask this question in the Persian Wikipedia, on the page گوناگون; where so many Wikipedians whose English is almost perfect and some of them can read and speak the language near native

. I agree with the suggestion by Ansh666. As Ansh declared above, Quian is not trying to create any articles, and he just asked about an English grammatical fact on people and its probable plural form. Again, as Ansh expressed, peoples could be plural form of the word. Accordingly, the plural form people is correct and there is no grammatical problem with it. Anyway, thank you. Hamid Hassani (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is also of interest to note that the English idiomatic usage when dealing with multiple nations or groups speaking a common language is borne out by the notable A History of the English-Speaking Peoples by Sir Winston S. Churchill. Collect (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment: Lead sentence for train or railway stations

In what way should the lead sentence of articles dealing with railway stations or train stations be fashioned? See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment: Identification of train or railway stations in the lead. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of Monuments in Nepal

What's the policy on non-AfC article-like pages in the Wikipedia: namespace? The page linked in the section header and its subpages (e.g. Wikipedia:List of Monuments in Mechi Zone, Wikipedia:List of Monuments in Ilam, Nepal) were created in WP: space, there don't seem to be articles with the same title/topic in mainspace, and they come complete with their own template. However, they seem to be a walled garden (other than the main page) with probably negligible views. They're also completely unsourced - they wouldn't survive in article space. What should we do with them? ansh 666 04:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might be able to apply WP:G6 directly, as "deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace"; if not, I would move it to Draft: space, and if there are no inward links to the old name, mark the new redir with {{db-error}} --Redrose64 (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in lead

Recently I, by myself, wrote my first GA and got it promoted. It's always been my understanding that unless an article is about a very controversial topic, it shouldn't have sources in the lead; the information in the lead should simply be a summary of the rest of the article, and the information should be sourced in the body, not the lead. This article is about a noncontroversial subject who has been dead for 15 years. Today there was a post on the talk page of the article questioning why there are no sources in the lead. I thought maybe it was a new user, but then I looked at their contribs I saw that their account is a over a year old and they are reviewing GAs. I pinged them at the article talk and sent them to the WP:Lead page. I'm just sort of wondering how people who don't seem to understand policy can be reviewing GAs, and if anybody else has seen this. I'm confused... 😕 White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 00:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've been trolled, WAF, everything in the lead is sourced in the article, I checked that carefully. See WP:LEAD. That reviewer just had two of their GA reviews pulled from the wikicup too... they are after points and at the moment they have zero...why they are trolling an article that has already passed GAN is beyond me, but they are on their way to a block at the rate they are going... Montanabw^(talk) 06:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they were trying to get nitpicky in the idea that it made them look better and more serious about reviewing. Or maybe they thought they could get it delisted so I or somebody else WOULDN'T get points (I'm not in the Wikicup anyway). White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 22:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much to somebody!

I see a new feature on the article editor - when a section edit is previewed, a preview of references is automatically included!

This eliminates the need to insert a reflist tag for testing; on at least five occasions I've done that and forgotten to remove it before saving the edit.

Never again! Yay!

Many thanks to whichever developer did this.

(NOTE - I do most of my editing in Firefox 2.0.0.20 under Mac OS X 10.3.9. Really. It may seem hard to believe, but it works fine. A few features are missing, but it is entirely usable. I applaud the Wiki developer team for maintaining backwards compatibility, and not cluttering Wiki with clever-dick new "features". Some day there may be a wholly new editing system, and I expect to be left behind, but for the moment I can still be useful. When that day comes, I will upgrade if I can, but I'll probably stick with what I've got till then.)

Rich Rostrom (Talk) 19:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be User talk:PiRSquared17 with some help from a couple others. You can leave your comment at his talk page. --Izno (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary undeletion of Template:Strloc prefix

Can someone undelete that template for a while? I can't import it on The Multilingual Encyclopedia because I can't view them. --stranger195 (talk • contribs • guest book) 06:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe best to ask on WP:AN, if you don't get an answer here. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Processed at AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How best to avoid argumentative editors/make the discussion more productive

Hello everyone,

I'm pretty new around here (as an editor at least!). I've had a bit of a crash course on Wikipedia guidelines regarding things like COI due to mistakenly editing a page for which I had a COI (now disclosed). Anyway this lead to me suggested another user discloses their COI and this spiralled into a massive argument that's lead to the user threatening to report me for harassment (I don't want to name names here I've already requested a Third opinion to help resolve the problem). I would like to apologise to the user for the perceived harassment but I'm worried that doing so will (in his eyes) count as harassment, so in this case what should I do? I don't want to be rude, or allow the guy to call me rude when it wasn't my intention. (apologies if this isn't the right place - I'm more looking for general guidance on Wikipedia conduct than anything else)

Cheers,

FraserJamesRobinson (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Importing en.wiki revisions into de.wiki?

Not really sure what the appropriate venue for this question is, but: Does anybody know why history from English Wikipedia articles seem to be imported into German Wikipedia articles? For example, this de.wiki revision seems to show that history from en.wiki's article on Georgia Groome has been imported there, as do some of the preceding edits (example edit from de.wiki and corresponding en.wiki edit). I just don't see the point in doing something like that. CabbagePotato (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, it could be the right action. If you plan to translate all article, and you want to "show" source, then you put all revisions from original Wikipedia. That was short answer. Correct answer can be given by some user from (or familiar with) dewiki. But yes, when I first encountered this, I was a little bit surprised, why my colleagues are editing dewiki :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 10:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's considered a URV (copyright infringement) not to attribute all authors of the article in it. So the history has to be imported to get this right and make sure all authors of the article are properly mentioned in the history. The CC-license, that is used for the projects here, demands naming of the authors, so how could this be solved in anotrher way? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 11:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2016: call for posters, discussions and trainings

Hi people,
the calls for posters, discussions and trainings for Wikimania 2016 are officially opened, you can find all the relevant links on the conference wiki:

https://wikimania2016.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions

The calls will be closed on March 20.

Posters will be reviewed just to make sure that there aren't things which are too much out of scope. Since we have a whole village we will surely find places to attach them, even if we they will be a lot!

Discussions will be managed by a guiding committee who will work on the wiki to meld all the proposals and suggestions.

Trainings will be reviewed by the programme committee. Please note that we request that each training has at least 3-5 interested attendees in order to be put in the programme.

By the beginning of April we will have a first list of all the accepted proposals.

If you have questions we suggest you to ask them on the discussion pages on wiki, so that everyone will be able to see them (and their answers, of course).

We are looking forward to read your ideas! --Yiyi (Dimmi!) 13:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]