</div></div> <section end="technews-2017-W34"/> 18:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
</div></div> <section end="technews-2017-W34"/> 18:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Johan (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=17130704 -->
<!-- Message sent by User:Johan (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=17130704 -->
==Running Man Barnstar question==
Hi Deathphoenix, I noticed you created the [[Template: The Running Man Barnstar]] + think the design is great - particularly the alt one. By any slight chance, would you be available and interested in creating a similar one for the Running Woman? [[User:Hmlarson|Hmlarson]] ([[User talk:Hmlarson|talk]]) 21:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
* Well there's a blast from the past! I'd be happy to work on an alternate, but I see that all of my old Barnstars have been cleaned up with alternate versions. The alternate version of The Running Man is [[Template:The_Running_Man_Barnstar|here]] and it looks gender neutral (not to mention a lot cleaner and sharper than my original). What do you think of that one? --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 18:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello Hmlarson, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.
Technology update:
Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.
Could you explain to me why you added the text including "9-time winners and 4-time runners-up in the 15 editions of the UEFA Women's Champions League" for the Frauen-Bundesliga entry at WP:FPL? I don't really see the relevance to the subject of the list. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, explanatory notes will elaborate on the scope of professionalism in a particular league, like the the ones you added for the Italian and English top flights. This makes it clear, even to the uninitiated reader, why the leagues are not considered fully pro. The note you've added for the Frauen-Bundesliga does none of these things. The fact that there is more money in this league than in other European leagues doesn't change the fact that the league is still semi-pro and by itself this fact is insufficient to draw any meaningful conclusions about the other leagues in question. Including it makes it sort of look like the league is listed in the wrong place. I could easily see someone misinterpreting that as an assertion of full professionalism. The success of German clubs in European football has no direct bearing on professionalism, and so does not belong in this list. As such, I have removed it again, putting both of us at three reverts on the day. Remove it again and I will right you up for edit-warring. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To also let you know i have removed the links to the list of women's top level leagues. Since they don't discuss professionalism in any way they are not really relevant and potentially misleading. I have also removed your addition of the Mexican league to the list of fully pro women's leagues. Whilst in my mind I am relatively happy to see it added based on the source you have provided, I think it is wise to take it to the talk page and obtain a consensus first given this is a page widely relied upon as support to a notability guideline rather than make a unilateral addition. Fenix down (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, if anything my previous comment shows that I support your proposal to add the Mexican league. I've just asked you to discuss things and gain documented consensus before making changes to certain pages, rather than making unilateral decisions, it's kind of how WP is meant to work. Fenix down (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not really, it doesn't need to say it at WP:FPL, beacuse it says it here. In one of the policies. One of the core policies. That you're well aware of. Fenix down (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CONACHIEVE on that same page: "Editors usually reach consensus as a natural process. After one changes a page, others who read it can choose whether or not to further edit. When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus.A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised." So if your statement above "if anything my previous comment shows that I support your proposal to add the Mexican league." is true, why did you a) delete it and b) not start a discussion on the talk page? Hmlarson (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BRD, you unilaterally decided a league was fully professional. Although I think the source you provided has merit, it is not conclusive (comments in there as to there being no TV deals currently could be a sticking point for some people), plus generally, certainly since I have been involved in it, additions have been discussed and consensus achieved prior to updating WP:FPL to prevent the possibility that other editors will go and create articles when the league may be removed following further debate. That is why I removed it. I haven't started a discussion because I haven't been editing that much recently. Plus with the season not due to start for a little hwile, none of the players within it are notable yet, so there is plenty of time to have the discussion. Fenix down (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly my experience in the last couple of years, but the list is nearly a decade old and has been active well before I had any involvement with it. I think the early lists were done unilaterally but they seem to have stood the test of time. What happened in the past is not really relevant. It is always better when dealing with guidelines and pages that inform guidelines to have a proper documented consensus, and that is what is done now. If you fancy digging around, be my guest. I'm not sure what you would hope to achieve. Seems to me time would be best spent actually starting a discussion on the Mexican League. Like I said, it's something I would probably support and if no one raises any objections, I see no reason why it shouldn't be added. Then there is something in writing and people have the chance to do their own research and if they miss the boat then so be it. Fenix down (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Looking at the WP:FPL reverts with no discussion started on the WP:FPL talk page and the decision for Sir Sputnik and you to bring this instead to my user talk page, this whole thing could easily be perceived as bullet points #3, #5 WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Although, I'd say it's a slight improvement from my with first interactions in 2013. Sure does take an extraordinary amount of work to make any changes to women's football on that WP:FPL essay.Hmlarson (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted you to understand my reasons for reverting. It has nothing to do with ownership.
Your initial additions regarding the German league were completely unnecessary, FPL is a list of leagues deemed to meet a given criteria, it doesn't need any additional written content other than the list of leagues stating whether they are fully pro or not. I fully support SirSputnik's decision to remove them, no other league has any such notes.
Regarding your linking to a list of top women's leagues, this is potentially confusing, particularly in the list of leagues deemed fully professional as it might give a reader the impression that all those leagues were deemed fully pro. Again, we don't link to any other similar lists for the men's game.
On the removal of the league, I have done nothing but ask you to seek consensus at the talk page to establish a formal documentation for the league if / when it is added and indicated that unless significant opinions to the contrary were raised that I would support it. That seems to be the very opposite of being OWNy.
Finally, whilst I agree GS's initial comments to you were pretty short and sharp and he could have been a bit more diplomatic, you must understand how such conduct and attitude can appear to others. By the looks of that conversation, you added unsourced content to FPL and were asked not to. Instead of discussing properly, barely ten minutes later, you continued to add unsourced content to a different area. When again asked not to, you continued to avoid actually discussing the issue and launched a personal attack calling him a bully. Regardless of how well GS may or may not come out of that exchange, I'm not sure how you think you come out of it as anything other than somewhat disruptive and antagonistic. You must see that its difficult for anyone to see that conversation in isolation and assume that you are anything other than at fault there. Fenix down (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe also re-read WP:AGF while your at it. I started this discussion here because I had a question for you specifically. But instead of answering the question asked, you tried spin this in some sort ownership thing and complain about it being difficult to make changes to WP:FPL. I have no particular desire to antagonise you, but you're not doing yourself any favours by steadfastly refusing to answer even the most basic questions about the content you're trying add. You do see that that's you're doing, right? One somewhat heated discussion later, and I'm still just as confused about why you think the comment about the success of German clubs in European football is relevant to the subject of the list. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"You do see that that's you're doing, right?" Yes, I am trying (as other editors have done over the years) to add relevant content about women's leagues to WP:FPL and it not be deleted by you, Fenix down or GiantSnowman. I've got to get back to re-reading WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. More soon. Hmlarson (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me for asking here, but I can't find this query posed on talk or project pages, but as an active women's football editor, do you know of any discussion concerning moving national sports teams from "_ national football team" to "_ men's national football team" (all other sports included)? The male as default option looks starker by the day and undermines efforts to tackle gender disparity. I hope this made sense! Thanks in advance. No Swan So Fine (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No Swan So Fine Here are a few suggested areas to look that I am aware of - there may be others if you look in various national team talk page archives:
In general, any efforts to try to do any mass scale moving have failed because of a general argument that the men's teams are the default based on popularity, team success, FIFA rankings, tradition and branding. The only cases where getting men put into the name of almost any national team tend to be one where there has been explicit branding on the national level for the men's team as the men's team. This is the case for the USA. There was a huge amount of discussion about the Australia men's national soccer team article including men, which led to no consensus as my recall. This was despite the branding as the men's national team, the women having a large amount of coverage, a higher FIFA ranking and doing better internationally than their male counterparts. --LauraHale (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about forming our own WikiProject separate from WP:FOOTY? There's an on-going discussion of the potential pros and cons on the task force talk page. Input is welcome.
While WP:FPL lists only two women's top-division leagues as notable due to its "fully professional" criteria, did you know you can create an article on any player in any league as long as the references meet WP:GNG guidelines? Make sure to tag the new article talk page with: {{WP Women's sport|footy=yes}}.
Have some new articles in mind or see some that need improvement? Add them to the Open Tasks page if you'd like and other editors may be able to help. Need tips, assistance, or resources from other WOSO editors? Leave a message on the task force talk page.
This sort of comment is completely unacceptable. Calling out editors who do things you disagree with is an appalling way to behave. If you make similar bad faith accusations in public again then I will look for an opinion at ANI regarding you being blocked. Editors have repeatedly tried to engage with you and have at all times kept you informed on your talk page as to reasons why they have reverted you. Fenix down (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just replied to your comment re: starting a discussion about adding Champions League (and presumably Women's Champions League) to the WP:NFOOTY guideline. I included some points for making the WP:FPL intro/lead clearer - particularly for new editors - as well. Look forward to working with you. Hmlarson (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the bit where you specifically accuse named editors of ownership. You simply cannot make bad faith accusations like that anywhere, not to mention that it doesn't look good to be looking to establish a new wikiproject and having comments like that in the rationale. Anyway,it's changed now so no need to discuss any further.
On your other points, firstly if consensus could be achieved that playing in the champions league or similar competition then I would insist that it applied equally across the men's and women's games. Will respond on your other points on the women's task force page but in general I agree with them, discussions over the last few days have shown me that there is a need for more clarity around FPL, although I would note that as "fully professional" is a Wikipedia terms so it is not so much that it should be referenced, more that there should be a clear introductory section indicating the sort of references that suggest full professionalism, what they might say and that there is a need for consensus to be reached on the talk page before adding anything to the list. Definitely think this is something we can work together on but we'll also need other editors to be successful. Fenix down (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fenix down, Glad to hear you're willing to work together. I'm confused by this part of the sentence "although I would note that as "fully professional" is a Wikipedia terms so it is not so much that it should be referenced, more that there should be a clear introductory section indicating the sort of references that suggest full professionalism, what they might say and that there is a need for consensus to be reached on the talk page before adding anything to the list. " Can you clarify? Hmlarson (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Its late here so will reply in more detail tomorrow but have added my initial views to your RfC. Do you want to start a thread at WT:FPLon the women's Liga MX? As it was your original source probably best if you do and cite the elements in it that you feel indicate a level of professionalism sufficient to be assumed essentially fully pro. In my mind the idea that there are teams owned by major tv networks and current men's Liga MX teams goes a long way, although the apparent lack of tv deals seems a bit strange in terms of professional financing but isn't necessarily a major issue. Fenix down (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to have a proper discussion even if participation ends up limited, other editors may present additional sources that strengthen or weaken the case for inclusion. Happy to start it, will have a look at doing so today. Fenix down (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hmlarson, its a good job you're doing here. I'm here to seek your counsel concerning something. The NWPL regular season ended this week and I was sent pdf documents containing details of the league that just ended. I wanted to ask if there was a Wikimedia Library where I could license WOSO documents to? I will extract encyclopedic details from them for the WP article, but it will be nice if Wikimedia has an original copy. Darreg (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good question Darreg. I'm not sure, but you could post your question at Wikipedia:Teahouse. Even though you are not a new editor, someone there might be able to help. Let me know how it goes as I'm interested in the answer as well. My hunch would be this might be something for WP:Wikimedia Commons with appropriate permissions noted. Thanks for your good work on the NWPL and national team articles. Your work is much appreciated. Hmlarson (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply Hmlarson. Its a great motivation for me to be appreciated by an editor of your caliber. I will post in the Teahouse rightaway, hopefully I will get a favourable reply. I will update you of the outcome. On your second question, Nigerian women league is the most consistent and followed in Africa. This may be because of the success of the female national teams. The female FA Cup even has an oil and gas company as sponsors. Improving articles on the league and cup is the top of my ToDolist right now. I will be taking a break from every other thing I do on WP. There will be a super four tournament in Lagos that will determine the overall winner of the league soon. I will update the Wiki article comprehensively this week.
On your final question, this season is a defining season for both the male and female leagues in Nigeria, in that it will be the last time the league will be played in a full calendar year. As from next season it will be similar to European soccer calendar that starts in September and ends the next year. So It will not be 2018 NWPL but 2017/2018 NWPL, the same applies to the male league. The football federation wants everything to flow together as from next season. Thanks and great work you're doing here. Darreg (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Bureaucrats can now set users as confirmed. Previously only stewards could do this on most wikis. Nothing will change for wikis that have previously decided to let administrators set users as confirmed. [1]
Problems
The symbols in the language list that show that an article is good or featured in that language doesn't work. Links to the Commons category in the sidebar doesn't work either. The developers are working on fixing it. [2][3]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 15 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 16 August. It will be on all wikis from 17 August (calendar).
To be fair, if you look through the discussions listed here as delete, there is a pretty consistent consensus that Turkish ice hockey players just do not meet the GNG, men or women. Perhaps @Sportsfan 1234: should do some more WP:BEFORE and have better and more thoroughly written reasons in the Prods, but sending all of them to AfD does appear to be a waste of time based on the results. Yosemiter (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with HMLarson here. WP:PROD is quite clear that any editor (including the article's creator or the file's uploader) may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag. There's nothing wrong with removing the tags. Yes it creates a bit more work for people if things go through AfD, but it also helps create a permanent record of notability consensus. Furthermore, it makes it much easier to CSD articles that are recreated if they have gone through a recent AfD. In a number of instances several editors including HMLarson have attempted to improve articles with sources they feel indicate GNG. This to my mind is the correct process; namely: PROD, PROD removal, attempt to improve, AfD, notability consensus, keep / delete. Fenix down (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was only explaining where it was coming from. From the deletion discussions, my research into each one, and my thoroughly written analyses in the discussion, I would think it is pretty obvious to you that I read each and every source both listed and found on my own. There is a clear trend here on the sourcing and verifiability. I get that you are defending the women's notability here, but the problem is actually Turkish ice hockey notability, the fact that it has no presumed notability, and that these discussions and research seem to be proving that it does not have any. I would love for the opposite to be true but at this point I think WP:PROVEIT is more acceptable instead of knee-jerk keep votes. Yosemiter (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I find it odd that you are comfortable claiming that unilaterally about every single Turkish hockey player, but to each their own.Hmlarson (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only because I have yet to find one (in my research/opinion I guess). But as I said, I would love to be proven wrong. (Except for possibly Sera Doğramacı, but there is more there than just hockey, so I will remain neutral as my experience is in search for significant vs. routine hockey coverage.) Yosemiter (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Your watchlist can now have the option to unwatch pages. You have to turn this on in your preferences. [6]
If a table has several columns you can often choose which column you want to use to sort the table. This has not worked for some columns for readers who have used Firefox or Safari. This has now been fixed. [7]
The RelatedArticles extension has shown related pages on Wikivoyages. You will now see the related pages at the end of the article together with an image. Previously the links were in the sidebar. Wikis that want this extension can request it on Phabricator.
Changes later this week
Videos will now be played in the WebM format in all browsers. Previously some browsers used Ogg Theora (.ogv). If you use Safari, Internet Explorer or Edge you may see slower playback speed at high resolutions. Instead we will get better quality and smaller file size. You can still upload video as Ogg files. They are automatically converted to WebM. This doesn't affect Ogg audio files. [8]
The default font in the edit window will change for some users this week. Instead of using the browser default, it will be monospace. Users can change this in their preferences. This should only change this for some users on Macs and iOS devices. [9]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 22 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 23 August. It will be on all wikis from 24 August (calendar).
Meetings
You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 23 August at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.
You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 22 August at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Well there's a blast from the past! I'd be happy to work on an alternate, but I see that all of my old Barnstars have been cleaned up with alternate versions. The alternate version of The Running Man is here and it looks gender neutral (not to mention a lot cleaner and sharper than my original). What do you think of that one? --Deathphoenixʕ18:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
Template:Jitex BK squad has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Joeykai (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 15 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 16 August. It will be on all wikis from 17 August (calendar).
You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 23 August at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.