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 sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

« Archives, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78

John/Jack

Is it safe to assume that readers would recognize Jack as a nickname for John? Also, where should this question be asked? —151.132.206.26 (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

 Note: This post pertains to the edit request at Talk:John F. Kennedy#Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2018. I replied there. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@ElHef: That's what prompted me to wonder, but no, I was simply asking whether Jack is a sufficiently commonly known nickname for John (it's actually rather unfamiliar to me). —151.132.206.26 (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

There are variations, both regional and temporal; so I'd say, do not assume. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC) a/k/a Mikey, or Mick, or Mickey, or Mischa, or Miĉcjo...

Please don't assume. In Europe (beside possibly UK) it is generally not known that Jack 1) is not shorthand for Jacques resp. Jacob and 2) John F. Kennedy could have been called Jack by anyone in any circumstance. 194.174.76.21 (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin

Hello

Please note that Gopaldas Neeraj died on thursday 19 july according to Google. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

The article Gopaldas Neeraj appears to have been updated. – Uanfala (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Essays or other guidelines regarding the use of quotes inside of citations

Does anyone know if there are essays or other resources discussing what are appropriate uses of quotes within a citation? My general understanding is quotes in a citation would be used when the fact in the article might need more explanation without interfering with the readability of the article itself. As a hypothetical, if an article contains a fact may seem odd or incorrect at first read, the quote in the citation could provide additional text for the interested reader.

There are 8 planets in the solar system

At the same time I would assume it shouldn't be used if the quote doesn't directly relate to the text the citation supports

The planets orbit around the sun

In the first case the quote helps clarify for those who were taught there are 9 planets in the solar system and is thus directly related to/supports the article text. In the second case the material is only indirectly related and in no way clarifies the article text. I would presume in this case the quote shouldn't be used. However, that is only my opinion. Does Wikipedia have any resources talking about this? Thanks! Springee (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Here's the relevant guideline: In most cases it is sufficient for a citation footnote simply to identify the source (as described in the sections above); readers can then consult the source to see how it supports the information in the article. Sometimes, however, it is useful to include additional annotation in the footnote, for example to indicate precisely which information the source is supporting (particularly when a single footnote lists more than one source – see § Bundling citations and § Text–source integrity, below). A footnote may also contain a relevant exact quotation from the source. This is especially helpful when the cited text is long or dense. A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference. Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible. –dlthewave ☎ 17:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

References

New Filters Opt Out Fails

The new filters are cluttering up my Watchlist so I decided to opt out. I turned off "Hide the improved version of Recent Changes" on my "Recent changes" preferences page, but the Watchlist clutter is still there. I'm using Chrome and I tried an f5 reload but no luck. Is this feature broken? Praemonitus (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

To opt-out of the watchlist changes, you should opt out on the "Watchlist" preferences tab, not on the "Recent changes" preferences tab (a mistake easily made). --Pipetricker (talk) 07:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes the help page on the topic wasn't particularly helpful. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Which Wikipedias had significant number of articles contributed to by a bot?

Looking at a list of Wikipedias by language, there are some outliers, and I recall some Wikipedias had had tens if not hundred of thousands of articles created by some bot. Is there any place that lists such cases? Do you recall which Wikipedias has significant article-creation-by-bot initiatives? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Swedish Wikipedia and especially Waray Wikipedia and Cebuano Wikipedia have huge amounts of bot-generated material. The English Wikipedia had Rambot create thousands of articles in 2002, which meant a large percentage of English Wikipedia was bot-generated for a while. —Kusma (t·c) 09:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

List of Wikipedias#Detailed list is a helpful indicator. Just compare article count to user count and you can spot which are mostly bot-filled. Regards SoWhy 13:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Gifford Lectures - list?

I was going to update the article Gifford Lectures to include recent lectures and then noticed that the article is essentially always going to be mainly a list. There are several things that could be done:

1. Move the list out into a separate article List of Gifford Lectures while keeping Gifford Lectures as a stub
2. Move the article itself to List of Gifford Lectures
3. Leave as-is

The problem with leaving it as-is is that the article is always going to comprise mainly of the list, as there just isn't that much you can say about a lecture series in prose form (well, I suspect there actually is, but most of it isn't going to be notable, and it certainly isn't going to be sourceable).

This is also the problem with just separating the list out – it just leaves a perpetual stub – hence considering the possibility of perhaps just renaming the whole thing to "List of Gifford Lectures". Thought I'd come here to get some second opinions!

--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 13:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd leave the title as-is. It's easier to find pages if they start with the real name rather than "List of". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Using piped links to introduce incorrect spellings

This is more of a comment than anything, but anyone else have noticed piped links where the left side consists of the correctly spelt actual title of the article and the right side of a misspelling? I find it simply baffling that this is a thing that exists.

One particularly blatant example I just corrected was [[artificial vagina|artificial-vagina]]. Like, what the hell, dude? Obviously you saw the title of the article already. In contrast, artificial-vagina is a redlink. Applying simple everyday logic, you can deduce that the article title is the/a correct spelling and your own spelling is incorrect. Why go to the length to create a piped link instead of simply writing [[artificial vagina]]? I'm not sure that even the VE can fully explain this phenomenon. And I'm pretty sure I encountered this phenomenon already before the VE was rolled out by default. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why those were hyphenated, either, but this particular instance was added here by FreeKnowledgeCreator. —DoRD (talk)​ 14:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

It is usually pointless to ask someone about a minor detail of an edit they made years ago. This is one of those cases. I don't care about the spelling of "artificial vagina". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I just don't understand why anyone would type the equivalent of [[Barack Obama|Barock Obama]]. (Or, even better: "Baroque Osama".) It just makes no sense. It can't happen accidentally. It feels like an editor who does this wants to prank and annoy wikignomes like me. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you give another example? Some might see a hyphenation as the correct spelling, not saying that is the case in the given example. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC) (please  mention me on reply; thanks!)

Hüttenmeister and Huttenreüter

Does anyone have an english word for these occupations? They are used for occupations With respect to mining both in Norway and in Germany. Breg Pmt (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello 2

Please put Ian Stanley (golfer) on july 28 in the deaths list. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 06:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

New user group for editing sitewide CSS/JS

Hi all!

To improve the security of our readers and editors, permission handling for CSS/JS pages has changed. (These are pages like MediaWiki:Common.css and MediaWiki:Vector.js which contain code that is executed in the browsers of users of the site.) A new user group, interface-admin, has been created. Starting four weeks from now, only members of this group will be able edit CSS/JS pages that they do not own (that is, any page ending with .css or .js that is either in the MediaWiki: namespace or is another user's user subpage).

You can learn more about the motivation behind the change here.

Please add users who need to edit CSS/JS to the new group (this can be done the same way new administrators are added, by stewards or local bureaucrats). This is a dangerous permission; a malicious user or a hacker taking over the account of a careless interface-admin can abuse it in far worse ways than admin permissions could be abused. Please only assign it to users who need it, who are trusted by the community, and who follow common basic password and computer security practices (use strong passwords, do not reuse passwords, use two-factor authentication if possible, do not install software of questionable origin on your machine, use antivirus software if that's a standard thing in your environment).

Thanks!
Tgr (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC) (via global message delivery)

I feel this could just be bundled with TemplateEditor rights, but whatevs. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Plausible, but TE is a bit more candyish than I expect this right will be (should be?). --Izno (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

RFC: Interface administrators and transition

Per the above section, only interface administrators will be able to edit sitewide and user CSS and Javascript soon. Please take a moment to review the above (as well as the linked items) and then leave a comment: who should have access to this permission, and how should we go about grandfathering existing administrators (if at all?). --Izno (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Future access

• Anyone who runs for RFA and is successful should have access to this user group. He should be required to disclose this intent during RFA so that users may assess the administrator's need for it.

  I think we should also have a separate process to establish access to this right. While I expect most administrators who apply for this right will be granted the right, there will be some non-administrator users who may be experienced with Javascript and CSS to whom it would also be reasonable to provide access to this user group. --Izno (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose existence of this RfC as rushed and premature. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Anyone who runs for RFA and is successful should have access to this user group This is exactly the opposite of the intention of why this new user group was introduced. there will be some non-administrator users who may be experienced with Javascript and CSS No. Again, this is against the entire point. Non-admins should not ever have access to site-wide JS/CSS. They didn't before, and they shouldn't now. In fact, only a very small percentage of admins should be able to edit site JS/CSS. That is, the admins who actually would need to, which is, in fact, a very small percentage. To put it in perspective, you can put "interface admin" up there with CheckUser, if not above it. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  @MusikAnimal: You listed a bunch of "should nots". Who should? What's the process for granting them the right? WP:Requests for interface administrator? What is the purpose of that discussion if you've already had the WP:RFA? Solely to evaluate their technical acumen? Why should admin specifically be a requirement? CheckUser is not today (though you'd be hard-pressed to do your job--such that it's a soft requirement for most). Just some thoughts. --Izno (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  I think an RfA-style process is overdoing it. There are literally only a handful of admins who regularly edit MediaWiki JS/CSS. We can easily find out who these people are, grant the right, and call it a day. From that point forward there can be appointments at WP:AN or something. I'm not sure... we should think through some options. I believe in general it will be obvious who would benefit from the right (known developers, frequent WP:VPT, etc.), and we don't need an overly bureaucratic process. That is certainly up for debate. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  Are all developers and frequent VPTers administrators on en.WP? The former might as well be but they are not for the most part, because of the general trust we have that techies are going to stick to techie stuff. The latter is not--and in general, there are a number of users I might trust to be able to hack on the CSS/JS without necessarily being administrators (because I might not trust them to perform one of the 3 core functions--delete/block/protect--with all those rights entail for certain specific or some classes of specific users, but I perversely would trust them to act as appropriate for the technical side [And not to Do Evil]). How do we stave the bureaucracy off? Any requests process is going to question whether the user is trusted and whether the user is trusted to do the technical things in the background. --Izno (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support with modification I can support Anyone who runs for RfA, requests this userright in their RfA, and is successful should have access to this user group. There's no reason why the evaluation for this userright can't be done simultaiously with evaluation for the other admin tools. I think you may have been trying to say this, but it comes across that all new admins will get this userright. I don't think this should be given to non-adminsitrators, as it could be abused to hijack admin accounts and perform admin actions. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 16:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I find this proposal confusing. It almost seems to be saying that all RfA candidates from now on must now state a position on this userright - which many of us have never heard of and most of us would never dream of using. In any case I would not combine the granting of this userright with the granting (or not) of adminship at the RfA as suggested by Ahecht above. It would really muddy the waters. Let RfA be RfA; either the community wants the person to be an admin or they don't. The userright should be evaluated separately. --MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I would assume the default, if not mentioned, would be to not grant the userright. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Grandfathering

• My opinion: We should grandfather those administrators who have edited MediaWiki or user-space CSS and Javascript within the past X days/months/years if they request it. --Izno (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose existence of this RfC as rushed and premature. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This seems okay except user-space CSS and Javascript. Many admins (probably the majority), or any prolific user for that matter, has edited their own userspace JS/CSS. I think we could run a query to exclude edits to their own userspace, but we're not talking about the userspace anyway, so let's not focus on that. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support with modification I can support Currently active administrators (30 edits in the last 2 months) who have edited site-wide CSS or Javascript within the past X days/months. Per MusikAnimal, editing user-space CSS and Javascript requires a far lesser level of trust. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 16:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

General commentary on interface administrator RFC

• Oppose this defeats the point of the new right. Also is a really poorly formatted RfC that doesn't have clear policy language and is only discussing opinions. It probably should be closed. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  What defeats the point? --Izno (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  As for "poor formatting", you are free to include other questions. The most important in my mind was the access question. I don't see a need to restrict or structure the discussion, as this is a new group, for which people may have a wide range of expectations. As you can see, I've provided mine. Elsewhere, at a non-policy discussion, you have provided yours. Maybe you should provide it here instead. :) --Izno (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  No, I'm not going to make this RfC even more than a mess. Shut this down until we have a clear policy proposal. RfCs with a bunch of questions don't work. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  I don't see a need for "a clear policy proposal" seeing as the questions here are clear. My assumption is that the majority of WP:Administrators otherwise applies given the rights we are considering. Do you see places where it shouldn't? Do you want to work on that proposal, or are you just stonewalling? How much time do you want to put into that proposal? Are you aware no administrators will have access to the right under policy in the next few weeks without answering at least the second question? --Izno (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  I'm fully aware, and I'm busy working on it now. Question based RfCs don't work. Clear policy proposals put to the community for consensus do. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - This seems rather confusing to me. Are we simply having a conversation regarding which admins will have access to the new right, would this conversation have the ability to be requested etc? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  There are two questions. One is "who today should have the right?" and one is "who in the future should have the right?". --Izno (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Regardless of the RFC, I think the right should be treated akin to abusefilter-modify: Every admin can assign the right to themselves but shouldn't do so unless they really know what they are doing. That seems to work for the edit filter, so it should also work for this user right. Regards SoWhy 15:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  @SoWhy: that will not be allowed by the new global rules, access must be managed by stewards or bureaucrats. The community could empower the crats to issue it "upon request" to existing admins though. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  That sounds good as well, let's do that then. Regards SoWhy 16:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  SoWhy and/or others. There's discussion at Wikipedia talk:Interface administrators about figuring out the granting requirements. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)