Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

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.

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for a week.

« Archives, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79

PSA: How to bypass the NY Times paywall in a citation

We get a lot of citations to articles in the New York Times. That's generally a good thing, but many of the citations I see are to the paywalled version of the URL. If you've got a subscription, it's better if you use the non-paywalled URL. You can generate one of these by clicking the "Give this article" button. Our readers will thank you. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

that is truly a great idea. can you add that to a permanent essay or help section article? this sounds like very useful data. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do the "give this article" codes function indefinitely? Similar mechanisms for sharing other publications expire after a few days. Certes (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a "give this article" link: "Want to See the Weirdest of Wikipedia? Look No Further." Let's see if it lasts. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've stored that URL in archive.org. I'm not sure whether adopting a similar approach more widely would be legal and ethical or might have consequences for the NYT account which generated the link (but didn't archive it). Certes (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

still works for me o7 Malachi Amadeus (talk) 09:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I had *thought* it was permanent, but now that I'm reading the instructions, it appears it's only good for 30 days. Well, don't I feel stupid. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, they mention 2 weeks in once sentence and 30 days in the next. I think they're talking about two different expiration scenarios, but I can't quite figure out when it's one vs the other. In any case, certainly not forever like I originally thought. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In a rolling 30-day period, you can share up to ten articles, each of which can be read by the recipient for two weeks. isaacl (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith it appears those expire in 2 weeks. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ultimate solution is to use Bypass Paywalls Clean, but this isn't something we can advertise to our readers. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since they expire in 2 weeks, it could create link rot problems. 15 articles have it. I can put a feature request in with Citaiton bot to strip ?unlocked_article_code from URLs which is a good idea regardless for archiving purposes, and we don't know how NYT will respond to these URLs in the future. -- GreenC 15:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean link rot? It still has the original link and wouldn't NYT just fallback to original free/paywall rules if it expires? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NY Times paywall can be bypassed just by disabling JavaScript in you browser. – SD0001 (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

NAC: To make a long story short, the OP has been blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi everyone ! I have posted a recent RfA and was told to advertise it here. The WP:RFA is locate at WP:Requests for adminship/Craffael.09. If bureaucrats and admins could give it a look, that would be awesome thanks ! Craffael.09 (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that you're fluent in "Englisg". We need more "Englisg" admins. But seriously, this isn't going anywhere unless you disclose what your previous account was and explain how it being hacked required you to abandon it. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who told you to advertise the RFA here? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An RfA that doesn't appear at WP:RFA will, for sure, never get anywhere...

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You did not follow the instructions for how to transclude the nomination to WP:RFA. Also, I am very curious as to who (if anyone) told you to post this here, as notices of RfAs are never posted here. Thirdly, account impersonation (in this case, claiming an old inactive account as being yours) is not looked on kindly and will almost always earn a block if you don't fess up asap. Please state your original account, or be honest now if this was a lie. Curbon7 (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why I am convicned the prior account thing is a lie by the way: someone who has been editing since 2017 (longer than me) should have at least enough of a clue to know that "The administrator toolset will help me through my edits and it is a great opportunity for me to become a real Wikipedian" is a very poor argument at RfA. Curbon7 (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you so much for placing such an immense trust in me ! First of all,the "Englisg" is beautiful language full of subtilities that makes its charm

Secondly, my previous account was GandalftheGreyDumbledore but it got deleted and, like , almost all the edits were reverted because the hacker used it for pedo***** if you know what I mean... :(. I can't find anywhere, wich, I understand, does not make it very credible, but I am asking of you to take my word for it or forget this hacking matter as I want no conflicts. Thirdly, some time before seeing your comment on my reason for wanting to be an admin, Curbon7, I realized that my RFA was waaaay too short so I kinda derailed it a bit more.

Sincerely yours, Craffael.09 (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edits might be suppressed, but accounts don't get deleted entirely, and no account by that name exists. - MrOllie (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Craffael.09: Maybe you can use Special:PrefixIndex to find the right name? RAN1 (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked around and found the hacked account ! Except it is registered in the French wiki so it does not really apply to my RFA. I wassure it was in the Englisg wiki, but iy seems I was wrong. Itwas just to prove I was around since 2017, but let's forget it cuz I don't want any conflict or anything.

Oh and Happy Hallowe'en !!!!

Craffael.09 (talk) 09:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Craffael.09, can you link the "hacked" account please? Curbon7 (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Issues with naming

I have found three rivers called Bee Branch in Iowa, however, two do not have articles. Should Bee Branch Creek (Iowa) be moved to Bee Branch Creek (Dubuque)? Mitch199811 (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you need to create articles about all of the rivers? Do you have enough source text about each of them to write a reasonably comprehensive article about each? --Jayron 32 13:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the SIA / DAB article Bee Branch lists five streams in Missouri named Bee Branch:

So, based on the pattern followed by the others, the article you've come across ought to be retitled Bee Branch (whatever it's a tributary of). Drdpw (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not, but I was wondering if I should rename the one current one. Mitch199811 (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Slogans

I was wondering if the Project name in the "Project" column is ok in lower case or they should be written in small caps as reported in Wikipedia logo. Is there a bot that can help me or I should done manually? 2001:B07:6442:8903:88F7:2018:286E:CEBC (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't normally stylise brand names, so the column is probably best left as it is. If we really want to change it, {{Smallcaps}} would work, like This, though we might need to uppercase the final letter manually. Certes (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between Rollback (user right) and Rollback (thirdparty)

Hello. As someone who focuses on stopping vandalism I've come to notice that there are multiple versions of the "Rollback" tool. There's the "Rollback" user right, and also some thirdparty versions found in Twinkle and RW/UV. So, I'm wondering what the difference is between them? Would gaining the "Rollback" user right result in more efficient reversion? Or would it make no difference if I already had a thirdparty extension/gadget? Thanks. - 𝘾𝙤𝙤𝙡𝙢𝙖𝙣2917 (talkpage) 15:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback (by userright) is much faster and consumers very little traffic. It actually just sends a command to the server to substitute the last revision with the previous one. Ruslik_Zero 18:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can see all about the different software-managed reverts here: mw:Manual:Reverts. What you are calling "thirdparty" is client software/scripts that approximate the 'result' - generally they just fetch a prior version and republish it. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the info 𝘾𝙤𝙤𝙡𝙢𝙖𝙣2917 (talkpage) 22:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. If these scripts were a problem, the devs would have told us about that a long time ago. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the diffrences between full protection and cascade protection?

I mean only admins and interface admins can edit both cascade and full protected pages so wouldn't that make it cascade protection and full protection the same thing? I edit pages32 (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. 'Full protection' means you can't edit a single page. 'Cascade protection' means that you can't edit a single page plus anything transcluded onto that page. (Transclusion is a way of sticking one page inside another.) So if you put an infobox inside an article, with full protection on the article, you can't edit the article; with cascade protection, you can't edit the article plus you can't edit the infobox template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing could you provide some examples where cascade would be appropriate please? Doug Weller talk 21:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The classic example is the main page. Otherwise, a spammer could identify some obscure template transcluded by an article featured there and replace it by one of the most prominent ads in the history of the internet. Certes (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both, that helps me a lot. Doug Weller talk 08:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about the "Peer review" tab

If the "Peer review" tab that appears in edit mode has always been there, I, somehow, managed to miss seeing it. Having noticed it now, I have to say its functionality is not self-apparent. And I question the wisdom of directing questions, through use of the feature, to a user that hasn't edited since 2020. Do others have any insight regarding this feature? Thank you. --John Cline (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, i've never seen it; on the other hand, i still can't ~ where exactly are does this tab appear, John Cline? I've just opened a tab in edit mode for Venetian glass and the words "Peer review" don't appear on the page anywhere...? Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 11:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I hit the edit button, there is a "Peer review" tab on the right side next to where it says log out. --John Cline (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cline It's User:AndyZ/peerreviewer which you've installed by adding it to User:John Cline/vector.js. the wub "?!" 15:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. I see where it's been added to that page. Thanks again. --John Cline (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My user page says it's nominated for deletion?

Hi, I haven't used Wikipedia in a few months, and now there's a notice on my userpage (among my userboxes) saying it's being considered for deletion? I can't see anything in my user page's history or source that would indicate why that's the case, but any advice I'd be grateful. Xx78900 (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Xx78900 it is because the userbox User:Yilangren/Userboxes/radfem is being considered for deletion. Paulpat99 (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In other words… the user page is not up for deletion… just one of the userboxes placed on the page?

I have to admit, that notice is very confusing, and I can see why Xx7890 was concerned. Such notices should probably be placed on the user’s talk page, and should read “A userbox appearing on your user page has been nominated for deletion” or something like that. Blueboar (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Xx78900 and Blueboar: You put that in there yourself, Xx78900, with this diff. It was in User:Yilangren/Userboxes/radfem that you used . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that we are using the wrong notice template when userboxes are up for deletion. What the reader sees is a note on his user page saying “This page has been nominated”… it is natural to assume that the notice is referring to his user page. What we need is something that says “A Userbox on your page has been nominated”… or something like that. Blueboar (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We already have that. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#How to list pages for deletion says to use {{subst:mfd-inline}} for userboxes but the nominator failed to do it. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination of the article

Where to contact before publishing an article? GermanVL62 (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a template to it that allows you to submit it when ready. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opportunities open for the Ombuds commission and the Case Review Committee

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

More languages • Please help translate to other languages.

Hi everyone! The Ombuds commission (OC) and the Case Review Committee (CRC) are looking for members. People are encouraged to nominate themselves or encourage others they feel would contribute to these groups to do so. There is more information below about the opportunity and the skills that are needed.

About the Ombuds commission

The Ombuds commission (OC) works on all Wikimedia projects to investigate complaints about violations of the privacy policy, especially in use of CheckUser and Oversight (also known as Suppression) tools. The Commission mediates between the parties of the investigation and, when violations of the policies are identified, advises the Wikimedia Foundation on best handling. They may also assist the General Counsel, the Chief Executive Officer, or the Board of Trustees of the Foundation in these investigations when legally necessary. For more on the OC's duties and roles, see Ombuds commission on Meta-Wiki.

Volunteers serving in this role should be experienced Wikimedians, active on any project, who have previously used the CheckUser/Oversight tools OR who have the technical ability to understand these tools and the willingness to learn them. They must be able to communicate in English, the common language of the commission. They are expected to be able to engage neutrally in investigating these concerns and to know when to recuse when other roles and relationships may cause conflict. Commissioners will serve two-year terms (note that this is different from past years, when the terms have been for one year).

About the Case Review Committee

The Case Review Committee (CRC) reviews appeals of eligible Trust & Safety office actions. The CRC is a critical layer of oversight to ensure that Wikimedia Foundation office actions are fair and unbiased. They also make sure the Wikimedia Foundation doesn’t overstep established practices or boundaries. For more about the role, see Case Review Committee on Meta-Wiki.

We are looking for current or former functionaries and experienced volunteers with an interest in joining this group. Applicants must be fluent in English (additional languages are a strong plus) and willing to abide by the terms of the Committee charter. If the work resonates and you qualify, please apply. Committee members will serve two-year terms (note that this is different from past years, when the terms have been for one year).

Applying to join either of these groups

Members are required to sign the Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information and must be willing to comply with the appropriate Wikimedia Foundation board policies (such as the access to non-public information policy and the Foundation privacy policy). These positions requires a high degree of discretion and trust. Members must also be over 18 years of age.

If you are interested in serving in either capacity listed above, please write in English to the Trust and Safety team at cawikimedia.org (to apply to the OC) or to the Legal Team at legalwikimedia.org (to apply to the CRC) with information about:

Your primary projects
Languages you speak/write
Any experience you have serving on committees, whether movement or non-movement
Your thoughts on what you could bring to the OC or CRC if appointed
Any experience you have with the Checkuser or Oversight tools (OC only)
Any other information you think is relevant

There will be two conversation hours to answer any questions that potential applicants may have:

17 October 2022, 03:00 UTC (other timezones) (Zoom meeting link) (add to calendar)
16 November 2022, 18:00 UTC (other timezones) (Zoom meeting link) (add to calendar)

The deadline for applications is 31 December 2022 in any timezone.

Please feel free to pass this invitation along to any users who you think may be qualified and interested. Thank you!

On behalf of the Committee Support team,

MNadzikiewicz (WMF) (talk) 11:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WMF English fundraising campaign update and example banners

Dear all,

As promised previously, I am happy to share our control banners for this years’ English banner fundraising campaign with you. I have also uploaded them to our meta page. Banners will be shown to non-logged in readers as of the 29th of November throughout the month of December. As our campaigns are built on continuous iteration and improvement, the team will continue to incorporate your feedback and ideas into our testing in the next few weeks, as well as daily iteration throughout the campaign.

Changes already made in response to feedback in the past year

In the past year, the fundraising team has made the following changes to campaigns in direct response to volunteer feedback. We are grateful for the input and partnership with volunteers in improving campaigns for readers.

The banner message no longer includes the number of reminder banner messages shown to readers. For example, "For the 2nd/3rd/4th time recently, we interrupt your reading to humbly ask you to defend Wikipedia’s independence." The message only references the first time we ask for a donation.
The message more prominently highlights Wikipedia as a place of learning and knowledge.
The line “98% of our readers don't give; they simply look the other way” has been removed
The word “reliable” has been removed from the message.
The mobile message more prominently highlights our vision: “We are passionate about our model because at its core, Wikipedia belongs to you. We want to make sure everyone on the planet has equal access to knowledge.”
“Wikipedia is a place to learn, not a place for advertising.” has been changed to “We don't run ads, and we never have.”
More information about what donations support has been added to the small reminder banners on mobile:
- “Here’s what your donation enables:
  - Improvements on Wikipedia and our other online free knowledge projects
  - Support for the volunteers who share their knowledge with you everyday
  - Resources to help the Wikimedia Foundation advance the cause of free knowledge in the world.”
An ‘I already donated’ feature has been added in all our fundraising banners and the thank you confirmation page to help donors dismiss banners across all their devices.
The Foundation discontinued the direct acceptance of cryptocurrency as a means of donating. We began our direct acceptance of cryptocurrency in 2014 based on requests from our volunteers and donor communities. We made the decision to discontinue this practice based on feedback from those same communities.

In the creative process, the team uses feedback from readers, donors, and volunteers to generate new messages that will resonate with our audiences. We are always looking for new language suggestions to reach our readers to help them learn more about Wikipedia while we ask for their support. For example, the Dutch community recently wrote a fully original banner that the team tested during the Dutch campaign in September. We ran the banners for 4 days towards the end of the campaign, and the overall result of the new banner was a 65% decrease in donations. While this exact message won’t reach the revenue target for the year, there are interesting concepts to further develop. We followed up on this test with a productive conversation with the community after the campaign, and we are planning to work together on incorporating more of the ideas from that session into future banners for the Netherlands.

Providing feedback

As the team is actively preparing the upcoming End of Year campaign and developing new messaging, we would greatly appreciate feedback and ideas for ways we can reach our donors while raising the revenue target this year. If you have messaging ideas you would like to see tested, please share them with me or on our meta talk page. The work of the global community of editors make Wikipedia a useful resource for readers. We thank you for your work and welcome your input on the fundraising campaign.

Thank you, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 11:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These messages are an improvement over previous ones I've seen (thank you), but I still don't like the line we run on a fraction of what other top sites spend. Technically, that's true, but it's misleading. WMF's annual budget is $150 million, which is indeed a "fraction" of "other top sites" like Facebook, Twitter, and Google (who probably spend well over a billion a year). But those sites pay their workers, and Wikipedia is created by unpaid volunteers. Wikipedia is special, indeed, but the line suggests that Wikipedia is more frugal than other websites, and I don't believe that's true. The salaries WMF pays are comparable to the salaries paid by other top sites, as is the (per-person) money spent on rent, equipment, travel, etc. Is the WMF really more frugal than Facebook, once you factor in the unpaid labor? I don't think so, but that's what the fundraising messages are stating. Levivich (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forking resources (current information)

I want to create a fork of Wikipedia.

The FAQ on forking cites information from 2008 for only part of what would need to be downloaded...the "Size of Wikipedia" article has information that doesn't exactly match apples and oranges... how much storage space would I actually need to download and extract and display what is available to be downloaded? (I wish there were files to download (for restoration) articles whose deletion I disagree with,but apparently that is not an option...obviously I do NOT want to download user pages or community stuff like this one or anything else related to this site in particular,but I want as much of the knowledge-base as is available). Are what-links-here and related tools automatic options with Wikimedia software or must they be created from scratch?

If a download of the big file is interrupted would it need to be restarted from scratch?...I figure that it would take a long time at all but the fastest bandwidths. Are the extracted files reachable when stored on multiple disks/partitions without any modification to URLs to accommodate this? I intend to be the only person with the authority to take revisions live but am open to letting visitors make pending revisions I could approve/reject (no account signup mechanism though). 71.105.190.154 (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]