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 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

Why doesn't the mobile version show red links?

It it because it is thought to be too difficult to begin articles using the mobile version? I tend to think of wp:redlinks as great things, as long as they are placed where articles or redirects should be created. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hm yes, seems they show as plain text w/o link or colour. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this is covered in phab:T57500. I didn't read the whole conversation (it is long), but I think it's because article creation flow on mobile isn't finished. Killiondude (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. I see that conversation ended in June 2014. Any ideas on the location of an updated thread, User:Mdennis (WMF)? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Melamrawy (WMF) is the person to ask about that. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Whatamidoing (WMF). Is it unsafe to assume that that notification will be replied to here? I'm thinking I might need to post on their talk page or send an email. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I've lost track of her schedule, so I'm not sure. But feel free to drop by her talk page. She's far less likely to bite than I am. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Whatamidoing. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Melamrawy (WMF) for the post on my talk page. Unfortunately, I'm not sure you understood my question on this thread. I am wondering why red links do not appear at all on the mobile version of Wikipedia. For example, if you go to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Cheatsheet&mobileaction=toggle_view_mobile you will see that the "red link example" is not red. It is black like plain text. You might also compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pycnanthemum and see how many species still need articles. But when you go to the mobile version of that page (anyone can toggle between versions at the bottom of every Wikipedia article, from "desktop" to "mobile" and vice versa), the red links are not there. There are no links to show mobile viewers that Wikipedia needs an article on the subject. Why is that? Also, wouldn't this approach encourage mobile editors to create wikilinks where wikilinks ([[ ]]) already exist? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be treated as a bug? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I got it correct from the first time Biosthmors :). It is needed, especially now after more editing traffic due to enabling IP editing. I am checking the status with the current responsible team, because as you saw in the phab ticket above, this has already been discussed earlier, so as I mentioned in my comment on your page: Lets see how this will work --it didn't fall off the radar, don't worry :). Thanks again for bringing up the issue.--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Gender reporting

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Village pump § Gender reporting

 – Redrose64 (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm participating in a debate where the possibility of systemic gender bias has been raised. In response, one editor opened a section in which he listed all the participants' names and invited them to voluntarily state their gender; some editors (a minority) did choose to add that information to the debate.

However: another editor has now gone through that list and – on his own – reported every participant's gender where known.

Am I right to find this inappropriate? Within the context of a debate, I see no problem with inviting users to share that fact; however, for one editor to add that information en masse on everyone else seems wrong. Regardless of what someone can find out about his fellow editors, it seems to me that what participants choose to add/state/disclose in a forum should be their choice – not someone else's.

Thoughts? ╠╣uw [talk] 09:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

If their gender is not publically visible - such as by means of a template like {{heshe}} (for example, {{heshe|Redrose64}} gives "he or she") - it's a WP:OUTING violation. Compare {{heshe|Huwmanbeing}} which gives "he". --Redrose64 (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Redrose. Perhaps my uneasiness simply stemmed from the blanket nature of it: an editor opting to post the known genders of all those involved en masse, information which (while available via template) the editors did not not themselves choose to introduce into the debate. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

“references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing” . . . “if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums” . . . “When reporting an attempted outing take care not to comment on the accuracy of the information.” BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

If a user makes it easy to know if they are male or female (such as by the "Preferences" setting which causes the {{heshe}} output, an explicit statement on the user's userpage), then mentioning it elsewhere isn't possibly OUTing, regardless of the context - even en masse; if the user had previously made a statement and had subsequently tried to hide it, to expose it would possibly be OUTing. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It may not be a rule violation per outing, but it is fantastically bad form in civil discussion. It is a clear, blatant, and rather rude attempt at poisoning the well by introducing the implication that a person's comments in a discussion could be discounted merely because of their gender. That implication is beyond-the-pale rude, and should not be tolerated, regardless of any WP:OUTING implications, or lack thereof. We should focus on what is right, not what is allowed, and it isn't right to poison the well in a discussion like that. --Jayron32 14:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

How to adapt the language list?

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 136 § How to adapt the languages list?

Thanks. I tried but it did not work yet. I'll continue this question in WP:VPT Ceinturion (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Formatting.

Is this essay formatted correctly, or have I messed something up? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

BUMP. Tharthan (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

BUMP. Tharthan (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

BUMP. Tharthan (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tharthan: Is there a specific question that you have? Nothing jumps out at me regarding your formatting, beyond redirects into user space generally being frowned upon. --B (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@B: Yes. Particularly, the picture formatting. It looks off to me for some reason. Shouldn't it be higher up on the page? Tharthan (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I have no idea why I messed that up. Then again, I was never the editor to place pictures onto pages, so I practically have no experience doing so here. Tharthan (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tharthan: (edit conflict) I moved your pictures up - is that what you are looking for? Remember that the exact position of pictures relative to the text will vary widely depending on the reader's monitor or device. For example, if I have dual 4K resolution monitors and stretch the article across both of them, I will see things differently than if I have an old laptop running 1024x768. So you don't necessarily want to position them just somewhere to look good for you. You could also create a gallery and then your images will flow across. See Help:Gallery tag for examples. --B (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

AWB blues

I've been experiencing problems for some time with AWB edits, particularly by Bgwhite and Magioladitis/Yobot. There are too many issues to list, but the problem is that they repeatedly restore their edits over objections. A lot of the edits make no difference to the reader but fill up the watchlists. Or they make changes that have an editorial impact and restore them even if the article writers disagree.

For example, for some reason AWB moves references into the chronological order of the footnotes, rather than where they've been placed for editorial reasons. So a sentence claiming A and B might have the refs positioned after the sentence so that the ref for A comes first. But if A is footnote 9 and B is footnote 8, AWB editors will change the position. If you change it back, another one arrives to do it again.

They also repeatedly remove repetition of named references. When I'm writing a first draft of an article, I often repeat the reference in full (e.g. ref name=X, followed by the citation) so that I can section edit and see the citations. Once I have a draft in place, I remove them and use only ref name=X. AWB editors won't let me do this. They keep arriving – on articles they otherwise have no involvement in – to remove repeated citations.

Each of the issues feels too minor to complain about, but the overall effect is time-consuming and depressing. It feels as though articles are held hostage to whatever rules someone has programmed into AWB. Complaints have been met with rudeness and what seemed to be revenge editing elsewhere. I recently tried to add {{bots|deny=AWB}} to stop it, but Bgwhite reverted, telling me I had added it "illegally." [1] I'm bringing it here for discussion in the hope that some of the technical editors might be able to offer suggestions, as I have no idea how AWB works. Redrose64, I'm pinging you in case you can advise. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Sarah (SV) I already contacted you to your talk page and I asked for clarification. I did every single edit step-by-step proving clear edit summary. I left the footnotes untouched and left the AWB deny tag you posted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Since the page already has consolidated references I assumed this was not your problem with the AWB edits. Feel free to revert this. I arrived to the page due to the unclosed blockquote tag which I fixed. I am OK if you leave the AWB deny tag in the page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Magioladitis, thanks for doing that, though I see you restored the edits.

I'd prefer not to talk about particular cases, because then we'll get bogged down. The broader issues are (a) someone seems to have programmed AWB to make odd edits (e.g. moving refs out of position); and (b) when these are reverted, you revert back, or arrive a few days or weeks later to do the same thing again. And this is on articles that you otherwise have no involvement in, so you're saying that your opinions must count for more than the opinions of the people who are actually working on the articles.

It's these broader issues that I feel need to be discussed. I'm also pinging Doc James as I know he has commented on this too. The point is: shouldn't AWB editors observe bold, revert, discuss like everyone else? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Sarah (SV) I did not restore the edit in question. Am I wrong? You reverted an edit that had many parts and restored the parts I think were uncontroversial (for example I removed an unclosed tag). I left the other parts out. Your edit summary was not very clear so I am not sure if I did right so I left you a message to review by edits. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that particular case doesn't matter. Can you address the broader issue of AWB (a) not making these edits in the first place, particularly moving refs out of place, and (b) when you're reverted not reverting back? Also, why is the tag being removed and what is meant by "illegally"? We're surely allowed to use it or it wouldn't exist. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Sarah (SV):

1. The instructions on {{nobots}} says to, "1) Avoid using the template as a blunt instrument 2) Address the root problem with the bot owner or bot community". Nobody contacted the bot owners before applying the nobots template.
2. We arrived at the pages for CheckWiki fixes for which we both have bot approval.
3. Doing a complete revert without fixing the underlying problem means the article is still on the CheckWiki lists and we will continue arriving at the page until fixed.
4. There is the {{in use}} tag for when the page is under active construction. AWB bots will not edit a page with this tag present.
5. AWB will only combine refs if there are already combined, named refs in the article.

Bgwhite (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Sarah (SV), Bgwhite I am OK if the deny tag is used as last resort. The tag still exists in Female genital mutilation where we again had an interaction and I can't recall any other interaction between all us three in the past. After, I was reverted in Study 329 I immediately searched for another approach. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite, I've repeatedly raised this with you and M, to no avail, so now I'm going to add the tag, particularly when I'm working on something where I don't want the ref positions to be changed. On study 329, they've been changed by AWB three times in just a few days, and repeated citations removed too. Again, the point is that AWB editors shouldn't be arriving at articles they have no involvement in to impose the style preferences of the tiny number of people who control AWB. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why I'm being asked... I'm not an AWB dev; moreover, I have never actually used AWB because (a) I don't edit with IE and in fact I use IE only rarely, in order to check if my CSS suggestions work on that browser (as here); (b) I prefer to make my own mistakes. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Redrose, I pinged you because I don't know who to ask for the best. Pinging Reedy and Rjwilmsi, as they're listed as AWB developers. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Also pinging JamesR from the bot approvals group. The issue for anyone not wanting to read the above is that someone has programmed AWB to make edits that a couple of people simply don't like (e.g. that citations in an article must appear in the chronological order of the footnotes). Those edits are then repeatedly made to articles over the objections of the article writers, month after month, year after year. When we add the {{bots|deny=AWB}} tag we're reverted. So what can we do? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Sarah (SV) you 've been reverted by a single user, AWB does not override the deny tag and I did not revert you. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite removes them, as I said above. Can you address the larger issues, M? First, how can we get rid of that AWB thing that moves references out of place? AWB should not be doing that. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I support you on that. In the past I proposed that we make the ref reordering optional and disabled for bots. I should find the discussion for you. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Can you say how it got added to AWB? It seems a strange thing to do, especially automated. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Ref ordering is a general fix, simply because refs should be presented in order. Having a "This sentence states something.^{[137][8][97][45]}" goes against pretty much every style guide out there, because you should present them in order as ^{[8][45][97][137]}. This has been incorporated in AWB years ago and this fix has support. There may be some weird article-specific reason for not following this convention, but you'd need a really good argument for not following professional standards. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

In some cases, I wouldn't use the word "often" but it's not at all uncommon, certain references in a sequence are more important than others and should be read first. If the reader looks at only the first one or two refs, we want to determine which refs those will be. It's sound editorial judgment, there's nothing "weird" about it, and I personally don't lose any sleep over deviating from "professional standards" that stand between me and reader value. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for the response, Headbomb. Can you post examples of the professional standards or style guides you're referring to?

On WP we use ref name, rather than posting separate footnotes (which I would prefer to do, but if we try that AWB editors revert us.) So if we have a sentence "Mary likes cake, but John doesn't," and a ref to support each part of the sentence, they need to be placed in order after the sentence, no matter what number the footnote has (i.e. even if one of them has been used earler in the article). That's a trivial example, but there are examples where it's important to begin with the secondary and not the primary source, or where the issues are contentious and the refs have to be easy to find. These are editorial decisions, and AWB editors shouldn't be making them when they're not familiar with the issues, or reverting when the refs are moved back into place.

The AWB rules say that the onus is on the AWB operator to demonstrate consensus. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 01:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Headbomb, I see it was you who suggested adding it to AWB. [2] Rjwilmsi responded that it needed consensus. Magioladitis supported it, JLogan objected, and it was added. Was there a discussion somewhere else that gained consensus, or was that it? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 02:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Break 1

@SlimVirgin: Three suggestions for you:

1. If you have a sentence "Mary likes cake, but John doesn't," and a ref to support each part of the sentence, you could write Mary likes cake,<ref name=Mary/> but John doesn't.<ref name=John/>
2. If you add a comment between consecutive references (maybe explaining why they're in a certain order), AWB won't rearrange them.
3. When you're writing a first draft of an article, you could create it in the Draft namespace or your user sandbox to keep the bots away, and then move it to mainspace when you're done.

Hope this helps make your editing experience more pleasurable. GoingBatty (talk) 03:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks GoingBatty, but I prefer not to be forced to add refs inside sentences, and we shouldn't have to explain why they're in a certain order. The broader point, I think, is that we shouldn't have to jump through hoops like this. Magioladitis, what can we do to resolve this? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin explaining why ref are in a given order may be a good thing since the main argument of the people who want the re reordering is that a random editor can never know for sure which ref order is the best. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Magioladitis, I'm not sure I understand that. I agree that random editors can't know which ref order is best, but at the moment AWB is helping random editors change the order.

Again, I'd prefer to address the broader issue. Almost all AWB rules are just the preferences of a small number of people, perhaps just one person, being imposed on everyone as though they are policies. If we object, the edits are restored again and again, maybe for years. It's basically slow edit warring. It's that attitude, I think, that has to change. Using AWB doesn't make editors immune from behavioral guidelines, and editors who want to avoid these conflicts have to be allowed to use the deny tag without it being removed. If that last point could be accepted, that would help a lot. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Most of AWB rules are described at WP:AWB/GF and almost(?) all AWB rules follow manual of style. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

A lot of these have nothing to do with the MOS, and anyway the MOS isn't policy. Can you help to establish that, if the deny tag is added, it mustn't be removed? That would allow writers some escape from this. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Magioladitis, Reedy and Rjwilmsi, I would really appreciate a response to this so that we can try to resolve things. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: random comment: there are way more uses of bots/nobots in article space than I would have expected. This seems like a bad idea and like it should be the very last resort and only a temporary measure unless/until the problem is resolved. From looking around, I'm going to pick Canmore, Alberta as an example of an article that uses the tag for a similar reason to the one discussed above - there are ordered refs for the "Population history" table and to keep AWB out, the bots tag is used. I would think that better options would be (1) move the refs into the table itself next to the data actually being cited so that you don't have to count to try and figure out which ref cites which line or (2) if there is an editorial reason not to do that, add the comment between refs described above. The way it is now, AWB is blocked from doing other useful things on the page. It seems like the problem should be resolved with a comment - if you don't want users (AWB or otherwise) reordering refs, you need to tell them why. --B (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi B, thanks for the comment. I don't accept that if I don't want AWB reordering refs, I need to explain why. (I don't understand what you mean about a table.) Rather, editors who want to do it should explain why, and I'd love to hear the explanation. It's something that makes no sense. Editors and readers are very lazy, especially regarding anything contentious. If they click on the first ref, and the most pertinent information isn't there, they remove material, add a cite tag or complain on talk. Refs need to stay where the writers have placed them, unless there's reason to think a mistake has been made.

Re: the tag, I've added it as a last resort (and even then it was removed), because I've been trying to sort this out for a long time, to no avail – not only ref reordering, but several other issues. As I keep saying, the important issue is that AWB editors should abide by the same rules as everyone else, but they don't. They don't even abide by the AWB rules of use, namely: abide by all policies, guidelines and common practices; seek consensus for changes that could be controversial; if challenged, the onus is on the operator to gain consensus; and don't make inconsequential edits. None of these rules are adhered to. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that none explains what they prefer a certain order then everything goes down to level of preference. I think most editors think of the order suggested by AWB as the default order unless someone else proves that in a certain article the order of refs should be something else. Using comments would be really useful not only for AWB users. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not always a matter of preference, M. As I wrote earlier, Mary likes cake, but John doesn't.<ref name=Mary/><ref name=John/> is written that way so the reader finds the sources in order of claim presentation. When the claims are contentious, this matters. Or the writer might place the secondary source first, or the second source might be a "see also" source. But I've said all this already.

Instead of discussing particulars, can we discuss the broader issues, please? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

"Rather, editors who want to do it should explain why" - if there isn't a sign saying "don't do this", doesn't BRD suggest it's okay to do that? If you don't want someone (editor, semi-automated editor, anyone) doing something, you need to let them know. If I see the Mary and John example, if the reference about John is a really good article from a major newspaper and the reference to Mary is a weak barely reliable source, I might think that moving John's ref ahead or even removing Mary's completely is a good idea, not realizing that there is a reason for it the way it is. --B (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

They do it over and over, and not only that one issue, Maglioditis and Bgwhite in particular. BRD says not to do that, and the AWB rules say not to do it, which is why I keep trying to steer the conversation to the bigger picture, and I would really appreciate it if that conversation could happen, rather than discussing particular examples. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've been pinged about this discussion. I didn't really want to enter the debate here, so I'll post once and bow out. On the one hand, considering the reader of a page, if references are put in a specific, non-numeric order by the editor, I do not see how the reader can be sure if that means something special, and how to know which ref applies to what, so on the basis of reader understanding I would think using a specific, non-numeric order by the editor would be discouraged; within-sentence referencing or explanatory comments within the reference would seem a much clearer solution, ref order would then not be a dependency for understanding. On the other hand, AWB feature requests do not necessarily get widely announced, so maybe a feature was added that goes against some established practice in certain cases. So the simplest thing here would seem to me to have a wide discussion about the encouraged/approved/discouraged options for reference ordering on the MOS/WP:CITE pages, ensure that the MOS/WP:CITE etc. guidelines are updated if a consensus is reached. Then I will ensure AWB is updated if required to support the consensus reached. If, as is possible in these areas of MOS standards, no consensus is reached, then SV has been given some options to update the affected article. Rjwilmsi 06:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for proposal

The ref reordering was implemented with a 3-1 consensus on a "feature requests" page with relatively few watchers. I would suggest that a wider consensus is needed to sustain something like this. We should pretend that the feature does not exist and take it through the WP:VPR proposal process, like other things that affect a significant number of editors in a controversial way. The consensus burden should be on "keep", not "remove"; i.e., it would be removed in the absence of a consensus. If the idea has as much merit as its proponents claim, it should have no problem earning consensus there. Being an actual community consensus with wide exposure, it should be more durable. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not about the best order for references, and while a discussion concerning what AWB does would be desirable, such a discussion would not address the underlying issue. The problem is that drive-by editors with no interest in a particular article (and no knowledge of the references or whether there is any reason for the presentation order) are using automated tools to apply a "standard", and they are insisting that their edits apply. AWB users might sometimes develop an unrealistic goal of "fixing" the encyclopedia by making everything follow their style. The AWB rules may well be desirable for many articles, but they should not be applied in cases like those mentioned above where an editor has gone to a great deal of trouble to develop the article content. It would obviously be fine if someone wanted to join in and help develop the article, and a discussion could occur based on what is best for the article and its readers. That is not what is happening. Johnuniq (talk) 08:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Rather than using {{nobots}} like a blunt instrument, maybe we need a {{ref order}} tag to stop scripts and bots from changing that particular part of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Who the heck is Robert Gold?

Why do we have pictures of "Robert Gold Bartender" all over Wikipedia in every bar- and drinking-related article? These pix don't actually appear in the articles but only show up when you click on a pix that IS in the article. Then they appear in the large-image sequence of pix that are in the article. (Just go to Cocktail waitress and click on the picture.) Robert Gold doesn't even have an article in Wikipedia. This looks like some kind of insane private spam or ego-trip. Wahrmund (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, on the mobile version. The bartending navbox, Template:Bartending, is graced by Gold's photograph so you see him when you scroll across. I think there's a guideline against that somewhere (there's a guideline against everything if you look hard enough) so I expect someone will remove his photo soon. Because navboxes don't appear in the mobile view and this one is hidden by default otherwise, you don't see him when viewing articles transcluding the navbox. Thincat (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining this. Hopefully it can be corrected. Wahrmund (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Wahrmund: The image of Robert Gold in Template:Bartending is also in the infobox for the Bartender article. You may want to discuss your concern at Template talk:Bartending, especially if you have a suggestion for an alternate image for the navbox. I don't mind having a photograph of a random bartender in a navbox about bartending, just like I don't mind having a photo of a random cocktail waitress in the infobox for Cocktail waitress. GoingBatty (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Overabundance of photos of President Obama

I don't know if I'm the only one who has struck this opinion, but it seems we use an over abundance of pictures of the current US President, Barack Obama. Even on articles that have nothing to do - directly or indirectly - with the presidency. Fist bump is a good example. I know there are other examples, but I can't remember any off the top of my head. Just seems POV-ish to me. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 00:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

One of the contributing factors to this may be that public domain photos of him are pretty easy to obtain since photos are taken by government photographers at his events. All those photos are part of the public domain. only (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Get your camera, take high-quality pictures that can replace all of them, and then upload them and replace them. Wikipedia does not have a staff of paid editors who make any decisions at all, it consists solely of people exactly like you who saw a problem and fixed it. If you see a problem and don't fix it, then the only person to blame is yourself. --Jayron32 00:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with the presidential fistbump photo? It's not the lede image for the article; it's in the section on history as a particularly notable example due to the brouhaha it created.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I see absolutely nothing wrong with : we have a public figure who has show himself to be wise in the ways of social media and in a place where nearly every image of him will be a free image, as such , it is great content for a free encyclopedia. He's also probably the first sitting President that also "gets that" too. Perhaps the next President will realize the same thing and then we can start balancing images with that. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I Actually pity anyone who tries, given the multiple edit wars that will undoubtedly start. Resolute 19:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The section reminds me of a Memory Alpha article. "George Washington was a US President. George Washington was shown in a picture in episode 5 of season 3 and his face was on a coin in Star Trek IV." "A fist bump is when two people bump their fist. President Obama once fist bumped his wife." Yes, the usage of photos of Obama is probably not intended as a political statement or anything ... but it doesn't belong in "history" - it belongs with all of the "other instances". And the trivia about the FNC host that nobody has ever heard of losing her job possibly, but not definitely, related to her snark about the President's fist bump ... good grief, that's absurd trivia to have in an article about fist bumps. Speculation about trivia about trivia? Good grief. --B (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Photo insertion should be judged on a case-by-case basis, rather than according to some criteria about how many there are in total across Wikipedia for a particular subject. Praemonitus (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

A/B Testing for VisualEditor to begin May 21st

Hi there. I’m about to kick off a short A/B test that will enable VisualEditor for newly registered users. This test will affect half of the new editors who sign up on Wikipedia. We’ll start on 21 May, 2015 by running a 24-hour pilot study (why?) to test our experimental framework. Assuming that everything’s working, we’ll then start a one-week study. Once this experimental week is up, we will cease enabling VisualEditor for newcomers while we analyze its effects.

In this experiment, I’ll be looking for evidence about whether offering VisualEditor makes editing easier/more productive for newcomers or raises additional burdens (reverting damage, blocking vandals) for current editors. One of the WMF's goal in this test is to determine whether we’re ready to start a discussion about offering VisualEditor to new users. Negative outcomes will result in further improvements and user testing.

As has become my standard practice for WMF experiments, I’ll be maintaining a project page on Meta with details about this experiment. I will also maintain work logs while I monitor the experiment and analyze the results. If you have any questions about this test, please feel free to come talk to me on the project talk page. --Halfak (WMF) (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)