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

Help settle the Calton Hill dispute

If you are or have been a resident of Edinburgh, Scotland and are familiar with the Calton Hill, you might like to contribute to a current editorial dispute on its Discussion page. Your views would be greatly appreciated to help resolve a stand-off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim Traynor (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia Is Safe and Awesome

Just a few minutes ago I posted a test statement, this was a test to see how long it took before a vandalistic post was removed from a page. In under two minutes the change was corrected, in no way are the lies your teachers tell you true. Wikipedia is secure and vandalist free. ***** — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seedorfjames (talk • contribs) 06:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do not do "test edits" on Wikipedia. It wastes the time of volunteers. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 07:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're interested in vandalism, you'd be better off seeing Wikipedia:WikiProject_Vandalism_studies. It contains links to independent research, which generally shows in a more scientific way that vandalism isn't a serious problem and is quickly fixed (e.g. [1]). --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

iBook author incompatible with Wikipedia

So it appears that it is a condition of using the new free iBook author software from Apple is that the book produced can only be sold in the iTunes store.

As far as I can see this is incompatible with the CC-BY-SA license used on most Wikipedia and Commons content. If so this will mean that authors using this software to produce books are not allowed to incorporate text and pictures from our projects.

Is there something we can do about this? filceolaire (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Good topic; but I'm a little skeptical. (But I confess I haven't looked at the iBook lessons.) Is it a condition that the author can't sell the book elsewhere, or that the book can't be sold elsewhere? A license that permits others to sell the book is different from actively selling the book, so I'm curious how the iBook agreement discusses that.

Also, I'm not sure how this would prevent using content from Wikimedia? Publishing a CC-BY-SA photo in a book doesn't, I don't think, make the entire book a derivative work, requiring the entire book to be released under CC-BY-SA. I may be wrong about that, but it seems to me that the photo remains a distinct work, even when published in a book. Otherwise, wouldn't it be illegal for newspapers to use CC-BY-SA photos from Commons if they don't also release their entire publication under a free license? -Pete (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The License Agreement 2.(B). stated that (paraphrased) if you sell the book, you may only do so through the iBookstore. However, if you distribute the book for free, there's no restriction. --tOMG 05:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This remains problematic. The CC-BY-SA license permits others to sell your book. Apple's license cannot prevent this, since resellers of your book were not parties to the iBook authoring software EULA and did not agree to it. However, it's not clear to me if such a broad authorization to resell puts the original author at risk of a breach of contract or not. Dcoetzee 02:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem though? If the license is incompatible, it's incompatible. Is Apple promoting using WP content? If not, then it's hardly it's on the people who make the iBooks to follow WP's licence, and normal steps should be taken (whatever those may be) if it happens, but I don't quite see how "Apple cannot prevent this" because don't they have a right to make their own license? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Two species with the same common name

Both Puntius clemensi and Mandibularca resinus have the same English common name “Bagangan”, as it can be found on here and here. While this article Bagangan uses the common name as the title, it only mentions Puntius clemensi and completely ignores Mandibularca resinus. However Mandibularca resinus is redirected to this page, making it so confusing. Is there a better way to deal with it?--Quest for Truth (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

If there are two things with the same common name and neither is significantly more notable than the other, then there ought to be a disambiguation page. --Tango (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not familiar to this fish, so I can't tell the significance of the species. Perhaps I need more opinions from those who are familiar with it. --Quest for Truth (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

There are numerous fishes in the Philippines named bagangan. In Visayan languages at least, the name literally means "mandibled", "large-jawed", "toothy", "large-cheeked", or "with prominent gums" (from bagang or bag-ang - "molars", "gums", or "lower jaw"). You can see why when you take a look at the fishes themselves. P. clemensi and P. resinus (=Mandibularca resinus) in particular look very similar as they belong to the same genus and inhabit the same lake (Lake Lanao). Nonetheless I can not move the page. I request an administrator to please move Puntius clemensi to Puntius clemensi. Then create a disambiguation page in Bagangan to list the fish species listed in the previous link from fishbase. I have also created a separate stub article for Puntius resinus.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 22:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! There is only administrative work to do. Let's wait for an admin.--Quest for Truth (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Now someone who knows what they're looking at make sure all the species that should be listed at Bagangan are. LadyofShalott 00:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 June 17#Cunjevoi.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh. Anyway, I've completed the list at the dab and corrected the articles (including redirecting Mandibularca, as that is currently considered invalid). It's all good.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 01:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. and TY LadyOfShalott, ofc -- Obsidi♠n Soul 01:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what that means. LadyofShalott 15:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

In which universe is the name "Bagangan" an English word? Roger (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter now that it's just a disambiguation page - it is a reasonable search term. LadyofShalott 15:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Tequila (song)

Considering that it is an instrumental piece, with the word "Tequila" being occasionally spoken, would it be correct to move it to Tequila (instrumental)? Within the article, it's repeatedly referred to as a song. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Although strictly speaking it may not be properly called a song, it seems best to title articles so that they are easily found. The disambiguation (song) is perhaps more likely to be searched than (instrumental). A possible solution would be to create Tequila (instrumental) and redirect Tequila (song) to it. Then if the content of the article remains a concern (regarding the description of the music as a song), simply edit the article accordingly. Whatever action is preferred, I recommend discussing that action at the talk page of the article. fredgandt 04:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems that has already happened. fredgandt 04:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I only see "instrumental" as a redirect to "song". I guess I'll go ahead and make the necessary adjustments. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You'll see (in the history) that someone already noted that since there are sparse lyrics, it is not purely an instrumental. I think it is probably fine the way it is. Your call though. fredgandt 02:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Po-tay-to, po-tah-to... well, since the talk page has been moved, I'll go ahead and copy-paste in spite of the guidelines. You can't call it a song unless it's a pure bureaucratic call that disregards common sense at its utmost. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe next you could have it out with Elton John, whose Song for Guy is described as "mainly instrumental". Actually the word "song" is commonly applied to popular music tracks regardless of whether they have words (try googling "Instrumental Songs" if you don't believe me). --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"PEnnsylvania 6-5000" is also referred to as a song, even though it has virtually no lyrics.   → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ 03:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean: was referred to, erroneously. Also, common misconceptions are still misconceptions. An "instrumental song" makes as much sense as a "feline dog". "Salt Peanuts" is also not a song. Getting back to the issue in question – quoting the appropriate policy: "When a track is not strictly a song (in other words a composition without lyrics, or an instrumental that is not a cover of a song), disambiguation should be done using "(composition)" or "(instrumental)"." Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Just for laughs...

See todays nonsequitur. Tjuus, Kleuske (talk) 09:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

When did "object" become "oppose"?

Just wondering if anyone remembers or knows how "Oppose" came to be used in Wikipedia's voting processes, replacing "Object", which is used for example at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/President of the United States/archive2. Leonxlin (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

4.43, 27 August 2007 (UTC). Didn't you get the memo? fredgandt 04:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Five hours after my first edit? Sending out the memo is still on my to-do list. :) Franamax (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah! All your fault! Tush. fredgandt 06:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

As to why it happened I reckon that "support - oppose" is a much more natural antonym pair than "support - object". Roger (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

How rude!

OK...I know this has been discussed before, but I don't know where to look for any archived discussions. I have noticed that some editors use belittling tactics when they reply to friendly requests on how to improve articles. I seem to have a bit of a limit to how much I will stand when I see editors talking down to others or making fun of mistakes on articles and using these mistakes to call out other editor as idiots. I recently traced a request by one editor to simply ask how to go about raising the rating on an article. He seems to have approached a number of editors from varying projects and at least one Admin who simply said he didn't know anything about how to do such. Really? Really? His request to others was even worse. On one page he was blown off completely and the article ridiculed at the article talk page.

Normally the archived discussions on a talk page will be linked to in one of the tan-colored boxes near the top of the talk page. For example, on the Talk:Evolution page is a box named Archives next to the table of contents. You can also find old postings by clicking on the 'View history' tab at the top of the talk page. Note that there is a 'Help' link in the left-hand column of each page that links to various topics, or you can try searching for a particular subject such as 'archived discussions'. RJH (talk)

I saw that, but don't know exactly how to search for a specific subject and going through all the archives at the moment didn't seem like it would be a quick look...but a long drawn out research project. But thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I have had a few run ins with editors and I am no stranger to rudeness so perhaps I am just now seeing how badly this behavior effects the encyclopedia. I have become very sensitive to editors who claim to be female as the number of women editing on this site is extremely low...but I see that there are many editors of both genders leaving over disgust from how they are treated by others. I left a project years ago when an editor (who is still VERY active) started using horrible language that would make an sailor blush. I asked why he was being so uncivil and was told Wikipedia doesn't censor. That turns out to not be an argument that applies to talk page discussions as outright cussing is not acceptable. What I want to know from others, is this; How do you handle editors that are not cooperating with others, berating or belittling other editors (I see this as a control method frankly) or are using the project talk pages and article talk pages to bash articles and their editors as ridiculous. I can't say this is getting out of hand as I see it all the time. Most of the time it turns out the information they are defending for themselves is more than questionable, but this sort of highbrow attitude gives the impression that they are quite impressed with themselves and have little time to help anyone below their perceived abilities. What can one editor do that could help this overall situation improve? How do I turn around attitude...WITHOUT giving attitude back? Haven't figured that part out yet.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I can definitely relate to your concern. A big part of the problem seems to be the anonymity inherent with this interface; the same level of rudeness just wouldn't be tolerated in person.

I do the best I can to avoid rancor, but sometimes it just isn't possible to avoid heated disputes. If the conversation becomes unpleasant, a gentle reminder to see WP:CIVIL may be appropriate. It can also help to step away for a few days and let things cool down. An alternative is to stick to editing more obscure topics that see little activity. Those rarely generate any disputes. Finally, you might try joining some of the WikiProject discussion groups. Those seem to generate less rancor since the editors there may be working together for long periods of time. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I have occasionally gone back and read some of my own comments, and am often shocked at how rude I sound, when I never (well, not usually) meant to sound that way. There's something about quickie-anonymous forums which seem to generate inadvertent snideness. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen some of my posts from my first couple of years here....and it's like I am looking at a different editor and I guess I am a different editor now. With a better understanding of Wikipedia. I just see so much bitter put downs and insults that go beyond the normal disputes. Some editors taking a moral stand over encyclopedic information while others look down on editors for simply editing an article another feels they don't deserve to be editing and express such. I wish people wouldn't post that anyone has no right to edit a page and then go into insulting a user by putting down their abilities. One editor actually said no one working on the article was capable of understanding the subject at all and therefore shouldn't contribute.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think part of the solution here is just more involvement by senior community members. We have dispute resolution, but in the absence of a dispute, we don't have a mechanism by which someone can recruit a senior community member to step in and say "don't be mean." Perhaps a civility noticeboard would be helpful? Admittedly it does risk escalating the issue - perhaps an anonymous mailing list would be better. Dcoetzee 01:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You pretty much have that already in Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all so much for this input. I think Tagishsimon may have found the solution I am looking for. One cannot take a stand against rude behavior without engaging in that same behavior in another editor's eyes, so this may be exactly what I am looking for! Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Have a read of this discussion; editors are on the whole against the use of "language gags" in Wikipedia, so expect to see some cussing here and there! When the cussing is directed at someone, though, that comes under our policy on no personal attacks, and is different. It's always worth remembering that one person's "unacceptable language" is another's "everyday informal talk" (a bit like a regional accent, in a way), so although we shouldn't tolerate personal attacks, always bear in mind that the other person possibly didn't mean the language as harshly or rudely as you may have perceived it. Wikipedia covers all cultures and the whole of the English-speaking world, and standards vary. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation are very concerned about the toxic behaviour you're describing, Amadscientist. Last April they passed a resolution (wmf:Resolution:Openness) that urges us to develop practices to discourage disruptive and hostile behavior. Presently there is a case running before the WP:Arbitration committee entitled "Civility enforcement." It involves an editor, Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) (Latin for hammerer of fools, I believe) who is intelligent, hard working and very helpful, but who has no time for people he deems to be troublesome fools. He can be quite unpleasant to petty idiots in particular. Everybody's watching to see how seriously the committee takes his behaviour.

It's a very nuanced case, though. Every controversy I've seen him in, I've agreed with his evaluation. In my opinion, he generally gets it right. (Though I've only seen a few). And he's supported by some of the finest minds on the project. His position seems to be that he'll start treating fools more benignly when the project starts taking the truly toxic - but "civil" - behaviour we see all around us seriously. It's a very difficult one for the committee.

The committee's response will be a signal to the community about whether being cruel and mean warrants just a chuckle and a knowing wink between administrators; or whether it's time for us to create an environment where a scholar, or an average civilised human for that matter, can enjoy contributing. The evidence and workshop stages have closed. The arbitrators are deliberating. If you watchlist this page you'll be able to watch the decision unfold. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The whole "civility" issue is extremely complex. There are people who never say a swearword, who always appear to be polite, and who make other people's lives a misery! At the other end of the scale, there are extraordinarily helpful and constructive people, who just come across as "grouchy" a lot of the time. Most people fall somewhere in the middle; the important thing to remember is that we're all humans, with all our human fallibilities and failings, our bad days and good days, and Real Life issues which can spill over into here. That's just normal. Assuming good faith, wherever possible, gets us over a lot of differences in the ways we interact with each other. This isn't like anyone's "normal" real-life environment; we have people of all ages and backgrounds, brought up differently, but when all we have to rely on is the typed word we can easily be misled. A reasonable amount of tolerance is vital; on the one hand we certainly don't tolerate intentional attacking, but on the other hand we don't want people who just have differing language styles to feel unduly "caged". It would be a bit like having to do the gardening while wearing high heels and full evening dress. To put it in clear and blunt terms, someone saying "That's fucking awesome!" is OK, but someone saying "You're a moron!" is not. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Just for the sake of clarity Anthyony, who exactly are you accusing of being "cruel and mean"? In general though I think you've summarised my position quite nicely. The real incivility here is very rarely, if ever, dealt with. Malleus Fatuorum 15:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I confess I have my doubts about you. You may be so clueful that you never deal out spleen that your interlocutor can't take. In those few controversies of yours where I've examined the history, and followed the repercussions, your intensity was nicely pitched. This is why I mentioned your case is nuanced. We're dealing in notions as subtle as sensibility. However, if my suspicions about you are correct, that doesn't preclude the committee drawing important lessons from this case with regard to civil behaviour, while acknowledging that you're not a mean person, and that you have a deft touch. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

A further factor which is well known but doesn't seem to get mentioned so often regards the propensity for self-selected (volunteer) discussants to hold strong views, which may in turn be associated with strong verbal exchanges... People who are aware of the tendency may deliberately try to tone down their remarks and avoid excessive polarization. But even so, it's easy to find oneself in the midst of a word-slinging match, where nuanced views get elbowed out of a nastily polarized debate. Sometimes, I wonder whether more could be done to encourage wikipedians who have some sort of an informed opinion on a given subject of discussion to contribute it even if the topic doesn't take them by storm, as it were. But maybe that's just a meteorological pipe dream... MistyMorn (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That is beautifully put, MistyMorn. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand that foul language itself is not censored...it's when that language is used to push editors away from article by use of berating them with that language, but that is really a side issue to the demeaning, and belittleing of others that seesm to get out of hand. No one should be telling others that they lack the intelligence to edit, or that the subject is too much for Wikipedia to cover. High brow bashing of less knowledgable editors is disruptive and is not civil. It also crosses the line on talk pages by not discussing ways to improve the article...but simply a way to keep editors of a page. I almost see it as an ownership issue where the basher is simply trying to humiliate another to shame them of Wikipedia. But what agreat discussion this has turned into! I can clearly see this is an issue of importance to many editors as well as the foundation! I have to use the Village Pump more often. I learned a great deal here!--Amadscientist (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, anything akin to the 'silent treatment' is not good. And I would guess that painful attrition constitutes a far more relevant risk factor for loss of editors than the decision to stage a blackout. MistyMorn (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Wiki is getting better!

A couple years ago (maybe two or three), wikipedia was was just letting anybody post anything they wanted and wiki WAS ONLY CHECKING ABOT ONCE A MONTH!!! Now, wiki has cracked down on editors who edit their pages. Wikipedia now checks daily or weekly to make sure that the articles are true. But, I still see many articles that aren't. Fellow editors, give me your take on this, is wiki really improving?

--GBA — Preceding unsigned comment added by GokuBeatsAll (talk • contribs) 03:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do not place spaces before new text, it causes problems with formatting. Also, I've been here since 2006, your understanding of how Wikipedia worked two or three years ago bears no resemblance to how things actually worked. They worked pretty much like they do now. "Wikipedia" is not a person, it is thousands of dedicated editors who check articles on their watchlists daily. Not all articles are watched, and some articles only become watched after errors are introduced.

"Wiki" is just the software this site uses, not the site itself, which is Wikipedia. I'm assuming that you were refering to the site when asking if it is improving. In terms of approaching finished, it never will. In terms of having more information and more accurate information, more gains occur than losses. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to the page history for the site guideline "Verifiability". Though the page has only been around since 2003, the concept is older. It has never been acceptable for people to just "post whatever they want." Ian.thomson (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

People post "whatever they want" all the time here. It's being able to actually prove that the information (even when referenced) is an error or misinterpreted or just catching the vandals in a timely manner. Perhaps that is all the user was refering to. Or maybe they actually think Jimbo is our King and we sacrifice a virgin to him monthy. Hard to tell.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I never post anything verifiable, and I can prove it!  fredgandt 04:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I know I used to check more than once a month, but seeking a virgin seems a much better use of my time. Now, what's the best way to save them from Jimbo. Hold on, here's an idea...!? Britmax (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

When external reliable sources explicitly cite wikipedia articles in their coverage of a topic...

When external reliable sources explicitly cite wikipedia articles in their coverage of a topic to what extent does this help establish notability? There is an academic law journal that used to routinely direct its readers to the wikipedia articles on individuals, when it was commenting on developments in their cases. You can see from this google search they don't do so anymore, and haven't done so since 2008.

There is an individual whose article was deleted, inappropriately, in my opinion, for whom several articles in this RS advised readers to go to the wikipedia article to learn more.

Clearly this deletion of this kind screw up the efforts of the law journal's readers. Nowadays on of the grad students or research assistants who helps produce the journal provides their own little in-house biography

I thought those references helped confer a fair measure of notability in and of themselves.

I am reviewing this individual's case, and I thought I would ask for input on whether having a reliable source explicitly cite our article confers any more notability for an individual. Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If the references were of the form of "An analysis of judgement bias by race" by Fred Nerk (see Fred Nerk on Wikipedia), then no, I don't think writing an article in a law journal counts as making oneself notable. Josh Parris 22:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You'll want to consider WP:CIRCULAR. In general, however, it works like this:

• If law journals write about someone (providing in-depth information, with no connection between the source and the person in question, etc.), that suggests that the person is notable (which means "qualifies for a separate Wikipedia article", not "is famous" or something like that).
• If the source tells people to read Wikipedia for more information, that's irrelevant (neither plus nor minus), because we're trying to establish the notability of the person, not the Wikipedia article.
• If the law journal says that Wikipedia is their source for the information (e.g., "According to Wikipedia, the subject was convicted in June 1834 of spitting on the sidewalk...", then the source is completely worthless for establishing notability and completely worthless for verifiability purposes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

How do I make the "Improve this page" corner box go away

Second only to blinking/moving advertisements, the attention-grabbing scheme I dislike the most is boxes or bars that travel with you as you scroll down the page. I find them unnerving, and think that that uses them is either desperate or thinks that their clients are incapable of using scroll wheels. The new article feedback tool incorporates one of these annoying boxes, in the lower right hand corner, and I'm quite eager to make it go away. I'm game for anything, scripts included. Someone help please. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

We're currently developing a mark-as-dismiss function now (I had asked for it to be available as soon as the box was, but... Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You can disable it by checking "Don't show the Article feedback widget on pages" under Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering, but this will also disable the "Rate this page" box at the bottom of the page. Goodvac (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sad that I can't get rid of one but not the other, but oh well. Thanks Goodvac. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Add #articleFeedbackv5-bottomrighttab{display:none} to your common.css. --Yair rand (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that for the time being, however, I'll just disable the whole suite. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The edit link rewriting…

…bothers me infinitely more. Does the pref disable that as well? ¦ Reisio (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The what? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The href values for the [edit] links are altered from something mostly readable to a ridiculously long string of nonsense. ¦ Reisio (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The [edit] link problem I'm encountering is that the buttons to edit sections no longer appear on diff pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 96#Missing section edit links on a diff. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

And this is why it's silly to not have an ordinary VP. Still unsure of the answer to my question. Suppose I'll have to try it and see. ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Out, damn bot!

Can someone who understand such things sort out the edit war that is going on between RFC bot and us inferior carbon-based lifeforms over at Talk:Demi Moore? I think that Dr.K's last edit summary indicates how - to someone more clued-up than me [2]. There has been enough strife already, without edit-warring bots adding to the confusion... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 05:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Now we can get back to arguing about whether Ms Moore is a reliable source for her own name... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

...but ten minutes later the bot edited again. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I've let the bot's handler know of the situation. Perhaps they can lend some insight into what is rapidly turning into the beginnings of the First Robot-Human War. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The RFC had been open for a month, hence the bot was marking it as expired. For the most part, this approach works fine, however obviously in large/long term Rfcs it creates problems. I can't actually comment on why this approach was taken (when I inherited the bot from harej, that was the approach that was taken, so I used the same approach when I rewrote the bot), as oppose to say expiring rfcs that have been inactive for X-days/weeks/ whatever . I would hazard a guess and say, that it would have been mostly a coding problem. Mainly, bots aren't very smart, and unless you had a very well written parser, it would have probably gotten mixed up, missed comments etc, and been even worse than it is at the moment. Talkpages are not the most friendly things to parse, and it would be hard to get an accuracy rate that is acceptable, so I assume that is why this arbitrary one month solution was used.

That said, there obviously is somewhat of a problem when Rfcs need to go longer than a month. One trick is to fool the bot by placing a comment with a fresh timestamp next to the rfc template (e.g. <!-- [[User:Chris G]] 08:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC) -->), otherwise, I've just added something that will also work. The bot will not expire any rfc's if it finds <!-- RFCBot Ignore Expired --> somewhere on the page (Like so).

Hopefully this clears things up a bit, and apologies on behalf of my bot. --Chris 09:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hidden text containing date stamps screws up the RFC pages, because only the first half of the code is picked up (the <!-- but not the closing -->.

The solution is documented at Wikipedia:RFC#Ending_RfCs: "RfCs that are listed by the RfC bot are also automatically de-listed by the RfC bot after 30 days (calculated from the first timestamp after the RfC template). Thirty days is the default length, but there is no required minimum or maximum length. If consensus has been reached before 30 days, the RfC nominator(s) can remove the RfC tag, and the bot will remove the discussion from the list on its next run. If further time is wanted, editors can change the first timestamp to a more recent date, which will prevent the bot from removing the listing."

If you will please read and follow the directions, you can be done with your edit war. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

As a general rule, it's good if bots are programmed to never edit war. If they get reverted, they shouldn't try again. --Tango (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Whkkkaaazzuuuuuup!?

I figured since this is the (approved) talk forum, I could chat here. Without someone getting all rule-monger on me. Like a normal human being. Not a Wikipedian.

So what people be doing? Anything interesting going on? Wish me luck to prevail on Fluorine. I am going to dare to disturb the universe and do a few new things to show you Wikians that there is still room for innovation. (and pleeeze don't edit war my article. that would be so ga...lame. .

So what be happening? Room?

TCO (talk) 05:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This is still not a forum for random chatting. You know this, of course. → ROUX ₪ 06:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey TCO, check out the original source of that quote - there's some innovation for you. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty cool actually. I looked the poem up on line and read it. Don't remember it from school although I'm sure we had it. Probably makes a little more sense after having grown up and been in love once and all that. Not high school kid. Actually the main T.S. Elliot thing that knocks in my head is isn't that what The Who are alluding to with "Teenage Wasteland"? It is all connected...

The Wiki article on J Alfred has 26,000 per month and is B. One main writer who is up on T.S. Elliot, but only has 40 edits to article over 5 years. Hmm...TCO (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Sir Isaac Newton - Theory of Gravity

I have always believed that it was Sir Isaac Newton who first discovered gravity; as explained in the article on this web site. I have just read the 1943 translation, of Emperor Frederick II - The Art of Falconry, by Wood,A.Casey and Fyfe,Marjorie,F and was interested to find on p.92 the following, when discussing the flight of birds, "as all weights are attracted to the center of the earth". This observation forms the central point in the theory as expressed four hundred years later by Sir Isaac Newton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.253.109 (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This seems more suitable for the reference desk. However the knowledge that things were "attracted to the center of the earth" was well known long before Newton and easily observable. Newtons revolutionary contribution was to supply an explanation as to why that was so. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"Discover" is the wrong concept when referring to something that is and always was a ubiquitous part of the human experience of the world. Newton didn't discover gravity, nor invent it. He provided the first scientifically coherent explanation of how it works. Similarly, Columbus or Erikson (depending on which myth you prefer) did not discover the Americas. The people living there since long before any Paleface pitched up have always known of the place's existence. Roger (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

To quote Dirk Gently: "Though that [gravity], of course, was merely a discovery. It was there to be discovered. You see?" he said dropping his cigarette butt, "They even keep it on at weekends. Someone was bound to notice sooner or later." the wub "?!" 00:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Advertisment

I generated list of suggested images for articles without image in infobox and it is a quick way to import content from different language editions: User:Bulwersator/Echo/Images

Bulwersator (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

VOA Links Broken

At some point in the recent past, VOA News ([3]) changed their link format (previously they were using Cold Fusion with .cfm links, I am not sure what they're using now, but all their articles are now .html). Because of this, expect all old VOA citation links will likely need correcting and/or need to refer to an archived copy of the page. I have in the past proposed methods of auto-archiving links. I have not really seen any progress in that regard, which is sad for Wikipedia and means that we will have to now manually fix all these links.

By the way, this is the third or fourth page I've considered putting this notice on, and I'm still not sure if this is the right place. Wikipedia, really, really, really needs a clear place for community information to be posted. (yes I know about the community bulletin board, but according to the talk page that's for things like project proposals and announcements about Wikipedia's accomplishments. It's also not clear if that page has certain designated editors or is for anyone to edit, moreover, I'm not sure how many people actually look there, there is also Wikipedia mailing lists, but that seems more for people involved in the nuts and bolts of Wikipedia administration than for a general announcement to all editors). Jztinfinity (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Why was redlink deleted?

I see that the redlink redirect page was deleted in 2006 (before my time).

Just wondering why it does not point to Wikipedia:Red link? Ottawahitech (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe it's purposefully kept red to that it can be used as an easy example. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The answer is in the protection log "16:57, 27 December 2007 Xaosflux (talk | contribs | block) protected Redlink ‎ (This page has been created as a permanent red links for demonstration purposes, meta comments, and interface demonstrations. [create=sysop]) (hist | change)" So basically it is in this state to demonstrate what a red link is. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to add that explanation directly to Talk:Redlink instead of "hiding" it in an obscure log file that only Super-Wikipedians know how to find? Roger (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I've re-deleted the article so the notice is in the deletion log as well, will that do? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Which Deletion log are you referring to? Ottawahitech (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

There is only one - Special:Log/delete. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

And clicking redlink shows that log with the clear reason for why the page does not exist. Johnuniq (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Home of Peace moved to Home of Peace Cemetery (Helena, Montana)

I'd appreciate comments on my move of an article titled Home of Peace to Home of Peace Cemetery (Helena, Montana). What is the optimal title for this article? There are at least 13 cemeteries in the US named "Home of Peace", including the famous one in L.A., Home of Peace Cemetery (East Los Angeles), which I also moved to its new title (it was previously named "Home of Peace Cemetery"). --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Editing archive pages

I was looking at someones wikipedia contributions and noticed that they edited a page marked: {{talkarchive}}

Are some Wikipedians allowed to do this and if so who and why. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Archive pages are generally not protected so everybody is technically able to edit them by clicking the "Edit" tab, but it should only be done in special circumstances and not to continue a discussion. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

How about reverting edits on an archived Talk page - what special circumstances would justify this? 17:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a page. Pages are pages. There is nothing special about any page on Wikipedia. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania 2012 cfp and scholarships

The Wikimania 2012 Call for Participation is open now. The submission deadline is March 18. Don't be shy! Submit a presentation, a panel session, or workshop.

There also are travel scholarships (really, don't be shy!) and registration is also open.

Wikimania will be held July 12-15, 2012 in Washington, DC. There will be pre-conference events, including a hackathon, and Wikimania Takes Manhattan is the weekend before. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 06:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi fellow Wikipedians

Should Is Hindawi a RS publisher for this content? (thread on RS/N) and Please review my closure of an RS/N discussion (restored from archive), (thread on ANI) be regarded as something worth the attention of the Arbitration committee?

A non-admin developed a cabal of his own and closed a free RS/N discussion. He brought the closure before ANI for review, but almost no one want to touch the hot potato. I don’t know why and need your help. I welcome a comment from you. Thanks. Granateple (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)