Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:VPM)
Jump to: navigation, search
  Policy   Technical   Proposals   Idea lab   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 pages, or – for assistance – at the help desk, rather than here, if at all appropriate. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.
« Older discussions, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53
Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Note: entries for inactive discussions, closed or not, should be moved to the archive.

How many registered users have made at least one edit?[edit]

I'm curious as to how many registered users have actually made at least one edit. Is such a statistic available anywhere? Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 00:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm#editdistribution says 6,007,614 as of June 30, 2016. Special:Statistics currently says there are 28,714,054 registered users so that's around 21% of them. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
One or the other of those seems out of whack. Why would 22 million people bother to sign up and then never make an edit? Praemonitus (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Because all Wikmedia projects have a unified login. If you sign up for say, the German Wikipedia, an account for the English Wikipedia will be created if you visit here while logged in – regardless of whether you ever edit here or even speak the language. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 21:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Also I believe some people sign up to change hte skin on what they see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Here are some of the other reasons I've heard: access to preference settings, wanting to make an edit (then giving up because it's too hard), thinking that you need an account to read (not true, of course), or wanting to use the watchlist as an ersatz bookmarking system.
BTW, I've heard that about 70% of registered editors fail to make their first edit, and that about 70% of those who make the first one never make a second. I believe that those numbers are signed-up-here/edited-here, which controls for the problem of me having a total of 758 "accounts" so far (but edits in only ~255 of them). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Rollbacker block - reporting a well succeeded policy on lusophone Wikipedia[edit]

I don't intend do post this as a proposal, but only a report. Since October 2012 pt-Wikipedia non-admin rollbackers have been allowed to make low risk level blocks, what means a block of a maximum of 24 hours on an ip or a non-confirmed account. This has been beta-implemented and the test was successful, without further problems, despite the initial fear of increasing mistakes. This tool is still "on", has reduced the backlog of blocks and also has been a very important help in fighting against vandalism. Perhaps The reality here doesn't recommend the same policy implementation, but I think somebody would like to know this at least as a curiosity. Millbug talk 04:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

How often the blocks have been reverted by administrators? Ruslik_Zero 12:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Almost never, I guess, because I've never seen it happen or noticed about. Millbug talk 22:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@Millennium bug: There are only 129 rollbackers on ptwiki. In comparison there are 5,556 non-admin rollbackers on enwiki. Also, rollbacker is given out like candy here. Anyone with enough common sense to not get blocked within the first few months or so would eventually qualify for the right given even the smallest proof of vandalism fighting. I am not sure what the qualifications are on ptwiki but looking at their requests page it looks like they are at least marginally higher than ours. To give that many people the ability to block would just not happen here. I wouldn't trust that and I'm certain a lot of other people wouldn't either. We would just need a higher bar to granting it. Interesting that it works so well on ptwiki but I just don't see it happening on enwiki. --Majora (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay. Millbug talk 00:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Articles with two deaths/births category[edit]

Hi, I get a query and made lists which shows there are some articles with two deaths or two births categories. some of the articles are correct and some of them should be solve please help me to correcting them.

the queries are the their talk page. Yamaha5 (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Yamaha5:Please add "family" to the list of words which disqualify an article from showing up (see, for example, Allison family). And look at the lowercase version of the title, to catch entries like Chudnovsky brothers. An other word to exclude may be "murders" (such as Cerro Maravilla murders). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done I added them to the queriesYamaha5 (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Also "sisters" and "children". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC).

Gutenberg[edit]

Gutenberg we all remember as one of the pioneer open knowledge sites. However pages such as this are copyvios of Wikipedia. I have previously emailed Project Gutenberg about this sort of thing, and have made no progress.

What can we do?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC).

Our requirements for re-use of content are "any derivative of works from Wikipedia must be released under that same license, must state that it is released under that license, and must acknowledge the contributors (which can be accomplished with a link back to that article on Wikipedia)". The article in question meets the first two - it has a CC BY-SA 3.0 licence on it - but fails the third, with no link to the source. It does have a sentence "Help to improve this article, make contributions at the Citational Source" with Citational Source being an anchor for a link to the URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?action=history ... I suspect this is a broken mechanism, and that the intent may well have been to point back to the source article's history, rather than the main page history.
So, AGF & all, the solution is to try to find someone within the publishing organisation who would be willing to address the relatively small problem. I grant that may be a sisyphean task. Presuming we can find no-one willing to respond, then it would be for a copyright holder to pursue a case against the publisher, which would be an improbable eventuality.
I have had responses from Gutenberg in the past, including from Gregory B. Newby, so there's evidence they do, sometimes, respond.
I presume you've tried info@worldlibrary.net, who appear to 'own' the republication?

--Tagishsimon (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Short of suit, taking it as far as a DMCA takedown notice is more likely to get the attention of someone that just a run of the mill license violation letter, but it can only sent by a significant contributor to an article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Lets not jump the gun with DMCA or copyright threats. They're a public service non-profit, and this looks like a simple unintentionally broken link. I suspect they will want to get this cleaned up once someone figures out how to contact them. Alsee (talk) 09:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC) P.S. I mean contact them more effectively. There's no detail on what happened with the email attempts, maybe we need to more directly contact someone higher up. Alsee (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Scratch that last comment. We may need to contact WMF-legal to kick the shit of out someone. I'm unclear what relation, if any, there is between Project Gutenberg and "worldheritage.org" (note World Heritage Encyclopedia is a redlink).... but Project Gutenberg is getting the articles from World Heritage, and is including all citational information that was available at World Heritage. World Heritage Encyclopedia is the problem, taking Wikiarticles without properly citing back here. CORRECTION: It seem WorldHeritage does have a "Citational Source" link to our article, and Gutenburg strips the article off of their link. And the reason I abruptly change my tone to ass-kicking is because I just got a look at World Heritage Encyclopedia's article History of Wikipedia. Holy fuck. They did a half-ass search-and-replace, changing "Wikipedia" to "WorldHeritage".
  • The History of WorldHeritage formally began with the launch of WorldHeritage on 15 January 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger
  • Founding of WorldHeritage There was considerable resistance on the part of Nupedia's editors and reviewers to the idea of associating Nupedia with a wiki-style website. Sanger suggested giving the new project its own name, WorldHeritage, and WorldHeritage was soon launched on its own domain, WorldHeritage.com, on Monday 15 January 2001.
  • List of WorldHeritages by article count
    • It refs ^ a b c "List of WorldHeritages – Grand Total (updated daily)". Wikimedia.org. Retrieved 20 December 2014.
  • On 22 October 2014, the first monument to WorldHeritage was unveiled in the Polish town of Slubice.
  • In late-2015, WorldHeritage was the world's seventh-most-popular website according to Alexa Internet
    • Alexa says[1] worldheritage.com rank not even available, not enough traffic to rank.

I'll go look for where to contact the WMF about this, and I'll post a followup. Alsee (talk) 10:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC) Email sent to WMF legal. Alsee (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The gutenberg.org page for History of Wikipedia also says the author is World Heritage, and has the same insane content quoted above. Alsee (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi all, Alsee asked me to reply here rather than to the email. So I wanted to say thanks for passing this along and let you all know we're looking into it. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Jrogers. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC).

Are you involved in another language Wikipedia?[edit]

There's an effort to collect information about smaller Wikipedias at m:Tell us about your Wikipedia. If you are involved in some other Wikipedias, please look through the list there and see if you can provide more information about other Wikipedias. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)