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, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54
Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.


One page has only been edited by the same guy for two months in over 200 edits[edit]

Original poster has been blocked. No need for further examination here. Alsee (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

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.

Isn't this WP:Owning? I'm a bit concerned that the article will just be whatever he wants, since some of his sources are pretty biased. In over 200 edits, he's the only one who has been editing that page for two months. ÞunoresWrǣþþe (talk) 09:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

OWNing is when a user insists on his/her version, despite other users disagreeing. A user being the only editor of the page isn't OWNing. If you have issues with some of the text there, feel free to edit the page and see how (s)he reacts. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Od. Being a custodian is different from declaring an article your soul baby. As a RCP I have seen plenty of pages that haven't been edited in months, (till I came along and rvv). If someone is the only editor in a time period, they are just working on it. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 21:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Are you referring to Sutton Hoo helmet? There is nothing wrong with only a single editor making most of the edits to an article. OWNing is when an editor gets possessive and rejects any/all edits by other users. Master of Time (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

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.

De-Recognition of Wikimedia Hong Kong[edit]

This is an update from the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee. Translations are available.

Recognition as a Wikimedia movement affiliate — a chapter, thematic organization, or user group — is a privilege that allows an independent group to officially use the Wikimedia trademarks to further the Wikimedia mission.

The principal Wikimedia movement affiliate in the Hong Kong region is Wikimedia Hong Kong, a Wikimedia chapter recognized in 2008. As a result of Wikimedia Hong Kong’s long-standing non-compliance with reporting requirements, the Wikimedia Foundation and the Affiliations Committee have determined that Wikimedia Hong Kong’s status as a Wikimedia chapter will not be renewed after February 1, 2017.

If you have questions about what this means for the community members in your region or language areas, we have put together a basic FAQ. We also invite you to visit the main Wikimedia movement affiliates page for more information on currently active movement affiliates and more information on the Wikimedia movement affiliates system.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Affiliations Committee, 16:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

Why in the Russian-language Wikipedia is forbidden to raise the issue "Corruption in Wikipedia"?[edit]

Misplaced, wrong project--Ymblanter (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

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.

The Russian-language Wikipedia, the theme of "Corruption in Wikipedia" administrators instantly blocked. Why can not understand the fact of corruption in Wikipedia?

Machine translation theme will copy here:

"Friends, how relevant is of corruption in Wikipedia (probability) and what the possible formats, it can be shown? I list some:

1) First User protects point of vision the second participant, instead of wanting to protect the point of view of the first (of);

2) Admins protect someone instead of something of interest. That is to say, administrators involved in the sale of the truth and it will earn a living, see Wikipedia as a source of income;

3) Admins punish someone commissioned by someone;

4) Admins repress (block forever), a number of people who will be able in the future to prevent them in the election to this position again. With this offer a lifetime membership.

The problem is that Wikipedia is not only a platform of ordinary scientists, and sometimes a number of states will try to push through it, some their ideologies, to use it as an instrument of its ideological politics. And for such purposes allocated huge sums from the budget at all times. I fear that these policies will affect and Wikipedia. This includes state-level pressure on the AK, the administrator, and someone else.

I'm not saying that is the case today. But in the future - not excluded.

Please discuss".

Daryanush (talk) 11:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedias in different languages are independent of one another, so we have no control over anything they do. Britmax (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

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.

Do, or should, Category:Fictional characters and Category:People apply only to humans?[edit]

Apokrif (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't have any particular opinion on whether they should, but Category:Fictional characters certainly does contain non-humans in its category tree (and therefore Category:People, a supercat of Category:Fictional characters does too). Indeed, Category:Fictional characters by species is a direct subcategory of Category:Fictional characters. So in practice at least they don't apply only to humans. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Review of initial updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process[edit]

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. Message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

The Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. For 15 years, Wikimedians have worked together to build the largest free knowledge resource in human history. During this time, we've grown from a small group of editors to a diverse network of editors, developers, affiliates, readers, donors, and partners. Today, we are more than a group of websites. We are a movement rooted in values and a powerful vision: all knowledge for all people. As a movement, we have an opportunity to decide where we go from here.

This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve. We hope to design an inclusive process that makes space for everyone: editors, community leaders, affiliates, developers, readers, donors, technology platforms, institutional partners, and people we have yet to reach. There will be multiple ways to participate including on-wiki, in private spaces, and in-person meetings. You are warmly invited to join and make your voice heard.

The immediate goal is to have a strategic direction by Wikimania 2017 to help frame a discussion on how we work together toward that strategic direction.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Beginning with this message, monthly reviews of these updates will be sent to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a review of the updates that have been sent so far:

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 20:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

What percentage of Wikipedia articles are about sports players?[edit]

They seem to come up a lot on Special:Random. Same question for municipalities/towns/villages as well. Thanks, Abeg92contribs 02:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

We have 1,444,805 biographies [1] and 338,912 are recorded as being sport-related [2]. So. Somewhere north of 23.4% - there will be many sports biogs which are not usefully marked as such. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Replacing a patrolled redirect with an unpatrolled article[edit]

The above page was created as a redirect to Dr. Phil (TV series) by Gourami Watcher who has the autopatrolled right. The page has been turned into a very weak article. Am I right in thinking that cases like this escape new pages patrol? Has there been any discussion about suitable responses? Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Requesting an article re-assessment[edit]

Is there an official channel trough which an editor could request a re-assessment of an article? Plaza del Lago, for instance, is an article that was assessed several years ago as a "start-class" article. However, it has long since outgrown such a categorization. Since I originally created this page (it was the first article I created. My learning-curve on Wikipedia largely took place through creating and revising this article), I am obliged to relieve myself from providing a new assessment myself, as I possess a I strong bias towards it. But how/ where could I make a request for other users to do so? Is there a category tag one could add in such circumstances, or a page that a user would need to add the article to a list? Or do no such constructs currently exist on Wikipedia? And shouldn't we have one?

If I am not mistaken no such construct exists, and perhaps one should.
SecretName101 (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)