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, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

Logo question[edit]

Is Wikipedia going to temporarily have a celebratory version of its logo on the day/week that the 5 millionth article is created? Personally, I think it's a good idea. Lets casual readers realize concretely the true size of this project. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

That's traditional in Wikimedia projects, I believe. I'd go for it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Definitely a major milestone worth at least some form of recognition. I don't see how a temporary celebratory logo could be intrusive. We could even have a Central Notice banner linking to some form of open letter from the community saying thanks to all the contributions and encouraging casual readers to join the project. (Just a thought.) Mz7 (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I guess you were thinking of something like this for the open letter? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 18:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Exactly! I wasn't even aware that existed. Face-smile.svg Mz7 (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
        • I've started a very rough draft of what I initially envisioned with regards to the open letter: see User:Mz7/sandbox/5 million articles. It celebrates 5 million articles, but it does so by recognizing that we still have a lot of work to do, and it encourages new contributors to join us. Obviously, it needs to be edited and perhaps expanded with more information such as the importance of reliable sourcing. Mz7 (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
          • @Mz7: Nice draft! I suggest you make a small change from "Each page on Wikipedia has a discussion page dedicated to discussing improvements" to "Each page on Wikipedia has a talk page dedicated to discussing improvements" (since the tab on each page says "Talk"). Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
            • @GoingBatty and Jakec: Thanks for your suggestions! GoingBatty, I've Yes check.svg implemented the change you suggested. Keep in mind, the draft I made was a very early thing that I threw together in about 10-15 minutes. Feel free to be bold and edit it directly if you think there should be changes. Jakob wrote an alternative in his sandbox, User:Jakec/sandbox, that I think could be merged with what I wrote (looks good too though—the general message we want to send is that while 5 million articles is a milestone, there is still a lot of work that needs to be done, and we need all the help we can get). Mz7 (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I see no policy based reason to oppose, and don't believe that a temporary five-million logo would be any more intrusive than the normal logo. Hitting five-million articles is a major accomplishment that should be celebrated. I also like the idea of having an open letter, since it could potentially drum up contributions. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Consideration could also be given towards a guideline for displaying Google Doodle type banners for future special Wikipedia occasions. Dl2000 (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Both the 5 million mark and google-doodle style logos have my support, especially the latter. Sam Walton (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Five million articles would be fantastic and a logo to mark the occasion would be even better. I say have it up for a week—one day is too easily missed. Altamel (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Also support having it up for more than one day. Five days seems good to me, one day for each million. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose beyond the fact this suggestion serves no real purpose, it perpetuates the false idea that the encyclopedia benefits from having large numbers of mostly-crap articles. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
    • @Chris troutman: It's still a milestone that a lot of people and press will jump on. We can use this as an opportunity to educate people about the strengths and weaknesses of the site. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Depends on what the logo would look like. As a way of showing the scale of the project, I quite like the following image. Andrew D. (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
2205 volumes

12 stacks

Human outline.svg
  • Oppose per Chris Troutman. BethNaught (talk) 10:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support 'tis a problem, the level of stubs, but a major milestone nevertheless. We can't ignore such a milestone. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 17:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Chris Troutman. Moreover, Far too much time and effort here is spent patting ourselves on the back, and celebrating our lack of quality control is particularly inappropriate. And, in keeping with an important element of the basic philosophy, we shouldn't do things like this unless independent, reliable sources report this as a significant milestone or achievement. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I would just like to note that we changed the official logo in 2011 to celebrate the 10th anniversary of Wikipedia's creation, so there is in fact precedence for doing this. Also, our notability policy only applies to articles, not the temporary design of our logo. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. This is normal, both for the English Wikipedia and for other Wikipedias. It's not often done by other WMF projects, as far as I can tell, but it's routine for Wikipedias. See Commons:Category:Wikipedia commemorative logos for various examples of such logos; there are 333 different images in the category, and many of the images in the subcategories of Commons:Category:Wikipedia logo variants by language are logos that belong in the commemorative category but aren't included there. Nyttend (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I was originally ambivalent, but the tenor of the sourpuss opposes now leads me to support. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too much a focus on quantity instead of quality - take away the crap articles and you have way fewer than 5 million. I would support a similar idea for featured articles and featured articles only. Sure, other Wikipedias have a celebratory logo, but it's a greater milestone due to their relative size. Esquivalience t 23:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
My only response is Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress. Indeed, a great deal of our articles really aren't that good. But the idea is that they are starting points for future development (and those articles without the potential to be developed go through the deletion process). That we are approaching 5 million articles about notable subjects is to me an indicator of progress. Yes, quality should be a concern, but we shouldn't lose focus on the fact that we're not done yet, and we are actively making the encyclopedia better every day. (If that weren't true, either the project would have died a long time ago or the project is currently on an inevitable course to failure—the fact that we all still choose to volunteer our time here should mean something.) Mz7 (talk) 02:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Quick note building on my previous support — having checked all Wikipedias with more than ten thousand articles, I've discovered that seven of them are currently using celebratory logos instead of a normal puzzle globe. See the Swedish, Bulgarian, Chechen, Belarusian, Bashkir, Aragonese, and Asturian logos. Nyttend (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support As other wikipedias do it so I think the English Wikipedia should as well A8v (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I'm going to agree with Esquivalience. A more telling metric is the total number of articles that have at least a good article rating. That total recently passed 30,000; why was there no celebration of that quality quotient? Praemonitus (talk) 04:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with Chris Troutman and Esquivalience -- we need to emphasise the improvement of existing articles as opposed to the creation of new ones. We are well into the regime of diminishing returns when it comes to creating new articles about actually encyclopedic subjects (as opposed to the exponentially increasing quantity of advertisements, paid advocacy, vanity and other crap). MER-C 06:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - this is a major milestone and advertising the milestone with a custom logo would provide Wikipedia with free advertising from third-party coverage. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 09:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Very little worth celebrating, per Troutman. Brustopher (talk) 09:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It will give the media something to jump on and enjoy. Everyone here is looking at this from the perspective of a Wikipedian, with an insiders view to how many stub articles there are, quality etc - but the public won't know about this one bit. Let's give the site a nice promotion. ~ NottNott let's talk! contrib 15:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Naw — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I voted support, but I understand that there are some serious concerns about article quality and respect where the opposes are coming from. I think that a bit of a compromise can be reached on this issue. I strongly believe that reaching five million articles should be celebrated, but we should use the celebration to bring attention to the problem of quality, urge the betterment of already existing articles and provide brief guidelines on how to do this. If we just pretend that nothing significant has happened when we reach five million articles, then the status quo of poorly written stubs will continue. However, using this compromise approach may successfully shift focus towards quality (if only slightly). Also, I think that per Praemonitus we should also have celebrations when we reach a milestone number of good or featured articles, although this is a subject for another village pump post.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
This is actually sort of what I was aiming for when I talked about an open letter from the community in my initial support. I've started an incomplete draft of what I envisioned here: User:Mz7/sandbox/5 million articles. Mz7 (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I like the draft letter you've prepared. I think it strikes a good balance between celebrating five million articles and emphasizing the need to expand our numerous stubs. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - 5 million articles is definitely a big thing to celebrate. Of course, the article should focus on the quality of articles as well. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I could see a special logo for commemoration on our 5 millionth article, but before supporting I'd want to look at the proposed designs. I'm in favor of something unique, but tasteful; if all we get our eyesores then I would refrain from moving forward with this. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
    @TomStar81: What about something like this or this (obviously translated into English and 100,000 changed to 5,000,000). --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 04:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I like the Bulgarian one; it's less obtrusive. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Then I'm in. Those are tasteful and would be a good way to commemorate the occasion. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a major milestone, and something worth celebrating. APerson (talk!) 22:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support As long as it's the WP logo engraved with the regimental crest of two crossed dead Frenchmen, emblazoned on a mound of dead Frenchmen motif. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and I also like the open letter drafted by Mz7. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support because you only hit 5M article once. Unless of course something gets deleted and we drop below 5,000,001. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support As others have mentioned above, we can use this to promote improving existing articles by advertising that we now have plenty of stubs. KSFTC 00:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Positive publicity is priceless. Asgardiator Iä! Iä! 04:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Definitely a milestone having that many articles regardless of whether they are complete or not. Tortle (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I actually came to Oppose but fuck it unless the entire site gets nuked than we're never gonna hit 5 million again so why not, Sure some of the articles here are beyond shite but meh as I said we're not gonna hit 5 million again so may aswell celebrate it in some way... –Davey2010Talk 23:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I feel many of the curmudgeons which roam around here would be happier without this "other people" thing they have to deal with on the project and often go out of our way to quash anything approaching human emotion ("I laughed once, didn't care for it") so celebrating a milestone they don't respect is obviously too much and probably would find a way to blame the WMF for it. We celebrate to show our readers and the world what we've done and the size of the project, we could celebrate say 75K GA or better articles but then that's just for the select few editors with several GAs and FAs under their belt to tell themselves "good job, us", we'd still be seen as untrustworthy when it comes to facts. Yes, it's a lot of stubs and junk but as everyone has been told at least once for pointing to the elephant squeezed under the ottoman, "so fix it", five million remains five million and we don't have a final date for completion. tutterMouse (talk) 10:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Other Wikipedias have done it without controversy. Why shouldn't we do it also? OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: We can always use new blood. Publicity is a good way to get new blood. A milestone that the media can stick into a one-paragraph bulletpoint is a good way to get publicity. If you're POed at bad stub articles, do something about it. Ravenswing 15:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Yes, I'm being curmudgeonly, but I agree with the views of Chris Troutman and MER-C on this point. Neutralitytalk 23:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support definitely worth celebrating and promoting. The fact that most of the five million articles are not perfectly written and at GA/FA level or some other arbitrary standard is irrelevant. This celebration will be a time to reflect on the good and bad of English Wikipedia over the past 14 years and a time to think about what can be done to improve the encyclopedia further in the future. We will always be a work in progress even hundred years from now. Closing the door serves no purpose. Gizza (t)(c) 07:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice idea for some positivity. — Cirt (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – With a lot of the negatives surrounding Wikipedia garnering headlines lately, this is a nice idea to remind people that we have accomplished a lot in a relatively short amount of time, even though we still have more to do. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: "x thousand featured articles on Wikipedia" means nothing of interest to the average Wikipedia reader. "5 million articles on Wikipedia" means something. Yes, it's just an arbitrary number that simply happens to be a neat multiple of the denary number system we use—we might as well use 8,388,608 as an important milestone—but it's something people will find interesting and a good point to both look back at the work we've done and look forward at where we can go next. User:Spirit of Eagle/5million would be a nice place for the logo to lead to when clicked, and it certainly emphasises that work is nowhere near done and that a lot of the current articles have major problems. As others have said, there is tons of precedence for this and it will be a major milestone for Wikipedia in general as well as just us English people (no other language edition has this many articles). My only concern is that I seem to be !voting for the vague idea of using a logo rather than an actual logo or concrete plan. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 22:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Even though many articles aren't worthy of inclusion, I think it's something to be proud of. Robvanvee 08:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Sovereign Sentinel. This is a major milestone and will attract a lot of new readers to Wikipedia. (talk) 12:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. We should be proud of reaching this milestone, and make the most of the publicity it will generate. AGK [•] 20:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
How feasible would my 'number systems variant of the WP globe' with 5 million in several systems be? (The main advantage is that it can be readily adapted for successive significant numbers).

Making it easier to check out current RfC's[edit]

This may or may not be in the correct Village Pump category, but for what it's worth.........
I like to regularly read a list of all current RfC's. Because the RfC list (WP:RFC/A) lists the RfC's by category and many RfC's are listed in multiple categories, this means I have to look at the same RfC's over and over again to make sure I've seen them all. Would it be possible to maintain a separate list of RfC's not broken down by category, where each RfC is listed once and only once?
Richard27182 (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a user caller RFC Watcher, their talk page User talk:RFC watcher (together with archives) should contain every RFC, however User:Legobot Legoktm@ seems to give up delivering the messages sometimes (and maybe also limit them to 1 per day) - the last note was on 9 August.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC).

Page view statistic frequency[edit]

I noticed an odd phenomenon that I can't seem to easily google. If you go to the page view statistic for say, Aspirin and look at the periodicity, you note that the peak viewing is mid week and the lowest viewing is at the weekend. This seems to be the same for most articles that I have looked at (apart from peaks caused if the subject was in the news). Is this phenomenon understood? I can only assume people have better things to do at the weekend, and only read wikipedia while at work? Which seems to imply that reading from the ubiquitous smart phone is not dominant.

KreyszigB (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Schools in anglophone countries are not generally in session on the weekends. --Jayron32 06:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't blame it on schools. 90 days (i.e. including mid-year holidays in anglophone countries). I suspect several hundred million people are tied to their desks weekdays, and "at home" in the evenings. Not only is WP more available, but the chance of wanting to look something up (even on a mobile) is more likely in those environments. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC).
@KreyszigB: Those statistics only count desktop hits, not hits from mobile devices, so I wouldn't draw a conclusion about smartphones from those data. Disagreeing with Rich here, my experience is if you look up a subject that people study at school or university (Aspirin is an example) there is this weekly periodicity, but for more recreational topics (like a pop music album) the stats have a different pattern. An additional test that a pattern is due to education institutions is to look for dips in the summer and spring: there should be more readers in October than in August, for example. However, my experience is very partial and it would be nice to see more systematic data. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd agree with that, & I look at these a lot. The term/holiday variation is complicated by different term times around the world, & for types of school & college. Logarithm has one of the neatest 7-day cycles, which persists though August, but at a lower level. There is no doubt an element of work/home too. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Bot operator approval list?[edit]

How does one find out if an editor is running an approved bot or has permission to run a bot? I ask because the edits of Srednuas Lenoroc (talk · contribs) seem to be suspiciously bot-like, but I can't tell if this is authorized or not.

Note: I've already asked this at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval, but I'm not sure who reads that page. --Calton | Talk 09:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Calton: FWIW, "Srednuas Lenoroc" spelled backwards is "Coronel Saunders", an obvious distortion of "Colonel Sanders". ("Coronel" reflects the pronunciation and origin of "colonel".) --Thnidu (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Replies are on the WT:BRFA page. — Earwig talk 15:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Weird irrelevant (?) text on Category page[edit]

Category:Old requests for peer review has this text after the page description:

1. We will have Control over all systems/data.
2. Corporate data is stored/handled internally.
3. We can achieve scalability which involves lower costs.
4. On-premise Feedcop planning keeps our yammer data close to the source. We do not need to worry about data leaks, security threats, and other data security problems.
5. With on premise systems, the control is in our hands. If we have sensitive business data, on premise might make the most sense.
6. Security concerns are one area where on premise systems offer more protection than cloud-based systems
confidential, do not distribute, internal, proprietary, source code, infosys, internal use only, restricted
Infosys Source Code

Like, what the HECK? I'm deleting it and leaving a note on the Talk page, which was last modified on 11 March 2013, at 15:21 and is currently "a perfect and absolute blank". --Thnidu (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It's just some spam. I reverted it. — Earwig talk 15:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Had to share..[edit]

This is the village pump and is the place we hang out and discuss...well, stuff. This is what my instructor wrote on a recent microbiology assignment:

This was a comment in the instructions for a homework assignment by my college microbiology instructor-I didn't do what he said since I edit some of these articles myself and so know that they are reliable! 9/2015
Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
While it is true that Wikipedia is not usually acceptable as a source in academic writing, there is no earthly reason why one cannot use Wikipedia as a starting point. There are many academic-quality sources in the references and external links sections at the bottom of many articles. As far as I know, most academics don't object to this use of Wikipedia (and some encourage it), but you should ask your instructor if he permits it. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
What Jakob said is true; actually academics usually frown on using any encyclopedia as a source. Even we discourage citing other encyclopedias. But, unless your instructor would prefer you to start at a library, it would be perfectly valid to research here, follow our sources and cite them yourself. You might even find info that needs correcting. Keep in mind that your classmates might have the same idea and end up with the same sources. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Move userpages without redirect[edit]

As proposed here, this bot is know available, you can test him here, so please test it. Greetings, Luke081515 19:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

A redirect I want to turn into a disambiguation page[edit]

I would like to turn the redirect Mohammed Ali Shah into a disambiguation page that goes to both Mohammad Ali Shah Qajar and Muhammad Ali Shah. I am not sure why it redirects to Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay; the closest name there appears to be Ali Shah Mousavi (and Talk:Mohammed Ali Shah redirects to Ali Shah Mousavi). Given the history associated with [[Mohammed Ali Shah]] and [[Talk:Mohammed Ali Shah]], is there some sort of appropriate bureaucracy that should be done before someone (probably me) turns [[Mohammed Ali Shah]] into the disambiguation page I initially described? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Away until mid-October.[edit]

I will be away until mid-October. Please try to have this project completed by the time I return. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Wikipedia was complete just prior to your edit. You messed it up, so you cannot leave. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I request an WP:RFC to determine whether or not this action goes along with community consensus. Shouldn't take more than two weeks. If consensus goes your way, by all means you may leave until mid-October.--WaltCip (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, you must surrender your Tireless Contributor Barnstar for obvious reasons. ;-) --WaltCip (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Deadlines are useful, and Wikipedia finally has one. --Golbez (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Every time we get close, something notable happens! ―Mandruss  01:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

NYT and subscription=y[edit]

I subscribe to New York Times online, so I don't think about their paywall when I edit. Conversely, I hit WSJ's paywall often, so I usually code |subsrciption=y in CS1 citations for WSJ. Do editors who don't subscribe to NYT run up against their paywall a lot, and should NYT cites include |subscription=y? ―Mandruss  01:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)