Wikipedia:Village pump (all)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is the Village pump (all) page which lists all topics for easy viewing. Go to the village pump to view a list of the Village Pump divisions, or click the edit link above the section you'd like to comment in. To view a list of all recent revisions to this page, click the history link above and follow the on-screen directions.

Click here to purge the server cache of this page (to see recent changes on Village pump subpages)

Village pump sections

To discuss existing and proposed policies

To discuss technical issues. For wiki software bug reports, use Phabricator

Dialog-information on.svg
To discuss new proposals that are not policy-related. See also: perennial proposals and persistent proposals.

Dialog-information on.svgNuvola apps package development.png
Idea lab
To discuss ideas before proposing them to the community and attempt to find solutions to issues

To post messages that do not fit into any other category

View all village pump sections at once

Village pump in India. [add]
It can only be speculated that, like the modern office water cooler, the village pump must have been a gathering place where dwellers discussed ideas for the improvement of their locale.
Other help and discussion locations
I want... Where to go using Wikipedia Help desk find my way around Wikipedia Department directory
...specific facts (e.g. Who was the first pope?) Reference desk
...constructive criticism from others for a specific article Peer review resolving a specific article edit dispute or making a user conduct dispute complaint  Requests for comment comment on a specific article Article's talk page view other Wikimedia projects Wikimedia Meta-wiki learn about citing Wikipedia in a bibliography Citing Wikipedia report sites that copy Wikipedia content Mirrors and forks ask questions or make comments Questions


Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved to a sub page of each section (called (section name)/Archive).


Adding lyrics to songpages?


Why don't we add lyrics to song pages? It seems like something we could do. Firstly is there any policy preventing this? Considering the amount of sites that do it (genius, azlyrics, metrolyrics...) it could add information users are looking for when they lookup a song. I think lyricwikia has had some success doing this. If there's no policy preventing this, I'd like to discuss adding lyrics to song articles.

Jakesyl (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Jakesyl, Unless the song was published prior to 1923, the lyrics are most probably under copyright. We have a policy against posting copyrighted content except in very limited ways. Quoting a few liens to discuss them is proper, quoting the entire lyric usually is not. Many sites violate copyright in such matters. DES (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
As per DES's comments, it would be a copyright violation for the vast majority for modern songs, some much older songs do have the lyrics on their article though. -Euphoria42 (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Did a little research. It does appear this could be a violation of copyright. Is there any policy on not posting lyrics for public domain songs? Also does any policy prevent editors from linking to these sites? Jakesyl (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:ELNEVER might be the answer to your question about links. -- GB fan 01:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

So, linking to would be okay because it is fair use for “for purposes of commentary and criticism."? Jakesyl (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  • JakesylIf the lyrics are truly not copyright, or published under a proper free license, they are welcome at wikisource, which posts such material. Lyrics generally don't belong here, where we instead summarize and comment on them. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Awesome, I haven't heard about that project before! What about using as a source? Jakesyl (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Best as I can tell, Genius does not have a license to publish song lyrics (they are claiming fair use). This would be a problem. Instead, we'd likely encourage the use of a site like MetroLyrics which does have proper lyrics republishing rights. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This page (9/11_conspiracy_theories) violates the Wikipedia Five Pillars


I'm closing this down, as it doesn't meet the standards of this venue. Discussions of this nature should happen on article talk pages, and this is sort of page-specific discussion is absolutely not going to result in a change of policy at Wikipedia, and instead serves as a fringe-theory-lightning-rod and drama magnet. If you wish to discuss this specific article, use the article's talk page, and bring some sources along when you do so. --Jayron32 04:51, 28 September 2015 (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.

In short, this user is arguing that 9/11 conspiracies deserve "equal time". Equal time is not the same as neutral point of view. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I took the time to write out my comments because Wikipedia pretends to be neutral on such controversial matters, yet takes only one side, unfairly. Here's a quote from another Wikipedia user that basically sums it up, "We cannot question the version of events that has been accepted by mainstream academic and news sources, even if they are wrong. Our role is to accurately and fairly reflect what they say.". This is a basic flaw in the so called neutrality of this page, and again the reason I took the time out of my day to share my consensus. I thought that is what Wikipedia was founded on. Consensus. How is 'consensus' the argued point of a few, even if it is in agreement of the mainstream academia sources. You have to remember that the it was a consensus that reached the agreement that the world is flat. How is it right that Wikipedia reflect the views of those, whether they are correct or not? Wikipedia was made for the benefit of all who access it's data, to the best, most accurate knowledge. That doesn't mean regurgitating incorrect information, and rejecting information that dares threaten the current 'consensus'. Just like the 2008 9/11 conspiracy arbitration committee. A committee that was in complete agreement not to change a thing about the Wikipedia page, because they are all in agreement that the information is 'accurate'. New User Person (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
To begin with, consensus never argued the world was flat. The Earth has been known to be spherical since ancient times. There are better analogies to make. And to end with, your problem seems to be with the policies themselves and not the application. The neutral point of view requires that we follow what mainstream sources say. The mainstream presents a single, monolithic viewpoint on this subject. The conspiracy theorists are not, and will not, be given an equal voice on that page, or any page, as it should be. You're beating a horse that's been dead for years. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
"During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. From at least the 14th century, belief in a flat Earth among the educated was almost nonexistent, despite fanciful depictions in art, such as the exterior of Hieronymus Bosch's famous triptych The Garden of Earthly Delights, in which a disc-shaped Earth is shown floating inside a transparent sphere." I'm sorry, you were saying? That is beside the point of the argument. Wikipedia claims to try and be as scientifically accurate and neutral as possible. Yet, the information that is shared on Wikipedia is only dictated by a few? It's a classic paradox. New User Person (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia has never claimed the kind of neutrality you are talking about, and never will. Please read WP:FALSEBALANCE. ―Mandruss  00:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Under the policies pages on Wikipedia, here is the description for 'Neutral Point of View', "Everything that our readers can see, including articles, templates, categories and portals, must be written neutrally and without bias". That would, in effect, be the exact opposite of what you just told me. It would also make it the exact opposite of what WP:FALSEBALANCE states. New User Person (talk) 00:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
No, that is your misinterpretation of one sentence, a misinterpretation that is counter to WP:FALSEBALANCE as well as WP:WEIGHT. You can argue all you want, but I promise you your views are not supported in Wikipedia policies. I can only suggest more reading and less writing for the time being. ―Mandruss  00:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok, well I don't understand how that is my 'misinterpretation'. It says exactly what it does on the tin. Meaning the sentence only has one clear interpretation. No if, ands, or buts about it. The definition of the word 'neutral' is as follows, "not helping or supporting either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartial." That means not one side, nor the other. Since all of Wikipedia uses all of the mainstream academia sources that argue the same side on every issue, that would in effect make it biased. Please notice how the word 'bias' is defined as a complete antonym of the word 'neutral'. New User Person (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I hear you, and the misinterpretation is the result of the necessity to use one word to describe a Wikipedia principle. Sometimes the language just doesn't provide a word that's entirely adequate, and we have to choose an ambiguous word and try to clear up the ambiguity in the text of policy. The same problem exists with the word "notability", and to my knowledge we're still trying to find a better word. At Wikipedia, "neutral" means evaluationg the reliable sources neutrally and without bias. An example of Wikipedia bias would be giving more weight to the 9/11 conspiracy theories than is justified by reliable sources. That would be a bias favoring those theories. ―Mandruss  00:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
The neutral point of view is defined as "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.". (emphasis mine). The lunatic fringe is neither significant nor reliable. If we accepted your interpretation of "neutrality" half of evolution would be about creationism, the article on hydrogen would discuss alleged new energy levels, and Barack Obama would include sections on his being Kenyan, Muslim, and/or an alien lizard. You would like us to accept you interpretation of a brief summary of a policy, and have us ignore the actual policy. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I differ with that approach. It is neither necessary nor useful to make our own subjective judgments about lunatic fringes, we need only to look at what reliable sources think. ―Mandruss  00:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It was never asked that more weight be given to conspiracies, and the like, than other views. You are right, it would be unfair if too much weight be given to conspiracy theories. It would make Wikipedia bias towards that one side. A It is only asked that they be reviewed as fairly as the mainstream academia sources are. Information about Barack Obama being a possible alien lizard would be a prime example of information that should be weeded out of Wikipedia regardless. It is obvious nonsense, and not every person, or 'conspiracy theorist' if you will, agrees with that view. I certainly don't. It is when information, like the information I tried to add about thermite found at Ground Zero, that is overlooked with the same notion. That it is nonsense. If you were to actually take the time to read the link to the source I provided, then you would see that this source contains links to mainstream accepted academia sources. Like I mentioned earlier, it is impossible to add any type of scientific data to any Wikipedia page, let alone a page such as 9/11 conspiracy theories. That is because any edits to such pages are closely monitored by someone, and if the edit does not agree with the views of the patroller, it is reverted. I was always in the understanding that Wikipedia was made via consensus. That is the one of the basis for this conversation. The understanding that one can help Wikipedia by asking such questions such as this, and adding valid data without being met with such hostility. New User Person (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." The thermite theory as represented on Wikipedia is sourced to a "scientific" article in a journal that did not exercise peer review, despite advertising otherwise, and no longer exists. That and three news articles about the study. And the authors are acting far outside their field. Given the weight this seems to hold in the academic community, the articles give the theory the attention it deserves - mentioning it, discussing rebuttals of the theory, and not mentioning it at all in the main 9/11 attacks page. If you think this theory deserves more weight on Wikipedia, you'll have to present sources to show it holds more weight amongst actual experts. I should also note that the deletion of your comments is not some administrator conspiracy to suppress your views. You know why they were deleted, you quoted the reason yourself in one of your reposts. You might find yourself taken more seriously at that talk page if you simply got to the point about something specific you think is wrong, and then presented sources you feel support your proposed changes, rather than using 12 kilobytes of text to complain about the state of the page. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Using ad hominem attacks such as this, "I should also note that the deletion of your comments is not some administrator conspiracy to suppress your views", is unnecessary. I never said there was a conspiracy amongst administrators to suppress my, or anyone else's views. I simply stated that another Wikipedia user was 'monitor' the page, deleting any views that don't agree with their own. Don't give any, 'It wasn't an ad hominem attack, I was simply stating there is no conspiracy to suppress your views.". We both know exactly what you were implying. I, also, never used 12 kilobytes of text to make my point, not even close. Most of the 12 kilobytes was previous conversation that was there so it could be referred too, considering it was the basis of the conversation. A post being too long is an really asinine reason not to hear somebody else's views. Citable sources, you say? You mean like this[3] source used in the main 9/11 Wikipedia page, that fails to have any reliable sources to back it's information. I've already tried to suggest the addition of the thermite source three times, but it was subsequently ignored every time. New User Person (talk) 03:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
You're not going to accomplish anything with this. Wikipedia's official stance is that the mainstream assessment is reality, and that conspiracy theories about the attacks are (to be short and blunt) bullshit that is only worth discussing as the stupid paranoia that it is. Get over it. Tendentious editing will accomplish nothing except getting you blocked. And before you even try to pretend that you haven't been tendentiously editing, asking for Popular Mechanics's sources is tendentious. They are reliable source, period.
As far as I'm concerned, the only further responses to your posts on this matter should be "you're just wasting everyone's time, stop."
In short: you're just wasting everyone's time, stop. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I never asked for the sources for popular mechanics. I only pointed out that this link has no sources, and therefore should not be a citable link. Like I said, and I don't understand why I have to keep reiterating this, I only used the 9/11 attacks as a basis for my point. The point of this discussion is how Wikipedia cannot claim to be neutral if it is sourcing

from sources that all reiterate the same point, and refuse the admittance of new data or information. These sources shoot down any other possible explanation for 9/11, and immediately label it a 'conspiracy theory'. That is, in by it's self, biased. New User Person (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone informed the people on the talk page of 9/11_conspiracy_theories that this discussion is taking place? Jakesyl (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I thought this discussion had long been buried in the archives of fringe theories. @User:New User Person, for new users it is usually a good idea to do some non-controversial work on Wikipedia and engage in some less controversial discussion before engaging in such highly polarized and debated issues like this. Also, it is generally considered bad manners to repeat a closed discussion verbatim. Arnoutf (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, you're probably right. Ok, I'll leave this discussion, not sure if it'll be closed or not. I hope it doesn't close, so that way other people can discuss it. Thanks. New User Person (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

How do I communicate directly...

Heading shortened from "How do I communicate directly with the new user person who wrote to me tonight?". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

To any friendly editor, monitor, patrol, wiki-cop, etc.,

Tonight I received via email the following message.

I decided to use your old archived discussion on the 9/11 conspiracies talk page to start a discussion of my own recently. I could really use the support of someone who shares the same point of view as my own. Thanks, New User Person (talk) 03:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I simply want to contact this person. How do I do that? Please advise. Thank you. MG

Beasley Reece (talk) 05:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't done this myself, but Wikipedia:Emailing users says to go to the user's page (user's talk page, contributions, etc., has the link, too) and click on the "Email this user" link in the left-hand-side navigation menu, under "Tools". Dhtwiki (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2015 (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.

WP:Common name and fictional characters solely or mostly known by their first names

I started a WP:RfC that is stunted, presumably due to the bickering and WP:Too long; didn't read nature of it. It concerns fictional characters that are primarily known by their first names (or rather solely known by their first names to the general public). In cases such as these, is it best to go with the official full names or with the sole name and a disambiguation to assist it (if the disambiguation is needed), such as in the case of Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)? In the case of Faith, she is primarily known simply by that first name, and it was only years later that her last name was revealed and used for subsequent material. It's a similar matter for The Walking Dead characters at the center of of the WP:RfC I started; see Talk:Sasha Williams (The Walking Dead)#Requested move discussion. And in some cases, their last names are only revealed in the comics or in the television series, meaning that the last names may be known in one medium but not in the another, and that the only way that readers would know the last name is if they Googled it or heard it on television via an interview. So we are commonly left with this and this type of wording that is commonly altered or removed. And since general readers do not know the full names, they won't be typing the full names into the Wikipedia search bar. So if The Walking Dead character articles are to have their full names in the titles of their articles, what does that mean for character articles like Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)? WP:CRITERIA states, "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles."

I ask that you consider commenting in the Talk:Sasha Williams (The Walking Dead)#Requested move discussion to help resolve this. Flyer22 (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Are software changelogs acceptable?

WP:NOTCHANGELOG tells us to avoid describing software updates using primary sources, yet we have longstanding article sections and entire articles devoted to doing just that, listing new features and other changes (or just copying the official description), often without any citations. Examples include the tables at iOS version history, Adobe Photoshop version history, Palm OS#Version history and technical background, and until a few months ago every article listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xbox One system software—even MediaWiki version history.

Does NOTCHANGELOG need to be updated to reflect practice? Or are these listings unacceptable? If ignoring this rule improves the encyclopedia in all these cases (in every case?), why have the rule at all?

(In the interest of full disclosure, I’ll say I’ve been attempting and advocating to “clean up” the console OS articles to comply with this policy which I am now questioning. I’ve also started a WP:Help desk discussion that may be rendered obsolete.) (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with WP:NOTCHANGELOG as it stands now. The reason why we ask for secondary sourcing is not because the primary source is unreliable, but because not every little bugfix is notable. If an article in a notable magazine mentions that Frobozz3D finally got the shader that everyone's been waiting for, then maybe it's worth including— in prose, of course, not in an unstructured list. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I think some of those lists are rather structured, actually. But for the record, I agree completely, and I don’t think we should use lists for this at all. Ideally to me, every mention of any new feature, fix, update, etc. would be given in context with why it matters; we say Frobozz3D got that shader everyone’s been waiting for, and we cite a source that says everyone’s been waiting for it, or else we don’t mention the shader at all. — (talk) 05:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Exactly; you said it better than I. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Lists and tables are often the best format for the kind of changelogs allowed by "Not exhaustive logs of software updates", i.e. those using reliable third-party sources. When the amount of text from the source that can be used to describe one release is a short sentence, a table can be easily scanned to find out the dates and numbers of each release, while writing the same in prose would fall prey to the "wall of text" effect; so structure in such cases is a very good thing. Prose is best when each release gets at least a paragraph with analysis and commentary from one or several sources, describing its relevance and impact.
In any case, that does not need to be an either-or proposition; when there's enough coverage by third party sources to get a comprehensive (which is not the same as "exhaustive", and which should be the target of every changelog we write), we can have both the table as a "timeline-like" summary of the software history, and a prose section for the details. Diego (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Documenting the changes of a major software program as noted by secondary sources does fall into the scope of an encyclopedia, but we have to avoid the indiscriminate nature of what full-on changelogs can be. Of the three articles given above, the Adobe and Palm OS seem to be reasonable distillations of the more critical features added/bugs removed in the individual version, as covered by secondary sources. The iOS one on the other hand lacks that distillation, simply reiterating the changelog likely published by Apple (and republished on third-party sites) without discrimination, which is why we have WP:NOT#CHANGELOG on WP:NOT. I don't see a need to change policy given a few outlyiers like the iOS one. --MASEM (t) 17:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
@Diego Moya and Masem: Changes are listed without sources in these articles, though… and when sources are cited, they’re not suitable (both the Palm and Photoshop version histories, for instance, cite the company’s own official descriptions or [deadlinked] press releases sparingly and almost exclusively, which NOTCHANGELOG says not to do at all). Also, is it enough for us to say simply that a change exists, without context or any indication of weight? And Masem, I think you missed the links to MediaWiki version history and all the console OS articles (though recent revisions of some of the console articles are much better about this). — (talk) 07:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is good, and that means we don't exhaustively list changes in software in the style of a changelog. That has nothing to do with what types of sources are used to support statements in an article. So my !vote would be to kill the proscription of source types in favor of stating the real guideline: We discuss changes that are relevant to the topic, we don't list every one. That means we'll probably want to be including analysis that isn't going to be in the changelog to be cited, but we could still validly cite the changelog for e.g. a sentence about what the change actually was or the specific date or version in which it was made. Anomie 20:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I could support that. It wouldn’t be my preferred outcome, but it would be better than the inconsistency we currently have between policy and practice, which was my target in starting this discussion. — (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
There's no reason not to use primary sources alongside secondary or third-party sources to develop summarized software revision lists - things like actual release dates, internal numbering, etc. are all good pieces of data that primary must provide. It's just that secondary sources should be required to provide the distillation of the change log and decide what are important parts than to let editors guess of just the primary. --MASEM (t) 02:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

More talk page rules

Talk pages should be allowed to be used only for communicating about wikipedia, not to day "hi" or "I am Bob" or anything unrelated to wikipedia. It should also be considered a violation to delete warnings from your talk page for that can make it harder for administrators or other users to track prior abuse. CLCStudent (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

CLCStudent, some latitude is allowed as we are humans, not robots. For newbies, "Hi, I'm Bob" is a plausible first edit and we definitely don't want to WP:BITE them for that. For veteran editors, there's likely some minor chit-chat going on on their talk page or in the archives. As for warnings, they're not badges of shame. Any competent admin will check talk page history and most recent change patrollers will do the same. --NeilN talk to me 21:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I oppose for all the reasons given above. There’s no need for scarlet letters, and while completely off-topic conversation is (and should be) unacceptable, people should still be allowed to interact as people to a reasonable extent. — (talk) 07:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Editors should be working on articles, eliminating vandalism, resolving disputes and other activities that helping Wikipedia run smoothly. Policing content on user talk pages, as long as it isn't libelous or defamatory, is at the very bottom of the list of important things to spend ones time on. Plus, it will just cause resentment and animosity among editors which is not good for editor morale. Finally, I think more rules like this proposal create an atmosphere of bureaucracy and control which discourages new editors from contributing to the project. Liz Read! Talk! 13:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
It would not only discourage new editors, it would discourage old editors (of both years and years spent working on this encyclopedia) and women as well. I'm all three of those. I am retired and I consider my work here a form of community service work that replaced the paid community service work I used to do, and my talk page is my "office". I'm a woman and I like to chat. It makes my work here less stressful as sometimes happens when disagreements over article content comes up. And it makes my work here more fun. Sometimes we've discussed birds we've seen...and butterflies...and such. Who should care if it is something that we find joyful? People who don't like it don't need to read it. The day that someone starts policing my talk page and Wikipedia gives them support is the day I'll find other ways to spend my retirement community service time. Gandydancer (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
A reasonable amount of off-topic interaction, on user talk pages where no one else needs to read it, can encourage collegial collaboration, can help put a metaphorical (or indeed literal) face on a contributor, and in short can benefit the project. What harm does it do in any case? Would such a rule prevent me from posting my picture on my user page? Would it prevent general advise or discussion I ahve from time to time exchanged with those I have met here? Indeed would it prohibit announcements of meetups where no actual Wikipedia work would be done? And who is to enforce such a policy and on what basis? I strongly oppose such a proposal. DES (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:SNOW? — (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Expand BLP policy around coverage of mass shootings?

The Umpqua Community College shooting is the latest mass shooting. Increasingly, these shooters are referring to previous shootings (this one mentioned how Vester Flanagan achieved notability virtually forever for spilling blood). Vester Flanagan, in turn, praised Seung-Hui Cho and others. Flanagan chose his pistol based on the make used by the Charleston church shooting shooter (we helpfully provide make, model, caliber). These details are newsy during the shooting and immediately after but quickly fade into cruft. Most people don't need to know exact details such as date of birth (age is sufficient). Even their name is not particularly relevant to their act (and why many articles aren't biographies because of BLP1E). News fades with time and eventually we are the top google hit with biographical information that rivals famous politicians, actors, sports figures, etc. Is this causing harm by anthropomorphizing a shooter from a newspaper flash of notability into a 3-dimensional character that these shooters identify with? At what level should we shut down details? chronicles the line-of-duty death of police officers and manages to cover them all without mentioning the name of their killer. Is it time for a policy/guideline that limits crufty details that these mentally ill shooters are latching on to but rarely provide necessary information past the first few days? --DHeyward (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we're giving too much credit to the perp where it's due. As a starting point, an equal, weighted focus on perps and victims in articles sounds like the most recommendable scenario to me, since info on the victims' personal lives is almost never covered while some info on the perp is needed for informative reasons. Versus001 (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I am very partial to a consistent policy in which photographs of recent killers are not used.
I don't think the material should be removed completely. In the aftermath of the Columbine High School massacre a lot of conservatives created moral panics over children who listen to music and play video games. Note that all across Australia and the UK there are thousands of kids who have grievances, are single, have mental health issues, listen to punk rock and indulge idle fantasies of killing people - but there are no school shootings.
The popular "conveyor belt" model of radicalisation says that people take part in political/religious activities, then become more "extreme", then become violent. This is deeply dubious, and is strongly disputed by academics who argue that radicalization is a range of processes that often involve people with a violent desire to oppose Western governments looking for political ideologies to attach their "cause" to.
In Australia a 15 year old boy shot a police worker. An article on radicalisation notes "more and more young people being radicalised are attached to the violence first, rather than religion. Anne Azza Aly "Ten years ago older men were attached to ideology and immersed in the religious aspects first. Now more and more young people don't appear to have an intense ideology they have only a superficial attachment. They are driven by anger and violence."
The Umpqua killer, killer, Chris Harper-Mercer, shared pro-IRA propaganda while not being a Catholic - this is important, because it means that he is attached to violence, not ideology with the IRA.
When a Muslim carries out a mass shooting in a Western country, many commentators say that this was the result of a "conveyor belt" that pushed them towards "extremism" by preaching in a mosque - and arguet hat new mosques should be banned. Other academics note that people who have grievances in society - such as rejection by their peers in school - are more likely to attach their violent impulses to a political agenda that justifies violence (eg IRA, jihadism) - and those academics argue that banning mosques or restricting Muslims will create increased social greivances with more Muslim school students isolated/rejected by their peer group. Academic coverage of the motives of killers serves a legitimate purpose in exploring that issue, and one "side" of that debate should not be censored based on a misapplication of a vague "don't discuss the motives of killers in a way that could be misconstrued as glorification" rule.
Killers often have long and self-contradictory manifestos that could be cherry picked by people with political agendas to advance unrelated political causes. Often a killer's manifesto will give away obvious mental health issues, and some distorted understanding of a political agenda into a justification to mask their violent impulses. Political activists often cherrypick quotes from a manifesto in order to advance a pre-existing political agenda - eg, one of the Columbine shooters wore a shirt with a band called "evolution" on it, and creationists argued that teaching evolution should be banned from schools (others said punk rock should be banned) - Anders Breivik said in his manifesto that he was a cultural Christian - and left wing secularists said it was "proof" that Christians are violent, others said that playing "World of Warcraft" 7 hours a day made him commit violence - feminists ignored that three Asian roommates were killed in 2014 Isla Vista killings and argued that "pick up" advice should be banned on the internet because Elliot Rodger hated women.
Chris Harper-Mercer included the word "satan" in his manifesto - something that Christian right groups are sure to make extensive note of. The fact that he was "conservative, republican" on a genuine dating profile should be included so that people don't go on moral panics against music, games, the teaching of evolution in schools, or liberal political activism.
There is a wider, legitimate purpose, in coverage of what "radicalization" means and how a youth can be "radicalized".
There was a WMF survey of controversial content related to the WP:CENSOR rule - this is a justification for including contentious content:

Wikimedia Projects serve the Information Needs of Individuals, Not Groups "it is important to note as essential the principle that Wikimedia projects exist to serve individuals, as individuals, in their full autonomy, and consequently, the projects, as a general rule, do not and should not consider as legitimate censorious demands by institutions, of any kind, political, commercial or voluntary claiming to represent those individuals, or making demands, which, in the community’s opinion, represent only their own interests"

Contentious content that serves legitimate information needs, should, in my opinion, be kept, in that it will inform legitimate questions about how modern, decentralized internet can inspire attacks or promote violent ideologies. -- Callinus (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Note, there's a paper here that makes the case that media publicity of one school shooting increases the likelihood of another. -- Callinus (talk) 04:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Some common sense is needed, that is all. Wikipedia is not censored and it is necessary to name the gunman and give some details about his background in order to have a proper understanding of the case. Over at the talk page of the Umpqua shooting, I mentioned this BBC News article which takes a look at the issues involved.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I question the informational need of detailed, personal information. Note that gun suicides are never covered by journalists even though half of all gun deaths are suicides. There doesn't seem to be an outcry from individuals that details regarding suicides are not publicly released. Do we need to enshrine a birthday of a murderer when an age provides all the necessary information? Which amount of information is necessary for individuals: A)"a legally purchased semi-automatic pistol" or B) "a legally purchased Glock semiautomatic pistol" or C) "a legally purchased .40 caliber Glock semiautomatic istol" or D) "a legally purchased Gen 4, model 22, .40 caliber Glock semi-automatic pistol"? We went with "D." Vester Flanagan used that level of detail to purchase the same pistol as was used in the Charleston church shooting. I don't think we lose much information by not creating conditions of fame. I don't think these people are copycats, rather they are mentally ill and are looking for ways to be relevant and give meaning to their lives. News organizations don't publish suicides precisely because they don't want to create the scene of open grief that may appeal to those suffering from depression and suddenly see a way to have others made aware of their level of pain. In that sense (and in BLPs) WP is indeed censored. --DHeyward (talk) 05:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a lot of gun experts (I'm not one of them) and they do tend to be precise about what gun was used, rather than simply saying "a gun". This level of detail can irk some people, but it is relevant in some cases. After the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, there was a debate about whether Nancy Lanza's extensive collection of weapons was too heavy duty for a civilian to own. Also, Adam Lanza was not the registered owner of the guns but had somehow managed to get his hands on them. It is necessary for the Wikipedia article to mention this rather being coy and saying that Adam Lanza shot the victims at the school with "a gun" which is not very informative.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
As an encyclopedia it's Wikipedia's duty to present information, not to muck around in politics or policy. If some people feel that publicizing bad things and bad people who do bad things only encourages them, that's too bad. That's the nature of knowledge. If we started going down that road about everything bad in the world that we felt shouldn't be given a podium by talking about it, we would descend into censorship. The personality and motivation of the perpetrator, including things like publicity-seeking or delusions of grandeur, are often relevant to the crime. We cover it not for its own sake for morbid curiosity or to be precise, but because sources deem it worth covering. Detailed information about the victims is less often relevant, but can be. The "wall of victims" approach that newspapers sometimes take isn't always encyclopedic, though, and that would fall into NOT#MEMORIAL. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Wholeheartedly agree with this piece of wisdom right here. If anything, this means Wikipedia isn't the root of the problem, it's the ethics of modern-day journalism. Versus001 (talk) 06:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
But we don't. There were as many people killed with guns in Chicago this week as was killed in the Oregon shooting. There are as many solo suicides with guns (many of them teenagers) that we don't cover at all. And the reason is the same reason why BLP protects privacy: it does harm when we don't ignore it. The news is smart enough to know that show a suicide teenagers grieving family and friends can create the impression on other teenagers that suicide is an effective means of communicating their depression. "Hey, that family finally understands how much pain their child was in! I want my family to understand." The media knows suicides are clustered even when the group is small and publicity is only word of mouth. We know not to share this broadly because the disservice and harm far exceeds any benefit of being public. For these mass shooting, the event is notable but each of them in turn are referring to more and more details of previous shootings and incorporating them. We aren't a snuff film and we should limit details the same way we limit details in BLP's. --DHeyward (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Time to drop the suicide comparison. Suicides aren't covered because they don't sell newspapers or TV advertising. Similarly, movies about killing others outnumber movies about killing oneself by probably 50 to 1. ―Mandruss  07:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
It's honestly not the same thing, though. We're talking about a mass murder committed by one individual in an area where such an act is completely unexpected. You're comparing it to a string of mostly unrelated shootings in cities where the crime rate is high and shootings are extremely likely to happen (and therefore, probably expected). Now, we could create an article listing each and every shooting that's happened in Chicago and all the necessary details to boot. But guess how long that article would be? And what about the details provided for every individual shooting? It sounds like a pain to make. Probably why the media doesn't provide a consistently updated list, or why no one has bothered to make one at all. Versus001 (talk) 07:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
No, the press doesn't ignore suicides because commercial reasons any more than they redact the name of sexual assault victims or minors. They have a standard and policy not to cover them. I would hope we would refrain from naming those victims as well. I'm not arguing to eliminate the event, just the details that are not particularly relevant except to the next admiring nutball that creates a tribute to the other ones. Third one in a row where very detailed information was gleaned and used. These events shouldn't be their venue to 15 minutes of fame enshrined in the encyclopedia. --DHeyward (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I have no problem with omissions on relevance grounds, in fact I support that. I do have a problem with omissions for purposes like avoiding copycats, especially when you're on this page advocating a policy change. As to current event articles, we're here to reflect society and inform people, not effect social change. ―Mandruss  07:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Really wish I knew what that press standard and policy was. Also, WP:DUE comes into play. Versus001 (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see how this relates to BLP. In some cases it's possible the victims' families may want some privacy, which they'd be more entitled to than the killer's. Like it or not, society has an interest in naming killers. I am not a fan of withholding information which is out there, but we can present it in ways which are a better. I'm reminded of a very pertinent comment about infoboxes here, about an article revision here. Form your own opinions. In the infobox in this article about this mass shooting, we list the precise types of weapons before the number of victims. I think this would appeal to the weapons-fetishists. I'd support removing it from the infobox entirely and restricting the weapons to the article text. These details can be important - in the Hungerford Massacre for example the details are still relevant. However they should not be the headline. They should not be listed like "stats for a character in a video game". -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't see a need to change BLP policy, or indeed any policy, here. We do not and should not censor otherwise encyclopedic information for fear of inducing "copycat" crimes. It may be that if we didn't include the exact model of gun used, a future killer wouldn't select the exact same type of weapon. But that doesn't say that such a future killer wouldn't select some type of weapon, and go ahead with a crime. Whether to place such details in an infobox is a judgement call. Personally i think that infoboxen are currently overdone, and only the most obvious and basic facts should be included in them, but obviously others disagree. DES (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

On a more procedural point. In many cases the people involved (including the murderers) are no longer alive, so I do not see how this could ever be covered by changes in WP:BLP which is about biographies of living persons. So if we want to do something about reporting of such atrocities, in my view BLP is not the place. Arnoutf (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

As discussed at WP:BLP, it may also apply to recently-deceased individuals. DonIago (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Recently deceased people are covered by BLP. Alo, breaking news stories are considered primary sources. Finally, our BLP policy should help keep live people from becoming dead people, not the other way around. --DHeyward (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
While the extension of BLP to recently dead makes sense, adapting the core of BLP to cover issues that mainly involve recently dead would go too far in my opinion. Probably another policy may be better suited. Arnoutf (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Finally, our BLP policy should help keep live people from becoming dead people, not the other way around. - I believe BLP is about live and recently deceased people that we write about, not world population in general. ―Mandruss  20:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


Are mass murders notable due to the victims of mass murder or due to the mass murder himself? I don't think Wikipedia should be promoting mass murder by only mentioning shooters and not their victims. (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

We are mentioning the victims, only by their names as organized in a list and a couple of sentences if necessary. Otherwise, I concur. Versus001 (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
On a side-note, there is an identical discussion going on above this one (started from the same mass murder article, nonetheless), so I will remove the section name and merge the discussions. Versus001 (talk) 06:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

(section name edited out because its topic is identical to the discussion above)

I would like Wikipedia policy to clarify whether mass shootings are notable enough to warrant an article due to the shooter or due to the victims or due to general amount of news coverage recieves and not due to any specific quality of the event. I would also like policy regarding the amount of information regarding victims and the shooter should be included. Isn't it common sense to establish a rule of equality that if a piece of information, such as a birthdate or political leanings, are included about a shooter that the same information should also be included for each of the victims, especially if these are being widely reported on in the media? (talk) 06:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

This is being discussed in the section above.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Such crimes are notable due to the presumably shocking and comparatively unusual nature of the event, but (on Wikipedia) particularly due to the amount of coverage in reliable sources. That, after all is the primary reason why anything is notable here. As to a parallelism between coverage of killers and victims, it may seem superficially logical, but generally it isn't. The killer is central to the event, without the killer and the killer's particular motives, it wouldn't have happened. But when, as is often the case, the killer selects victims more or less at random, or at random from a particular group then the details about those victims are not central to the event. Details about the group the killer targeted, if any, may be. Some information about the victims is relevant, but not to the degree and level of detail that is usually given about the killer. Of course in cases where the crime is target-specific, this all changes. Also, victims (who did not choose to be involved) and their families have more of a right to privacy than the killer does. DES (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Would it be possible to point me to the policy where this is is explicitly laid out? Or is this more of an unwritten policy? (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:DUE and WP:UNCENSORED. Versus001 (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think either of those really does it. I would also like to find the policy that talks about a relevance filter, and this has been bugging me for some time. It's an important element of editing, it's used routinely (albeit not routinely enough), how can it not be written down somewhere?Mandruss  21:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
My apologies, but these two were the ones to be brought up as examples for the Wikipedia policy for detailing mass shooters, so I thought they would do the trick. Versus001 (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that WP:IINFO where it says "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" is relevant, albeit not precisely what Mandruss is looking for. DES (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, WP:NNC where it says: "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e., whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." looks hell er relevant here. DES (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Please unprotect Wikipedia:Reference desk/humanities page !

I can’t reply to messages. 2A02:8420:508D:CC00:56E6:FCFF:FEDB:2BBA (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is the place for this sort of request. Tevildo (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


Missing stats dates

February 5 and September 3 continue to be missing at Note that in Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_139#Missing_stats_dates, you can see I already mentioned this. I have left another note at User_talk:Henrik#Missing_stats_dates.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Other missing dates:

  • January 31, 2008
  • February 28, 2008
  • March 1, 2008
  • March 3–4, 2008#
  • June 1–2, 2008
  • July 1, 2008
  • July 13–31, 2008
  • October 20, 2008
  • October 21, 2008#
  • September 23, 2009
  • September 25–27, 2009
  • October 14, 2009#
  • October 15, 2009
  • October 16, 2009#
  • November 15, 2009
  • November 22, 2009#
  • January 23–24, 2010#
  • February 8, 2010#
  • June 26, 2010
  • June 28, 2010#
  • July 5, 2010#
  • July 7, 2010#
  • July 8–9, 2010
  • July 10, 2010#
  • September 2, 2011
  • October 20, 2011
  • December 24–25, 2011
  • April 30, 2012
  • July 23, 2013#
  • January 6, 2014#
  • August 28, 2014#

GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

  • GeoffreyT2000, Since you seem to be non-responsive. I struck your request. I believe almost all of these dates are for dates in which the data is incomplete.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
    • It seems that the recent dates have been caught up, but February 5 and September 3 continue to be missing even though the underlying data is complete.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Looking more closely, several of these dates also have underlying data now. Maybe they have been restored. I will start running through this more closely, but of the first five dates above 3 of them had complete data. I have some time right now (I awoke in the middle of the night) and will look at these for a while.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Let me make this list easy for someone to take care of:
Complete datafiles in need of compiling
  • January 31, 2008
  • February 28, 2008
  • March 1, 2008
  • June 1–2, 2008
  • July 1, 2008
  • July 13–31, 2008
  • October 20, 2008
  • November 15, 2009
  • June 26, 2010
  • September 2, 2011
  • October 20, 2011
  • April 30, 2012
  • February 5, 2015
  • September 3, 2015
Partially complete (between 1 and 23 hourly files have data) datafiles which should be considered for compiling
  • March 3–4, 2008
  • October 21, 2008
  • October 14, 2009
  • October 16, 2009
  • November 22, 2009
  • January 23–24, 2010
  • February 8, 2010
  • June 28, 2010
  • July 5, 2010
  • July 7, 2010
  • July 10, 2010
  • July 23, 2013
  • January 6, 2014
  • August 28, 2014
dates without datafiles that can not currently be compiled
  • September 23, 2009
  • September 25–27, 2009
  • October 15, 2009
  • July 8–9, 2010
  • December 24–25, 2011
  • Can anyone tell me if the database has been augmented recently or were these dates always available yet uncompiled?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Unlisted article

The search window does not recognize the article Ferdinand Ferber. Entering the string "Ferdinand Ferber" results in a search that lists the article first, but not articles linking to it. — Rgdboer (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rgdboer: Fixed typo: missing "r" in "Ferdinand Ferber". -- (talk) 07:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
The search engine can list all pages containing the phrase "Ferdinand Ferber" in there visible text. It also offers the linksto operator. Searching for both may be what you want: "ferdinand ferber" linksto:"ferdinand ferber", or you can run the terms separately. — CpiralCpiral 01:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Still no recognition in search window. Suspect wikitext error but don't see any in article. — Rgdboer (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Just tried it myself. Typing it into the search box lists just the article and the search link as expected. Selecting the second of those finds the articles mentioning him, again as expected. All working properly as far as I can see.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, problem gone now. — Thanks all — Rgdboer (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Template help

A new template has been created {{noredlink}} which shows a link to the article if it exists, and shows plaintext if the article doesn't exist. Unfortunately, it appears to be linking (as shown in Special:WhatLinksHere) to pages even when the plaintext is shown.

For example, {{noredlink|Jessica Pratt (cyclist)|Jessica Pratt}}, shows the plaintext "Jessica Pratt", as Jessica Pratt (cyclist) is a redlink. The issue is that in Special:WhatLinksHere/Jessica Pratt, that template creates a link to the Jessica Pratt disambiguation page (as you can see by this page on that list), even though no link is shown on the screen.

Does anyone have any ideas as to how to keep the template doing what it is intended to, but to remove the link to the second parameter's page? Thanks in advance! -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 06:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You are 'accessing' the link, even if you are only parsing it and not inserting it. Without that registering as a 'link' the database wouldn't know when to update pages that include your template. Think of 'Whatlinkshere' as 'what uses a reference to this page' instead of 'what pages draw a link to this page'. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 07:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense. Unfortunately, with the entries at Special:WhatLinksHere/Jessica Pratt, the bots that generate the lists of ambiguous links (used at WP:DPL) think that the links are ambiguous and need to be fixed, even though the links don't exist on the page. As far as I've seen, no other templates that exist currently do this (create an entry in WhatLinksHere that effectively can't be fixed). -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 07:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I once documented the behaviour at Help:What links here#Overview: The parser function #ifexist: causes a listing in "What links here" among the normal links even though no link is produced. {{noredlink}} has to use #ifexist on the first parameter but it also uses it on the second parameter due to a strange undocumented feature of the template: If the second parameter is a non-existing page name then the parameter is ignored and the first parameter is displayed. {{noredlink|Jessica Pratt (cyclist)|J. Pratt}} shows J. Pratt. At the time of writing this renders as "Jessica Pratt (cyclist)" since J. Pratt is red. I think it should render as "J. Pratt". @Sander.v.Ginkel: is there any reason for this behaviour? I suggest #ifexist:{{{2}}} is replaced by #if:{{{2|}}} to test whether the parameter is assigned and not whether it's an existing page. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I have made the suggested change.[1] Pages saying {{noredlink|Jessica Pratt (cyclist)|Jessica Pratt}} will now be removed from Special:WhatLinksHere/Jessica Pratt when their link tables are updated (a null edit can force it right away). PrimeHunter (talk) 10:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:Notifications in Modern skin

Notifications in Modern skin have a couple of oddities

  • All links are in lower case
  • Hover over is white type on a white background.

Neither is any major deal but can they be fixed in css somewhere? Nthep (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Nthep: Try this for lower case fix? .oo-ui-popupWidget {text-transform:none;} User:Nthep/modern.css - (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Worked a treat. TYVM. Nthep (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
@Nthep: .mw-echo-ui-notificationOptionWidget a:hover {color:#8e8e8e !important;} as a temporary fix? Not sure if it's the right way to do it, hopefully someone who knows css will come along and provide a better solution. Anyway, these need to be fixed at the mediawiki level. - (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Translating/typofixing citation template parameters with AWB

Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules_of_use states: "An edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page is generally considered an insignificant edit. If in doubt, or if other editors object to edits on the basis of this rule, seek consensus at an appropriate venue before making further edits."

I am "in doubt" so I came here to ask: what do you guys think about fixing these errors?

Is it OK to use AWB to change (for example):

  • "enlaceautor" to "author-link"
  • "fechaacceso" to "access-date"
  • "lire en ligne" to "url"
  • "ubicación" to "location"
  • "suscripción" to "subscription"

There are another 106 items on that list... I think that fixing these problems improves the encyclopaedia because someone who doesn't speak Italian/Spanish/French and is trying to make his first edit is going to be very confused. I didn't know that "apellido" means "last" in Spanish and Italian. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

For parameters which are deprecated, I would suggest that it is absolutely okay to remove them through the use of AWB edits. Less am I sure for undeprecated parameters. --Izno (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Maybe it is better to use a bot like Monkbot to fix the deprecated ones, because Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters contains over 10.000 items. But the ones I have listed above aren't deprecated, but they also aren't undeprecated... they are unknown! Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions is a list of suggested alternatives to use when an unknown parameter is encountered by a citation template. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
@The Quixotic Potato: AWB has a lot of rules to replace template parameters, including translating some into English. Hopefully you're running general fixes and typo fixes at the same time to maximize the chance that your edit will have a noticeable effect on the rendered page. If you use AWB to make lots of edits that could be perceived as violating the rules of use, be prepared for some editors to express their concern on your talk page. GoingBatty (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! @GoingBatty: I have left a message at Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Rename_template_parameters#Stuff_to_add, would you be so kind to take a look? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
@The Quixotic Potato: If, for example, |enlaceautor= is unrecognised by the citation template that is used in that context, and on some other Wikipedia it has the same effect as our |author-link= parameter, then replacing |enlaceautor= with |author-link= is not an WP:AWB#Rules of use violation. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! If the parameter is used then it shows the error "Unknown parameter |enlaceautor= ignored (|author= suggested)" but if it is empty then you don't see an error, so there is no "noticeable effect". The Quixotic Potato (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

IP editing from invalid addresses

IP editing from certain IP addresses, such as (loopback) and 192.168.n.n, 10.n.n.n (like with edits in 2005), and part of, I think, 172.n.n.n (for intranets), and some IPv6 addresses, probably should be attributed to Internet IP addresses, i.e., addresses at the nodes where the above addresses connect. For example, should not have reached your servers. (I don't know how to check an IP range as users or for contribution lists.) An attempt from one of these addresses should be viewed as an attempt to circumvent your protective systems until proven innocent (innocence due to a glitch for a loopback address was reported in VP(T)). Therefore, a filter should detect attempts to edit from certain IP addresses. and perhaps log the attempt for a technical geek to see later. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any recent examples (links) for edits from such IP addresses? --Malyacko (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The loopback address hasn't been used in over two years, though to my knowledge edits attributable to that address are usually the result of server glitches. That said, edit filters are not "free", and impose a small server resource cost on edits. For that reason, we generally would not make an edit filter unless we suspected such a filter would actually catch an existing problem. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
10.0.0.x 16 found 2012 41 found 2005, 2 found 2002, 1 found 2002, 4 found 2002, 1 found 2002, 3 found 2002 8 found 2005 5 found 2005 9 found 2005 1 found 2005 1 found 2005 35 found 2005 1 found 2002 3 found 2015 84 found 2013 (talk · contribs) 24 found 2008 (not blocked)
Adresses like, are bit weird... The Quixotic Potato (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Removing whitespace from template unnamed parameters

Why isn't {{trim|{{{5}}}}} removing the newline for the "d" parameter-value in:

{{FormerAdmin Table Account|foo

whereas {{trim|{{{1}}}}} is doing so for the "foo" parameter-value? Or whatever else am I doing inconsistently in order to have so much whitespace in the entries here:

foo (former: t · c · b · p · d · r · meta · local) a b c d

DMacks (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I've edited the template, and your example looks ok now. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! DMacks (talk) 06:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Broken template

Various users are reporting issues with Template:Track listing and how it renders on Chrome. Any editors who can help are invited to comment at Template talk:Track listing#Broken template. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

How to implement error-tracking within a template that normally lives in a citation template's URL parameter?

I would like to implement, or help another editor implement, an error tracking category in {{BillboardID}} (and in {{BillboardChartNum}}). It appears that each of this template's subtemplates responds with "Illegal name entered" if the artist name that an editor types is not listed in the template, but there does not appear to be a tracking category associated with this error message. A recent improvement in error-detection in the CS1 citation templates is placing articles with these instances of the Billboard templates in Category:Pages with URL errors, but that is a noisy category, so it's hard to work on just Billboard-related errors. To see an example of the error, see Alesso or search WP for "illegal name entered".

I have recently added error tracking to a number of age-related templates (see Category:Pages using age template with invalid date, e.g. {{Death date and age}}). This led to detection of many articles with undetected errors, and it serves as a good vandalism-detection tool. I would like to install similar tracking in {{BillboardID}}, but because it is normally used in the |url= parameter of a citation template, I don't think I can simply emit a category, because that category name will be contained within the rendered URL.

If I type "illegal name entered" (with the quotation marks) into WP's search box today, I get 318 articles displaying that phrase, all presumably generated by this template. My experience with WP's search has been that it only ever finds a subset of what I ask it to find, so there may be more articles with this error.

Any ideas? – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you'll have to modify the master citation templates so that they don't break from the extra parsed category. Or put the errorchecking into the master templates.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Jump up!

These words appear before every reference. I have IE9, Vista and Monobook.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It appears to be an accessibility label, and AFAICT IE9 doesn't properly support the CSS being used to hide it. Someone made a mistake… {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 19:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
What is the fix?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
@Vchimpanzee: I would think that
span.cite-accessibility-label { display: none; }
in Special:MyPage/common.css should do it. I can't test, as I don't have IE9. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I can confirm that this happens on Vista in IE9 in Monobook and Cologne Blue (but I haven't seen it while using Vector and Modern) and that the CSS instruction written by Redrose64 fixes the problem. I think it should be added to MediaWiki:Monobook.css and MediaWiki:Cologneblue.css The Quixotic Potato (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
If Vector and Modern are unaffected, common.css isn't really appropriate. Amended above. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not skin specific. It depends a bit on whether or not the article content is coming from cache. If you purge the page, the problem seems to be gone. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 10:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Hm, you are correct, I did clear the browsercache, but I didn't purge. After purging a couple of times the Jump up! links have disappeared (in Monobook). Weird. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 10:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I made the change but am not at home to test it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It worked. Thank you.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Search autosuggestions or typeahead are not reliable

It appears there are two issues with search autosuggestions or typeahead.

  1. It is not offering suggestions for redirects that people are likely interested in. It is particularly surprising that there are no suggestions at all within MOS:...
  2. It is offering suggestions for pages that do not exist and had never existed.

When doing this edit I wanted to make sure I was using the correct shortcut/abbreviation for the MOS disambiguation page. In the search box in the upper-right corner I typed MOS: and then the letters D-I-S-A slowly hoping to get a hint on the abbreviation I was seeking. I was surprised that from MOS: on out that there were no suggestions. I then tried WP:MOS: and there are many suggestions. I add "D-I-S" (forming Wikipedia:MOS:DIS) and was offered Wikipedia:MOS:DISAMBIG and Wikipedia:MOS:DISAB. I thought, excellent, I wanted Wikipedia:MOS:DISAMBIG, selected that and was surprised by a "Wikipedia does not have a project page with this exact name" notice.

I checked both Wikipedia:MOS:DISAMBIG and Wikipedia:MOS:DISAB and neither of them had ever been deleted.

I went ahead and added a redirect at Wikipedia:MOS:DISAMBIG as I figured that was a page people would use. A Google search for "MOS:DISAB" returns "No results found for 'MOS:DISAB'." It's not clear why the search suggestions offered this phrase as it does not exist anywhere in the Google searchable content of Wikipedia. It turns out there is a MOS:DISAB shortcut which may explain why the search autosuggestions or typeahead thing offered Wikipedia:MOS:DISAMBIG though it also means that we may end up needing to add redirects under Wikipedia:MOS:... for all of the redirects that exist under MOS:...

Cpiral, here's a heads up as I know you are interested in search related issues though I don't know if you want to document this behavior which is that MOS:... shortcuts are not available to the search lookahead and instead that they are available under WP:MOS:... but you then need to remove the leading Wikipedia: (or we add thousands of redirect pages). --Marc Kupper|talk 19:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for documenting this bug—now T114403 (via mw:phabricator at IMHO this deserves high priority. We'll see how they triage this, then probably decide not to go ahead with temporary redirects.
It looks like the wp:ns#Pseudo-namespaces titles, (like the pagenames that start with MOS: and H:), are indexed to the wrong namespace. As soon as the colon is typed, they can't be found in mainspace where they belong. It's most telling you found them in WP. I'm pretty sure this used to work properly. Any idea when it this stopped working? — CpiralCpiral 19:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The visual editor’s preference will be moving tabs

(crossposting from WT:VE)

Hey all,

This is just a quick note to highlight that the location for the visual editor’s preference is about to move – from the "Beta" tab to the "Editing" section of your preferences (as is currently the case on almost all the other WMF wikis; it doesn’t mean the visual editor is complete, or that it is no longer “in beta” though).

This action will not change anything else for editors: it still honours editors’ previous choices about having it on or off; logged-out users will continue to only have access to wikitext; the “Edit” tab will still be after the “Edit source” one.

We don’t expect this to cause any glitches, but in case there are, please let us know at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback as usual! This should be done in the next few days, and I’ll post a follow-up message then.

Best, Elitre (WMF) (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

How could I add an [edit] link after each returned search result?

I do a lot of cleanup of specific problems in the source of articles. Usually I do a search, click on each hit, and then click the edit link from the article. I'd like to skip going to the article itself and go straight to editting. Anybody know how I would go about adding an "[edit]" link after each search result to do this? Jason Quinn (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups? --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
This solution has the requested functionality but is sub-optimal. In general I find the nav-popup gadget gets in the way when I'm reading articles; so I don't really want it on all the time. Plus there it involves unnecessary time-lag and downloading. Been years since I tried it so I'm glad you mentioned it but there's hopefully better ways. (EDIT: I see there's now functionality to turn off the preview which is a better. But still not perfect.) Jason Quinn (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I though I would mention what I use :) Good luck and happy editing! --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Use {{edit|fullpagename}}. Text process the Search results page. Select out the titles somehow, and embed into {{edit}}. — CpiralCpiral 00:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I think I remember that admins have a special setting in there profile that enables them to choose to have all the pages they visit be in edit mode. — CpiralCpiral 00:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Jason Quinn: You can add

$( function() {
	'use strict';
	if ( mw.config.get( 'wgCanonicalSpecialPageName' ) === 'Search' ) {
		$( '.mw-search-result-heading a' ).each( function() {
			$( this ).after( '<span class="searchedit">[<a href="' + $( this ).attr( 'href' ) + '?action=edit">edit</a>]</span>' );
		} );
} );

to Special:Mypage/common.js. You can then style the link any way you want at Special:MyPage/common.css. Example:

.searchedit {
	margin-left: 0.5em;

Nirmos (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Nirmos solution worked perfectly to give edit tabs behind every search result. I just clicked, cut, and paste as given, and walla. — CpiralCpiral 01:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
This is brilliant. Thanks for this solution. I added a space before the left square bracket above as a style tweak. Having it jammed right up against the article name didn't look right to me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Jonesey95: That's what the CSS is for. If you want to do it with spaces, there is no need for the script to add an HTML class. Nirmos (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Even though this is a small amount of code, it's probably still best to put this kind of thing in a proper gadget to make maintenance easier. I've had a go at creating one at User:Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/SearchEditLink.js. This uses MediaWiki's mw-editsection class, so it gets automatically styled. I tried to do the same with the mw-editsection-bracket class as well, but the brackets don't seem to be styled correctly for some reason. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Your gadget seems to work too. I've seen no problems yet but I cannot really edit at the moment. I'll let you know if I see any trouble. Thanks too. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Mr. Stradivarius: I have tried your code and it works fine for me. It sounds like there is another rule overriding the rule you want. To pinpoint the problem, you can try to put your code on m:Special:MyPage/global.js and see if the problem persists on other projects. Nirmos (talk) 07:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow! This is exactly what I was envisioning. Thank you, Nirmos! Looks like other people find this useful too. Wikipedians are awesome. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Watchlist stars and section buttons missing on mobile

Since today, the watchlist stars at the top of articles and section links (which expand sections) have vanished. I'm using version 45.0.2454.94 of Google Chrome on Android Lollipop. I tried purging the cache but that failed to work. Everything works fine on the desktop site. -Jesant13 (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I cleared the appropriate cookies and cache data for the site. When I came back to the site, I was logged out. While navigating the site, I was automatically logged back in and the issues returned. So something is obviously not right with the mobile site. I couldn't even find an edit link! Also,Search Wikipedia doesn't appear in the search bar. -Jesant13 (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Just to make sure: You refer to the address here, or what is "the mobile site"? --Malyacko (talk) 08:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'm referring to I checked again before posting this and the issues still persist. -Jesant13 (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I cleared all of the browser cache and all of the cookies yesterday. As soon as I logged in the issues returned. Some additional information is below.
  • My phone is a Samsung Galaxy S6 (SM-G920T).
  • The operating system I'm using is Android Lollipop. The version number is 5.1.1.
  • My ISP is Comcast and my cellular carrier is T-Mobile.

I also remember reading about a new version of MediaWiki being rolled out to English Wikipedia by October 1, the same day the issues began. I'm suspecting the update is to blame. I didn't change any preferences nor did I change any browser settings.

In the meantime, the desktop site continues to work normally. That's how I started this section and submitted my other edits (including this one). If there's anything else I can do to help troubleshoot, please feel free to let me know. -Jesant13 (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I've got the same issue. Edit links are also missing, even if I turn on beta. This is a big problem for me because most of my editing is done on mobile. Like Jesant13, the desktop view works, but I prefer mobile because the zoomed-out view is harder to read. Firefox Mobile 41 on Motorola Moto X, Android 5.1. Oddly enough Chrome (and Naked Browser, also WebKit-based) is unaffected. Hairy Dude (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I created a bug report, phab:T114599. I realized that would help improve knowledge of the issues I reported here. -Jesant13 (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm having the same issue. I asked at the Teahouse, and they directed me to this post. I am hoping the issue is fixed soon because it's driving me crazy and making editing 15 times harder. I logged on and off several times hoping to clear it up, but it didn't work. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 17:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

An idea regarding infoboxes

I assume most of us know about the Infobox Wars, so I won't bother going into a big explanation here. I will say that compromise on this issue is nearly impossible, because one side says "we need an infobox" and the other says "we don't need an infobox", so there is no middle ground. That got me thinking about a possible solution. What if we made collapsible infoboxes that could be placed underneath an image? That way those who want to see it can expand it, and those who don't want to see it can leave it collapsed. Does this sound doable? RO(talk) 22:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes could certainly be made collapsible for users with JavaScript. That's the technical part. This isn't the place to discuss whether to actually do it. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
@Rationalobserver: I think this is an excellent idea. If it can save just one of the infobox wars then it will have been worthwhile. It just needs someone to code it. I might be interested in trying to do one if no one else does, although I'd probably have to think about how to do it. Already done it seems. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
As I suspect you (RO) know perfectly well, collapsable infoboxes have been around and in use for years, but there are rarely circumstances where their use is appropriate; they cause serious WP:ACCESS issues, screw up hard-copy printouts, and cause subsequent images to jump around as their state changes; their main use is for the route descriptions on railway articles rather than as true infoboxes for precisely these reasons. The issue with infoboxes isn't generally whether they're collapsed or uncollapsed, it's whether summarising information in an infobox leads to oversimplification of complex information, and this proposal does nothing to address that issue. ‑ iridescent 14:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I had no idea we had them. RO(talk) 15:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
No I think the real reason is that people dislike the aesthetics, finding them unattractive. After all, the content in an infobox shouldn't affect what is in the rest of the article one bit: it is merely a summary of some of the points from an article. Or it at least it shouldn't, and doesn't seem to be the case in any articles I've seen.
Looking at WP:ACCESS and what do I see: two collapsible boxes! And from a look at the talk page of Frank Sinatra it seems to headed off one potential war. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
That's exactly the article I was thinking about? Didn't realize they already put in a collapsible one! RO(talk) 15:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Unable to revert multiple revisions

When I'm on an article's history page and select multiple revisions to compare, I do not get the "[restore this version]" link. I've tried multiple browsers. What's strange is I do get the link on user pages, user talk pages and article talk pages. Bgwhite (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the "[restore this version]" link is made with JavaScript when Twinkle is enabled at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. It's documented at Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#Revert and rollback. I still have it in article histories. What is your skin? Do you have the link in MonoBook like here? It should be in all skins but I guess you use Vector and wonder whether something in your vector.js or vector.css is interfering so I ask about MonoBook. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I have vector. I haven't changed my .js or .css files in awhile. I wiped both files clean and still could not get the "[restore this version]" link. Bgwhite (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I guess twinkle is having bigger issues. See below at Twinkle and Page Curation failing to load. Bgwhite (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
If the "TW" Twinkle tab is missing on the affected pages then it certainly sounds like the issue below. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I spoke to a user on IRC yesterday who was having the same issue of not seeing Twinkle at all despite seeming to have it installed fine. Sam Walton (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Issue is related to the one below. Problem is Content Translator. If one has it installed via the beta menu, twinkle will not load. For the moment, uninstalling Content Translator gets things working again. Bgwhite (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Double badge notification count is stuck at "2"

My double badge notification count is stuck at "2" and does not reset after messages are viewed, a page cache purge, a browser close, or even a device reboot. Blackberry Bold 9900 browser. Customized common.js Checkingfax (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Notification stuck on a number

Hi, Just lately when I've been getting notifications, I click the notification box and it fades to grey but it still stays at "1" or any other number, I have to click the X on the notification for it to disappear which is rather annoying, It was working fine few weeks ago so I'm assuming it's some sort of glitch?, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Checkingfax and Davey2010: The second badge, "Messages", is purposefully not marking notifications as "read" immediately, merely by our opening the flyout. This is so that editors have a way to leave the badge-number as a reminder to themselves, of something that they don't want to work on immediately but do want to get back to, but without the attention-catching (red) coloring. Not keeping the red color for "seen but not resolved" notifications, also makes it easier to see when a new notification arrives.
You can change the number to "0" by clicking on either the "Mark all as read" button, or the per-item "x" buttons (see screenshot in File:Notifications mark all as read and x.png). (The "x" button is due to be enlarged, per phab:T112217, and the color of the grey numbered badge is due to be changed for improved accessibility, per phab:T98526).
This feature is partially in preparation for cross-wiki notifications, which work is now starting on, and which will increase the number of notifications that highly-active editors receive. There will be wider requests for feedback, once the technical possibilities and constraints are further narrowed down. For now, there's a request for feedback on this iteration over at mediawiki with more details there. Hope that helps. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Quiddity (WMF), I've read the Phab part and it kinda makes sense but I'm someone who "If I'm reverted I'll check it out there and If I'm pinged I'll reply there and then" so for me it's more a hinderance than a help, Well we can't please everyone I suppose! Face-grin.svg. –Davey2010Talk 19:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Quiddity (WMF). Checkingfax (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


The archives listed in Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) stop at the 125th archive. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixed.[2] I don't know whether there is a bot supposed to keep track of it or somebody always has to do it manually. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
It's manual. I moved the VPM counter along too, otherwise Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 51 (which is next to be created) wouldn't have been shown. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Twinkle and Page Curation failing to load on certain pages

Twinkle and Page Curation are not loading on certain pages. It appears that this is only happening on new pages, but I'm not quite sure if that's the pattern. My talk page is working fine, and Category:Articles needing additional references from June 2006 works fine, but neither Baphomet (band) nor Soulless Child nor other new pages load Twinkle or Page Curation. Firefox 41, Vector skin, Mac 10.10.5. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Having the same problem. It seems to work if you look at the article's history page, but not on the article itself. Seems to be the problem for all articles, not just newly-created ones. Currently using Google Chrome 45.0.2454.101 m, Windows 8. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm guessing this is the same issue EurovisionNim was talking about on my talk page... I'm not seeing it. Twinkle is working fine for me. Would you mind reviewing WP:JSERROR and writing back here with the errors you are seeing? (Step #6) MusikAnimal talk 04:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
"TypeError: Cannot read property 'data' of undefined TypeError: Cannot read property 'data' " Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

"Use of "wgServer" is deprecated. Use mw.config instead. load.php:156:550 Use of "wgArticlePath" is deprecated. Use mw.config instead. load.php:156:550 Use of "wgScriptPath" is deprecated. Use mw.config instead. load.php:156:550 Use of "wgCurRevisionId" is deprecated. Use mw.config instead. load.php:156:550 Use of "wgPageName" is deprecated. Use mw.config instead. load.php:156:550 Use of "addOnloadHook" is deprecated. Use jQuery instead. load.php:156:550 TypeError: $.uls is undefined"

  • I do have some custom javascript routines loaded. Also, I get a lot of CSS errors, if that's relevant:

"Unknown property 'zoom'. Declaration dropped. Mastuj_tehsil:2:312 Expected declaration but found '*'. Skipped to next declaration. Mastuj_tehsil:2:315 Error in parsing value for 'font-weight'. Declaration dropped. Mastuj_tehsil:3:2123 Error in parsing value for 'display'. Declaration dropped. Mastuj_tehsil:3:3052 Expected 'important' but found 'ie'. Expected ';' or '}' to terminate declaration but found 'ie'. Declaration dropped. Mastuj_tehsil:3:6017 Expected 'important' but found 'ie'. Expected ';' or '}' to terminate declaration but found 'ie'. Declaration dropped. Mastuj_tehsil:3:8098 Expected 'important' but found 'ie'. Expected ';' or '}' to terminate declaration but found 'ie'. Declaration dropped. Mastuj_tehsil:3:11619 Unknown property '-moz-box-shadow'. Declaration dropped. Mastuj_tehsil:2:23 Unknown property '-moz-border-radius'. Declaration dropped. Mastuj_tehsil:2:279 Unknown property '-moz-border-radius'. Declaration dropped. Mastuj_tehsil:2:1532 Expected 'important' but found 'ie'. Expected ';' or '}' to terminate declaration but found 'ie'. Declaration dropped. Mastuj_tehsil:2:6104 Expected 'important' but found 'ie'. Expected ';' or '}' to terminate declaration but found 'ie'. Declaration dropped. Mastuj_tehsil:2:8012 Unknown property '-moz-border-radius-topleft'. Declaration dropped. Mastuj_tehsil:2:9636 Unknown property '-moz-border-radius-bottomleft'. Declaration dropped. Mastuj_tehsil:2:9732 Expected 'important' but found 'ie'. Expected ';' or '}' to terminate declaration but found 'ie'. Declaration dropped. Mastuj_tehsil:2:14124 Unknown property '-moz-border-radius-topleft'. Declaration dropped. Mastuj_tehsil:2:15877 Unknown property '-moz-border-radius-bottomleft'. Declaration dropped. Mastuj_tehsil:2:15973 Expected 'important' but found 'ie'. Expected ';' or '}' to terminate declaration but found 'ie'. Declaration dropped." Oiyarbepsy (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

To add another point reFill is having the same problems, just giving a heads up as it occurred to me as well. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 04:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Remove importScript('User:AzaToth/twinkle.js'); and importScript('User:Ioeth/friendly.js'); from your monobook.js, and enable Twinkle from preferences (if not already enabled), that should solve it. - NQ-Alt (talk) 04:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
@NQ-Alt: I did just that and the problem hasn't been fixed. I've also tried purging and clearing the cache, to no avail. Also, I already have Twinkle enabled in preferences. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm clueless. Unfortunately that error by itself isn't going to tell me what's wrong, but thanks for taking the time to report it! EurovisionNim also probably unrelated, but I noticed you are copying/pasting the source of user scripts into your common.js. You should be importing them as with importScript('User:Anomie/useridentifier.js'); // Linkback: [[User:Anomie/useridentifier.js]]. Also WP:MOREMENU is a gadget that you can enable at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. Look for "Add Page and User dropdown menus..." MusikAnimal talk 04:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I too am having the same problem on Baphomet (band) nor Soulless Child. Wonder if it is related to my problem above of Unable to revert multiple revisions as that is twinkle related. Bgwhite (talk) 04:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The part about it only happening on mainspace pages is just baffling. First off, could you also do step #6 of WP:JSERROR and see if it's the same error Narutolovehinata5 had (Cannot read property 'data' of undefined)? Next, while you have your JS console open, type the following and hit enter Twinkle.protect(). That I think should initialize Twinkle if it hasn't been already. E.g. if you aren't seeing the TW menu that code should create it, with "PP" as the only menu item (Twinkle.protect = protection module). MusikAnimal talk 05:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: Not Bgwhite, but I attempted to enter "Twinkle.protect()" and afterwards I get a message which says that it is "undefined". The strange thing is that Twinkle works fine if I'm viewing a page history. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I tried myself, but it says undefined. I tried other tricks but it did not work for me --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 05:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5 Yeah mate, but it does not work on all the articles, an example Ford Kuga and Mitsubishi Outlander. I tried but it was no success--EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 05:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The undefined return value is actually expected. The function is supposed to add whatever to the TW menu. That would have told me it's one of the modules, but looks like it's not. It does tell me that the Twinkle code is there, as otherwise you'd get a "Twinkle is not defined" error. Maybe the culprit is some conflicting gadget all of you are using? I checked your JS files and I see that there's no common script being used there MusikAnimal talk 05:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Could the rest of you try #6 at WP:JSERROR and let me know what it says? If all of you are getting the same error, that'd support the theory of a conflicting gadget MusikAnimal talk 05:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: Okay so I tried it again, and when I typed in "Twinkle.protect()", Twinkle did show up. However, it would only appear as long as it was on the current page; it would disappear again if I refreshed/clicked another page. Could a more permanent solution be found? Also, in addition to the aforementioned error, on the console I'm also getting a series of orange messages which goes something like "Use of "wgServer" is deprecated. Use mw.config instead." Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

() Alright, now we're on to something! There's other code that is supposed to run Twinkle.protect() on every page, and obviously it isn't. The orange messages you can ignore. I'm going to have to sign off soon but we're on the right track at least. I'll let you know if I think of anything, best MusikAnimal talk 05:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I had this big long edit to type, but there was an edit conflict. Long story short. I get same error Narutolovehinata5 sees about cannot read 'data' in Chrome and IE, but not in Firefox. When I type Twinkle.protect(), Twinkle does shows up, but my only option is to page protect. Bgwhite (talk) 06:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
@Bgwhite: Did you lose the text you had written due to an editconflict? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 08:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The Quixotic Potato No. It looked like MusikAnimal had narrowed in on the problem and didn't need the longer post. Bgwhite (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Wonderful, I do hope that it can be fixed. Please also make sure that all the gadgets are fixed as well and can be used on all different software. The next thing you do not want is to have the same problem as well tommorrow or the next day. Also if other users with experience in scripts can help that would be wonderful :)) --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 08:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • When I look at a file information page, the Twinkle menu is usually missing. However, if I try to edit the page, the Twinkle menu shows up, but some Twinkle menu options remain missing. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with the "Content Translation" beta feature. Go into Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures and turn it off, then see if Twinkle and other scripts come back for you... — This, that and the other (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

See also phab:T114462. — This, that and the other (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I have never switched on the Content Translation beta feature, so this is some other problem. Although the Twinkle menu usually is missing at 'action=view', it usually shows up at 'action=edit', but unfortunately, the XFD and DI menu items are missing at 'action=edit', so I've had to create lots of sections at PUF and FFD manually, which is annoying. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I figured out the problem. On your beta preferences you will see content translator . You must untick that to make the Twinkle gadget to work on all the articles. Sorry it's late at night for me so I am going to get some sleep before my grandma finds out and confiscates my iPhone :) --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 13:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Also to add, if anyone has questions regarding it, please ask me on my talkpage and I will do my best to reply --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 13:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm quoting this from Phabricator, "Hmm, does this still happen? I cannot reproduce it - the GoogleTrans gadget works for me, and I do have ContentTranslation enabled. We did have some issues in this area of the code, but they should be fixed in the English Wikipedia since yesterday. If it happens again, can you please reload the page with ?debug=true at the end of the URL and post the line at JavaScript line at which the error happens? Thanks!" Twinkle works for him (User:Aaharoni-WMF, who works on ContentTranslation) as well. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I think it would have to do with the beta features. Those are overriding the scripts. If you disable them then it would make life a whole lot easier. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 03:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
More precisely, the ContentTranslation tool seems to be causing an error, after which jQuery's $(function) doesn't work anymore and so all other scripts that depend on it don't work either. MediaWiki developers should really fix that jQuery function, so that scripts that have nothing to do with each other don't depend on each other in this way. I found some solutions on the Internet some years ago and I may file a bug report if I can find them again. --V111P (talk) 13:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

XTools is dead again?

@Cyberpower678: @MusikAnimal: Earlier it seemed to only be WikiHistory, but right now it seems they're all down. As in, WikiHistory is giving me a 404 and even loading the 404 takes a while (example), while the main XTools page is not loading at all. also giving me a 404 error. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

There's currently a cronjob that restarts the services once daily, and I guess that's not often enough =P We had a continuous auto-restart script but it apparently was forking new jobs when there should just be one. I'll try to make this a priority and work with the labs folks to get it figured out. Best MusikAnimal talk 04:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

No collapsing headers on mobile

The headers on the mobile site no longer collapse once fully loaded. They worked fine yesterday, anybody else having this issue? Using a BlackBerry 9900, with the default browser. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 05:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

All I can say is that this happens to me intermittently on mobile browsers, and has since I started using mobile browsers. So nothing new to me. Clearing cache or perhaps just restarting browser may help. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, the collapsing headers are working now. I suppose that could be the result of an OOM error, although I've never really ran into that issue before. I've never ran into cache probs up until now, so will keep that in mind. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 06:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Robert Dale Owen

The presence of Template:Infobox book in this article has made its title italic. What can be done to bring the regular title back without removing the infobox?--The Traditionalist (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I have added italic title = no. It's at top of the documentation at Template:Infobox book. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I broke the Assume Good Faith option for myself

Moved from WP:RD/C since it hadn't received any responses. Maybe this is a better place for it anyway.

A few minutes ago, I was going through an editors contribs. I went to one and clicked on the Twinkle option to undo the edit and Assume Good Faith. I accidentally hit the "don't allow page to open additional windows" checkbox and hit enter. Now the AGF, and I assume other Twinkle functions, don't work. I just get an error saying that the action was aborted by the user. I've poked around in my browser settings but I don't see where I can re-allow this.

I'm using Win7 with Chrome.

Any help? Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 13:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dismas: Have you tried closing and reopening the tab? That should be enough. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I was editing from work and had a bunch of tabs open. I believe I had tried closing the tab but maybe not. Just now, I was able to close the whole browser (didn't want to lose too many open tabs) and tested on my own user page. That seems to have cleared it up. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 13:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorting problems

Hello. I've recently noticed that tables that use {{Sort}} for dates will no longer work, while those that use {{Dts}} seem to be working fine. Is there a reason for this? To illustrate my point, I've included examples below.

– Zntrip 17:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I just now saw the deprecation warning on {{Sort}}. I suppose this that explains it. – Zntrip 17:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
@Zntrip: Plain dates will work fine there, {{dts}} should not be used unless really necessary, per the warning at the top of its documentation. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


Suppose that page A is a redirect to page B and has not been modified since it was created. If page B was moved to page A over redirect, then the creation of page A still appears when viewing its creator's contributions on mobile. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

vertical bar in template parameter

Is there a way to escape a | in a template? A page title contains a | and I'm trying to use {{cite web|title = Title with | in it|date= ...NE Ent 13:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

In {{cite web}}, use %7c inside |url= and &#124; in any other parameter when you want to write a vertical bar. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Alternatively, you can place | within nowiki tags, i.e. <nowiki>|</nowiki>. 2607:FB90:21C9:F62A:0:37:4515:9301 (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
@NE Ent: Very often, a pipe in the title of a web page is used to separate the true title of a web page from the name of the website. They might be in either order. So, a web page that is titled like "Guaranteed Roadrunner Trap | Acme" or like "Acme | Guaranteed Roadrunner Trap" would be split into |title=Guaranteed Roadrunner Trap |website=Acme. If you provide the URL of the web page, I can look at it to advise on the best action. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, {{!}} will do the trick. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Redirects from module doc pages

When viewing a redirect from a module doc page to another module doc page, the link in the part that says "This is a documentation subpage" (below "Redirected from") refers to the parent module of the redirect (usually a redlink due to module pages not supporting redirects) rather than its target. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

You're right (see e.g. [3]) but I don't think it's worth fixing this. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The example should be when the redirect is actually followed: Module:Sandbox/QuimGil/Flagicon/doc. The text "This is a documentation subpage for Module:Sandbox/QuimGil/Flagicon" is made by the interface message MediaWiki:scribunto-doc-page-header which calls {{documentation subpage}} which uses the magic word {{BASEPAGENAME}} which in this case returns the name of the redirect page instead of the target. phab:T74230 ("Magic words broken after redirect in template called by wfMessage)" seems related. A comment by Bawolff says: "What title wfMessage() considers the current page to be can vary depending on at what time in execution it is called (Evil hidden global magic), so it helps to know at what point the function is being called." This timing issue can apparently also affect interface messages. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

comparing revisions across two or more history pages without missing some in between

When searching old revisions by comparing an older one with a newer one that necessarily are listed on different pages of the page's history, a searcher ordinarily conducts two or more searches, thereby missing the effect of one intermediate revision listed at the bottom of a history page (or two intermediate revisions at the bottom of two history pages, etc.). This is because the older revision selected on the history page is not itself reflected in the top of the resulting diff, but only implied in the midst of everything still older, thus easily missed or misunderstood. It is possible to solve this by manually constructing a URL, but that possibility is easily missed by users.

Example (frequent editing of the article will quickly make this outdated but nonetheless the model applies):

Perhaps this can be solved with a technical solution.

Nick Levinson (talk) 02:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

You can list up to 5000 revisions at once in a page history. Careful setting of the "From year (and earlier)"/"From month (and earlier)" options will bring the appropriate revision close to the top; or you can set &offset= This will allow you to get both on the same screen. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

History of agriculture

Template:Citation needed is not listed as being transcluded in History of agriculture when editing or clicking "Page information" on the left side. Also, Category:Articles with unsourced statements from January 2007, Category:Articles with unsourced statements from November 2008, Category:Articles with unsourced statements from December 2008, Category:Articles with unsourced statements from January 2011, Category:Articles with unsourced statements from December 2011, and Category:Articles with unsourced statements from July 2015 are not listed as hidden categories containing that article, and that article is not listed in any of those categories. Probably due to revision 683883694 by GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@GeoffreyT2000: Page information does not list more than 50 templates - if there are more, it shows the actual count at the top of the list, then the first 50, then the comment "This list is not complete." --Redrose64 (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The problem seems to be fixed now. When going to [4], it says that there are 30 transcluded templates. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Redirect one image link to Commons

My gadget in Preferences is checked to redirect all image links to Commons. It works on everything, except one image that appears in three different articles. I'm guessing the problem is in the file name itself:

File:John Mix Stanley - 'Mrs. Benjamin Pitman (High Chiefess Kinoole-o-Liliha)', oil on canvas, 1849.jpg - this file is on Wikipedia, and the image is on Commons. The articles the image appears in are: Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman, Hoolulu and Kinooleoliliha. If I click on the image from any of those articles, I am redirected to Commons with this message:

"No file by this name exists, but you can upload it."

If I click on that image directly from the file page, I get this message:

"File not found: /v1/AUTH_mw/wikipedia-commons-local-public.3e/3/3e/John_Mix_Stanley_-_%20Mrs._Benjamin_Pitman_%20High_Chiefess_Kinoole-o-Liliha%20%20,_oil_on_canvas,_1849.jpg".

Also pinging @KAVEBEAR: because he has Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman at GAC right now. — Maile (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you have the Firefox add-on NoScript? It's probably the issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 140#Redirect to Commons on one issue. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, that was you. Do you have reason to think it isn't NoScript this time? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Facepalm3.svg Facepalm Yep. The image works fine on IE. Sorry about that. — Maile (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Twinkle appears to be broken

Revert links in diffs are missing, and warnings do not actually go through after submitting them. I'm using Firefox 41 on Windows 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyuszika7H (talkcontribs) 20:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


Removing Persondata

Persondata was been deprecated by an RfC held here, which closed with "Consensus is to deprecate and remove". A bot is needed, to remove it from all articles. However, my request for a bot to do so was closed with the claim "a discussion about a bot operation of this magnitude needs to be held in a broader forum, with more participants and a more focused discussion". I therefore seek agreement here, to have a bot carry out this task. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 64#Remove persondata is the request for a bot that Andy mentions. --Izno (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Conditinal support. As the template has been marked as being deprecated for three months, it makes sense to begin removing it from articles in a methodical fashion. A bot is the most logical means to perform this task. My concern is that some portion of the Wikipedia community is unaware that {{Persondata}} has been deprecated and as a result is still adding useful information in calls to the template. To deal with this concern, when a bot is in the process of removing the template from an article it should check Wikidata to see if the data items defined in the template have been migrated to Wikidata. If a data item is missing from Wikidata, then the bot should copy the information there before completing the removal. I am agnostic on how the bot should behave when a conflict between Persondata and Wikidata is detected and will defer to the bot's designer on how to best proceed in such cases. --Allen3 talk 11:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
    • @Allen3: Please note the discussion of this point in the RfC. All the data that can be reliably ported to Wikidata automatically has been ported. Wikidata does not want further automated import of Persondata. I share your concerns that some editors are still expending time and energy updating this template - that's why we need to remove it from pages, ASAP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Question - Has all of the Persondata been migrated to Wikidata? That would seem to be a prerequisite. - MrX 13:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Please note the discussion of this point in the RfC. All the data that can be reliably ported to Wikidata automatically has been ported. Anyone wishing to port any remaining data manually may work from articles as they were at the time of Persondata's deprecation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. While I respect and endorse the BOTREQ groups desire for caution, that discussion already happened. Resolute 13:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I and a few other editors have been manually removing them ourselves but it would honestly be a lot easier if a bot could do it for us considering there's over 4 million articles on here, I understand the need for caution but IMHO something needs to be done as it'll take forever to remove them all manually here. –Davey2010Talk 17:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose using a bot or any automation to remove any persondata until such time that it can be demonstrated that it has been fully migrated to Wikidata, or that it persists in some other machine readable field in each article, for example in infoboxes. Dirtlawyer1 raises some very valid concerns and Andy Mabbett's responses don't exactly fill me with confidence that a bot will handle this properly. Removing persondata is not an emergency, and more harm could come from rushing this through with automation.that has not been migrated to Wikidata. Support removing persondata that has been migrated to Wikidata. - MrX 18:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC), 23:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – it's definitely time to do this now. --IJBall (contribstalk) 20:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - given that the purpose of Persondata was for automated cataloguing, and an automated tool has already pulled any information useful for that purpose (the rest is unreliable, and Wikidata doesn't want it) then the time is right to programmatically remove all instances of the template. As Andy said, users wishing to port additional information can work from the page history. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - As a Wikidata editor, on the random of BLPs (and some dead people) on my watchlist that I've edited and noticed the persondata, I've found that not always is the data on Wikidata. This usually pertains to the alternate names, for which Wikidata has not pulled in as either aliases or as statements. A handful of times it has been differing birthdates. To suggest that everything has been moved over when not even aliases have captured the notion of alternative names is odd. --Izno (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Once again: Please note the discussion of this point in the RfC. All the data that can be reliably ported to Wikidata automatically has been ported. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Your snark ("once again") is unnecessary and unappreciated. The point I am making is that there are data which have not been provided to Wikidata; that such data cannot be automatically provided to Wikidata reliably (we agree!); and that mass-removal by bot is thus inappropriate. Except I nowhere opposed or supported. Would you like me to do so now on ad hominem grounds or the actual logical ones of my comment?

        A more sensible approach as provided at WP:Bot requests is to remove the ones by bot which can trivially be shown to have had all their information migrated. In fact, none of the very reasonable suggestions for a bot were presented in this RFC, which I find somewhat specious, since that discussion has gone unlinked in the opening statement of the RFC. Obnoxious. --Izno (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

        • There was no snark in my comment; unlike yours. You'll note I referred to "my request for a bot to do so...". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Misleading statements alert - Andy, that just ain't so, fella. Please see my extended comments below: virtually no alternate form names have been transferred -- birth names, maiden names, married names, etc. -- and that represents a significant loss of USABLE information. Sorry, but you're wrong. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Anyone is welcome to do as I suggest, and read the discussion of this point in the RfC (and for that matter the discussion on Wikidata to which that links). They'll soon see that the misleading statements are not mine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - having a bot remove deprecated persondata and complete the task. As stated above "Wikidata does not want further automated import of Persondata" so no need to match or compare persondata to wikidata prior to removal. The sooner the removal of persondata, the better - especially since consensus was to remove persondata three months ago. Thank you Andy for following up on this. Gmcbjames (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Taking into consideration further discussion, my opinion has not changed. When Persondata is bot removed, information will not be lost - the information is in the article either in the text body or infobox (if used). This information has been visible for anyone to correct misinformation, unlike the invisible and unreliable Persondata. I would suggest editors porting Persondata into Wikidata to carefully double-check the persondata with the article for accuracy. The best solution is to remove Persondata completely at this point of time, as I doubt editors will take the extra time and effort to double-check information prior to porting persondata into Wikidata. As time progresses, the information in Persondata only becomes more stale, so delaying will only compound the problems. Gmcbjames (talk) 05:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Helder 00:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • SupportRGloucester 01:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for all the obvious reasons. ~ RobTalk 01:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC) Oppose. It appears some editors do think valuable information remains and are working to manually transfer it. I would likely support more limited attempts to remove those which are not useful (i.e. blank persondata transclusions or those with only name filled in), but if there is actual data remaining, keeping a comment in the text hurts little to nothing. As we verify that everything has transferred, these templates can be gradually removed. ~ RobTalk 21:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the bot program, and the sooner implemented the better. Four million articles await, and even with the bot it'll take some time to accomplish. Can we publish this deprecation better so editors don't keep wasting time on updating/maintaining these templates? GenQuest "Talk to Me" 04:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Neutral Changed per the below information. Was the deprecation RfC regarding Persondata and its resultant "Consensus is to deprecate and remove" widely published? If so, the results (if you can call them that), have been poorly implemented. If not, then it seems that someone, somewhere has jumped the gun and the deprecation decision needs to be reversed and a newer discussion held in the broader community. As to @Dirtlawyer1: stating that people wasting time on updating the existing templates is "a red herring", I can assure you that I, who really, really have limited time these days to edit, have indeed been wasting my time on updating/fixing/editing them.
      This is turning into more bureaucratic horse pucky, and there Ain't nobody got time for that... GenQuest "Talk to Me" 22:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
      • @GenQuest: Yes, the decision to deprecate has been widely publicised. removing the template, completely, by bot, ASAP, would prevent other editors from having their time wasted, as yours has unfortunately been, because it was not removed already. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This discussion is missing an important point. How do you get persondata information into wikidata in the future, if this established workflow of persondata at wikipedia is deleted? The situation is: enwiki persondata was imported in the last months to wikidata, ok. Comparing persondata form enwiki to wikidata has shown very similar quality, no surprise. Now tell me: How many new biographic articles were created at enwiki in the last 2 months? (How do you even find them without persondata?) Does wikidata contain the same data as enwiki-persondata about these new articles? How was this data entered into wikidata, by a wikidata-bot using enwiki-persondata? By a wikidata-bot using dbpedia-data that is harvested from enwiki-persondata? By a wikidata-bot harvesting enwiki-person-infoboxes, if and only if they are available? Or has wikidata no data about those new person-articles, because this dataflow to wikidata is now broken, because enwiki deprecates persondata? Show me the data! How is this going to work in the future? Who is supposed to enter new persondata in wikidata, some magic wikidata-workforce that doesn't exist? Magic bots? Show me the workflow! --Atlasowa (talk) 09:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
    • There is no workflow necessary. Once persondata is removed from articles, it will be deleted and the template will no longer exist. From there, if editors care to edit such data, they can put it directly into WikiData. In the meantime, all we're doing by waiting is allowing more editors to waste their time adding information that is no longer being used. ~ RobTalk 11:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
      • @BU Rob13: That's simply not true, Rob. Many editors, myself included, are manually transferring remaining usable persondata -- including multiple name variants -- to Wikidata. I have not seen more than 2 or 3 instances of editors updating Persondata in the last three months, and I have over 6,000 articles on my various watchlists. No one is wasting significant efforts updating Persondata, and we could significantly improve Wikidata if we had widespread notice and explanation of what usable Persondata remains. Instead, we seem to have a "not invented here" mentality driving the desire for the immediate deletion of Persondata. There is ZERO reason to immediately delete all Persondata, and there is no harm in keeping ti for a while longer. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
        • As noted above "Anyone wishing to port any remaining data manually may work from articles as they were at the time of Persondata's deprecation". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
    • You appear to be opposing the deprecation of Persondata. That has already been decided and enacted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support Given that wikidata has decided to no longer have data pulled over from persondata and therefore any information entered in it from this point on is about as useful as scribbling it on your wall, it should be removed. Jerod Lycett (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The Persondata data could be archived on Tools or something. We don't need to keep it lying around in articles; as the bot is removing Persondata, it could be storing it at an off-site location, for interested parties to review at a later time. This would be similar to what's been done with {{Authority control}} (see T.seppelt's Authority control validator). Alakzi (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Pinging users of the discussion from the bot requests page (whom have not yet commented somewhere above): @Magioladitis, Gerda Arendt, RexxS, Dirtlawyer1, Hawkeye7, SLBedit, and Francis Schonken: @Jared Preston, GoingBatty, Jc3s5h, MSGJ, and C678: (Cyberpower as closing bot op). --Izno (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I've been closely monitoring this discussion since it made its appearance here. It's good to see that this discussion is more focused. At current it's looking like immediate removal is the preferred outcome at the moment, but this clearly needs to stay open longer.—cyberpowerChat:Online 20:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
    • And @Periglio:, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The sooner we get rid of this practically unused misfeature the better. Many of the oppose votes are bringing up the same tired objections that have already been discussed. Jason Quinn (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly OPPOSE at this time - A lot of misleading comments have been made regarding the status of the migration of Persondata to Wikidata. I know this first hand because I have manually transferred the Persondata from over 1,000 articles to Wikidata in the last 90 days, and I have had ample opportunity to review a sizable sample of Persondata that I entered into the templates myself. In many instances, the following information has not been transferred:
  • Alternate names - many, if not most alternate names have not been transferred from Personata to Wikidata by bot action; birth names, maiden names, married names, etc., probably represent the largest potential loss of valid, usable information from Persondata; and
  • Brief descriptions - in many instances, the brief descriptions have not been transferred by bot action; and
  • Updated information - as best I can tell, no new or updated descriptions -- or new or updated Persondata information generally -- have been transferred since at least November 2014; this includes new or updated names, descriptions, birth dates, birth places, death dates, death places.
The claim that there is no remaining usable Persondata to be transferred vastly understates the usable information remaining to be transferred. Persondata has been deprecated because a better long-term solution for biographical meta data -- i.e., Wikidata -- has been created. That does not excuse throwing away reliable information from Persondata, information that has not been transferred to Wikidata, without making a better effort to transfer what reliable and usable information remains. That's not undermining Wikidata, that's supporting and improving Wikidata. I am pinging "support" voters above (i.e., @Allen3, MrX, Resolute, IJBall, Gmcbjames, He7d3r, and RGloucester:@Davey2010, BU Rob13, GenQuest, Jerodlycett, and Gerda Arendt:) to reconsider their support for the immediate automate removal of remaining Persondata. Few editors have committed more personal editing time to manually transferring remaining usable Persondata to Wikidata than I have (see [5] for my Wikidata contributions), and few editors have better first-hand knowledge of what remains than I do. Simply deleting all remaining Persondata represents an amazingly foolish waste of past efforts, and the loss of an opportunity to improve Wikidata, educate editors about Wikidata, and recruit more editors to improving Wikidata. What is needed is project-wide notice and explanation to all editors and a concerted, a coordinated effort to transfer what remaining Persondata is usable, and a hard deadline for completion. There is nothing to be gained -- nothing at all -- by the immediate automated deletion of remaining Persondata, and much that may be lost. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Have you read my comment above? Would you support with the caveat that a copy of all data is made available elsewhere? Alakzi (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
@Alakzi: Yes, I did read your suggestion, A. It's a political solution that, as a practical matter, will simply lead to the removal of existing Persondata with virtually no transfer of remaining usable information. Once the Persondata templates are removed from our articles, it's gone. The solution is notify everyone about the status of Persondata, educate our editors about Wikidata and manual transfer of usable Persondata to Wikidata, create a simple set of instructions, and then set a hard deadline. In the mean time, remaining Persondata does ZERO harm, and immediately removing it by bot action represents the loss of usable information -- alternate name forms, in particular -- in many instances. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
As far as I understand it, the concern is that, so long as {{Persondata}} remains in widespread use, people will blindly copy it over to new articles, or waste their time updating it, etc. The solution is notify everyone ... Instead, we could notify everyone that the data can now be found over yonder at that "toollab", and that they can transfer it to Wikidata at a leisurely pace, without having to mind any deadlines. Alakzi (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Alakzi, I do new page patrol for articles within my subject areas, and I am seeing virtually no new persondata templates being added to new articles. The concern for lost efforts of editors is a huge red herring; where is the concern for the lost efforts of editors who added valid and usable Persondata that has not been transferred to Wikidata? There is no urgent reason to delete all remaining Persondata, and, and based on my first hand review of a relatively large sample, there is much that will be lost. If we simply transfer Persondata to a holding tank, it's as good as deleted, because once it's out of sight, it's out of mind. We both know this. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm no expert, being an engineer (and previously a software engineer) but is it really beyond the realms of possibility that a bot can sift through article histories and find the last one with the Persondata template and transfer that good stuff to Wikidata? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Andy maintains there is no way to engineer the further automated transfers of usable information from Persondata to Wikidata (please see above). If I understand him correctly, in fact, he maintains there is no usable Persondata left to transfer. I can tell you, based on over 1,000 manual transfers that proposition is incorrect. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Of course it's possible to do what I suggested. It's trivial. If WMF want me to help out with that, just send me an email. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: I have little doubt that depends on the skill of the personnel involved. FYI, if WMF has been involved directly in the previous bot transfers of information from Persondata to Wikidata, it's not been mentioned in the previous discussions. This looks like a volunteer effort, not professionally managed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Dirtlawyer1: It was my understanding that all automated transfer of persondata is complete. What do you believe needs a manual transfer, and why couldn't that be handled by an automatic transfer? I'm willing to reconsider if given a good reason to do so. ~ RobTalk 19:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Rob, I see two primary areas of concern: (1) First, most alternate names -- birth names, maiden names, married names, nicknames, etc. -- were never transferred, perhaps because no one wanted to deal with the comma-delimited last-name-first format of the Persondata template. Frankly, from what I've seen, I would not be surprised if no serious automated effort was ever made to transfer alternate names from Persondata to Wikidata. (2) Second, based on my own own observations, I don't think any of the automated bot transfers ever updated any Wikidata fields once they had information present within those fields, and there was no effort made to reconcile conflicting information. Apart from those issues, I have also not observed any attempt to auto-transfer updated Persondata for the past ten months. And then there is the "error factor": dates and places of birth and death which were simply never transferred for some unidentified reason. The automated transfers appear to have been very "down and dirty" -- transfer as much as possible as quickly as possible, and ignore errors, conflicts and omissions. If we care about Wikidata and believe in its importance, we should be systematically reviewing it and comparing to remaining Persondata before it's deleted. In the mean time, it's not harming anything, and we should be encouraging people to review it and start utilizing Wikidata. If we don't, it's a lost opportunity on two levels. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
You support removing Persondata from any article that has had all appropriate information transferred already, correct? ~ RobTalk 20:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: In theory, yes, I do, Rob. The question is how is that determined, and who will make that determination? Andy maintains that "all appropriate information" has already been transferred; frankly, that's simply not accurate. I have three months of first-hand experience in manually transferring usable information from Persondata to Wikidata, and I know that proposition is factually incorrect. Furthermore, I seriously question whether further automated transfers of remaining Persondata -- alternate names, in particular -- are technically infeasible. See The Rambling Man's comments above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
You're misquoting me. Please desist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
No such claim was made. Please stop tilting at windmills. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
"All the data that can be reliably ported to Wikidata automatically has been ported." Pigsonthewing @16:33, 8 September 2015. You have now been quoted verbatim. And I hotly dispute the accuracy of your quoted statement: apparently no real attempt has ever been made to "port" alternate names. And your quoted statement raises more questions than it answers; it reads like a lawyer's non-answer. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Your claim about alternate names is bogus; they were discussed both on Wikidata and in the RfC which found consensus to deprecate and remove persondata. If you dispute the accuracy of my statement, it is open to you to attempt to disprove it, by showing a method, acceptable to the Wikidata community, by which further data from persondata templates can be transferred, with confidence as to its accuracy, to Wikidata. Please do so, or admit that you cannot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I think that you two are focused on different aspects. Andy is talking about "all the data that can reliably be ported automatically"; Dirtlawyer cares about "all the data", full stop. I tend to agree with Dirtlawyer's suspicion that blanking the remaining data will, for all practical purposes, mean losing the remaining data. However, could we not blank the pieces that we know have been ported reliably, and keep the rest—perhaps with an in-article note that says not to restore what's been ported? Then we could at least clean up some and see the scope of the remaining problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: To be clear, WAID, 100% is an unattainable standard, and I understand that perfectly. My primary concern, as I and other have noted above, is that most alternate names have never been transferred, and Andy and others are apparently aware of this fact. I have manually transferred the Persondata from over 1,000 Wikipedia articles since June 2015; well over half required the transfer of alternate names -- i.e., birth names, maiden names, married names, nicknames, etc. -- that were not transferred by bot action. As a result, I quite reasonably question the accuracy of the statement "all the data that can reliably be ported automatically" has been; in fact, I would say that it's pretty serious misrepresentation of reality. If that is the best "that can reliably be ported automatically, then we need to find better solutions. Please note I support GoingBatty's modified RFBA proposal to remove Persondata templates that are empty except for the primary name field. No one is questioning that Wikidata is the better long-term solution, or the deprecation of Persondata; I am seriously questioning whether we have made a best-efforts attempt to transfer all elements of usable Persondata, and alternate names in particular. My first-hand review suggests we have not, representations to the contrary notwithstanding. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Once again, you "question the accuracy of the statement 'all the data that can reliably be ported automatically' has been", with no evidence to support your claim; one again, I challenge you to show a method, acceptable to the Wikidata community, by which such data can be automatically transferred, with confidence as to its accuracy, to Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Two sets of questions:

  1. When do those arguing that data should be maintained, pending manual checking, expect to complete that task? On what calculations are those estimates based? Why can such manual checking not be done using old versions of articles?
  2. How do those arguing for further automated transfer plan to carry out such transfer? And is this agreeable to the Wikidata community?

If sensible and workable answers are provided, I'll strike my request; if none are, the "oppose" !votes should be struck. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

If the answer to #1 were 2200, would it matter? Persondata templates do not change the rendering of an article whatsoever. They're not so costly to keep for now as to cause any real issues. A more workable proposal, and one I'm working on fine tuning, is to remove those instances of Persondata where we can reasonably assume everything has transferred to help those doing manual conversion focus on what actually needs doing. For instance, any transclusion of persondata that only has a name can obviously go, and I'm having some discussions on user talk pages about other combinations that could be removed with no data loss. That is a reasonable compromise route that you may wish to consider. ~ RobTalk 21:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it would matter (and it would likely be an underestimate of the time required). We already have an RfC which found consensus to remove persondata. This is a discussion about using a bot to do so, not about re-running the original RfC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
There was consensus to remove after the useful stuff was moved to WikiData, as far as I can see. A few editors close to the template who have been trying to carry out the consensus to transfer stuff over have stated this isn't complete, and I see no evidence that it is. All persondata should be removed eventually, yes. When depends on how long the transfer takes. ~ RobTalk 22:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
No. The closer stated Consensus is to deprecate and remove. No qualifiers; no waiting period. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol wait.svg BRFA filed based on my prior suggestion, which is intended to be a compromise to respect both sides of this issue. GoingBatty (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • With respect, @Dirtlawyer1:, I will not change my vote. If nobody has found the need to save what data is not already at Wikidata in the last few months, I see no reason to expect it to happen in the next few months. The consensus of the May RFC should not be set aside because doing nothing is more convenient. The community already spoke, and I do not see value into essentially turning this into a rehash of that RFC. Resolute 23:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
    • @Resolute: You know me from previous discussions where we have been on the same side of the fence, and occasionally on opposite sides, as reasonable, intelligent people sometimes are. One thing you should know about me by now: I don't bulls@#$. With regard to the original RfC: (1) it did not specify how Persondata was to be removed, and bot deletions require additional approvals; and (2) the original RfC -- how shall I put this delicately? -- misrepresented the status of some usable Persondata, alternate names, in particular: based on my personal review and manual transfer of Persondata from over 1,000 articles to Wikidata, very few birth names, maiden names, married names, etc., were transferred by bot action. You're welcome to review my contributions to Wikidata since May 2015: [6]. I would say that the misrepresentation(s) regarding the "porting" of all usable information should come pretty close to voiding what validity the underlying RfC had/has, but that still does not address the question of bot action required for immediate removal. Mindlessly deleting all Persondata -- including alternate names, most of which have not been transferred -- is just that: mindless. There are multiple solutions here, all of which would be better outcomes for Wikipedia and Wikidata, than the immediate deletion of all Persondata. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Your claim that "the original RfC... misrepresented the status of some usable Persondata" is fatuous, and made, as usual, without evidence. The removal of Persondata templates would not me "mindless"; it has been well-considered. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Sorry Dirtlawyer. I wasn't intending to target a general response to you personally. Also in general, when push comes to shove, I put very little stock into the needs of machines. So while I respect the work you are doing to aid WikiData, I find it preferable to dump the entire mess entirely since I do not believe it adds much value to the project. Resolute 15:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: Templates with no unique information are deleted. If there is potentially usable info then comment out the template. The comment may include a link for why it is commented out. That link would say the template is deprecated, include instructions for submitting any reliable useful info to wikidata, and say to delete the comment&template when done. Alsee (talk) 02:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
    • @Alsee: This comment actually functions as something that's commented out. It doesn't change the rendering of the page whatsoever and exists only to store metadata that is easily readable by machines; something WikiData was designed to take over. That's why we're interested in conversion to there. ~ RobTalk 21:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
      • The factlets in persondata which have not already been transferred are not "easily readable by machines", that's why they were not transferred, and why consensus to deprecate and remove them was reached. Yet again I suggest reading the RfC discussion, and the Wikidata discussion to which it linked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose As one who has worked with the migration of Persondata to Wikidata, I want to see Persondata disappear, the data within it is just not reliable. For birth/death dates and places, there are more reliable templates to use as a source.
Up until now, I have ignored the alternative name parameter as personally I found it too random to be of any use. However, @Dirtlawyer1: has convinced me that there is data that would be lost. My suggestion of a way forward would be be to remove persondata. If there is an alternative name, create a {{aka}} template. Make this visible at the top of the article and the community would correct the dodgy ones. Periglio (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: I was pinged, and now don't know where to add. I have personally replaced Persondata by infoboxes, much more useful because visible. {{Infobox person}} can hold alternate names easily. I imagine that a bot could check, when removing Persondata, if all information is already in an infobox, if not transfer it there, and if none exists, propose one on the talk page, again to keep the data somewhere visible. (It's not the first time I suggest this. I try to avoid mentioning infoboxes because some don't like them but can't stop thinking that they are useful.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Wikidata covers what is needed, I always wondered why we ever used persondata, it seemed clunky to add invisible content when the same could - and should - be included in visible data in every article. Seems the decision has been made that it's duplicative, so let's get the ball rolling. Montanabw(talk) 21:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Multiphase removal

As I botop, I have a suggestion. It's clear consensus supports removal, at some point, but nobody can seem to agree when that removal should happen. So let's take it at chunks at a time. Here are the phases:

  1. Remove all blank templates...
  2. Decide on parameters of the persondata template that can be ignored and make another passtrhu with the bot.
  3. Repeat 2 until templates with useful information are left.
  4. Decide on suitable replacements for the remaining parameters of remaining templates.
  5. Implement suggestion with a bot
  6. Make a final deletion passthru with the bot
  7. Have champagne and beer to celebrate.

How does that sound?—cyberpowerChat:Offline 09:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I should point out that number 1 is already being worked on.—cyberpowerChat:Offline 09:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I've never seen a blank persondata template in an article; do you have examples? What do you mean by "suitable replacements for the remaining parameters"? And can you relate this proposal to the parallel discussion on Dirtlawyer1's talk page, where a different approach is being proposed? How do you propose to mitigate the apparent "error/conflict rate of 10+%" disclosed there? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
In which case, Andy, that step should be quick and painless.
Cyberpower, what do you think about changing the "final deletion passthru" to a "copy it to the talk page and remove from the article passthru"? That increases the odds that someone would look into it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
No objections
The BRFA is approved and there are edits that prove the template. Just go there. Each parameter it seems describes an attribute about the person that can be moved to a category, infobox, or whatever. That's what I mean. I'm not proposing anything, I'm suggestion a method of discussion that involves the creation of multiple proposals and them being acted on accordingly, where the final end result is the complete removal of persondata. I'm suggesting a method that might work.—cyberpowerChat:Online 21:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
You wrote above "I have a suggestion", so you definitely are proposing something. Much of the data is not fit for moving to a category or infobox, as discussed in the aforesaid RfC and on Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Which step? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
The one in which the non-existent (according to you) templates are removed. If none exist, then performing that step should be quick, easy, and painless. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
You must be thinking of someone else. I have made no assertion that any templates are "non existent". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Right, you only say that you, who have seen thousands and thousands of persondata entries, have never seen such a thing. I admit that is somewhat different from positively asserting that none exist, but still: if you can look at many thousands without ever finding such an example, then removing the few that exist—if they exist—is still likely to be quick, easy and painless. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
@C678: My proposal is to delete Persondata only if all of its values are found elsewhere in the article. For example:
  • Persondata |ALTERNATIVE NAMES= = Infobox |birth_name=
  • Persondata |ALTERNATIVE NAMES= = Infobox |other_names=
  • Persondata |NAME= = Persondata |ALTERNATIVE NAMES=
  • Persondata |SHORT DESCRIPTION= = Category
  • Persondata |DATE OF BIRTH= and/or |DATE OF DEATH= = birth date and/or death date from lead
  • Persondata |DATE OF BIRTH= = Infobox |birth_date=
  • Persondata |DATE OF BIRTH= = Category:#### births
  • Persondata |PLACE OF BIRTH= = Infobox |birth_place=
  • Persondata |PLACE OF BIRTH= = Category:People from xxx
  • Persondata |DATE OF DEATH= = Infobox |death_date=
  • Persondata |DATE OF BIRTH= = Category:#### deaths
  • Persondata |PLACE OF DEATH= = Infobox |death_place=
I created a custom module at User:BattyBot/Persondata and submitted a bot request for this, but the bot request was only approved to remove those templates that only have |NAME= populated. Any suggestions for careful removal of Persondata templates that doesn't prohibit the copying of data to Wikidata would be appreciated. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the presence of any category is a valid substitute for short description. Similarly, we'd have to be somewhat careful with alternative names; the mere presence of an other_names parameter doesn't guarantee every alternative name is listed there. We would need to be careful that we're starting with edits that have zero data loss and going from there. This will help all parties, for the record; we have to start the deletion somewhere, and it might as well be here. It also gives those doing manual transfer an easier time by removing instances where no information is lost and giving them more time to work on the transfer. I'm not suggesting holding up the deletion, just that we might as well start with the deletion that no-one objects to before moving to the deletion that has substantial resistance, even if it's not a consensus not to delete. There's no point in trucking through the editors interested in manual transfer immediately when it will accomplish the overall task no faster. ~ RobTalk 04:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: Sorry I wasn't clear. When looking at categories, I meant matches such as Persondata |SHORT DESCRIPTION=American actor = Category:American actors. I also meant exact matches where the entire Persondata |ALTERNATIVE NAMES= value is in the Infobox |birth_name= or |other_names=. Please see User:BattyBot/Persondata for the details of the rules - any suggestions would be appreciated. GoingBatty (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not discussing a proposal to remove something and how to remove it. I'm discussing a proposal on a possible system of discussions so we can systematically remove them where almost everyone can agree with the outcome.—cyberpowerChat:Offline 06:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
@C678: Sorry for misunderstanding. I appreciate your efforts in proposing this path forward. GoingBatty (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: BattyBot just edited 34 articles that had a blank {{Persondata}} template (e.g. [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]). GoingBatty (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: BattyBot also has edited articles that had a full {{Persondata}} template with no values (e.g. [12], [13]). GoingBatty (talk) 05:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
@C678: Another proposal would be to remove the entire {{Persondata}} template from pages in the Draft namespace. Since they are not articles, I'm guessing they wouldn't be candidates for copying to Wikidata. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 05:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
@GoingBatty and C678: What's the policy/process for Wikidata creation for new articles? Presumably, for newly created articles there is standard process -- automated? -- to create new Wikidata profiles. Can someone who is knowledgeable about this process describe it for our benefit? If this process exists, then there is no reason why articles in draftspace should have Persondata templates. That said, I can't imagine that we're talking about more than a few dozen to a couple hundred affected articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
There is no reason for any article, much less one in draft space, to have a Persondata template. The template is been deprecated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: I'm not aware of automated process for Wikidata creation based on new Wikipedia articles. I'm also not aware of any policy that mandates that new article creators on Wikipedia also must manually create Wikidata. I would agree that the number of Draft articles with Persondata is a small number. GoingBatty (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
@GoingBatty: So, there is no established process for the creation of Wikidata profiles for newly created articles? That's a rather serious omission, don't you think? That said, I also recognize that it's beyond the scope of our present discussion. As for the Persondata templates in draftspace, it would seem that some form of notice should be provided to the draftspace article creators that Personadata has been deprecated, so that no further effort is expended. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: Just stumbled across Category:Wikidata tracking categories, which may interest you. GoingBatty (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
See that would be something that could be discussed in phase 2.—cyberpowerChat:Offline 06:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
@GoingBatty: Okay. What's the official count on Phase I? Has BattyBot run its full cycle? I just checked, and it appears to have removed the Persondata templates from something like 1,700 articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: I got all the low hanging fruit first, and now it's going through the first million transclusions of Persondata. However, I'm not anticipating a significant number of additional removals. GoingBatty (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: Yes check.svg Done - I estimate less than 2,000 944 removals. Only 1.2 million to go. GoingBatty (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: I understand what you're trying to do with your phase II proposal above. It is predicated on the idea of data preservation, i.e., does the same data exist somewhere in the existing article. My concern is data transfer, i.e. the transfer of Persondata information to Wikidata. So here's my fundamental question for you: why aren't we comparing Persondata to Wikidata? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: Yes - data preservation (by eliminating redundant data first) so that others more technical than I am can continue their efforts of data comparison and data transfer. My proposal also assumes that those who have the technical skills to do data transfer from Persondata to Wikidata could also do data copying from infoboxes and categories to Wikidata. GoingBatty (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
"so that others... can continue their efforts of data comparison and data transfer" - I'm not clear what part of this you're having trouble with: but to clarify, again: Those people have already migrated all the data which it is possible and sensible to automatically migrate. They then discussed the results on both Wikidata and Wikipedia, including the errors fund and the unreliability of parts of it, and as a result it was agreed at both projects - in the case of this Wikipedia, via an RfC - that what could be done had been done, and that no more should be done, and that the Persondata template is deprecated and should be removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Andy, once again, you've overstated your case, and that's why we're having this discussion now. You have repeatedly cited the May 2015 RfC as the basis for the deprecation and immediate removal of Persondata by the use of bots. In case you have forgotten, when asked for clarification on his user talk page, here's what the May 2015 RfC closing administrator had to say:
Andy, ping me off-wiki. You are in danger of WP:NCR. Seriously, calm down, it can be done slowly and methodically, and let people come to terms with it over a period of time. Seriously, just chill a bit and you'll win the battle for hearts and minds. Nobody doubts your commitment or passion, but you have a positive genius for rubbing people up the wrong way! Guy (Help!) 21:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC) [14].
That's what the RfC closing administrator had to say, in addition to offering you some excellent personal advice. Do you really want me to post the RfC closing administrator's clarification under every comment where you claim the RfC as authority for the immediate bot removal of all Persondata information? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: You're at one extreme, and Dirtlawyer1 is the other extreme - I'm just trying to find the middle ground. Dirtlawyer1 is very interested in data transfer to Wikidata, and is doing so manually. Maybe Dirtlawyer1 will find someone to migrate more data programmatically, and maybe he won't. I've done a little data transfer from Persondata to other areas of the Wikipedia article (e.g. infoboxes and categories) - maybe there's opportunity for moving more programmatically and maybe there isn't. Agreeing on any set of Persondata to programmatically remove gets us closer to your goal of removing all of it. GoingBatty (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe it's "extreme" to remind people of the outcome of a well attended, and convincingly decisive, RfC. And thank you, but we don't need to find the "middle ground" between that consensus and one extreme. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Andy, here's what the May 2015 RfC closing administrator had to say:
Andy, ping me off-wiki. You are in danger of WP:NCR. Seriously, calm down, it can be done slowly and methodically, and let people come to terms with it over a period of time. Seriously, just chill a bit and you'll win the battle for hearts and minds. Nobody doubts your commitment or passion, but you have a positive genius for rubbing people up the wrong way! Guy (Help!) 21:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC) [15].
Do we really need to quote it every time when you cite "the outcome of a well attended, and convincingly decisive, RfC"? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
You've had a "period of time". May was four months ago. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: "Extreme" was a poor word choice - I apologize. Unfortunately, repeating the RfC outcome doesn't seem to be helping. @Dirtlawyer1: No, you don't need to post the wall of bold text again - we got it. I fear that we're not going to make any significant steps forward until the two of you can come to some agreement. GoingBatty (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
It looks more like we need to wait until Dirtlawyer1 finds an agreement with the rest of us users who support removal of persondata. If a bot removes persondata, editors watching articles will notice on their watchlists when that happens. If they care they will check what has been removed and - if needed - place it at an appropriate place in the article. I trust us editors and am not afraid of a loss of data. Keep simple. (I also made a suggestion in the section above how keeping data could be done by the bot, which I don't want to repeat again.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I've not really been following the details, but this remark does not seem very sensible to me. Much more likely is that most editors will simply trust that the bot, which would have been given approval for this action, would know that every relevant piece of information had already been migrated. It doesn't seem like a good idea to have editors managing the fallout. Granted, those that are "in the know" will probably check up on the bot, but the majority of us will just ignore it. Also, I question the logic of doing this at all by an automated process if a massive decentralized volunteer effort is going to be needed to clean up afterwards. It seems simpler to me to have volunteers migrate the data in the first place. As I understand it, that's how things are currently being handled. Sławomir
10:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Colsure request

I've de-archived the above; could somebody uinvolved close it, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose immediate closure - I strongly oppose the request for an immediate closure of this RfC: this discussion is NOT RIPE FOR CLOSURE. Previous discussions of Persondata have significantly misrepresented the status of accurate and usable information from Persondata, as well as the extent of previous bot efforts to transfer information from Persondata to Wikidata. I am happy to review my own empirical review and comparison of over 1500 Persondata templates to their corresponding Wikidata profiles. This is one of sloppiest technical processes that I have witnessed in my six and a half years of editing the English language Wikipedia. We need an orderly process to continue to discern what remains that is usable, and transfer accurate information from Persondata to Wikidata, not simply delete all of it by mindless bot action without review. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Of course you do; having this drawn out serves your bizarre objection to enacting the existing RfC conclusion; which RfC was "an orderly process to discern what remains that is usable". Nonetheless this discussion is so over that it was already archived. If there is consensus for your PoV, why would you object to having that noted in a closing statement? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Motion: AUSC Extension

The Arbitration Committee is currently examining several reforms of the Audit Subcommittee and asks for community input on how they would like to see the Subcommittee function in the future. Because of this, the current Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) members' terms are hereby extended to 23:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC).

Supporting: AGK, Doug Weller, GorillaWarfare, Guerillero, LFaraone, NativeForeigner, Salvio giuliano, Thryduulf, Yunshui
Opposing: Courcelles

For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this and the future of the AUSC at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: AUSC Extension

We Have Created a Timeline for Every English language Wikipedia Article.

To: WhatamIdoing, Mdennis (WMF), Jimbo Wales, iridescent, User:Coren

We have accomplished the task of creating a visual, scrolling timeline of every Wikipedia article. Of course, not every article is historical in nature. Of the 5,000,000 English Wikipedia articles, our estimates are that around 250,000 could use a decent visual, contemporaneous presentation. That is a lot of timelines. We believe it would be one of the most exciting things to happen to history, on the internet, in a long time.

We have put a (mind blowing) demo together at:

In regards to potentially placing timelines on select Wikipedia articles. It would be just 1 small SCRIPT tag and 1 small DIV tag, per Wikipedia article.

It is surprisingly simple to do now.

All I am asking for is a Wikipedia server to install this on. Wikipedia would, of course, have complete authentication authority over this server. This will take less than one day to do.


I could give authentication authority over my "Amazon Web Services" server and Wikipedia would give me permission to use it (I will even pay for it).

Then we can test it on 1 article and see what happens.

We cannot believe how well this turned out. We can't stop timelining Wikipedia articles, it is so compelling and fun.

I forgot to mention. This whole thing is NEW. Nobody has ever seen this as of today (making timelines out of Wikipedia articles). We have only shown this technology to like 3 other people.

Thanks Jeff Roehl

Jroehl (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Have you considered making this tool work using dumps of the Wikipedia database or other "local copy" of Wikipedia? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
To davidwr
I am not sure what you mean by: "dumps of the Wikipedia database"
Can you be more specific?
Jeff Roehl
Jroehl (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Database download. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

David = davidwr,

Yes, I would like to get the data from wherever Wikipedia is getting it. If we could get this to run on the same rackspace as the core of Wikipedia. That would be super-fast. And it would be very inexpensive, not taking any TCP/IP resources. Could I get the data in HTML? I am not sure if you guys take your Wiki language and immediately parse out the HTML on an article edit/save. My widget is pretty straight forward. It is aware of what page it is on. So if we placed the widget on:

And the widget was on a LAN at Wikipedia, this could be translated as:


Or what ever it is there and serve it out to the user. The key to me is to parse out the current version of the article. So the timeline will exactly match the article every single time. All I need to do is pull the article (locally) and pull the paragraphs out of the article. If I can pull the article in milliseconds, it would be super fast. The slowest part would be serving up the javascript to the widget on the users page. So all I would need is a big outbound pipe.

And I really don't need a lot of diskspace. My biggest worry, in processing millions of timelines a day is deletion of temporary files and releasing that diskspace back to the operating system. Each request for a timeline will produce 5 or so temporary files (SQL output). But those will be deleted within milliseconds after processing. We just have to make sure they are getting deleted. I can set the location of the temporary file location, so we can monitor this.

I may be able to write the system to work with no disk writes (convert all the tables to memory arrays), but that would be a LOT of work. That would be a multi week thing, for sure. So we should leave it the way it is now and see if it ramps up well.

Just my professional assessment, your experience may be different.

Thanks Jeff Roehl Jroehl (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

David = davidwr,

One more thing. Of course we don't want a timeline loading up on a historical Wikipedia article, every time it is accessed. What we really like is the "collapseButton" span tags, usually at the bottom of substantial articles. They are very classy. All we would have to do is add a "collapseButton" to the Queen Victoria page and put my SCRIPT tag and DIV tag in there. So when you opened up the "collapseButton" the widget JavaScript would be fired off and populate this area with the timeline HTML and JavaScript.

And if we could get my brilliant to fire at that point it would be all "no worries" after that.

Of course, the problem with this is the "collapseButton" controls are way at the bottom of the Wikipedia pages. I mean WAY down at the bottom. Below the Citations. And that is not good for "our team". Then again, timelines in Wikipedia may be so compelling that everybody might know where they are, by word of mouth, within a short time.

Thanks Jeff Roehl Jroehl (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I tried it on Timeline of women's basketball for which it would seem to be uniquely well-suited. It was a bust. Did I do something wrong?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
No S Philbrick you did nothing wrong. As of this writing, for the sake of speed and narrative content, we are only placing data on the timeline that is part of a paragraph in any Wikipedia article. That is any content that inside paragraph tags. We will eventually have to write a separate parser for "Wikipedia timelines". One issue is there is no standard format for Wikipedia timeline lists, so it is a trick to parse them. We will be happy to do this, even to the point of writing a program to re-write all Wikipedia timelines into one standard format. Try which has some paragraph tags with content.
Jeff Roehl Jroehl (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I also recall seeing this a few weeks ago despite the claim that it's new today. I didn't save the link to the discussion and can't seem to find it easily at the moment. Found it Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_126#I_would_like_to_put_a_timeline_on_a_wikipedia_page I know there was discussion about getting the Foundation involved so I'd like to hear what is happening on that front.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes S Philbrick not much has happened. Rome wasn't built in a day. All we are requesting is 1 computer to display 1 timeline on 1 Wikipedia article. And then we might see where this goes. We have a 6 month period of time chunked out right now where we can focus on this. From 15 October 2015 to 15 March 2015, possibly 8 hours a day or 1000 hours (if not total hours of work, but our undivided attention and full measure of our devotion). I can't guarantee resources like this will be available after that. I think timelines would be much better understood if we could place a timeline on 10 Wikipedia pages. Then we could debate this content and then possibly take a consensus vote on inclusion. Some articles make better timelines than others and consensus would dictate inclusion in any article.

All we need is 1 server that "The Foundation" has administrative privileges/authentication on, whether that is a server we pay for or not. That is not a very big first step.

We are also going to write a grant application for this and related endeavors (also within the scope of the 1000 hours mentioned above). Any help with this would also be greatly appreciated. So anybody who knows of any organizations issuing grants for "Comparative History" or history in general, give us a heads up on that.

Thanks Jeff Roehl Jroehl (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Who would make the decision to put 1 timeline on 1 article in Wikipedia?

Thanks Jeff Roehl (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, lets go back a step.

Who would make a decision to allow me to install and configure a Wikipedia server with my timelining widget software backend?

Jroehl (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It … doesn't work like that. I'd recommend installing a copy of your software on your own server and using the API to retrieve content on which to render a timeline. If that works well, your next step would presumably be to rewrite your software as a MediaWiki extension (and make it free and open-source if it isn't already), and then campaign for it to be added to Wikipedia proper. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 17:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou Nihiltres. I will have my guys look into this. Doing something like this, you never know until somebody tells you how things work. Jroehl (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

And we took the demonstration site down for now. Jroehl (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

OOUI for deletion confirmation

Recently, the move form has been switched to OOUI. The upload wizard will switch to OOUI next week. The deletion confirmation form (for administrators) should also be switched to OOUI. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@GeoffreyT2000: I've created T113758 for this; thanks for the reminder. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
@Jdforrester (WMF): What necessitates OOUI? Any form? Any form with multiple end states? I'm thinking special:log and special:Contributions off the cuff, though special:preferences has a button here or there. Special:MIMESearch too? Maybe someone should scrub the Special:Specialpages. There didn't seem to be a task for all of those. --Izno (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
@Izno: The plan is to eventually replace every UI interface component with OOUI, and delete e.g. jQuery.UI and other deprecated systems. T100161 is the overall ticket for converting all of MediaWiki. T107037 is for all special pages, but there aren't yet sub-tickets for Log, Contributions or indeed most of them. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 11:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Would this discussion be better suited for WP:VPT. Your magical incantations don't really make much sense to us Muggles, and you're likely to get better participation from more knowledgeable people over there. --Jayron32 17:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
@Jayron32: VPT isn't the right venue either for asking for participation for writing code; input is welcome in the form of git patches, which go on gerrit:. :-) Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 11:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok. I'll bite. What the heck is an OOUI? And that gerritt thing; is that in the same family as a ferret? GenQuest "Talk to Me" 11:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
OOUI. "Gerrit" is the given name of Gerrit Rietveld. -- (talk) 08:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me what the benefit of "OOUI" is? I've read the article linked above, but I fail to see how the new move form is more "object-oriented" than the old one. Jenks24 (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

OOUI when in the context of MediaWiki refers to OOjs UI (demo). This is a modern widget toolkit written with the goals of MediaWiki and Wikipedia in mind. It can be generated in both PHP and Javascript, is accessible, consistent, skinnable, mobile optimized etc. It also allows for easy creation of MediaWiki specific widgets such as an input field for Article titles with autocompletion. It's first user was Visual Editor and the long term plan is that this will be used for all controls at some point. The idea is that not every developer has to reinvent the wheel. You use what is in OOUI already, or you build something new on the foundations that this platform provides you, but you don't start from scratch. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 15:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. So basically it makes things easier for devs? And also it would be nice for things to be consistent? Both of these seem like good things so that's fine. But the change to the move interface has made my work here more difficult. I've now had to file two bugs about it and even once they are both fixed, the old interface will still have been quicker for me (and most others, I assume) to use. Is there any guarantee a change to the deletion interface won't have the same problems? Or am I understating how useful this is on the backend and these minor hassles for editors are worth it? (I realise you, TheDJ, might not necessarily have answers to these questions, they're more general for anyone with knowledge on the subject.) Jenks24 (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Let's put it like this: I'm sure you love your house full of unique, handcrafted, slightly imperfect yet beautiful, efficient and very expensive furniture, but IKEA has a lot of benefits to it. Currently a lot of community requests are about making things more 'interactive', 'smarter', 'n00b proof' etc. But without changing some fundamentals, many of those requests are actually difficult and expensive to implement consistently in multiple areas of the wiki, for multiple target audiences and multiple target devices (and not breaking on browsers without Javascript). OOjs UI will create new handles for both community and developers to provide some of those changes. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 17:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Prefix suggestion: TP: for Template:

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no consensus for this proposal. The arguments on both sides are good, but the arguments are pretty evenly split. AlbinoFerret 20:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

My idea is so that we could make search "fstr". We already have WP: for Wikipedia:, so let us have that prefix. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose For the reasons in WP:PEREN#Create shortcut namespace aliases for various namespaces. In particular, the Template namespace is generally not linked often enough that saving the typing of 6 characters is likely to be at all worthwhile and there's nothing available to use for the corresponding talk pages. Anomie 13:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "TL:" would be a much better suggestion for this, as templates can already be linked to with the {{tl}} template. --IJBall (contribstalk) 15:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
    Won't work, because "tl:" is the interwiki prefix for the Tagalog Wikipedia. "tp:" is currently not an existing interwiki prefix (and an unassigned ISO 639-1 code). SiBr4 (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • support Definitely useful, as a guy who pulls up templates more that articles.—cyberpowerChat:Online 20:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as TP:. But what about the template talk namespace? TT: is the Tatar language, so TPT? Eman235/talk 22:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
    "tpt" is Tlachichilco Tepehua in ISO 639-3. Anomie 22:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Question: Why not just use {{tl}}? Seems to me a Template talk shortcut would be more useful. — (talk) 04:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
    The idea is to be able to write TP: (case insensitive) in the search box to save typing six characters. But if an alias is made then some editors will also write it in saved links. TP sounds like talk page so it may confuse some users. Assuming TP is only defined for the English Wikipedia or Wikimedia wikis in English, it may also confuse people who expect it to work at other wikis. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
    That can easily be addressed by creating a T prefix for Talk: TP for Template: and TT: for Template talk:—cyberpowerChat:Online 14:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
    That would require either changing the existing tt: prefix or making all namespace and interwiki prefixes case-sensitive (both of which would break a lot of links globally), as well as deleting/renaming all pages starting with T:, which include some often-used shortcuts to template pages. Hardly easy. SiBr4 (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, for ease of finding templates. bd2412 T 13:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for search box usability. — (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Since {{tl}} and similar templates can be used for linking to templates in discussions, a shortcut like this would only really be useful in the search box (and maybe edit summaries). I just recalled Kipod having written a user script that gives Template: namespace search results in the search dropdown for queries starting with "{{" about a year ago (discussion), and wrote this simple JS script to expand "TP:" as well as "{{" into "Template:" in the search box. That allows the functionality of the proposed namespace alias, without it needing to actually be created (and changed in case of a conflicting future namespace/interwiki prefix). SiBr4 (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as a pretty useful suggestion. APerson (talk!) 02:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose People have to refer to Wikipedia a lot, and "WP" is a useful contraction that is widely used and recognizable. The same is not true regarding Template/TP. People fiddling with templates would quickly learn to use TP if they wanted, but TP would be pointless jargon for many people encountering the term. If the only reason for wanting TP is to enter the namespace in search, another method is needed. For example, use the "Remember selection for future searches" after selecting Template in the list of namespaces at the Advanced search. Johnuniq (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I honestly don't see much point to this as no one ever uses templates as they do Wikipedia pages, Plus I (and I assume others) are used to searching "Template:" anyway. –Davey2010Talk 01:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Anomie. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 02:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A useful, time-saving suggestion. Azealia911 talk 12:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose As many other commenters have said this will be a pain to implement without breaking lots of things if it can be done at all. There is little benefit to the change, when we are discussing templated we use {{tl}} not <nowiki>TEMPLATE:FOO</nowiki> and saving the 1 second it takes to type TEMPLATE rather than TP is just not worth it for the search box. JbhTalk 13:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Delete talk page and/or subpages when moving

When an administrator moves a page, an existing talk page under the new title should be deleted if the "Move associated talk page" box is checked. Also, existing subpages of the new title should be deleted if the "Move subpages" box is checked, and if the "Move associated talk page" box is checked, also subpages of the talk page. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Not quite [edit: "Not quite agreeing with everything"], but if the "Delete this page" is marked for the article, it should delete the old talk page and move the new one. I'm often opposed to this kind of thing [edit: "I'm often opposed to proposals of this sort, because they enable foolish or uninformed editors to do stupid things"], but here the admin can always just delete the talk page and do the move manually: your proposal wouldn't do much to retard the foolish admin, but it would make it a lot simpler for ordinary moves. I am, however, opposed to deleting subpages: unlike main talk pages, talk page subpages are very easy to overlook, very easy to miss by accident, because if nothing else they don't cause tabs to change from red to blue. I don't want to run the risk of trashing subpages that I never knew about, especially because the pages to be deleted are pages that I might never have seen or edited. Nyttend (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Completely agreed with Nyttend. A tick box to also 'delete and move' for the talk page would be handy, but having it for subpages is a recipe for disaster, especially in cases where a page and its subpages have been moved back and forth – you'd end up with cases where the actual content is deleted to move a redirect over the top of it. Jenks24 (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I've interpolated a couple of things just now, so Jenks' comments don't necessarily apply to them. Nyttend (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Rather than enabling automatic deletion, I think it would be better if the UI could provide an alert that sub-pages exist and that the person moving should assess what should be done with them. olderwiser 12:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good idea. Both currently and under this proposal, the only effect of having subpages is the extra check box to "Move subpages (up to 100), if applicable". It would be quite helpful if we had an automated notice saying that subpages exist. Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Direct links to Commons edit page

When you attempt to create a description page here for an image that's on Commons, you're presented with the message from MediaWiki:Sharedupload-desc-create, basically a little warning of "This image is on Commons, so please don't create this page", and a link to the Commons URL is provided. See [16] for an example of this message in use. I went to WP:HD asking how to change the URL. Right now, when you go to File:Armed Klansman in southeastern Ohio, 1987.jpg and try to edit its page, the URL in the message is [17], while I was planning to edit the MediaWiki page so that it instead went to [18], the edit page instead of the description page. PrimeHunter gave me the code, but he also opposed the idea, so I'm not going to make the change without chatting here first.

Proposal Change the URL in the MediaWiki page so that it sends you directly to the screen to edit the Commons description page, rather than sending you to the page itself. My rationale was "it seems reasonable that the typical person editing the page was intending to edit the Commons page, so it will save a step by sending them directly to the edit page instead of making them detour through the description page." PrimeHunter opposed with "[the local file] is missing several features on [the Commons description page] such as Commons categories, section edit links, History tab, and links to the uploader and their contributions...I don't like the idea of cross-wiki edit links. I think users should at least view a wiki before trying to edit it. I wouldn't want Commons or other wikis to have direct edit links to us."

So which is it? Should we change the link as I want it, or keep it unchanged, or modify some other way? Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Time to shut down WP:NFCR by merging it into WP:FFD?

I propose that Wikipedia:Non-free content review be shut down as historical while referring editors to use Wikipedia:Files for deletion as an alternative. At the present time, there are 163 open discussions on WP:NFCR with the oldest discussion opened on 10 June 2015 (over three months ago.) The fact of the matter is that WP:FFD can and should be utilized in place of WP:NFCR for multiple reasons:

  1. On WP:NFCR, if a file is deemed to be used that is inappropriate, the file should be deleted (an outcome at WP:FFD). Files on WP:NFCR will be kept for the opposite reasons (also an outcome at WP:FFD.)
  2. Discussions at WP:FFD can question a file's non-free status, and if it is improperly used, it should be deleted.
  3. WP:NFCR does not have daily subpages (and seemingly never has), which causes inability to visualize and work on backlogs. On the other hand, WP:FFD has daily subpages and a backlog notification that accurately appears if there are entries existing more than 7 days old; in addition, the bit management and organization of WP:FFD is a lot more advanced in making it clearer what needs to be closed when.
  4. For someone questioning if a non-free file should remain in Wikipedia (aka, should it be deleted), it is honestly very unclear whether the discussion should go to WP:FFD or WP:NFCR.
  5. The concern regarding if WP:NFCR should still be functional has been discussed previously: see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Non-free content review. The discussion happened back in 2012, and the discussion was closed with the suggestion to go to other pages to develop a consensus on what to do with WP:NFCR. Since that date, there has seemingly not been very minor, if any, updates to WP:NFCR that better distinguishes it from WP:FFD. (Thus, this is why this discussion is happening here.)

Very simply put, if a non-free file is not used per WP:NFCC, the file should be deleted immediately. The purpose of WP:FFD is to determine if a file needs to be deleted. However, there is another point from the the MFD discussion above that needs to be considered during this discussion:

What if the non-free file is used in multiple articles, and the question is if it should be removed from one article and not the other?

For this question, I recommend that WP:FFD be updated to allow an outcome that specifically states that the image "should be kept, but removed from this article". This will benefit closes if these discussions happen on WP:FFD since it could be possible that during the course of the discussion, a non-free file that is on multiple articles but is nominated to be removed from only one article could very well be determined needed to be removed from Wikipedia altogether (which results in the file being deleted.) On a minor distracting note, if this change were to be made to the possible WP:FFD close results, the page may need to be renamed from Wikipedia:Files for deletion to Wikipedia:Files for discussion since the nomination purpose and outcome could then be something other than deletion. (This idea is similar to the fact that WP:RFD is named "Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion" instead of "Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion" since pages are nominated there for reasons other than deletion.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

NFCR is not to be used for case #1: if the only use of a file is up for discussion, that should be at FFD. All other situations are cases of multiple files and/or multiple uses of a file, which may or may not result in deletion. This means that discussions can be closed without administrator intervention (as is require for FFD and AFD). So no, this is not a good proposal, because NFCR handles far too much more than FFD can accommodate. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Or to put it more directly, the distinction between FFD and NFCR is very clear: if you honest believe a specific image should be deleted from WP and just need community consensus for that, FFD is where you go. If you are not sure, or that one is talking about a certain use of an image, then we have the discussion at NFCR. It is the same distinction between AFD (where "D" is specifically for "deletion") and the various "for discussion" boards for other non-deletion options like merges. --MASEM (t) 22:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Or, with my proposal, non-free discussions can happen at WP:FFD. I understand that you are trying to clarify the distinction between the two, but it should not have to be explained in this much detail, nor should an inexperienced editor still be confused after reading the distinction. (Which, I still am, by the way; what is the point of having a possible deletion concern started at one forum, then be forced to move it to another?) Steel1943 (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
If someone does open a NFCR case that should really be at FFD, we do close those and point to FFD. There's a certain rigor and process that the FFC/NFCR dicotamy has come out of based on the same AFD/(general article discussion) issues. It's tied to the perennial proposal of why we don't remain AFD as "Articles for Discussion" - deletion of content is meant as an absolute step, and so AFD avoids having cases where the proposal is not to delete content and encourages that to take place elsewhere. Similar case at FFD compared to NFCR. --MASEM (t) 22:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I have to disagree with this statement in full. For one, I proposed the exact concern stated here be resolved by amending WP:FFD to allow a "keep, but remove from this article" close. Also, I fail to see how this is any different than a non-admin closing a discussion to "keep" at WP:FFD (or any other WP:XFD forum, for that matter) due to a clear consensus that doesn't require a deletion. If a file needs to be removed from one page but not altogether, a non-admin can do that. Steel1943 (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
An admin action is the actual act of deletion. With images, NFCR is not about deleting images, just their uses (with rare cases of immediate CSD-type invalid images). Images may be removed from articles, then, leaving them as orphans which are then tagged with CSD by automated tools and later deleted (if the CSD tag is not removed) by admins later. So a non-admin can safely close a NFCR and take the required action that was developed without having admin tools. There's also much more than just considering keeping an image on a page - a good chunk is evaluating if a non-free could be tagged otherwise, if a non-free needs improved rational, etc. We used to have a noticeboard for the broader issues but that was shut down in favor of NFCR. So it is necessary for the less rigorous discussions that FFD is otherwise not set up for. --MASEM (t) 22:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


Giving a courtesy link to the poll. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Do we have a research template?

Do we have a template like Bulbapedia's MoveResearch? (For articles in general that need research). It would be great if we had one. If we already have something that serves this purpose, tell me here. Hop on Bananas (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "research"? Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. For templates that indicate that more or better sources are needed or the article needs to be expanded or improved see: Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 19:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Idea lab

Article for deletion patrolling

I think there's shouldn't just be a way to patrol proposed deletion as described in Wikipedia:WikiProject Proposed deletion patrolling but also a way to patrol nomination for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Registry Dr. failed to get a lot of attention even after it got added to 2 deletion sorting pages and sometimes people go straight into nominating an article for deletion without proposing its deletion first. Blackbombchu (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

What exactly would patrolling deletion nominations entail, or are you just proposing we encourage more users to vote in AfDs? Sam Walton (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
It would draw more attention to those article deletion discussions that otherwise would have gotten so little attention, some of which didn't draw attention to patrollers because they weren't proposed for deletion first. Blackbombchu (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
So essentially a drive to point out discussions which aren't receiving enough input? There's definitely an interesting idea here, perhaps similar to the way editors are messaged to vote in RfCs, but with a focus on AfDs with low participation? Sam Walton (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea. Maybe something like Suggestbot that puts lists of low participation AFDs on talk pages? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I guess this could work like this; users opt-in to a messaging service (in the same way that Suggestbot or the RfC bot work), and receive some amount of notifications per period of time regarding AfDs which have reached their 4th or 5th day with less than one or two votes. Sam Walton (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I would support a bot that physically moves AfD transclusions (e.g. move some AfD nominations higher up in the log), based on something like Reddit's hot algorithm, but in reverse. Esquivalience t 23:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
An "opt-in notification service" of some kind to solicit input in AFD discussions lacking participation would be fine; @Esquivalience: I would be opposed to a bot moving transclusions up and down a page, unless it was given a separate page of its own or implemented as a "sort function" to allow users to affect only their view of the page. I quite often check discussions (listed by date and time added) that I have commented in or have interest in, or I'll get through a few on the list and come back later; the order plays some role in my memory of them. If the discussions shift positions on occasion, while it's an interesting idea, I think it would have undesirable effects. Whether or not the benefits would outweigh them I'm not sure, but I would definitely have to adjust my methods considerably. I would support a page that lists discussions lacking input in the manner you suggest separate from the current system (perhaps broken down by day as well or simply the last seven days combined).Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think that we ought to scrap AFD entirely, and re-create it as a purpose-built system that actually handles the whole workflow from start to finish.

Imagine an AFD tool that has simple forms to fill out for the nominator, that never sees nominations get "lost" due to transclusion problems, and that automatically counts !votes and tracks how many separate individuals participated. Imagine one that notices when a page is ready for closing (i.e., because it meets our standard criteria, such as having ≥3 participants and being 7 days old, or whatever we decide), and that puts the page into a list or category for action. Imagine one that could sort or filter by any criteria that you care about: the most attention (maybe it's SNOWing?), the least attention, only BLPs, only articles tagged by my favorite WikiProject, etc. Imagine one that can be withdrawn or closed by clicking a few buttons with a built-in script (including direct access to page deletion for admins and maybe a scripted blank-and-redirect button for everyone), rather than having to type special codes into a template and separately processing the page.

Wouldn't that be a lot better than what we have now? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be an improvement. Currently, there are regular complaints about the process being overly complicated. Maybe a gadget or a gadget-bot combination might serve to create such a system. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the process of nominating articles for deletion and having well researched deletion discussion pages can be made better by Wikipedians collaborating in a complex way, and I think the only way that's going to happen is if Wikipedia accepts help from Harvard Catalyst which will do a lot of participating in deletion discussions. Blackbombchu (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • No, WhatamIdoing, it would be a whole lot worse. Perhaps you have forgotten over the years of not particpating on that area that AfC is a discussion not a vote. It should be kept as complicated as possible to deter newbie NAC from experimenting with it. We also already have the fully automatic AfD tool, but that's also embedded in NPP which you told me years ago is a superfluous process.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I believe that you meant that it's supposed to be a consensus-finding process rather a numeric vote, but (a) both admins and NACs are actually closing these as votes, and (b) keeping a tally of the votes doesn't force an admin to delete on that basis.
      My bigger concern is about getting people to nominate suitable articles, and to let interested users know about the nomination. If you still want to close manually, then that's okay with me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I think the problem of some deletion discussions getting so little attention can be solved by having a way to patrol the relisting of deletion discussions. However if that change gets made, Wikipedia should also make another change of having a policy to ban editors for relisting a deletion discussion that's less than a week old so that there won't be greedy people trying to get a certain deletion discussion more than its fair share of attention. In addition to that, for each deletion sorting Wikiproject, there should be another deletion sorting Wikiproject only for relisted deletion discussions for that category. That way, experienced editors can easily decide to only participate in relisted deletion discussions, giving relisted deletion discussions quite a lot of attention by experienced editors. Blackbombchu (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Now I see that a lot of the debates in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs are getting so little attention. That's probably another reason we really need Article for deletion patrolling as well as relisting patrolling for very experienced editors. It might also be a reason we need a separate Wikiproject for deletion sorting of relisted debates as I discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting#Relisting. Blackbombchu (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk page patrol

I think there should also be a creation of a talk page section patrol. I think that might be technically possible after a change gets made in the way talk pages work as described in Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 139#Change the way discussion pages work. Blackbombchu (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Have Afd deletion log appear in first deletion nomination of an article after a second nomination gets made

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witness accounts of the Roswell UFO incident (2nd nomination) shows the full log even though that page didn't appear that way at the time its debate was closed, so I think the same should be done for the first nomination. Blackbombchu (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. DMacks (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The WikiProject for a major topic area seems to be dead

It's been a long time since any post to WT:WikiProject Engineering has received a meaningful reply. Imho there are certain projects that are "too big to fail". For a major topic area such as engineering to not have a functional WikiProject is a serious problem. I think we could convert the main WikiProject Engineering page into a type of "disambiguation" page that lists active projects that cover various sub-topics of engineering - chemical engineering, electrical engineering, etc. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like your the new de facto head of Wikipedia:WikiProject Engineering. Some comments: Just because nobody is using the talk page, doesn't mean that nobody is using the project's main page. You can try changing the main page. That might bring people out of the woodwork. I don't know if I'd change the main page too much though. Maybe adding a header notice using {{mbox}} or something would be sufficient. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I cleaned the front page for sanity's sake. Some weiiiiiiiiiird floats going on there due to the unclosed tables. --Izno (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps people prefer some of the subprojects? Engineering seems quite a wide topic area. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
That's exactly why I think it would be useful to list such "subprojects" on the project's main page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit reqeusts

What would people think about implementing some kind of software that allows users who can't edit a semi-protected article to edit it similar to pending changes, however the edits wouldn't "go live" until any auto-confirmed user accepted the change? This would make semi-protection much less forceful and encourage editing, rather then dealing with the wiki-markup, talk pages, and templates that go along with semi-protected edit requests? I feel like there's some kind of objection to this, or it would have been implemented in the past, so, what are those? Kharkiv07 (T) 01:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kharkiv07: Unless I'm mistaken, do you basically mean pending changes, but where edits can be accepted by an autoconfirmed editor rather than a pending changes reviewer? Sam Walton (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
More or less. Kharkiv07 (T) 14:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I would not be in favor of making these tweaks to semi-protection. We often get articles hit with sustained vandalism (e.g., when a celeb does something stupid) and editors should not have to spend hours hitting revert. --NeilN talk to me 14:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
As Sam Walton said, this would basically be implementing a "pending changes level 0". I don't think this is necessary or even desirable. If there are no beneficial IP/new account edits a page can be semi-protected, and if there are then PC1 can be used. The backlog at Special:PendingChanges is never egregious, so PC0 would not be a workload benefit. Also by not screening the editors who accept the change the system could be gamed. Having yet another type of protection would just mean more bureaucracy and squabbles about what level should be used when. BethNaught (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I generally oppose making anything harder for those who are willing to edit as auto-confirmed users in order to better accommodate those who are not. The way to "encourage editing" is to encourage registration. Semi-protection is only one of the many good reasons to do so. ―Mandruss  14:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Pageview statistics for all articles created by a user

I was thinking about how to personally mark the 5 millionth ENWP milestone, and this idea occurred to me. What have been the most popular articles I've created, by all-time pageviews? It's a sort of long list so I'd rather not gather the data by hand. Is there a tool that can do this? — Brianhe (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Great idea! I'd love it.
I'd also add another state: pageviews since I first edited them. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@NaBUru38, Brianhe: Metronom: Pageviews for articles you created (wmflabs, by Magnus Manske) --Atlasowa (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Either this isn't working or the 'page views history' isn't working on the individual articles. What am I doing wrong? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I think the tool is just really slow, Panyd? You had 47.610 Total views in 2015-08! Since i don't create new articles on enwiki (but redirects that i already forgot about) it works faster for me. --Atlasowa (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Took tens of minutes to run on my account. Apparently after creating a few hundred articles / redirects this kind of check is maybe not a great idea. Only just barely missed hitting 500k views though (495,064 in 2015-08). Dragons flight (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Appears to be bringing up a lot of articles that I didn't make... PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I know I was given credit for articles that I renamed as well as created. Is that what you mean? Dragons flight (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I knew most of the articles I've actually created were way out in the long tail of reader interest, but wow, this is embarrassing! I'd also really like to know who linked to my top-viewed article to make the traffic look like this: who are all these people suddenly interested in flying ice cubes? Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Cause "flying ice cube" sounds like a cool name, I guess.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Not to sound greedy or ungrateful, because thanks for doing this! — but is it possible to request some enhancements? Thoughts off the top of my head:
  • Remove pages moved by me and redirects from results
  • Aggregate results by year not just month
  • Allow lowercase first character in username (I keep forgetting to do this)
Again, thanks! —Brianhe (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

new namespace: Chronicle, for recording events comprehensively

I have an idea for a new namespace to be entitled "Chronicle." It would be a place to note or record all events or items within a particular area. doing so would allow us to create a common space and resource where historical events could be noted and referenced, without requiring us to change the regular historical articles to record new events before their eventual significance is fully understood.

currently, there is no centralized place to create a central narrative of events as they occur.

one major potential of wikipedia is to serve as an ongoing and evolving record of events as they happen. a shared central space for such information would make it much easier for editors to be able to have a central resource to review recent events and to see if they warrant inclusion in various higher-level articles, such as history articles, science articles, technology, etc. --Sm8900 (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Sm8900, do you mean timelines? --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
thanks for your reply. but no, that's not what I meant.rather, I meant exhaustive and inclusive articles which would chronicle and record every occurrence in a particular topic or, for instance, the US CONgress currently addresses a huge number of items which never get reflected here. a Chronicle article on American politics could reflect many items addressed by Congress without, for example, bloating the regular encyclopedic articles on Congress. --Sm8900 (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
To some editors and even some readers an exhaustive Timeline of the United States Congress or Timeline of the United Nations Economic and Social Council article might not seem exhaustingly boring so sure, go ahead if you think it worth doing well. But, why a namespace? To hide it from excessive attention? Jim.henderson (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
hi Jim.henderson. no, not for that reason, but rather because an exhaustive compendium of everything which happens in Congress, the UN, or the Chicago City Council is not necessarily warranted for a regular Wikipedia article. however, it would be a good informational resource which should still be available somewhere at this site.
additionally, it might not just be a chronicle of official proceedings, but could also be a comprehensive record of all historical events and current events of interest. it could include links to existing articles in order to do so.
So a chronicle which collates links to every article here on US current events, or alternately a chronicle which records every political news item in the State of Colorado, or in all major US cities during the year 2015, might not be warranted for a regular article. but it still might be useful in the long term as an informational archive and resource. ---- Sm8900 (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
My gut reaction to this proposal is: no. would allow us to create a common space and resource where historical events could be noted and referenced, without requiring us to change the regular historical articles to record new events before their eventual significance is fully understood That's original research and we can't decide what to include/not include without a thesis for the page. If we have a thesis which explains what qualifies to be included/excluded, then it should be a standard History of X article. We shouldn't be in the busniess of create a central narrative of events as they occur, we have to go based on what Reliable sources report (either as new coverage or as historians writing and drawing the inferences). Reporting on recent events is either the perview of WikiNews or the perview of a article that is written to support a In the News point on the frontpage. Anything else pushes the Recent-isim factor of day in the sun coverage. Hasteur (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
My gut reaction is likewise no. There are some instances where "long list of everything" articles are warranted—List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 1994 and the like—but those are adequately covered in the existing list format. "A comprehensive record of all historical events and current events of interest" would be unworkable (are you aware of how many events take place in even a small city in any given year?) since they would either be unworkably large, or require the invention of arbitrary inclusion criteria. ‑ iridescent 18:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
hm, okay.
  • well, firstly, i only meant to include only those events and items for which reliable sources do exist. in other words, each event would need to have been reported in some other reliable source or citations, just like regular articles. so I agree, no original research should be involved at all for these.
  • as far as your other point, I hear ya. however, the problem is that currently, there is no central article to note current events of notability, no matter how notable they are, unless they are already accepted as being of genuine historical significance. and even then, there is no central place to chronicle them. so an item of medium but genuine significance might never get recorded anywhere here.
  • we could still retain the same standards of notability as would currently govern any encyclopedia article. the difference would be that this would consciously be a place, if you like, for timeline articles on current events of some genuine significance,but which otherwise might not get their own entries until a year or two after they occurred.
so I am willing to modify this idea almost infinitely to retain adherence to our basic notability rules, yet still to provide a different type of article which would provide some degree of a new approach.
I recognize that this may still not allay all your concerns or reservations on this, but does that at least improve the idea somewhat? thanks for all your input here. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you could write a "sample" in userspace of what you think a Chronicle would look like? It doesn't have to be long, or even based on real events, but it might help to make clearer exactly what you are proposing. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
hm, that's a good idea. thanks for your helpful idea on that. I will start working on that. anyone, feel free to keep adding comments if you want. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 13:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS. 23:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTEWORTHY --Sm8900 (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Editor Behavior Analysis

Hi All,

I've been working on visualizing editor behaviour on wikipedia over the past few months. I've put together graphs that visualize editor activity, retention etc. I made a presentation for the research team at the foundation - It also has some of the preliminary results. It has links to the graphs & says how to interpret & play with them. Please let me know if you guys have other metrics or ideas you'd like to see graphed. I'd love to hear what you guys think of the graphs. I have proposed an IEG to continue working on the graphs.

I feel like we've known how this works for years, but nobody wants to confront it - instead, we'll just keep compiling numbers on it to make ourselves feel like we're doing something about it. Samsara 14:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
What is exactly the problem these analyses are the solution to? Arnoutf (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Expert retention is the problem, but the analyses are not the solution. Samsara 15:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


Logo question

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)
2204 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)

About the 2013 meat adulteration scandal


You probably remember the 2013 meat adulteration scandal, revealed in France by Findus lasagnes. The brand had hired a French e-reputable agency to "clean the web" in order to appear as a victim of fraud, among other... on Wikipedia. An attempt that does not go unnoticed ! Mid-2014, I noticed what looks like a "branding polishing" (see here). The case is forgotten, until in a report broadcast on France 5, a consultant in e-reputation explains his methods, while the french page about this ( fr:Fraude à la viande de cheval de 2013 (https : //à_la_viande_de_cheval_de_2013) is cited as an example in the television.

The french Wikipedia community has mobilized and, in response, has restored the relevant page in a version-neutral, highlighting the existence of a highly organized e-reputation network serving large companies. A group that does not respect the new rules on the reporting of paid contributions. Mobilizing Wikipedians made the page about this fraud is now very complete, that is to say almost ready to spend on the home page of Wikipedia in French (our BA label), or it should be visible about 2 million people. Quite a setback for Findus! --Tsaag Valren (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Good for the French Wikipedia! Bon travail! ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Can you tell if brand polishing has happened on English Wikipedia for this topic? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Location maps

Leavesden is located in Hertfordshire
 Leavesden shown within Hertfordshire
Shire county Hertfordshire
Region East
Country England
Sovereign state United Kingdom
Police Hertfordshire
Fire Hertfordshire
Ambulance East of England
EU Parliament East of England
List of places

Coordinates: 51°41′48″N 0°23′57″W / 51.6967°N 0.3991°W / 51.6967; -0.3991

Many articles about places are accompanied by a location map like the one seen at right here, which is generated automagically from this Infobox code:

    {{Infobox UK place
    |country = England
    |latitude= 51.6967
    |longitude= -0.3991
    |official_name= Leavesden
    |shire_county = [[Hertfordshire]]
    |region= East of England}}

The map looks superficially like a normal image, but there is one significant difference: if you click on it, instead of being taken to a page where you can select a larger size of the image, you are taken to a page for the base map (in this case, of Hertfordshire) without the annotation showing the place name (Leavesden). This is kind of useless if the reason why you clicked on it was to see it in a larger size, to help you identify where in Hertfordshire Leavesden is.

Can this be improved? -- (talk) 06:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I think mw:Wikimedia Discovery#Maps has such plans. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Broken English

I often see articles that are written or edited by a user of English as a foreign language, with a feeble grasp on English grammar, spelling, etc. My questions: (1) Isn't it desirable to discourage this sort of thing (or is such an article considered better than no article, and therefore not a problem)? (2) Is there a policy in place to discourage writing in broken English, or at least advising such editors to get help with English before uploading (or does the remedy just consist of hoping a later, English-speaking editor will fix it up)? Sometimes the writing is so garbled I can't extract a meaning to fix up, even when I know the writer's native language. Kotabatubara (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes the poor English part can just be removed. Sometimes fixed relatively easily. If not, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion has categories for articles too bad to be fixed. Rmhermen (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there's a policy that touches on this subject, but see the essay WP:Competence is required (generally endorsed by the community, I believe), which does suggest that editors with a poor understanding of English should be encouraged to edit their native-language 'pedia instead. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
If the English is so bad that it is literally incomprehensible, then there is {{db-g1}}. If it is just a question of a few spelling and grammar mistakes, then you are encouraged to fix or tag it. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 12:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Reimagining WMF grants report

IdeaLab beaker and flask.svg

Last month, we asked for community feedback on a proposal to change the structure of WMF grant programs. Thanks to the 200+ people who participated! A report on what we learned and changed based on this consultation is now available.

Come read about the findings and next steps as WMF’s Community Resources team begins to implement changes based on your feedback. Your questions and comments are welcome on the outcomes discussion page.

Take care, I JethroBT (WMF) 17:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Making it easier to check out current RfC's

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)

Page view statistic frequency

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)

Bot operator approval list?

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

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..

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)

Move userpages without redirect

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)