Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  Policy   Technical   Proposals   Idea lab   Miscellaneous  
The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals pages, or – for assistance – at the help desk, rather than here, if at all appropriate. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.
« Older discussions, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55
Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.


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

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

I don't have any particular opinion on whether they should, but Category:Fictional characters certainly does contain non-humans in its category tree (and therefore Category:People, a supercat of Category:Fictional characters does too). Indeed, Category:Fictional characters by species is a direct subcategory of Category:Fictional characters. So in practice at least they don't apply only to humans. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The real question for me is why Category:People is a supercat of Category:Fictional characters at all. Not all fictional characters are humans and calling any characters, even if human, "people" is a mis-classification in my mind. A "character" is not a person. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have 1,444,805 biographies [1] and 338,912 are recorded as being sport-related [2]. So. Somewhere north of 23.4% - there will be many sports biogs which are not usefully marked as such. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I use Special:Random a lot too and also notice how disproportionate the fraction of sports players on Wikipedia is. My suggestion to editors is to try not to create articles on very minor players and instead have redirects from their names to things like lists of players for the team. Only those players with clearly established notability should have articles. And when interpreting notability, we ought to be more conservative than liberal. If sports players are kind of borderline in terms of notability, err on the side of non-notable. It makes no sense to create "articles" that basically consist of a sentence giving their name, their team, and what years they played. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The problem with that is that the notability guidelines for sportspeople - WP:NSPORT - boils down to "if you've played in one international or professional match, you're notable." Giving rise to a mass of stub articles for not-particularly-significant players of various sports. I guess "Sports Almanac" is not one of those things Wikipedia is not. That's not the call I would have made, but that horse bolted a long time ago. Chuntuk (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree about the futility of locking the barn door after the horse has bolted, but it's possible that the community might choose to tighten up its criteria. WP:WHYN might be a good starting point, since it is the official explanation of why it's not usually appropriate for an encyclopedia to include doomed WP:PERMASTUBs (e.g., articles that consist of one sentence giving the athlete's name, team, and years plus we have no rational basis for believing that they could be expanded beyond that point).
Also, it might be desirable for the notability guidelines to be written by both fans and non-fans of X, regardless of whether X is athletes ("any one international or professional match = notable"), actors ("any two named credits = notable"), professors ("almost anyone who did research that some editors think is important") or anything else. But that's harder to do, since editors who are uninterested in "X" are unlikely to stick with interminable discussions about what makes a notable X. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Replacing a patrolled redirect with an unpatrolled article[edit]

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

I don't know, but it kind of looks like it bypassed new pages patrol, doesn't it? I have turned it back into a redirect, for lack of notability. Gourami Watcher, you have already been pinged here. If you wish to defend your article, please respond. Bishonen | talk 17:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC).
The whole point of the autopatrolled right is to bypass such events. If a review of an editor's contributions indicates that there's a pattern of inappropriate article creation, then the right can be removed. According to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions#Removal of permissions, that process is usually handled at WP:ANI. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The autopatrolled right has not been misused. The problem is that the page was created as a redirect, and the redirect was marked as patrolled. Other editors then came along and changed the page to an article which inherited the patrolled status despite the fact that it was inappropriate. That is a loophole. Johnuniq (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Requesting an article re-assessment[edit]

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

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

Assessments are generally done through the Wikiproject(s) the article is associated with. If there is an active Wikiproject that maintains the article, you can check with them. --Jayron32 13:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
So a user should make such a request on the main discussion-page of the Wikiproject(s) it belongs to? Thanks!
As a side-note, steps one could take to request a re-assessment should perhaps be included on the central-page describing the assessment process itself.SecretName101 (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I've bumped it up to C; it's not a Stub and it's way outgrown Start. I'd encourage editors to be bold, at least for classifications up to C. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, please, be bold. And if anyone's interested in doing this systematically, then please see m:Research:Screening WikiProject Medicine articles for quality/Stub prediction table for an example of what could be done to address outdated article assessments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to help improve and translate in other languages 16 biographies about African women[edit]

WLW 16WikiWomen Nefertiti wordmark facing-left.png

In the run up to International Women’s Day on the 8th March, Wiki Loves Women is launching the on-Wikipedia translated drive #16WikiWomen : m:16 African Women Translate-a-thon

The idea is for Wikipedians to take 16 days to translate the Wikipedia biographies of 16 notable African women, into at least 16 languages (African and/or international languages).

The articles to be translated will be the biographies of African women. The list of language can be, but is not limited to:

  • International languages: Arabic, English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Mandarin, German
  • African languages: Akan, Afrikaans, Igbo, Hausa, Wolof, Tswana, Zulu, Xhosa, Shona, Swahili, Yoruba, Sudanese, Amharic, Tsonga, Ewe, Sesotho, Chichewa

The list of the 16 women biographies that will be translated are:

  1. w:en:Malouma, a Mauritanian singer, songwriter and politician
  2. w:en:Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge, a South African politician.
  3. w:en:Cri-Zelda Brits, a South African cricketer
  4. w:en:Anna Tibaijuka, a Tanzanian politician and former under-secretary-general of the United Nations
  5. w:en:Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti, a Nigerian women’s rights activist
  6. w:en:Flora Nwapa, a Nigerian author who writes predominantly in Igbo
  7. w:en:Samia Yusuf Omar, a sprinter from Somalia
  8. w:en:Maggie Laubser, a South African painter
  9. w:en:Fatima Massaquoi, a pioneering educator from Liberia
  10. w:en:Frances Ames, a South African neurologist, psychiatrist, and human rights activist
  11. w:en:Asmaa Mahfouz, a Egyptian activist. The best version is currently in Arabic : w:ar:Asmaa Mahfouz
  12. w:en:Yaa Asantewaa, the legendary former Queen Mother of Ghana
  13. w:en:Fatou Bensouda, a Gambian lawyer
  14. w:en:Martha Karua, a Kenyan politician
  15. w:en:Chinwendu Ihezuo, a Nigerian professional footballer
  16. w:en:Nassima Saifi, a Paralympian athlete from Algeria

Please jump in! Whilst all those articles already exist in English, you may improve them... or you may translate them into another language you know, or you relay the project in other linguistic communities.
If you wish to participate, please feel free to add your name and any comments here : m:16 African Women Translate-a-thon/participants
Results will be tracked on this page : m:16 African Women Translate-a-thon/tracking

Thanks

Anthere (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Language of Articles[edit]

I noticed that many of the Simplified Chinese translations use traditional Chinese characters. Why is this?York12321 (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@York12321: Impossible to say without providing an example link. --Malyacko (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Elections for New Page Patrol/New Page Review coordinators[edit]

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. New Page Review and its Page Curation is a core MediaWiki extension. The process of expertly vetting all new articles is a critical issue needing a couple of 'go to' people. The coordinators will do their best for for the advancement of the improvement of NPP and generally keep tracks on the development of those things. Coordinators have no additional or special user benefits, but they will try to keep discussions in the right places and advance negotiations with the WMF.
Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)