Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF 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 sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for a week.

« Archives, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70

Let's talk about the Desktop Improvements[edit]

WP20Symbols MediaWiki light background.svg

Hello!

Have you noticed that some wikis have a different desktop interface? Are you curious about the next steps? Maybe you have questions or ideas regarding the design or technical matters?

Join an online meeting with the team working on the Desktop Improvements! It will take place on 17 May 2022 at 12:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC on Zoom. Click here to join. Meeting ID: 86217494304. Dial by your location.

Agenda

  • Update on the recent developments
  • Questions and answers, discussion

Format

The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes will be taken in a Google Docs file. Olga Vasileva (the Product Manager) will be hosting this meeting. The presentation part will be given in English.

We can answer questions asked in English, Italian, Polish; also, only at the first meeting: Farsi, Vietnamese; only at the second meeting: Portuguese, Spanish, Russian. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the talk page or send them to sgrabarczuk@wikimedia.org.

At this meeting, both Friendly space policy and the Code of Conduct for Wikimedia technical spaces apply. Zoom is not subject to the WMF Privacy Policy.

We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The meeting begins in 10 minutes. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of coverage of 2022 United States infant formula shortage[edit]

Guys (and I say "guys" advisedly), this is embarrassing. Normally Wikipedia is all over major current events. Articles about recent shootings are often a mile long and plagued with edit conflicts. But a massive, US-wide shortage of the formula that many infants need to live? Parents begging, stealing, and taking other desperate measures to keep their babies fed? Crickets here. This began in February, and until I started an article yesterday, there was nothing here. Even after I created it, it went unedited for so long that a bot removed the {{current event}} template. So far, only one other editor has contributed in any meaningful way to the article. The mostly young, overwhelmingly male demographics of the editor base have created a blind spot here that makes us look terrible. I have very little time this weekend to work on the article; with others please step up? —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 18:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like one of many instances of systemic bias on Wikipedia, which many editors seem to think is not a problem. It's good that we now have at least a tiny bit of coverage of this, but I have to wonder whether shortages of infant formula milk in less developed countries are much worse. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that WP is a not newspaper. Not every event widely covered by the news needs to be documented in WP. Editors are often far too fast to make articles on perceived events when those are actually tied to other topics or haven't shown long-term notability. For example an article that claims to cover "2022 US fuel price crisis" is inappropriate given that's explicitly tied to the Ukraine-Russian situation. This is not to say the baby formula shortage isn't a newsworthy event, and it is getting more attention, but its the type of topic that we should take caution to make sure it really is an event with long-term coverage and not covered from other topics. --Masem (t) 18:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the (wildly incorrect) suggestion that such an event might not pass NOTNEWS (which I've been here long enough to be quite familiar with, thanks) is a pretty perfect illustration of the problem. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 01:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that it clearly isn't news now, but maybe only in the last two or three weeks has it gotten to the point where it made sense to have an article on it. If this article was created back in Feb when there was speculation there may have been a run on formula, that would have been a problem, and unfortunately we get too many editors creating articles on those inclinations. --Masem (t) 02:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue it's been article-worthy for closer to six weeks, but isn't two or three weeks late bad enough? And how much longer would it have been? —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 13:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A super quick scan of sources show that at 6 weeks ago you had some hints of a problem in the market, but it wasn't until mid April where it started to hit that 40% number that RSes called it a problem. Before that point, it would have been synthesis to connect the dots like that. Clearly we are well past that point with major coverage of it over just this weekend, and lots of good sources that explain the issues leading up to it (including the market elements). It also helps to know that RSes clearly do not consider this a short term problem, which if the shortage cleared up in a few weeks we'd likely not have an standalone about it. --Masem (t) 16:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There shouldn't be any shortage. Breast is best, the world over. Don't get me started on Nestle. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is a rather unhelpful comment. Many mothers cannot produce enough milk to sustain infants, and cannot afford wet nurses. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a very good article on the 2008 Chinese milk scandal. @Phil Bridger:: You're right, but so is Redrose64: the US has a one of the lowest rates of breast feeding in the developed world (26th out of 30 in the OECD last time I looked). I'll post a list of issues that the article could examine on its talk page rather than here, but I'm not optimistic about much getting accomplished, on-wiki or off. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to hear about your experience with breastfeeding, since apparently it's a solution that's possible for everyone. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 01:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I'm not touching this because this has become a political talking point and I would rather not have some asshole who can't shut up and won't change the subject drag me to Arb Enforcement (even if the thread is frivolous) because they can't check their own biases on Wikipedia. American politics attracts far too many partisans and far too few voices of reason. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can just not help; you're not obligated to announce that you're not going to help. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 01:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're completely missing the point of what I wrote. I'm trying to point out that this is likely to be perceived as a "hostile" topic to edit about because of its connexion to a topic area that is infamously one of the worst ones to work on in Wikipedia because of the entrenched partisanship. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 03:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So (a) that article looks fairly light right now, with multiple empty sections. (b) Fix it up, if it's in the news still feel free to go nominate it at WP:ITNC. — xaosflux Talk 21:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea; done. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 14:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: Thought you might be interested in seeing how well that went... I've been on WP for 16 years, and I'm pretty much in shock at this reaction. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 15:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least the article got improved ¯\_(ツ)_/¯xaosflux Talk 15:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender people in China § Maoism[edit]

Transgender people in China#Maoism says "The attitudes of younger generations that have been less exposed to Maoist ideologies are beginning to reflect more accepting attitudes towards members of the LGBTQ+ community." How does Maoism influence people's attitude towards the LGBTQ+ community? Are there other factors of different attitudes among different generations? -- 09:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites a source, an edited compilation of papers by various authors, published by a university press in Hong Kong. The source can be previewed in Google Books, including (at least for me in the US) the specific pages cited, which I just finished reading. In it, the author lays out the argument that the political/social environment of the 1950s-2000s [i e. Chinese communism, and from the 1960s-1990s the more overt Maoist phase] was detrimental to the expression of non-traditional sexual orientation or identity. The source supports the wikitext claim. 172.254.162.90 (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plural of 'Userbox'[edit]

Hey folks. I didn't know where to put this, so I decided that the village pump would be the best idea. I have seen some userpages referring to the plural of userbox as 'Userboxes'. However, I have also seen some userpages referring to the plural as 'Userboxen'. Which one is correct? Are both correct? Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The official plural is "userboxes", modelled on "boxes". "Userboxen" is a whimsical analogy to irregular plurals such as "oxen"; it's technically wrong but widely accepted and can raise a smile. Certes (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For a singular userbox used by more than one person (as most are), I assume it is thus usersbox? Nosebagbear (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Userboxen is correct because a Germanic suffix is cool: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Userboxes/Archive_2006#A_plea_for_the_Germanic_plural. Some people are just not cool. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
we're not German, so shouldn't be using German pluralisation. "Userboxes" is correct English. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the English language is a West Germanic language. The roots of English are Germanic. There is a heavy French/Romance influence due to the Norman Conquest, but there is still that Germanic root. So, whenever we do anything linguistically weird for Germanic languages, blame the French. Whenever we do anything linguistically weird for Romance languages, blame the Germanic influence. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And it it's weird for both, you can probably blame Greek. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Userboxen is correct because it is whimsical and it upsets people who can't take a joke, which is a noble enough cause to override all other concerns. --Jayron32 13:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Boxen” is not German… it appears in several English dictionaries as a non-standard (archaic) variant for “box”… which has been revived and adopted by computer programmers (I suppose you could call it computer jargon). I would say that (in this context) BOTH are correct. Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If, as seems to me but I'm open to being proved [proven?] wrong, the singular "Userbox" was made up for use by Mediawiki, then that project can also make up the plural. Here on the English Wikipedia I have seen both the standard "Userboxes" and the non-standard "Userboxen" used extensively, so it seems that both are probably correct. But, whatever is decided here, and my preference would be for nothing to be decided, let's accept that this project uses English, not German. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, it’s not German… it’s “programming jargon”. I found this out with a simple google search for “boxen”. Now, if you want to argue that we shouldn’t use programming jargon… fine. I just think we should be accurate in our arguments. Blueboar (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I know it's not German. That's why I said "both are probably correct" and "my preference would be for nothing to be decided". Phil Bridger (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should use the proper collective noun, in this case "a nuisance of userboxes", just like cats. — xaosflux Talk 15:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • dab: in the early days of email, "user box" was sometimes used to distinguish personal mailboxes from others, such as the "system [mail]box" etc. The term is still used in printer interfaces of multiuser printers with built-in physical or virtual storage. The "user box" is space for individual users to store print jobs and other documents. This printer user box may also be associated with an email user box. Because complexity is the geeks' favorite hallucinogenic. Afaik the plural in these non-Wikipedia cases was always "boxes". It is also possible this section will attract comments in inverse proportion to the topic's importance. Guilty as charged. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've always used userboxen, regardless, it's not particularly an important matter. Legislating that one is more correct than the other is a waste of everyone's time. casualdejekyll 16:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hang on, have we decided how to spell WP:LEAD or WP:LEDE yet? Johnuniq (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer Ǚzerbǿxen, but am willing to concede that it might be like deer, and the plural of Userbox is Userbox. On the other hand, perhaps it is like goose, and the plural is Userbeex. BD2412 T 04:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Geese have beex; userboxes don't. Surely it's Userböx. Certes (talk) 09:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's clearly a lack of guidance in this area and we should have an RfC on creating a guideline on this. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't we first have an RFC on whether to have an RFC? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Several, I would think… And let’s not forget to have a side-debate on whether the RFCs are neutrally worded or not… and some accusations of canvassing and forum shopping. We have traditions to uphold after all. Blueboar (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That process doesn't have significant support currently, you can follow up by following the proper Wikipedia:Requests for process to get it going. — xaosflux Talk 13:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And thus began the Great Userboxen War of 2022. WaltCip-(talk) 15:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No. It's the Great Userboxes War. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pardon me while I go run off to file an WP:RFARB.[FBDB] WaltCip-(talk) 17:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Userboxen, by analogy with Vaxen. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, upon further consideration, I've come to the conclusion that this is all wrong. Userbox is plural. The singular being userbok. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've got to cite your sources, Roy. Kids these days probably don't know what a VAX was: "[very common; by analogy with VAXen] Fanciful plural of box often encountered in the phrase ‘Unix boxen’, used to describe commodity Unix hardware. The connotation is that any two Unix boxen are interchangeable." WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These days, spelled "Docker" :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eyesore". —Cryptic 15:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userboges. Or is this way of forming the plural reserved for words ending in -nx? —Kusma (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Userboxes". Period. In an encyclopedia we should use the gramatically correct variant, not some random slang. — SummerKrut 21:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But is there a "correct" variant? Is "userbox" a word? If so who made it up? Shouldn't the same people be able to make up the plural(s)? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We clearly need a suite of small, colourful rectangles to help editors express their views on this contentious issue. Certes (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Euromaiden entry[edit]

The Euromaiden entry is seriously weak, leaving out critical recent scholarly findings regarding the assasinatiins that occurred on 20 Feb 2014. Wiki has placed an editorial block on this member and thus deliberately prevents the accurate correction of the Euromaiden entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevejcallen (talkcontribs) 01:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevejcallen: Not sure what you are talking about; the Euromaiden article is not protected from editing, nor is your account blocked. Can you please clarify the problem? --Jayron32 13:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications from Roskomnadzor[edit]

Dear colleagues,

I'm not sure here's a right place to post this information, please correct me if necessary.

Russian internet regulatory agency Roskomnadzor issued "notifications on violation of the order of dissemination of information" regarding two English Wikipedia articles (the translations in English are in the second part of the notifications):

It may be worth discussing these, or not, I don't know.

Also, if you are curious about notifications concerning Russian Wikipedia, there's a special page there. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 13:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]