Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to 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 sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.
« Older discussions, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59

Duplicates in Category:Peru district templates[edit]

Recently I've been wandering around and saw the Category:Peru district templates may have some duplicates such as Template:Districts of Huánuco Province and Template:Districts of Huánuco Region. As both templates are created by the same person, I wonder if this is intentional or not. As the creator may have left Wikipedia, I think it might be suitable to ask here. If they are indeed duplicates, should we do a mass redirect or mass delink + delete?JC1 (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

They are not exact duplicates but part of a system to use templates to categorize districts by province. Huánuco Province is one of 11 provinces in the Huánuco Region. The content of {{Districts of Huánuco Province}} is basically just:
{{Districts of Huánuco Region}}
[[Category:Districts of the Huánuco Province]]
It doesn't duplicate the code but transcludes the other template and adds a category. The other 10 provinces have similar templates which add {{Districts of Huánuco Region}} plus a category for districts of their own province. I don't see a need to change anything. {{Districts of Huánuco Province}} shows all districts of all 11 provinces. The template size is sensible to me. If starting from scratch, I might have used another system where all districts of all 11 provinces add {{Districts of Huánuco Region}} directly and then either add "Category:Districts of the X Province" directly or gets the template to add the right category by passing their province as a parameter. But changing the system now seems like unnecessary work. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
The series of province templates should be WP:TFDd per WP:TEMPLATECAT. --Izno (talk) 06:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

New watchlist system[edit]

A new watchlist system was introduced. Does this make control on the edits of the pages in the wathlist more efficient? Does this give more control on bot edits on the pages and more control on checking revisions? Wat are the actual differences? Is still using tools to make minor changes on a page a problem (if this was ever a problem)? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

John/Jack[edit]

Is it safe to assume that readers would recognize Jack as a nickname for John? Also, where should this question be asked?151.132.206.26 (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

 Note: This post pertains to the edit request at Talk:John F. Kennedy#Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2018. I replied there. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Facebook seems to be auto-deleting posts that contain WP links.[edit]

I am not sure why (though I have my suspicions, see below) but it seems that Facebook is deleting posts that contain Wikipedia links. For example two different people posted the following link in comments only to have the comment be automatically deleted with seconds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_College_of_Pediatricians

Would some other editors who are willing please log onto WP and try to post that link or some other WP article, preferably in some sort of political group, wait about 15 seconds, and then try to reply their own post. I think this is a malfunction of FB trying to "catch" fake news and maybe some over eager beaver coded that WP is "fake" ... just s theory. Of course you can delete the comments when done if they are not auto-deleted. I do NOT need to see your FB post, I just would like to know if the problem is affecting WP links for others. Let me know please by posting your experience here. Thank you. 172.88.134.103 (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to editing Wikipedia, for the most part. This is solely on FB's end, and there's no value in performing a breaching experiment to bite our thumb at them. I also note the convenient unverifiability of your story. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 11:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I am going to address your "concerns" point-by-point because you raise so many diverse ones.
  • This is irrelevant to editing Wikipedia, for the most part. -- True. This page is the WP Village Pump Misc which is defined at the top as being for "messages that do not fit into any other category." We have plenty of places on WP to discuss editing, but this is a forum for discussing miscellaneous matters of potential concern to the WP "village" / community.
  • This is solely on FB's end -- Of course this is on Facebook's end. But if their end is affecting our reputation that is not "solely on" them, we have a legitimate right to be concerned and active in protecting ourselves from blacklisting if in deed that is what FB has done.
  • there's no value in performing a breaching experiment. -- I have to assume good faith that you do not understand what you linked to. Per the wikilink you used: "a breaching experiment is an experiment that seeks to examine people's reactions to violations of commonly accepted social rules or norms.'" No where in my request was there anything even close to a request for a breaching experiment. I did not ask for anyone's "reactions", simply for their factual observations (experiences) of what actually happens when they try to post a WP link -- any link they choose -- onto FB. I also in no way suggested anything that could even vaguely be described as "violations of commonly accepted social rules or norms". I am concerned that automated software run by FB has inaccurately put WP on a blacklist in the same way that many ISP's have blacklist filters for email. Being put onto such a list could have been caused by a badly coded algorithm with no human intent to do so, or even by merely bad syntax in a complex regex statement. If that has happened it is a mistake, an error, a bug in the function of that software. I was asking for other editors to discretely attempt to see if the "bug" is repeatable, nothing more. This is totally standard practice when a software or other design bug is suspected.
  • bite our thumb at them. -- Again I wonder if you understand the words you use. To bite one's thumb at another is to intentionally insult them. I suggest no such thing. In fact if evidence suggested that there was indeed a problem my next step would be to write to the WP Foundation and ask that the matter be handled discretely by the higher, more diplomatic, levels of WP leadership.
  • I also note the convenient unverifiability of your story. -- Well DUH!!! Of course the events I related are unverifiable. Even I cannot verify them which is why I asked for independent verification by unrelated WP editors. In the end it does not matter if the examples I spoke of were verifiable, only if WE could reproduce the results ourselves and therefor be certain of what was happening. Sheesh!
I do not understand why you have taken such a suspicious and seemingly hostile attitude towards a simple request to see if WP is being unfairly targeted by a possibly flawed piece of binary machine code. 172.88.134.103 (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The IP could be responding to this recent news event. BUT, Facebook announced not long ago it would be using Wikipedia in its fight against Fake News. See also Wikipedia's project of being a source of Knowledge Integrity -- GreenC 14:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi GreenC. No I am not responding to that article, I was unaware of it before now. I also was unaware of Knowledge Integrity. My sister's boyfriend is one of the two persons who I mentioned in my original comment above and he was the one who said his posts with links (not just WP links by the way) were randomly vanishing right after being posted. He showed me where another user stated they had experienced the same thing. But since I was not there watching when these people did what they did I could not assume they had not made some sort of error, or had in some way been personally targetted by a group administrator or FB's complaint response team. The only logical course of action (as I explain in my response to Jeremy above) is to try an obtain independent objective verification of the symptom described. Isn't that a reasonable thing to do? 172.88.134.103 (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Please note that Gopaldas Neeraj died on thursday 19 july according to Google. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Fact or Fiction?[edit]

Putting this here for your possible enjoyment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Essays or other guidelines regarding the use of quotes inside of citations[edit]

Does anyone know if there are essays or other resources discussing what are appropriate uses of quotes within a citation? My general understanding is quotes in a citation would be used when the fact in the article might need more explanation without interfering with the readability of the article itself. As a hypothetical, if an article contains a fact may seem odd or incorrect at first read, the quote in the citation could provide additional text for the interested reader.

There are 8 planets in the solar system [1]

At the same time I would assume it shouldn't be used if the quote doesn't directly relate to the text the citation supports

The planets orbit around the sun [2]

In the first case the quote helps clarify for those who were taught there are 9 planets in the solar system and is thus directly related to/supports the article text. In the second case the material is only indirectly related and in no way clarifies the article text. I would presume in this case the quote shouldn't be used. However, that is only my opinion. Does Wikipedia have any resources talking about this? Thanks! Springee (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ title=Example Ref| quote="When Pluto was declared not a planet the number was reduced from 9 to 8"
  2. ^ title=Example 2| quote="Saturn is a gas planet and the second largest in the solar system"