Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 33

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


Problems with several articles

There are problems with several articles about television stations in the Little Rock, Arkansas market. I know y'all say to post things about articles on their respective articles talk pages, but I feel that these problems are related, and that no one might read my message on the talk pages of the articles. The largest problem is an article on KASN. Even though the article's name is still "KASN" the page claims that it is KQAR, calling itself "The Q". This is not true. I live in the Little Rock area, and I know that this station is still KASN, calling itself "CW Arkansas". The station's website,, confirms this. This change has been made by a person with the IP adress Also, in the past, there have been problems with OTHER pages. For example KARK-TV's page began to report they had switched to high-definition news back in 2010. They just switched about a month ago, and they didn't even state their intent to switch until January 2011. KATV's page claimed for a while in 2010 that they called themselves "ABC 7". All my life it has been "KATV 7", and as y'all can tell I ain't a newborn. Please help to do something. I don't have internet access all the time, so I can't join Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to "join" Wikipedia, or edit regularly - anyone can edit either with an account or identified by IP address. I've reverted some of the changes to KASN - I couldn't find evidence of a change and the logo used was from Q magazine - but it probably needs someone who knows about the subjects and who can check whether the information is correct or not, so I've mentioned it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations. Peter E. James (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I have been monitoring all the Little Rock/Arkansas TV articles as of late because of vandalism like is described below where false logos, slogans and cities of license are added. Trust me, I know there's a problem and am very frustrated because all of it comes from IP vandals who just unplug their modem before they hit a block and hit all over again after it's all cleaned up. I'll keep a closer eye on these pages. Nate (chatter) 05:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
There used to be an IP vandal who was vandalizing Houston area stations, I wonder if he's moved on to Arkansas stations now. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Colo(u)red navboxes

I'm attempting to get to grips with the reasoning behind the recent opposition to preventing anything other than the default colour scheme. However, that discussion got a little wrapped up in the feature of styling in general, rather than the colour scheme. What benefits does it pose? Mostly, the sorts of things I've seen been Template:Manchester United F.C. in that the colour scheme is merely aesthetic. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said over there, subtle and elegant colouring not only improves the basic (awful) design and layout of Wikipedia pages, but also provides clues as to the contents/subject matter of a given navbox. I will stipulate that many colour combinations are eyewatering and run afoul of WP:ACCESS, but many (e.g.) are as I said, simple and elegant. → ROUX  16:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Could you elaborate? (For the record, this is not a continuation of that debate, it is a fact-finding mission.) For example, you mention "layout". How does the choice of colour impact layout? Similarly, most navboxes exist in a collapsed state. Is your suggestion that the colour of the bar affects the way people judge what contents expanding it brings? Or something else? Posted chronologically after the comment of 16:45 below.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Red and white are the Canadian national colours; add in a maple leaf and it becomes instantly clear what the subject matter inside the collapsed navboxes is. This makes sense when dealing with countries and sports teams, for example, where the colours would be relatively widely known (though is, of course, no excuse for retina-deadening combinations). I'm not saying it affects how people judge the contents, I'm saying that it gives a clue as to the subject matter of the contents. Use of colour within largely colourless pages alerts the reader that 'something important or related is here'; cf breakout boxes in newspapers/magazines. → ROUX  14:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Even if a colour scheme is used only for aesthetics, that alone is not a bad thing. as Roux notes, there are some eye-bleeding combinations out there (red on blue, for instance), so there might be value in creating an MOS update that insists that the text colour always be white (on dark) or black (on light), but allow for variations in background colour. Resolute 16:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
There's no need for any additional policy or guideline. WP:ACCESS would pretty easily deal with the overwhelming majority of the offenses against optic nerves. → ROUX  14:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Fundraiser testing

Following some promising results last week, the fundraising team are going to be testing a few more banners on the English Wikipedia on Thursday. These will only be up briefly (from 17:00 - 18:00 UTC) and will be displayed for anonymous users only. Pcoombe (WMF) (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Because of the server problems WMF sites were having earlier, this testing has been pushed back to 17:3017:45 UTC. Pcoombe (WMF) (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

From admin to vandal? Random thoughts why

I am a en:WP administrator. I am not using my account for reasons that may become clear. Long ago I stopped editing or admin-ing. I occasionally edit a line, a small mistake, just as any casual user might. Lately I found myself willing to vandalise, and actually doing it (mildly, I hope). Why? How and why going from caring admin to vandal-to-be?

I can not tell for sure, and certainly there are many factors, some may even be personal. But which are WP related factors?

For the first stage (admin to little IP edits) there were probably two main factors (other than less free time, which was a strong factor too). First, endless discussions, ending up in decisions which only some user abide to, while some don't.leading WP to be a court of law, with processes at ArbCom, or whatever the names and instances. Too complicated, we do need WP-lawyers, and that is silly. Second, I started to see bot wars with bots doing mass changes, creating a class of super-(arrogant)-users, the bot owners, able to (n)do in a zap something that takes months of human work (un)do. [note: _some_ bot owners were super-(arrogant)-users, definitely not all]

For the second stage (little IP edits to vandal-to-be). Clearly two factors. One still being bots: a perfectly OK edit gets reverted by a bot, note that the removed text was already incorporated in the added see also link. A human would spot that easy, but a bot reverted. (and then I did a few not so nice comments on the bot's page). Second, I tried to correct a link at 2010–11_Belgian_Second_Division#League_table, as it was pointing to Spain's play-off. Try to look at it: it is template hell! A casual user is more or less unable to understand it. I know about templates in general, still it was unclear what to edit. So I semi-vandalized it (and gor reverted by the same bot! How the hell did he estimated this to be a vandal? By the signarture? That's a too wild guesstimate...)

In conclusion. Is WP is a battleground for bots and coding geeks? Hordes(?) of bots are actively changing content, even cluelessly reverting humans. Common humans can't edit, because it is too complicated at first glance.

So is WP actually pushing away legitimate human editors, by making it too hard to start editing (template hell) and even encouraging vandals (by annoying humans)?

Is WP a wiki? "A wiki invites all users to edit any page [and] is not a carefully crafted site for casual visitors. Instead, it seeks to involve the visitor [...]" [in Wiki].

I'm sorry for the mild vandalism, it will not happen again. I hope you guys and gals still involved try to shift WP back into a human site. (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Most of these things are common complaints, that are being worked upon, for example the article wizard. ClueBotNG is actually very accurate, and it now makes up a vast majority of bto reversions for vandalism – which is why those two edits were both by it. There was certainly a time where bot edits were more controversial than they are now. Whether such a thing would happen again, I don't know. I hope not. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I know the issues are being worked upon. Actually, they are being worked upon for many years, and that is the problem. The article wizard looks like a nice attempt, at first sight, I haven't seen it before. But the main effort should go for making it easy for the causal user to edit a bit today, and another bit tomorrow and eventually grow into the whole WP environment. Right now it may be too complicated even to make a small edit (as the template hell example points to) and then there is the risk of a malformed edit (even a perfectly OK edit as the one above) being reverted by a bot. That is utterly annoying as yuo can't even argue with a bot... Bots should help humans, I am a strong believer in 'intelligent computer aids', but bots should not replace us; so anything other than the plain obvious should be tagged but not auto-reverted or auto-edited in anyform. As far as I seen it (not much, I know) ClueBotNG would be a very good aid for humans, but is a very bad editor by itself.
To Melodia's edit comment: «I have to wonder how an 'admin' would put a new discussion on top. Or was that also 'mild vandalism'?». No it was me forgetting about the practice. That's how long I haven't joined talk discussions... (me, that used to be bold enough to refactor a few talk pages to go by that standard) - (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I have linked to this thread from WP:AN. DuncanHill (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Don't be silly. I am raising a question on why do WP's procedures put decent human editors (I presume I am one) away. And you go paranoid... Wooooo a admin went to vandal. Full list of "vandalism" as far as I recall, so to cool you down:
    1. At ClueBot's Praise page: [1]
    2. At ClueBot's Awards page: [2], [3], [4]
    • A comment - proper at a talk page but placed on article space (so semi-vandalism, at most)
    1. At 2010–11 Belgian Second Division_ [5] - (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Unless you declare your account(s) we have no reason to believe that you are an admin. DuncanHill (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
You beleived enough to go and set a warning about it. [joking] Want to bet a block that I am an admin? [/joking] Anyway, it is irrelevant. The problem is: Is excess of bot edits pushing human editors away? Is excess of specialized templates pushing human editors away? And I add: Is excess of wiki-drama pushing human editors away? Nevermind me, I'm not that important, nor a threat. - (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
You might just be a troll and not an admin at all. Is excess of admins not getting just how arrogant and selfish they are being pushing editors away? Is admins thinking they can get away with what does get other editors blocked and banned pushing editors away? it doesn't surprise me at all that an admin would vandalise, nor that they would be prepared to come here and boast about it. DuncanHill (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
You are probably right. Some admins also do push users away! But you missed my point and went poaranoid. I have not vandalised on any large scale, I attacked a bot's pride page, and made a comment out of place. The best of my actions? Certainly not, but not the acts of a arrogant admin (I'd say). (this is the former IP, using my account after 2 years absent) - Nabla (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Holy crap, this is how people are treated when they admit and apologize for anonymously losing their temper, while trying to start a discussion on how to improve the situation. Just because someone says they are a vandal, that does not mean they are one. If anyone wants to pretend that many of our upstanding admins don't regularly log out to game the system, or otherwise cause problems, go ahead. This was tame, harmless, and non-repeating. Way to go, flipping the freakout-switch, instead of actually listening and responding. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
    Welcome to Wikipedia, where the squeaky wheel get's the grease. Seen AN/I... ever? *roll eyes*
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 07:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's start putting "External Links" section after "See also"

Let's start putting "External Links" section after "See also".

1. The content and links are often EXTREMELY high value, in terms of different views, lots of content, etc.

2. The "type of information" is very much the same as a See also in type.

3. It gets lost way down below the footnotes and the bibliography.

4. In a BOOK, you would not put this kind of information after the footnotes and bibliography. It would be a discussion prior to the bibliography.

Look at Richard nixon for example. Those are some great sites to go to. And we bury them WAY to far down. After 150 footnotes. Down there with the category link crap.

P.s. I understand that we want to pimp our own articles. And we already forbid inline hyperlinks. But putting the penalty box SO LOW down the page is poor service to the reader.

TCO (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Am I correct in thinking the title to this thread is reversed? Killiondude (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I first thought the same but then I thought it maybe meant that External links should be immediately after See also and before Notes/References and Further reading, so External links moves up two positions at WP:FOOTER. I like it better where it is now. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
(ec)Just to be clear the MOS section is at Wikipedia:External_links#External_links_section and I think the standard format is now
  • See also
  • References, and, as the last text in the article
  • External links
The proposal seems to be to switch References with External Links.
I disagree with the proposal - if an external link is more important than a refence - it should probably already be included as an inline citation in the text, resulting in it ending up in the references section. Smallbones (talk) 03:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I do think it is odd that "See also" and "External links", which are there for essentially the same purpose (linking to additional information not in the article), are not next to each other. Ucucha 12:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
In that it makes a clear distinction between content which is written by Wikipedia editors and external content over which we have no control. It's the line where the encyclopedia stops and the rest of the internet starts. Moving the "External links" section up – or combining it with the "See also" section – blurs the delineation between internal and external content. Putting external links in among the see alsos implicitly equates outside content (definitely uneditable, whether better or worse) with Wikipedia articles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest that the External links stay below the See also section but I am on the fence of whether it should remain at the bottom of the article or not. Also bear in mind that we also frequerntly have a further reading section which is essentially other information from books, magazines and the like and is much the same as see also and external links. I think we should probably leave it the way it is. Although some articles may have valuable and useful external links the vaste majority won't matter to the reader. Additionally to change it would be a massive undertaking for relatively little return on investment. --Kumioko (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
The current order is preferable in my mind for the reasons that TenOfAllTrades states. Having "Further reading" and "External links" after the References clearing marks our references as the end of "our" (as in Wikipedia) content and the beginning of "their" (as in the rest of the Internet and the publishing world) content. Many printed books put any "further reading" after any source citations or endnotes, and this just follows that convention. Imzadi 1979  17:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Imzadi. I'd also add that, in most articles I've edited, the external links section is full of marginally relevant junk. References, on the other hand, are always directly related to the article. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed (that is, don't change it) for the reasons cogently stated above. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, no. Citations are most certainly more valuable than junk farms of external links, none of which are usually useful, and we put external content last for a reason-- to keep readers on Wiki. External links are generally junk. Please stop the silly proposals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
    If it is a junk link, it should not be in article regardless. BTW, if you look on the talk page of MOS (layout), this idea has been floated before and gotten a lot of considered approval.TCO (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
    Not from me it hasn't. Malleus Fatuorum 18:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
    The basic idea is that we go from internal content → external but directly needed content (references) → external content. That way we highlight our own content, and it has the happy side effect of reducing the potential for (highly visible, since they tend to be given considerable weight by the likes of Google, Bing, and Yahoo) individual Wikipedia pages from becoming link farms or advertising platforms (which, I think, is where the open hostility that you see from SandyGeorgia, Malleus Fatuorum, and others is coming from). There are some good reasons to support the change that you're asking about, but I think that in the end we're better off with things the way that they currently are.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Well in principally I favour the notion that (extensive) footnotes/references should come last as imho this is better for general reader for various reasons. However WP has taken a different route in the past and reversing that is an extremely cumbersome effort (convincing the various involved editors and potentially redoing the order of the bulk of articles). So even if a different is might be the right thing, the task of changing it, is like Don Quixote charging the wind mill, i.e. it will be a waste of time and only lead to personal frustration. Some of the opposing views above might indicate that already--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose I'm with Sandy. I'm also not convinced that the idea's past reception at WT:LAYOUT should be described with anything so favorable as "considered approval". I'm convinced that TCO hasn't read Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Changes_to_standard_appendices, or discussed it with the spam folks, who have historically advocated for keeping spambait sections at the end of the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
    PEREN isn't required reading or anything, you know. There's no call for you folks to be jerks to TCO (or anyone else) just for making a suggestion.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
    There's no call for you to be a jerk either. Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
    Boyz, boyz. No fighting, no biting. Kiss and make up. I wanted some humor involved, but also some consideration of the concept. Let's not play the civility card. That is so ga...lame. ;) Resistor, I appreciate the backup, huggumz.TCO (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
    OK...I went and read that perennial proposal and it is like 3 lines of content and not all applicable. Even from my OPPONENTS point of view, this thread, despite the casualness, has more consideration of the issues than that pompous paragraph.  ;) TCO (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Primarily for the excellent reasons listed by TenOfAllTrades although I would not characterize it a "silly proposal". It is easy to understand that some external links provide more value to some readers than footnotes. --SPhilbrickT 20:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose per User:TenOfAllTrades. – ukexpat (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Add my voice to those that are concerned about raising the visibility of External Links (and See also) sections. Yes, they have their place. On more than one occasion, I found an interesting, well written article about a subject that did not meet wikipedia's WP:RS threshold, and happily added it to the external links section. However, for every time I've added one such link, I've removed 100 spam links. They are without a doubt a crap magnet section. The "See also" section isn't much better. I've seen this section misused to indirectly imply connections to topics, where if the connection were directly made in the body of the article would be reverted or tagged as an inappropriate. Dave (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been having these problems in turtles or chemicals. Just saying. "Fighting crap" is much lower priority there than "making good shit". I'm teasing...but serious. It's true. Go Wiki!!!TCO (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Watchlist Mountain Meadows massacre, First Transcontinental Railroad and U.S. Route 66 if you want to experience the joy of trying to keep an article from getting crapped up with spam links. =-) (US Route 66 is a lost cause, but I think the anti-vandal squad can take pride in how well maintained the other two articles are considering the challenges) Dave (talk) 23:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
While I don't support this proposal, this sort of reasoning that seems to be saying that we should be afraid of such proposals bothers me. Reverting attempts to vandalize articles or to add promotional content to the encyclopedia or specific articles is certainly important, and should of course continue. I think that it's a serious mistake to use those efforts to drive changes in how the encyclopedia as a whole operates, though. Just because some article or other happens to be a common target of spammers or vandals shouldn't be the reason that we make changes in how everyone edits. We shouldn't lower ourselves to the lowest common denominator level, you know?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Collapsed unconstructive discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What about common sense? Does that play no part in your reasoning? Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Meaning... what?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Meaning you're talking crap. Malleus Fatuorum 01:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
um... ok, then. Not sure what I did to get on your bad side, but it doesn't really matter. You're obviously not here to actually participate in a meaningful discussion so: fuck off. Go back to your little "featured article" walled guarden and leave the rest of us alone, you caustic bitch.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
What is it that leads you to believe that abusing me is acceptable behaviour? Malleus Fatuorum 04:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
What is it that leads you to believe that trolling the Village Pump is acceptable behavior?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
So you compound your felony by adding to it that I am trolling? You are a joke. Malleus Fatuorum 04:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Citations are more important than corporatespam and socialnetworkspam, which in my experience make up a solid 80% of external links. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Super Strong Oppose Web page layout 101: Never put links to other websites in a prominent place. Never beg people to leave your site. External links should be lastest of the laststest last. Notes/references/similar should be the very first thing after body text, then See Also.  – Ling.Nut 00:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
    Citing a 101 layout guide for the spam pages you want to protect WP doesn't really look like a convincing reason. We're not selling anything and have no need to keep people in the store for as long as possible. Why should we have any problem with linking to quality sources of (free) information? That's directly related to our goal to provide free access to information/knowledge.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
    We clearly don't have any such problem, else we wouldn't include an external links section at all. Concentrate people. Malleus Fatuorum 01:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
    I don't, but Ling seems to or at least otherwise the web design argument makes little sense to me.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is important (as explained by TenOfAllTrades) to clearly separate the article from a gateway to external content. Also, there is already a significant pressure as people work out that anyone can edit + top search ranking = good place to spam, and that pressure will increase as Wikipedia becomes even more dominant as a useful and ad-free source. It is hard enough to keep external links and WP:REFSPAM out of the article currently, and this proposal would make the content/external distinction even harder to maintain. Johnuniq (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • No, I don't think so. On one hand, see also and external links have similar purposes, as pointed out by Ucucha and TCO, but as TenOfAllTrades and other editors have pointed out, it's good to separate content and external matter. I'm also not sure any Wikipedia-wide change this big should ever be made, except for the most compelling reasons. —innotata 23:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Peace, peeps

This is just wasting editor time. (Albiet effectively, at least.) Please go back to writing and reviewing.TCO (talk) 02:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

A330 could use the help. I will be pissed if those young editors having exerted huge effort, do not get some meaningful reviews at the expense of sock drawers and mushrooms.TCO (talk) 03:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Worst articles ever.

Is there a special page where the worst articles every are? Or a page with the worst discussions. Or something.... :)Crystalkaloid (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

We have WP:LAME for a humorous guide to some edit wars. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Are there any more pages like that? Crystalkaloid (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
For article titles, we have WP:DAFT, to which I've contributed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
(e/c) Some of the "see also" links might be helpful. That one leapt to mind, but there certainly are plenty of satirical pieces on Wikipedia about Wikipedia, for example WP:The Truth. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I once read an example of WP:OVERLINKING that was really funny. But I can't remember where I saw it. Bus stop (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
LOL. Wikipedia:Deleted articles with freaky titles Some of those categories are hilarious! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 :) These are the best worst :) Crystalkaloid (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
What about this one Wikipedia:Snowball_clause Crystalkaloid (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
We have a special namespace for those articles, Simple:. For example Simple:Goat. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Don't you mean uncyclopedia? Crystalkaloid (talk) 01:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
+1 to Johnny. Killiondude (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

"Worst" under which rationale? Someone may say so of stubs Cambalachero (talk) 02:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about title of Unix shell article

This is a note to inform anyone interested about a discussion going on at Talk:Bash (Unix shell)#Further discussion, where we would like to see input from some more editors to make an article titling decision. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Shortest featured article?

Does anybody know of the shortest featured article as in page size that is still featured? ShannºnTalk 02:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

By size of page, Tropical Depression Ten (2005) at 8624 bytes (source); by prose length, probably still Miss Meyers at ~3900 bytes (source). - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 09:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Formatting of multiple move

I've suggested a multiple move at a subsection of Talk:Blood pressure#Requested move to systemic arterial blood pressure (Talk:Blood pressure#Replacement of current blood pressure article). However, I'd like to ask: is there any formal formatting of such a multiple moves that is preferred? Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Old English Wikibooks

I just happened across Meta:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Old English Wikibooks, which has been open for over 9 months. This is more than enough time to form a baby, but apparently not a consensus. If anyone is interested, please feel free to have an opinion there. I didn't realize that there is an Old English Wikipedia as well, as I guess a lot of the Saxons are wired these days and need to know about surfing and anime. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 11:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject assessment category

There are currently about 5400 WikiProject assessment categories that do not contain {{Cat class}}. This template allows navigation between the categories for that project easier and faster. An example can be seen here. I would like to do a run through and add this template to the remaining categories that need it and it was suggested I drop a note here before proceding to solicit comments and opinions. --Kumioko (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Redirects recently made into articles

Is there a page or log that lists pages which were formerly redirects, but which were recently made into articles? Maybe some bot keeps track of this? I would like to patrol/monitor a list of redirects that have been turned into articles. I asked on Help Desk and had no luck - maybe someone here has a helpful suggestion. Thanks in advance. --Neutralitytalk 16:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I know that something starting as a redirect that gets turned into an article shows up on Special:NewPages, even if it's several months later (it shows up at the very back). I also know that someone adding a certain amount of text to a former redirect will show up with Tag: Redirect becoming article. Beyond that, I don't know, and I think it would be a good idea to track that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
See also bug 29286 Rd232 public talk 17:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
That tag is related to Special:AbuseFilter/342 which was disabled in March. I'm not sure exactly why it was disabled, but the changelog notes suggest the filter wasn't specific enough or something. I think some technically inclined person should fix this... Killiondude (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
The relevant bit of the log is "Too intensive -P ... Deleted. - KoH". So it seems it was too hard on the servers. I doubt this can be fixed. Rd232 public talk 23:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what percentage of redirects are in the categories, but could something (a bot or filter) track the articles removed from the subcategories of Category:All redirect categories? You would miss redirects that were never categorized, but it would be something. Monty845 00:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for participants in AfD discussion

I'm looking for some editors to review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dodger, Bonzo and the Rest (Dramarama Episode). I've waited 10 days and only had a marginal comment that there are other articles that could be packaged with this one. I've already informed WikiProject Television and WikiProject British TV shows. Hasteur (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Gura Humorului

Hi. I need some help with the text of this inscription (the armenian text and the translation in English) Thank you in advance. Cezarika1 (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Also here. Cezarika1 (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In what area is Wikipedia most lacking?

I'd like to start a discussion on this... or receive a link to one in progress. And, to clarify, I'm talking mostly about subject area, ie Biology, Art and Humanities, Albums by Jimi Hendrix, etc. And I'm interested in any way you might assess the coverage of that area, ie quantity of articles on a certain topic, quality of the articles already written, etc... Something tells me, though, that even with these qualifications, I'm going to get some flack for this question. Sure, it may seem vague and difficult to answer. But I'm looking for opinion. I'm looking for a general idea of where Wikipedia is most in need of improvement. Partly out of curiosity, partly out of an interest to help Wikipedia improve. Thanks in advance. Bobnorwal (talk) 02:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Anything related to Humanities on Wikipedia is usually abysmal. Then again, anything related to humanities in general usually is abysmal anyway. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Women-related subjects. I've seen complaints, for example, that a lower proportion of female authors have articles. I saw something a while ago about id'ing gender based on what you search for on the Internet. (Broadly, men search for sports and sex, while women search for clothes and child care information. Everybody searches for some things, but these were categories that showed a difference.) I've wondered if it would be possible to use that to identify what subjects were edited primarily by which gender, and therefore what we might be missing, based on our ~6:1 gender ratio. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
African topics are very poorly covered. Roger (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's definitely a weakness. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Is that very poorly covered by male or female editors? Malleus Fatuorum 05:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
That's an easy one; proper governance. Malleus Fatuorum 05:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Basically everything that is of little interest to the Anglosphere, men, and isn't part of popular culture will be poorly coved by Wikipedia, just as it is in the real world. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
How fuckingly unbelievable. The English Wikipedia has a bias towards Anglosphere topics? Hold the front page! Malleus Fatuorum 06:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
East Asia is surprisingly well covered. Southeast Asia, however, is poorly covered. This reflects the sad truth that many Westerners cannot find Laos, Indonesia, or Malaysia on a map, and might not even have heard of East Timor or Brunei. Broken down to the regions of Asia, East Asia has strong coverage (excluding Mongolia which has bad coverage), North Asia and Southwest Asia (Middle East) have decent coverage, South Asia has weak coverage, and Central Asia and Southeast Asia have appallingly bad coverage. This is just my personal interpretation of what I've seen. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
No, it's of course not surprising... but it is worth noting so that editors who care about it can be deliberate about trying to reduce that bias. LadyofShalott 15:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Headbomb sums it up is perfectly. The most developed areas of WP are natural sciences and technology (as long as they are popular in the United States; for example, railways and railway technology is a relatively neglegted area in contrast), as well as American and British history, especially military history. The most neglegted areas of WP? I'd say they include Russia-related subjects, biology (esp. plants and animals not present in the United States), European history (esp. parts not related to the United Kingdom) and economy. Nanobear (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

All of it could use help. And there are a few things that are just crying out for action and very doable. Like "turn the periodic table blue" (there's only 100 articles to do). That said...worst off is probably literature.TCO (talk) 08:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Huh? There are no redlinks on Periodic table at all. IMHO chemistry is extraordinarily well covered. Roger (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
"turn the periodic table blue" refers to getting them all FA, the ultimate goal of Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements. Took me a while to figure that out. Yoenit (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Making them all FA is a laudable goal, but "turn the periodic table blue" is an extraordinarily poor way of attempting to express that goal. LadyofShalott 15:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd say the WP:Help is backward, plus all its trelated stuff: /doc, finding the right template, improving editorial processes. -DePiep (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Guidance for newbies is woefully inadequate, just look at the ad nauseum repetition of the same mundane routine topics that come up on the Help Desk. Roger (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd say Wikipedia is rather lacking on encyclopaedia coverage of handyman or handywoman topics like cleaning or mending. I know it is not supposed to be a how to but I mean covering topics like removing stains or the different types of floor polish what is involved and what has been documented to work type of point of view. Dmcq (talk) 10:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
How does one cover such topics without violating NOTHOW? Roger (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
NOTHOW doesn't mean one must avoid anything which might help in doing something. It simply means we should describe the subject just like any other and provide the citations. It is more a question of style of writing. Just like it is not a textbook but we still describe a lot of things that are in textbooks. Dmcq (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The topic that most interests me is woefully under-represented on wikipedia, just as it is ignored by the biased mass media and the prejudiced Powers-That-Be. The topic that most interests you, on the other hand, is w-a-a-a-ay overdone here. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Just checked on that. Yep it has more than enough of In the Night Garden and Club Penguin, however it doesn't seem to cover Block World yet. Can't say the hypothesis is confirmed :) Dmcq (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

IMO the general problem is that of general disorganization througout Wikipedia and I don't mean that in a completely negative tone. Since we are all essentially volunteers there is a systematic lack of desire by many editors for anything related to structure and most attempts to standardize or organize are dismissed with such comments as not broken, cure in search of a problem, etc.

In the case of this discussion we have very little idea in any organized fashion what articles are missing other than what individual editors or WikiProjects maintain individually. For example I could tell you that there are roughtly 1500 Medal of Honor recipients in need of articles, thousands of locations on the National Register of Historic Places, thousands of locations (cities, parks, buildings, etc) in general thoughout the world, military battles, people and equipment, thousands of topics relating to the Smithsonian Instituion, Library of Congress and National Archives each, a nearly uncountable number of plants and animals, thousands more biographies, etc. So what needs to be done IMO is to combine the articles for Creation process, bounty board, the various articles for creation lists the projects maintain, and the various other things relating to missing articles and combine them into an organized mechanism that people can navigate and use to create these missing topics. Or at least be able to identify the ones that are missing in a central location. Perhaps in a combination WikiProject/Portal concept where it was a one stop shop for things relating to article creation. --Kumioko (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

There's WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles and WikiProject Red Link Recovery. However, that does not deal with the systemic unlinking in lists (FL == completely finished == no red links), nor the general unwillingness of disambiguators to use or create red links when disambiguating. I've tried improving the latter in Dab solver by listing red links below the main links. Unfortunately, the information to give context is not standardized if it exists at all. — Dispenser 20:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The lack of any online image/diagram editing software is a concern for me. We have some pretty horrible substitutes (EasyTimeline anyone?), but nothing that easily allows creating diagrams (File:George W Bush approval ratings.svg), shades in maps (native bird habits), or animations (American Civil War battles). With SVG support, some people had hoped to edit them as easily as articles. — Dispenser 14:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If you haven't looked into this in the last few months, then you might be (mildly) pleasantly surprised by the list of options at WP:Graphs. The situation is not "good", but it is "better". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspect the OP was looking for answers like biology or business, rather than governance or help, but let me take this post as an excuse to echo the sentiments that we are doing a terrible job dealing with potential new editors. Just open up Requests for feedback, look at the long list of potential future editors asking for help and getting none. As Kumioko points out, it is easy to identify thousands of needs. OK, I just pointed you to thousands of potential editors who have been ignored.--SPhilbrickT 23:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting read, thanks for posting.--SPhilbrickT 14:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sloppy journalism

Sometimes one reads something in even a reputable media source that is blatantly untrue.

A recent example that comes to mind is the often mentioning of "leaders of the hacker group Anonymous". Main stream journalists apparently can't comprehend that a group could operate without a hierarchical structure.

So if you find a blatant untrue statement in a WP article referenced with some lazy journalism (something which is on the increase as the media get more and more sensationalistic and it's easier to Google some information than getting to the bottom of something the old fashioned style) and you can't find a reliable source to back a change what should you do then (apart from mentioning it on the talk page)? SpeakFree (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

While Anonymous has claimed to be leaderless and non-hierarchical, there is a lot of information to suggest that there are or were leaders, even if they were not formally recognized as such by the organization. Monty845 19:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, whenever a group of humans is doing something organized there will always be leaders and followers, that is basic group dynamics. To answer your original question: You do nothing, as we are not here to report the TRUTH, only verifiable facts. Yoenit (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Glad Wikipedia didn't exist in the Middle Ages then. The article Earth would then probably have begun with the sentence "Earth is the flat surface upon we liveth, ordained by our Lord God, which the Sun revolves around, as He wishes it." SpeakFree (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Not likely, as the reliable sources of the time would have been sufficient to debunk the Myth of the Flat Earth.
But suppose we back up your time frame to a time when people did assume the world was flat. Yes, had there been a Wikipedia, it would have reported that. Are you suggesting that would be a problem?--SPhilbrickT 23:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Look at some of the amusing subjects Pliny wrote into his: Natural History. Rmhermen (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking for a policy

There used to be an article (I believe in RS or something) that talked about " A Physicist is more reliable on Physics related matter than a Biologist".. that is a specialist in each field has primary. I am having trouble in finding it and I would appreciate any help. Thanks.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker." -- Mikhail Bakunin SmashTheState (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
WP:V requires sources (= author or publication or publisher) to be "appropriate" for the material; presumably a physicist would not be particularly appropriate for biology. WP:SPS addresses this in the context of self-published sources. I don't know if there's something more specific. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) is analogous, and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Scholarship and Wikipedia:Fringe theories are relevant. Another related but inactive project is Wikipedia:Scientific peer review. Fences&Windows 19:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Fundraiser banner testing

Once again the Fundraising team will be testing some banners on the English Wikipedia today (1st July). These will be up from 17:30-18:30 UTC and displayed to anonymous users only. If you're interested, you can see the results from our previous tests. Pcoombe (WMF) (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

There's something about the first time. FEEL the Wikilove!

I just gave out my first Wikilove. Not sure if I will end up hating it, liking it, or gettin tired of it. But was kinda fun to try it. And use it when I really wanted to communicate some good feelings. Interested to hear from others who have given or gotten their first 'love.

TCO (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That said, I can't get the make your own to work. I wanted to make one that has a handshake in it.  :-( TCO (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Are you perhaps putting in an image URL instead of a filename? (It should really work with both.) If not, do you have time to give me the steps you're taking so we can debug what's going on?--Eloquence* 20:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I tried some handshake images. Tried it with and without the "File:" in front. Both images were jpegs (example mentions a png). Let me go mess with it a little more and come back. Actually...why don't YOU leave me a wikilove, making one using this image.  :-)
Shake hand.jpg

TCO (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Tried doing it with you and it did not work. Wondered if it was the space in filename, but an unspaced other file did not work either.

Will a non-admin, non-developer, normal person please send me a make your own, using that handshake file? Trying to figure out if the code is messed up, or if it's me!TCO (talk) 03:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing... Religious representation on Wikipedia. Where are the Christians?

I was curious about how different religions are represented on WP, so I compared stats on the number of Wikipedians who self-identify with a particular religion to the US average. Here are the results -

Religion As a percentage of US population Self Identification Category Members of Category Members as a percentage Fold repersentation
Christian 78.5 Category:Christian_Wikipedians 1,741 30.4 0.39
Jewish 1.7 Category:Jewish_Wikipedians 484 8.4 5.0
Buddhist 0.7 Category:Buddhist Wikipedians 256 4.5 6.4
Hindu 0.4 Category:Hindu Wikipedians 175 3.1 7.6
Muslim 0.6 Category:Muslim_Wikipedians 537 9.4 15.6
Unaffiliated 16.1 Category:Atheist_Wikipedians 2,537 44.3 2.8

Disclaimers - I realize in terms of representation there might be several flaws with this approach.

1) Self-identification may not be a reliable measure of the religious makeup on WP. Certain groups may be more prone to self-identify.
2) Demographics for the US may not be a great reflection for demographics among world wide English speakers. Muslims, who are more common out the US, are probably a little underrepresented. Hindus are probably quite often English speakers from India, and if you factor them into the equation the US percentage grossly under represents the global demographic.

Conclusion - Minority groups seem over represented on WP. In fact, it seems as though the smaller a group is, the more over represented it is on WP. I wonder why.........

Anyways, I'm just posting to see if anyone has any thoughts on this issue. Obviously this topic is of potential importance when it comes to systemic bias.

P.S. Number of wikipedians who are members of Category:Pastafarian_Wikipedians = 550. Those guys got no respect! Shout out to all Pastafarians - Drop me a line if you want to know where you should put that noodlely appendage. NickCT (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Alternative conclusion: Christians are massively overrepresented in the population of the United States.
BTW is the Noddle-worshippers category a sub of Atheists? If it is then the stats given by the OP already includes them. Roger (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Pastafarianism is a satire of creationism, not of Christianity, and affirms more the separation of the church and the state. I am one simply because I vehemently oppose any kind of religion attempting to influence governments. Unless you want your child to be taught fairytales, don't touch my meatballs, thank you.
Furthermore, it's no secret that religion and science don't go very well together, and Wikipedia operates on scientific consensus. You'd probably be more likely to find the more fervently religious in Conservapedia. I personally don't see overrepresentation of minorities as a problem. It levels the playing field, so to speak. Unaffiliated editors have the advantage of staying neutral when it comes to writing articles that might contradict the religious doctrines of some other person.
Also may I point out that presenting the non-Christian groups as 'minorities' is completely inaccurate? The English Wikipedia is not solely for Americans (or even for English-speaking nations only), it's a global English language encyclopedia. See List of religious populations for actual population ratios.
And lastly, we have no obligation to match the amount of bias based on the percentages of the human population subscribing to a particular belief. We do not judge verifiability based only on how many people believe in them do we?
Neutrality is not achieved by mirroring real-world biases.-- ObsidinSoul 14:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
@Roger - re "Christians are massively overrepresented in the population of the United States" - Do you think that is the case in the Enlgish speaking world? I'd guess they're maybe slightly overrepresented, but there are still a lot of Christians in Australia, UK, Canada etc... NickCT (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps members of a majority are less likely to self-identify on their user page as a member of a minority. —Akrabbimtalk 14:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
@ObsidinSoul - re "We do not judge verifiability based only on how many people believe in them do we? " - That wasn't really my point re systemic bias; I was really asking whether we could expect Wikipedia to treat Christianity fairly if there are so few Christians editing. NickCT (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
@User:Akrabbim Yeah. I considered this. I wonder if that's true. Are members of a majority less likely to identify themselves as such than members of a minority. If so, how would we know? NickCT (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Just want to comment on something Obsidin said above - "You'd probably be more likely to find the more fervently religious in Conservapedia".
That is only true of a particular (and peculiar) American variety of "Conservative Christian". AIUI Conservapedia is in any case intentionally hostile to all non-Americans regardless of their religious or political persuasion. On the other hand "Conservative Muslims, Hindus, etc" are also highly unlikely to be well represented on WP. I think WP's "scientific rationalist culture" would tend to filter out extremists of all types. Roger (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Yep. I meant in context of people who are the most unlikely to ever agree with scientific consensus (i.e. can never be neutral). They are usually the POV pushers the vandal-fighters always have to deal with. Moderates are of course, well-represented enough.
@NickCT: From cursory appraisal of our religious articles, they do seem to be well-covered and objective. Christians aren't the only ones editing Christian-related articles of course (same goes for other denominations). There's no reason to doubt the neutrality of non-Christian editors when dealing with Christianity-related articles. We are, after all, 'governed' by policies. Also, isn't editing something you feel strongly about discouraged as WP:COI?
If anything, systemic bias deals with minimizing the bias of the majority. e.g. The greater population of Christians and westerners in English-speaking regions might affect the way articles on non-western and non-Christian subjects are presented, not the other way around. Editor bias is a factor, but so are sources used and available.
All in all, languages spoken by the editors and the countries they come from (and the media they are exposed to) have a far greater effect on systemic bias than religion ever will. -- ObsidinSoul 17:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I actually don't trust believers to treat articles related to their own beliefs fairly. They have an inherent COI which is very hard to step away from. IMHO atheists make the best editors of articles about religion as they have no emotional attachment to the subject. Their indiference keeps them honest. Roger (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
It has not been my experience that atheists are "indifferent" to religion or that they have no emotional attachments to the subject. Atheists who are former believers often have many emotional attachments. Those who believe that religious groups are harming them can be virulently anti-religion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Yep. Including me, for obvious reasons. Which is why I avoid editing content in religious articles.-- ObsidinSoul 06:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
There are Atheists and atheists. Some, the "We hate all gods" type, clearly do have an emotional attachment to their pov while others, the "Gods, what gods?" faction, are generally capable of viewing the subject dispassionately, like biologists describing and discussing bugs. I'd put myself in the latter group, I tend to take a sociological/historical view of religion. Roger (talk) 08:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
@ObsidinSoul - Re " Also, isn't editing something you feel strongly about discouraged as WP:COI?" I agree absolutely on that point. Editors shouldn't edit on topics they feel strongly about; however, I think anyone who's been around WP for more than a few days knows that in practice, this doesn't really hold.
re "There's no reason to doubt the neutrality of non-Christian editors when dealing with Christianity-related articles" - Frankly, I've seen a lot religious WP:BATTLEGROUNDing on WP. Whether it be protestant on catholic, or Jew on Muslim or pretty much everyone one those conniving Scientologists, it seems WP has simmering holy wars in some places. Though I hate to admit it, I've even seen us atheists give pretty rough handling to a few religious articles (see the endless debate about calling the Genesis creation narrative a "myth"). Usually it's adherents to faith who rise up to counter these attacks. I fear if those adherents are underrepresented, WP may do their faiths a disservice.... Regardless, I appreciate your POV and thank you for the conversation. Best, NickCT (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Well... granted that calling it anything other than a myth violates WP:DUE and Wikipedia:Fringe theories, that actually makes me glad there aren't more. If we accept doctrinal views as fact with no other basis other than the number of adherents advocating it, we might as well open our doors to proselytizing.-- ObsidinSoul 06:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Doing your (religious or ideological) "faith a service on WP" is already the wrong concept to begin with. Faithful men on a mission should spread their gospel elsewhere.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
What about Wiccan? Where are all the Witches? --Kumioko (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
@ObsidinSoul re "granted that calling it anything other than a myth violates WP:DUE " - While I might agree with you on that point, I'm sure you'll grant me that many Christians might not share the POV. I think citing Wikipedia:Fringe theories in relation to something that 70% or so of Americans might hold true is potentially a little troubling, and perhaps an example of how the skewed demographics on WP leads to WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS. NickCT (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Category:Wiccan_Wikipedians = 91 members..... They've got to be over represented here too. NickCT (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
If it wasn't said here already, keep in mind that in addition to editors from the rest of the Anglosphere (UK, Australia, NZ, Singapore...) a large proportion of our editors are speakers of English as a Second Language from nations around the world. This directly explains the "overrepresentation" of Muslims in your statistics, since Islam is extremely popular in nations like India where many of our ESL speakers originate. Dcoetzee 21:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
And as is usual Deist Wikipedians (numbering 112) and Pantheist Wikipedians (17 of them) and Pandeist Wikipedians (all of 9) are left out of consideration in totality, though these be the sole theistic theological theories of the collection to arise from reason, and no need of revelation. Probably somewhat underrepresented. But one would expect Spanish-language Wikipedia to be the most Christian. The largest group of English speakers in the world, by a first or second language, would surely be Hindu.DeistCosmos (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Infiltration of Wikipedia by special interests

I've been noticing a trend on a lot of Wikipedia noticeboards of growing levels of conflict over China-related articles, often with accusations of one or another party being in the employ of Beijing. I've read several articles in the mainstream media mentioning that special interests ranging from the US military to Micro$oft consider Wikipedia to be a target for psy ops and agitprop, and it seems to me exceedingly likely as time passes that these special interests will endeavour to infiltrate the authority structure of Wikipedia (if they have not already).

In my own experience as an activist, I've seen Trots infiltrate local activist organizations by creating dozens of front groups and then demanding a seat for each one on governing councils and such. I understand that this is extremely common, and when I asked around to various activist communities about how they dealt with this problem, each had developed strategies for protecting themselves. For example, an activist in New York told me they're able to keep the Trots out of their councils by making sure there are equal numbers of Stalinists and Trots so that they fight bitterly and endlessly until both need to be removed entirely.

I'm curious whether Wikipedia has developed any strategies for protecting itself from such infiltration, or whether such protection is even possible. Are there Chinese agents already in ArbCom? Is Wikimedia riddled with CIA moles and Monsanto operatives? How would we ever know if this was the case? SmashTheState (talk) 06:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

We seem to have the "fight bitterly and endlessly" part down very well. Yoenit (talk) 06:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Hum, I didn't think that 'Trots' were that common any more, full stop. As for agents from Beijing, the CIA, Microsoft, the Milk Marketing Board etc, I'm sure such organisations consider Wikipedia worth the occasional bit of effort, but whether this has any real effect will be impossible to determine, and impossible to counter in any case unless we recruit whatever remaining Stalinists we can find to run the WikiCheka. I think we'll have to remain aware that it is a possibility, but try to keep allegations of pro-Northrop-Grumman activism to an at least barely-credible level, and hope that the WikiMoles cancel each other's efforts out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Microsoft? Sir, you must be mistaken, for this is 1996 and we're only concerned about the entity that is Micro$oft. --Golbez (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I would think with minimal effort one could pull a report from the database to determine if a CIA or China relatedd IP address has done any edits. Its already been done for Congress so why not here as well. With that said I doubt serisouly that the CIA is going to expend more than a couple hours time in infiltrating Wikipedia and surely not devote the time it would take to establish a reputation and a couple years to wiggle into Adminship and Arbitratordom. I would think that if they did use Wikipedia it would mostly be in communications through User subpages or Sandboxes and not in the main article space where it would be easily noticed. --Kumioko (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

There is definitely too much special interest going on in wikipedia. Also the whole US government is also now run by special interest groups which is undermining the democratic foundation of the country. In Wikipedia, it just doesn't cover modern events but also history, natural resources, and etc. It is a shame, and wikipedia should have a lie-detector test to see if someone has ever been part of a lobby group (once the technology becomes possible). If they fail the lie-detector test, then they should not be able to edit. ELse the credibility of Wikipedia will continue to suffer in the non-technical fields. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia should have a lie-detector test". Firstly, there's no such thing. And secondly, excluding anyone who's ever been part of a 'lobby group' would probably leave Wikipedia to nobody but the spotty adolescents who never leave their bedrooms, and the paranoid conspiracy freaks who won't join anything that might be infiltrated by the Freemasons or the UN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

To address a few of the comments: First, there are a surprising number of Trots still boring in (and just boring) out there. They don't seem very numerous because they operate through vast numbers of front groups; even some of the Trots aren't aware they're Trots. From the SWP to the IS to the Sparts, they're all arms of the same Trot beast. There's an essay called "Monopolising Resistance" which may prove elucidating, which you can probably find fairly easily online, which details how the Trots operate, and how anyone involved in activism will need to deal with their activities.

Second, a glance at COINTELPRO shows the serious men in suits and dark shades consider very little to be too small to worry about. Wikipedia is a large target, and many, many media reports have indicated that a laundry list of corporations, government agencies, and special interest groups have openly stated that they consider Wikipedia a viable medium to push their agenda, and have paid substantial sums of money to do so. In fact, one article on a marketing blog explained in specific detail how the Starbucks article has been successfully turned into a piece of corporate propaganda which whitewashes the company's reputation while hiding any criticism "below the fold." Just recently, a Zionist propaganda organization in Israel, CAMERA, has begun offering a course in how to successfully plant propaganda into Wikipedia. Anyone who claims intelligence agencies and special interest groups aren't sinking large amounts of time and resources into Wikipedia hasn't been looking very hard at mainstream media reports.

The fact that my question about Wikipedia's preparedness for dealing with infiltration garnered negligible interest (and mostly sarcastic sniping from the few who bothered to respond) tells me all I need to know about the state of Wikipedia's security culture. -- SmashTheState (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You could try starting a centralized discussion or asking on Jimbo's talk page. Either way, it would be a good idea to document the examples with external URLs and diffs. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 15:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on WikiLove?

anyone? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's rather sad. Malleus Fatuorum 19:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Fun. A little levity to all the Wikipedia Srzbzns always helps, imo.-- ObsidinSoul 19:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Naff (see [6], definition 3). AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Initial thought. WikiYawn. I don't understand the push for introducing all these different ways to inspire new users to contribute, but then again...I do understand that other people might respond well to some of them. Please note that I'm not saying that I don't want more new users to contribute, I just don't get how WikiLove and semi-forced templated userpages upon account creation are actually supposed to inspire contributions. Oh well...since it's here, give it a chance. Just be willing to pull the plug when it's abused, which does seem far more likely to me. --OnoremDil 20:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Although I understand the point of doing it I think its rather stupid and lame. Several of the folks I work with that know I edit WP have approached me with jokes and prodding about this "Brilliant new feature". It seems like we could do a lot better than that, maybe something like the Twinkle menu with Barnstars? Additionally this doesn't do anything to fix the problem of the editors leaving which is all the newbie biting, assumptions of bad faith and the other Wikidrama that frequently goes on. --Kumioko (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it's a good thing. Of course we could add a counterbalancing feature—WikiToxicity. Ha ha? Got humor? I actually like the new WikiLove feature. Bus stop (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll be honest the "Make you own" is going to be a problem even with the Bad Image list. I can also imagine 4chan raids with it being abused.The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
To make it easier to spot use and abuse, I've created an edit filter tag for all WikiLove messages. Here are recent WikiLove editsrecent WikiLove filter hits. So far it's pretty innocuous, with a fair amount of "self-love" by newbies or people experimenting (which is to be expected, and probably healthy and normal ;-), but also lots of genuine expressions of appreciation.--Eloquence* 00:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
This is one of very few examples of problematic behavior I've seen so far. While still fairly innocuous and possibly in good faith, it potentially argues for a throttle for non-autoconfirmed users. I'm also seeing quite a few examples of new users using the tool well (to thank mentors, or other editors working on the same article). We'll do some more qualitative analysis and share what we find.--Eloquence* 17:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I did not click your link, but autoconfirmed or not, there should without question be a throttle. --OnoremDil 18:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's really "problematic behavior". The link shows a newly registered account giving barnstars to a dozen editors. The barnstars say things like "For all your tireless contributions!". In fact, I'd say that the reply from an editor (who says that appreciation from newbies isn't appreciated) is a much bigger problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
*shrugs* I didn't care all that much about it when it was announced and still don't care all that much. I am a little perplexed at the addition of beer in the all of two options. Kittens, I understand, because those are used widely, but beer? Maybe i'm just biased since i've never gotten a beer one. At the very least, it'll be convenient to be able to use the system for Barnstars instead of having to go to the Barnstar page and copy the code. But it's only a minimal amount of convenience, really. SilverserenC 21:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it builds "friendliness" right into the regular, clickable features. There doesn't have to be a "Random article" link. I think this (the WikiLove feature) is very bold, and those who instituted it should be commended. Bus stop (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Is there a typo there? Do you mean "committed"? Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
lol Bus stop (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Silver seren, we revisited the "beer" option before we deployed. There's now a broader "Food and Drink" category with lots of options to choose from. The feature is also highly customizable by the community and we hope it'll evolve over time. :-) --Eloquence* 23:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I love it. I think it's fun, it's quirky, and it's an unboring and clever way to make someone smile. While I question the ability of it to get "new users to participate" I think it's a fun way (I was using the previous Wikilove tab) to make people feel valued. There is nothing wrong with that, is there? I already gave a beer away (until I can buy them a real one in Haifa), too. I think the slippery slope concept is a bit dramatic in regards to it being abused, think positive (wikilove!) and perhaps #Wikigoth can be invented next (I do love the WP:Death barnstar! - scroll down to the death star). SarahStierch (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Esperanza got deleted, since Wikipedia is not a social networking site. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In case you guys are interested, you may want to know that pretty much everything about the extension is configurable on-wiki (by editing MediaWiki:WikiLove.js). If doesn't like Kittens, you can replace them with bags of coal or whatever ;) You can even change the heart icon to something different if you like. It's totally up to the consensus of the community as to how you actually want to use this tool. The configuration documentation for the extension is somewhat minimal right now (and only covers wiki-wide configuration, not personal configuration), but I will be expanding it significantly over the next few days. Just let me know if you have any questions about it in the meantime. Kaldari (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I rather like it, myself. StuRat (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Another reason to get rid of this abomination, as far as I'm concerned, is that for some reason (short-circuited neurones I expect), it makes me think of Donny Osmond: "And they call it WikiLove..." (exit the Grump, Grumping furiously...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Wiki/Puppy/Love Bus stop (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Aaaaaaaaaaargh... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Cons - unnecessary, lame and juvenile. Pros - easily ignored. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone want to create a script that will allow editors to make it disappear or allow users to change the name of it (WikiBiteTheNewbie, WikiDrama, WikiPuppyLove, Wikiwhydowehavethisoption(WWDWHTO for short maybe). Maybe we could allow th use of any image in commons! If I haven't already done so on my own profile, I could probably make a java script or something for some of this if you want it. :-) --Kumioko (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
You can disable it in your preferences at the bottom of the editing tab, you heartless so & so. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Lol, thanks. For what its worth it doesn't work on my Computers anyway! I click the tab and it just sits there scared and alone! I think I saw something about there benig a problem with the old style skin. The new look and feel of WP was very slow and I prefer the old one cause I'm an old fuddy duddy and don't adjust to changes well ;-)--Kumioko (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
And about the filter - yay! We have an edit filter that does nothing and secondly lists autoconfirmed users. Yay yay yay! Island Monkey talk the talk 17:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
As per the above thread, the point of the filter is to inspect how the tool is used, and whether its current uses are disruptive. Because it's a new feature, it's entirely possible that it'll be used in ways that are perceived as disruptive or unhelpful even by autoconfirmed users. The tool does a fair amount of data collection on its own, so we should be able to produce nicer reports on its usage soon (and yes, a toolserver script could do the same job easily). But in order to allow quick inspection of uses right now, I think the current filter is a simple solution. --Eloquence* 18:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I can't understand why anyone would feel happy at receiving a boilerplate praise template posted using an automatic tool. It's like getting a store-bought greeting card and a $10 gift certificate to Kmart. The message is "I feel that I should give you something, but I don't care enough about it to put in anything but the minimum amount of effort." At least, that is the message many people will take from such a "gift". I don't know if I want to opt out from receiving these gifts, as such, because that in itself is rude. I would rather that people realize that this kind of empty praise is not appreciated by many people, and refrain from sending it unless they know the recipient well enough to be sure that it's okay.
I worry that this tool, if widely used, will actually drive editors away instead of encouraging them to stay, for the reasons laid out in this well known book. -- BenRG (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I had a similar thought. Handing out a Wikilove token feels like it has all the thoughtfulness of buying your wife an anniversary present at 7-Eleven. Resolute 03:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I get the feeling this is somehow related to a discussion last month on the talk page of Jimbo Wales. Read the initial post and Jimbo's response, basically endorsing adding social networking tools to Wikipedia. The WikiLove script is not the same as having the otherwise ubiquitous Facebook or Twitter links found on other sites introduced on pages here, but it seems similar to some of the cuteness that goes on with Fbook, sending beers and drinks and "Pieces of Flair" and so on. The fun encyclopedia any happy people can edit. Fonzie on water skis. Sswonk (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
♪ Shiny happy people holding hands... ♫ Shiny happy people edit-warring... ♪ -- ObsidinSoul 04:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Just noticed the new WikiLove tab on the User talk pages!! Good idea, hope it works to soften up some people out know who you are!! --Funandtrvl (talk) 05:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

A quick chart about WikiLove. Look at the tiny blue line on July 1st. Spread the wikilove ; ) emijrp (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with this tool, as it isn't really adding anything new to wikipedia. Barnstars and "Congratulations!" templates have existed since a long time ago, this extension simply allows ease in using them. Similarily, users who want to annoy others have long existed as well (same as the chance of adding shock images to their messages), and if they have the will to harass, they will do so with or without wikilove extension. Cambalachero (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


Is a monograph similar to a journal? I am just trying to decide which is the right template (not {{Citeweb}}) to cite this. Simply south...... digging mountains for 5 years 15:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Similar but different - see Monograph Roger (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I suppose I should just use {{citejournal}}? Simply south...... digging mountains for 5 years 22:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Monograph is not journal. It is like a research book. The one you are looking at should be {{cite book}} as the website is just an e-version of an actual printed book. You should provide all info on the printed book (which you can find at Woldcat). Renata (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for this. Simply south...... digging mountains for 5 years 15:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Webster's Guide to World Governments

Does anyone know the background behind this series? Apparently, all info comes from Wikipedia. - Presidentman talk·contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 15:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The company itself is called Webster's Digital Services, and they seem to be producing books based on Wikipedia. Is this acceptable? - Presidentman talk·contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 15:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
It is perfectly acceptable, so long as they follow the rules spelled out at Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. --Jayron32 17:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, others are allowed to do whatever they want with Wikipedia articles, as long as they maintain attribution and share-alike licensing already in use here. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Licensing problems regarding WikiAlpha?

I received an email (via my Wikipedia address) that an article I had nominated for deletion (but isn't actually yet deleted) was moved to WikiAlpha, which is apparently a brand new site that purports to be "like Wikipedia, but without notability and original research requirements." While that's fine and I have no problems in that regard, I noticed that all of their content, including content directly copied from Wikipedia, is licensed under the Creative Commons public domain license. Granted, I'm not good with copyright law, but in my experience, Wikipedia uses share-alike licenses—meaning that all copied content must use the same license, with attribution.

This appears to be a very new site, so I thought I'd bring this to the attention of more experienced users to process this and elevate it to those who can deal with it if necessary. If this is in the wrong forum, feel free to redirect me to the right one. Cheers. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

In related news, the email message was sent to me from WikiAlphaBot (talk · contribs), which appears to exist to copy articles up for deletion to WikiAlpha and send courtesy emails to someone involved with the page. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
In case you guys weren't aware of it, there's also Wikibin ("The Recycle Bin of Wikipedia!"), which is licensed under GFDL.-- ObsidinSoul 02:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
And the old DeletionPedia. emijrp (talk) 07:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that the licenses are incompatible. The relevant page is WP:Reusing Wikipedia content. In any case, even if the licensing issue is resolved, WikiAlpha should be listed at WP:Mirrors and forks/Vwxyz, where there is an entry for Wikibin. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I've left a note on the page of one of the site administrators (as listed on their page about the site) letting them know of this discussion and inviting them to participate here. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Good going. :) You might want to tweak your note. :) It's correct in essence, but Wikipedia's content is not all licensed under GFDL. We use dual-licenses these days: CC-By-SA 3.0. and GFDL, and there is some text available under the former only (but no text available only under the latter). Hopefully they'll correct the issue. (Not speaking for the WMF here.) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Right, forgot we were using CC licensing these days. Will adjust. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am from WikiAlpha (administrator Richard.) We wish to keep our content under the public domain where possible (i.e. where authors have directly entered it into the site.) However where we have copied articles which are currently on Wikipedia and nominated for deletion, we understand that the above complaints are valid. I'm not an expert on copyright law, but would it be sufficient, in your opinion, to place a notification that the content on a particular page is licensed under a separate license contrary to the general public domain license?

Additionally, we are happy to remove content that authors do not with to be republished on our site. Just send us an email to Thank you. Wootfarm (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this would be fine if (1) it was sure to specify the original content was from Wikipedia, with a link if the content still exists on here, and (2) specified the license, which here would be CC-BY-SA 3.0. In my (admittedly nonprofessional) view, this would satisfy both the attribution and share-alike terms of both the CC license and the GFDL. I would be welcome to help out over there creating a template that would satisfy this. Let me know if you would want this. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 04:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
We're upgrading our servers right now, but we will institute this policy immediately after. Thanks for the kind offer and the productive feedback.Wootfarm (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
If the article has been deleted on Wikipedia, you'll need a list of contributors to the article for license compliance. Probably most administrators would be happy to copy this for you, though it will make a bit of work. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Our robot can automatically record the contributors for articles that still exist on Wikipedia, and under your advice we will instate this feature. However for articles already copied, we don't have any means of obtaining these lists. We have about 50 deleted articles at the moment. If you know of an administrator who would be willing to provide the history pages for each of these articles, please let us know. If not, we've made a best effort attempt at CCA compliance; which I believe is generally sufficient. Thanks.Wootfarm (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll be happy to help under my "volunteer" account (a bit out of scope for this one). Do you have a list of these somewhere? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm known as Govind on WikiAlpha, these are the list of pages currently on the Deleted namespace:

<moved below for organization>

GSMR (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay. :) (In volunteer mode, dusting my hands, ready to get digging. :D) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Most of those have not yet been deleted, so you can still snag the attribution yourself. :) I'm sure you know how to use Help:Page history, since you're using the same software. Separating out the ones that are still bluelinks from the ones for which I've provided attribution at your Wiki. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Now attributed at WikiAlpha
Still accessible on Wikipedia
I'm currently in the process of copying the revision history of each of these articles into a text file; once I am done with that I will attribute the contributions appropriately. GSMR (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Done everything up to DEPOT, will continue later (rest are saved in a text file so no need to worry about preserving them). Thanks for your help! GSMR (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


i am an indian and i live in RAIPUR, CHHATTISGARH. could anybody please tell me an online book store where i could find world literature and any sort of books? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 00chirag5 (talkcontribs) 04:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe. Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Strange goose image

At the bottom of the Prohibition Party article is this brief section:

===Elected officials=== [[image:The Drunkard's Progress - Color.jpg|thumb|right|300px|The Drunkard's Progress: A lithograph by [[Nathaniel Currier]] supporting the temperance movement, January 1846.]] * [[Sidney Johnston Catts]] – [[Governor of Florida]] (1917–1921) * [[Charles Hiram Randall]] – [[California State Assembly]]man (1911–12) and [[U.S. Representative]] from [[California's 9th congressional district|the 9th District of California]] (1915–21) * [[Susanna M. Salter]] – Mayor of [[Argonia, Kansas]] (1887): the first female mayor in the United States * [[James Hedges]] – [[Thompson Township, Fulton County, Pennsylvania|Thompson Township, Pennsylvania]], Tax Assessor (2002–2007)<ref>[ Prohibition Party Candidates]</ref>: the first and only known officeholder of the 21st century

which shows as:

Elected officials

The Drunkard's Progress: A lithograph by Nathaniel Currier supporting the temperance movement, January 1846.

Needless to say, the goose is not The Drunkard's Progress, but clicking on the duck will take you to the right image. What is going on here?!

Dralwik|Have a Chat 04:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Jmf145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) uploaded the new image. Someone might want to go over his other contributions too. (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The image is correct, it was reverted about 16 hours ago, however the thumbnail for 300px has not updated. Until the thumbnail works its way through the system it will keep appearing as the duck. 04:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monty845 (talkcontribs)
    With enough attempts at using &action=purge on various places the bad version appears, I think the bad version has been chased off. Monty845 04:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks. I figured it was some sort of caching bug. Dralwik|Have a Chat 04:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Slashdot thread on Wikipedia illustrates the mind of disgruntled editors

Recently there was a post on SlashDot about our new WikiLove feature [7].

In general there is little conversation about the new feature, and more conversation about why Slashdot readers - a demographic that should include many good contributors to Wikipedia, as they are generally intelligent, "wise" to technology, and sympathetic to free and open source software and information - have grown to be cynical about the utility of being volunteer editors.

The comments contain some stories of disgruntled editors, usually describing the failure of their first attempts at editing Wikipedia. The themes, as I read it, are:

  1. A new user tries to edit an article and gets reverted without explanation, and/or dismissively ignoring the arguments in favor of the changes put forward by the IP.
  2. A new user tries to edit an article and gets reverted. Tries to go to the talk page, where he encounters a veteran editor filibustering by repeating the same arguments over and over (while reverting). Decides that whoever has the most time to argue wins on Wikipedia and that real life is more important than arguing on the internet, and quits editing Wikipedia.
  3. Experienced former users complaining that they left the project because much of their work on this or that obscure topic was summarily deleted, or "merged" into another article where the merged article was now overlong and all the content deleted anyway. User leaves in frustration.
  4. Many users complaining that our veteran editors are arrogant, with condescending and dismissive attitudes toward 'outsiders' who are not part of the in-group of vested contributors.

I have no particular suggestions for how we can counter these perceptions, but I thought I should notice it in a public place. Feedback / ideas welcome.

Regards, causa sui (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Slashdot contributors are, of coure, a magnanimous and charming group who always embrace newcomers! (pause for laughter) Having said that, there's no question that the perception is widely held and often accurate - although I don't think that our arrance is applied to "outsiders" as much as it is applied to "editing efforts that are so wildly outside what has come to be seen the norm that I fear it would be too much work to deal with it so I'll just kill it and hope it goes away". I've been guilty of that last one myself. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Those who were complaining about article "owners" are also probably not as innocent as they claim to be. Probably POV-pushers, people who add unsourced information to BLPs or very controversial articles, or COI editors.
And yeah, too many vandals, so little time. Most of us tend to just revert suspicious looking unsourced or poorly sourced edits after only the most cursory inspection (or none at all), simply because we don't have that much time or patience to spare trying to fix the edits of others. Especially if you had to explain the same policies multiple times in a single day and still getting nowhere. Or for articles on subjects we know very little about, and we just found out about it by checking the contribs of a vandal.
But mostly, I think it's because a lot of people still think Wikipedia is all magical and stuff, then get disillusioned when they peek beneath the sunshine and rainbows of mainspace and see the fiery furnaces of the talk and project page machinery. Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate :D -- ObsidinSoul 19:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
My guess is that if those leaving these comments had left diffs I would have felt there was something wrong with what they are doing. But what that doesn't excuse is that they left the project with the feeling that it is dominated by unreasonable people. Most people come to Wikipedia with wrong ideas about how things get done or how they should conduct themselves - I certainly did. So the important takeaway from this, I think, is that problem new editors are just confused people doing the best they know how to do. We could be doing more to reform them and bring them into the fold. Regards, causa sui (user talk:causa sui) 19:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Our help pages are daunting... and that's an understatement. I'm relatively new, and I still distinctly remember the feeling of being completely lost. And one very common reaction of a lost new editor, being needlessly prodded (bombarded even, in some cases) by more experienced editors on any little thing they do wrong - is anger.
Most people don't really consider themselves stupid, the few that are tend to just breeze along oblivious of the warning templates accumulating on their talk pages, haha. But a lot of our day to day talkpage/edit summary interactions, are rather accusatory (whether deserved or not). If you were a new user, you'd feel threatened, boxed in, treated like a criminal or worse, an idiot. And that would make most people furious. It also puts them on defensive, leading to a downward spiral to the final ragequit or a block and then their resurrection as a vandal. They never learn to correct (or even just accept) their original mistakes because they never had a chance to. The way we deal with mistakes makes the most likely reaction of most new users to be that of proud defiance. And defiance against consensus is a mortal sin in Wikipedia, haha. For those reasons, they never pass that invisible threshold and become regular. And frankly, I have no idea how to fix that either.
I do think that users who do find even just one sympathetic editor who had the patience to explain things to them tend to be those who eventually stayed on. In contrast, the isolated editors who have little interactions with other editors other than being warned for this or that violation, are those who tend to leave with the bitter aftertaste of being a former Wikipedian. -- ObsidinSoul 20:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I think the best solution to all of these problems is resources like Wikipedia:Help desk and #wikipedia-en-help on IRC, where new users who are having problems, no matter what they are, will tend to get a sympathetic ear from experienced editors who will investigate, provide advice, and arbitrate editing disputes. Admittedly, sometimes the advice amounts to "I don't think X is ready to have a Wikipedia article about them right now", but if more users knew about resources like these I think they'd get help when get frustrated instead of giving up. Dcoetzee 21:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget about Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure. Once that is completed, we'll have an active tutorial system that will guide new users through the processes and how things work, instead of just directing them toward almost entirely unhelpful reams of pages on how to edit. SilverserenC 21:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The culture of Wiki-hate that is developing among many Internet users truly baffles me. I have noticed the same general remarks and attitudes by people at Slashdot, Reddit, and the like as Causa sui points out. The odd thing is that if you defend Wikipedia by explaining why somebody's complaints are untenable, you'll receive a lot of support and the tide tends to turn against the person who originally complained. The one general fact I have concluded is that the most vocal opponents of Wikipedia almost universally do not know much about being an editor and their arguments are not very well thought-out and are easily countered. Unfortunately, their maliced sentiment spreads easier than it is to dispel. My guess is that these people are disgruntled newbies who attempted to edit "difficult" articles right way that are magnets for controversy: religious, political, and drug articles, for instance. The high-profile articles are difficult to change and by the nature of being high-profile are more-or-less hard to improve upon already. Basically, their first experiences were negative because they unwisely chose topics to begin with. That's my guess anyway. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Oscar icon.png

The file commons:File:Oscar icon.png, which is used on a very large number of pages (links), has been marked for nominated deletion on Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests July 2011. Rather than notify a large number of talk pages I am raising this on WP:AN and WP:VP to obtain the right intervention.

What to do

A discussion about whether to delete the file will now take place on Commons. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise:

  • Check for the type of usage in articles and templates (usually infoboxes)
  • If the deletion of the image will cause a problem, prepare to fix it:
    • Using a local redirect
    • By using a different image (i.e. in an infobox)
    • Contact someone at commons to delay deletion or work out a plan to overcome issues with the deletion

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

File:American Civil War Montage 2.jpg

The file commons:File:American Civil War Montage 2.jpg, which is used on a very large number of pages (links), has been marked for nominated deletion on Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 4 July 2011. Rather than notify a large number of talk pages I am raising this on WP:AN and WP:VP to obtain the right intervention.

What to do

A discussion about whether to delete the file will now take place on Commons. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise:

  • Check for the type of usage in articles and templates (usually infoboxes)
  • If the deletion of the image will cause a problem, prepare to fix it:
    • Using a local redirect
    • By using a different image (i.e. in an infobox)
    • Contact someone at commons to delay deletion or work out a plan to overcome issues with the deletion

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe this situation has been rectified and I have removed the tag. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

The file commons:File:Verre de whisky.jpg, which is used on a very large number of pages (links), has been marked for nominated deletion on Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 5 July 2011. Rather than notify a large number of talk pages I am raising this on WP:AN and WP:VP to obtain the right intervention.

What to do

A discussion about whether to delete the file will now take place on Commons. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise:

  • Check for the type of usage in articles and templates (usually infoboxes)
  • If the deletion of the image will cause a problem, prepare to fix it:
    • Using a local redirect
    • By using a different image (i.e. in an infobox)
    • Contact someone at commons to delay deletion or work out a plan to overcome issues with the deletion

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome messages and Wikilove

What about adding a new option to the wikilove extension, applying the {{Welcome!}} template or other similar ones for new users? It may be a single welcome template, or it may allow to choose from a list of circumstances to apply one of the several types of welcome templates available Cambalachero (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice idea. I would actually be using Wikilove if it had a feature like this. Island Monkey talk the talk 14:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
WP:TWINKLE has an option for this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

What is Wikilove for, anyway..'Soul 19:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SolarWind123 (talkcontribs)

List of municipal authorities in Northampton County, Pennsylvania

List of municipal authorities in Northampton County, Pennsylvania has been deleted, but several other such lists for Pennsylvania Counties are still active. Can someone tell me where this particular list went?--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The list was deleted following a deletion discussion that occurred at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of municipal authorities in Northampton County, Pennsylvania. Monty845 16:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

looking for a picture of fluorine reacting

Can anyone help here...or point me to more places to ask for help?

I want a video (or perhaps a photo) of fluorine gas reacting with something. There is nothing PD (or even that I can think of as an easy donation). Looking for something like in the videos below. Will go into a Featured Article Candidate. Either someone to make it for us or who has it.


TCO (reviews needed) 23:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Reference_desk/Science is watched by a lot of editors who might have some relevant thoughts.--SPhilbrickT 00:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

All links lead to ... enlightenment?

The Guardian has an item about Wikipedia today: The online encyclopedia's unlikely routes to enlightenment. This has a theory about our links tending to lead up to philosophy. I'm not convinced by this as the current FA just loops. But try it yourself and see. Warden (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

This has its own page: Wikipedia:Get to Philosophy -- John of Reading (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Oscar icon.png Deleted

The file commons:File:Oscar icon.png, which is used on a very large number of pages (links), has been deleted on Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Per commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Oscar icon.png. Rather than notify a large number of talk pages I am raising this on WP:AN and WP:VP to obtain the right intervention.

What to do
  • Check for the type of usage in articles and templates (usually infoboxes)
  • If the deletion of the image will cause a problem, try to fix it:
    • Using a local redirect
    • By using a different image (i.e. in an infobox)
    • Contact someone at commons to delay deletion or work out a plan to overcome issues with the deletion

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


The file commons:File:7BrahmanMH.jpg, which is used on a very large number of pages (links), has been marked for nominated deletion on Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests July 2011. Rather than notify a large number of talk pages I am raising this on WP:AN and WP:VP to obtain the right intervention.

What to do

A discussion about whether to delete the file will now take place on Commons. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise:

  • Check for the type of usage in articles and templates (usually infoboxes)
  • If the deletion of the image will cause a problem, prepare to fix it:
    • Using a local redirect
    • By using a different image (i.e. in an infobox)
    • Contact someone at commons to delay deletion or work out a plan to overcome issues with the deletion

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Two issues involving Requests for feedback

I believe the project has a problem which should be addressed:

A very unscientific survey of recent posts indicates that 80% or so of requests do not get an answer. This is unacceptable. (in contrast, less than 1% of questions at Help_desk go unanswered.)

I have tried to address this in a couple of ways:

  • Exhorting help desk volunteers to pop over, example
  • An attempt to create a concept of a Feedback Patrol, which died for lack of interest

I have a new thought, but before I spend time on it, I am concerned that one of the reasons we don't get sufficient volunteers at Requests for feedback is because of Problem 2

Another very unscientific survey of recent posts suggests over 90% of feedback is not acknowledged. I think the recent count is a bit of an aberration, but I would hope for something like 50% or better.

That lack of response is discouraging to me, and likely to others. (I posted to Moonriddengirl who observed similar issues at Drawing board).

I apologize in advance for posing two different problems; I am immediately interested in responses to the second problem, as I feel it must be resolved before tackling the first, but I thought articulating the first problem would help provide the context.

Moonriddengirl hinted at one possible answer I've mulled over in the past - do new editors posting to notice boards feel as if they are posting to semi-automated answering service, rather than energized human being volunteers who would like to discuss the issue? If so, how do we change that perception. If not, what should we do?--SPhilbrickT 15:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, the two problems together present a compelling case for closure of the feedback process in my view. The fact that ~80% of requests go unanswered, coupled with the ~90% of answered requests that are seemingly ignored, appears to me that users are failing to connect though this process and that it's only creating false hope and subsequent frustration. That presents a good case of a process that is causing "damage" to the encyclopedia (more accurately, to the English Wikipedia community), with the obvious solution that the process should be shuttered. I know that's not what you'd like to hear, but I hope that you'll consider it because of the potential damage issue.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I responded to a side issue directly to Ohm's Law, but he did bring up one point worth mentioning: it is possible that my guesstimate of the response rate is low - in some cases, an editor may see a request at the Feedback page, and go right to the article to edit it. I have done that on many occasion; my practice is to add a note to the Feedback page, but it is understandable that some others might not. I don't believe this will materially change my concerns, but I'll do a quick check to see how often it happens.--SPhilbrickT 17:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible to get people to ask at the help desk instead of the help desk people going there? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
That's an interesting thought. My initial reaction wasn't positive, as I'm concerned about the possibility of overwhelming the help desk. That said, the help desk gets 20-30 questions a day while Feed gets 10-15, so it would be a material increase, but perhaps not impossible. I was mulling a hybrid model, where editors post the request at the help desk, then a volunteer takes it on and moves tit to feedback for a response, but that may be overkill. As an alternative, editors post a request at the help desk, with short responses posted at the help desk, and more detailed responses posted at the target article talk page. I wonder if that might work.--SPhilbrickT 19:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Given my lack of experience in reviewing articles, a feedback request at the help desk would take me much longer to deal with than a typical help desk question. A stream of feedback requests could indeed lead to a backlog there. -- John of Reading (talk) (help desk volunteer) 10:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Having lurked there but never edited, another problem is that many of these new accounts are really obvious role accounts writing puff pieces and/or copyvios. They tend to end up blocked for these problems before anyone can respond, and it would seem rather pointless to give feedback to an blocked corporate account whose article is blatant spam; I'd be more inclined to give my time for a good-faith newbie. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

How about more of an apprenticeship model where new editors have to earn the right to make new articles? Part of the problem is new articles by new people are so often crap (and in general new articles is not our biggest needs, it's to add content to well-notable topics, so why be exerting lots of effort on that crap)? Earn your stripes is a way to better channel things.TCO (reviews needed) 19:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that we focus on joining new editors up with people who care about the kinds of article that they're editing, because that seems like to point of greatest possible synergy. Maybe some kind of cross-posting / transclusion into Wikiproject space? Stuartyeates (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Love it!TCO (reviews needed) 01:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Having been part of the IRC help channel before becoming active in the Help Desk and having cooperated somewhat with the AfC people, I think the reasons why most people don't want to respond to WP:FEEDBACK is the same reason why there are so few reviewers in the Articles for Creation process.

Because a great majority of the articles being submitted for feedback are COI edits, often blatantly promotional. And a fair amount of them are AfD candidates outright. Most people would balk at trying to fix errors in an article that would either be deleted sometime soon or requires them to completely rewrite the article.

As for feedback responses, I leave a feedback 'talkbalk' template at the asker's talk page. In my limited time answering requests there, they've almost always responded though not on WP:FEEDBACK itself. They either post on my talk or try to comply with the advice given. And yeah, I try to point people to WikiProjects once I get to know the subjects they are most interested in, but only in the rare cases when they aren't single-purpose COI accounts. *sigh*-- Obsidi♠n Soul 07:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Too many places for editors looking to help others to look - I'd merge this with Peer Review. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Deoband.jpg Deleted

The file commons:File:Deoband.jpg, which is used on a very large number of pages (links), has been deleted on Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Per commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Deoband.jpg. Rather than notify a large number of talk pages I am raising this on WP:AN and WP:VP to obtain the right intervention.

What to do
  • Check for the type of usage in articles and templates (usually infoboxes)
  • If the deletion of the image will cause a problem, try to fix it:
    • Using a local redirect
    • By using a different image (i.e. in an infobox)
    • Contact someone at commons to delay deletion or work out a plan to overcome issues with the deletion

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Veronica Guerin

Im no big expert on the life of Veronica Guerin, but all I can say is that I think if some user/users with extensive knowledge and time on their hand edited her article the article could really be expanded alot. Because its quite badly written right now and quite short when thinking of the fact that Guering changed alot of Irelands judicial system before her murder in 1996. So I would like to request that some user took a look at the article and expanded it and perhaps re-writes it. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Buzz icon.png

The file commons:File:Buzz icon.png, which is used on a very large number of pages (links), has been marked for speedy deletion on Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions. Rather than notify a large number of talk pages I am raising this on WP:AN and WP:VP to obtain the right intervention.

What to do

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is time to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise:

  • Check for the type of usage in articles and templates (usually infoboxes)
  • If the deletion of the image will cause a problem, try to fix it:
    • Using a local redirect
    • By using a different image (i.e. in an infobox)
    • Contact someone at commons to delay deletion or work out a plan to overcome issues with the deletion

A further notification will be placed if/when the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That's mostly my doing with a template for the Signpost. Silly me thinking that somebody would check the copyright status when being used on Commons Picture of Year. — Dispenser 03:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Speedy delete was rejected. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyone ever have something taken from a sandbox and written up by someone else?

Had this happen a while ago. Just once actually. And not some big prize or anything. And had been dormant with me for a while. Kinda glad the para-long stub was created with sources I had in sandy. But still...what kind of person does that and does not give a heads up or a comment on talkie-talk? TCO (reviews needed) 15:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I've seen it happen, although it's never happened to me. It's not very polite. Moreover, it's a violation of license if they didn't attribute it, in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Credit is not just polite on Wikipedia; it's mandated by license. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Interesting point. I don't think there would be a copyright issue here as the text was not really cut and pasted. More grabbing the topic and sources.TCO (reviews needed) 15:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Happened early this year to two drafts by User:Aakheperure. Thing was, it was done by multiple users targeting a well-made draft, sockpuppets of a single person or a group of closely connected people in real life. User:SirEpicBob is the blocked puppetmaster (see his SPI blocking discussion and note how this was apparently his modus operandi to a lot of other stolen drafts).
Now the main difference is, these people (or person) did it for rather nefarious reasons. They wanted to gain 'standing' in the Wikipedia community as valid editors. All the accounts had one thing in common - they had, what at first glance appears to be an elaborate user page of a reasonably experienced editor, but when you checked the dates of their joining, they just don't add up. Then you realize it's all fake. They give each other fake barnstars, had a short blurb about themselves, and they "steal" drafts and publish it then add it to the list of articles they supposedly started.
They seem quite experienced with Wikipedia's inner workings and I suspect they planned to use these accounts for either serious propaganda or build a business by writing Wikipedia articles for companies and using these fake 'experienced' editor accounts as the starting points. The owner of the draft was pretty upset. We (IRC helpers and the user who adopted the owner of the draft, User:Petrb) initially tried talking to the editors who moved them with no luck. They don't respond. Even explicit warnings not to move the drafts because they are active doesn't help. Problem is, there's nothing in the policies that prohibit this, not even in as simple etiquette. I think there should be, even at least for asking editors to ask the original author for permission to move it.
Any way you look at it, even with our WP:OWN policies, taking someone else's draft without notifying the original author is wrong. Unless the original author is inactive, it's extremely rude.
So be careful if yours has been moved recently without the mover notifying you. Especially if he claims 'credit' for it afterwards by copypasting it. Check his other contribs and make sure he's not a reincarnation of the above user or someone similar to him.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Cool. My home after I get repermabanned. ;-) TCO (reviews needed) 06:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Wow, thanks for the insult, Will, not that I didn't expect it when I saw the edit summary. Wikiproject Abandoned Drafts only deals with article drafts from retired users. Other users are free to donate their drafts if they don't feel they are going to finish them, but the Wikiproject (which I created two days ago) doesn't steal sandbox drafts from active users. Go insult someone else. Apologies made. SilverserenC 06:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Apologies for the offense. I've modified the remark.   Will Beback  talk  06:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for inter-Wiki Arbitration Request assistance

Hello everyone.

I need assistance over one grave matter. Namely, I have been blocked for a period of three months on the Croatian Wikipedia, in what I believe is an example of administrational abuse and newbie harassment. I have wanted to use methods of appeal, but after announcing to use them, the blocking admin has extended my block further to my talk page and upon my announcement to use the email feature in order to inquire assistance from other administrations, he has deprived me of that privilege as well.

I have dispatched an appeal at the Request for Comment over at the Croatian Wikipedia, and the end opinions are very controversial - 2 admins strongly critical of my appeal, while 2 others mostly endorse it and demand my immediate unblock and a review of the actions of the blocking admin. However, the two latter ones had submitted their Opinions only moments after the deadline to do so has expired, meaning that their opinions have been crossed out and only the first two ones, which oppose my arguments, will be taken into consideration. Considering that several days have passed since the initial 10-day period and in the lack of any sort of a determined time period within which a neutral 3rd party Administrator is to summarize the opinions of the Administrators and implement actions, if any, as well as the already-known outcome of the pending RfC resolution, I have decided to go for the very final way of lodging an appeal at the whole Croatian Wikipedia.

In accordance to this Arbitration Committee vote:

Taken to granted these specific rules, and the circumstances I've expressed to the above, I want to file a request for the formation of such a committee. However, the Croatian Wikipedia lacks any rule or guideline which specifies the procedure of requesting the formation of such a committee, meaning that I am unable to do so myself, as was in the case of RfC, being a blocked user, stripped also of editing the personal talk page, or using the email feature. Therefore, I ask anyone present here to come forth to my assistance and submit the request in my stead, on the standard Croatian Wikipedia general discussion page, and in the lack of, as mentioned, any rules or guidelines which would give any sort of specification in regards to the submission of a request for the foundation of this special committee.

To whomever grants me this plea of assistance, I offer my most sincere gratitude. --SavoRastko (talk) 03:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Just edit here. This is where the big dogs play.TCO (reviews needed) 03:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, but I'd rather sort this problem out over at the Croatian Wikipedia. There seems to be an ongoing problem over there, with frequent repetitions; I'd like to use the highest authority in the Croatian Wikipedia to finally cut down to the core of the problem. --SavoRastko (talk) 03:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
We have lots of Balkan edit wars. You could fit right in. P.s. Why are the Croats good at basketball?  :-) TCO (reviews needed) 03:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate the warm welcome and promise that it will be taken into consideration, but let me stress that I am interested in no Balkan-related or other edit wars whatsoever. AFAIK, my request to lodge an arbitration request is precise in that course of preventing violations of the Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines; and that is precisely why I have wrote here.
Are you willing to come forward, perhaps? --SavoRastko (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I got perma-banned for 2 years. I'm probably not your best spokesperson. TCO (reviews needed) 09:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter, it's just submitting the request in my stead. Since you're the only one who has actually applied, you might just actually do it. --SavoRastko (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Just a thought, but have you tried talking to a Steward instead?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 00:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Main page features

A RFC is underway to discuss what features the community desires to see on the main page. Please participate! Thanks. AD 19:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


How do i cite this one? Simply south...... improving for 5 years 23:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the map is in the public domain (dated 1885, it seems to qualify as such). Given that, why not just uploaded, add it to the article in question, and then refer to it directly? --Jayron32 00:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
We do have {{cite map}} but I've never used it myself. Killiondude (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


The file commons:File:KylieShowgirl.jpg, which is used on a very large number of pages (links), has been marked for nominated deletion on Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests July 2011. Rather than notify a large number of talk pages I am raising this on WP:AN and WP:VP to obtain the right intervention.

What to do

A discussion about whether to delete the file will now take place on Commons. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise:

  • Check for the type of usage in articles and templates (usually infoboxes)
  • If the deletion of the image will cause a problem, prepare to fix it:
    • Using a local redirect
    • By using a different image (i.e. in an infobox)
    • Contact someone at commons to delay deletion or work out a plan to overcome issues with the deletion

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict proposal

Some time ago, I remember that there was a proposal at do something about getting the tag "Some one else has started editing this page since you started to edit it, resulting in an edit conflict". Does any one know whether anything came of this? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

How important is it to write well on Wiki talk pages, like Sandy and Malleus do?

Just curious. I am finding my talk comments to be miserable. Full of misspellings and improper homonyms and stray parentheses. And then not really in sentences. I see others go back and correct their comments. Also maybe it is "good practice" for article writing. Plus kinder on the readers. One down side is more work. And then it's not really an article. But...thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talkcontribs) 18:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It's always good to express oneself with sufficient clarity that others can understand you. In that context, I don't think stray parentheses or a few misspellings are anything to worry about. – ukexpat (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Given our current policies and guidelines, Strunk & White's Elements of Style do not currently apply to Wikipedia editors. You're free to propose policy changes over at the policy pump, however given how loose our policies and guidelines are, I highly doubt that they'll be implemented or enforced. You're still free to try if you believe it's worth your time, of course. --slakrtalk / 19:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
The important thing is to avoid ambiguity and confusion in your writing. Don't worry about the spelling and grammar so much. Sure, we all like to see a grammatical and correctly spelled comment. And there's no doubt it adds to your credibility. But I'd rather see a badly spelled and ungrammatical comment saying something clear and significant than a beautifully spelled piece of grammar which says nothing, or worse, is so tortuous that it could be saying anything. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The notion that we would need a "style guide" or spelling rules for talk pages it a bit outlandish and we have more than enough beraucracy already. I suspect the reason why people correct their own postings is simply because they are annoyed by their own typos or ambiguities due to fast typing. Nothing wrong with that, but definitely no reason for any regulation here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
How disappointing. I was rather hoping that SandyG and I might be publicly tumbrilled to our place of punishment, stripped and ... no, no ... must go and take a cold shower. Malleus Fatuorum 01:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I hope you're talking about a nice neutral Wikipedian 10degC cold shower and not one of those ice-cold 4degC showers so beloved by those who ignore the MoS and sneer at the NPoV. Otherwise I feel an RFC coming on... -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
For a while I was using a device with a horrible keyboard and made numerous errors. I only corrected those talk page entries where there was ambiguity (or where the misspellings made me look uneducated rather than clumsy). So long as the meaning is apparent that's sufficient.   Will Beback  talk  09:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
It's a matter of what linguists term "register", see Register (sociolinguistics). There are modes of communication that are appropriate to different contexts. So, the way I write in a discussion page, like this one, is quite different from the way I would write in an article, and that is entirely appropriate. Just as you would use a different register when hanging out with some friends at a bar, drinking beers, than you would when conversing with colleages at a professional conference. Personally, I spend less time fretting over (and correcting) small errors in my writing on talk pages (like accidentally dropped apostrophes or the occasional "teh"), and don't often bother to correct such mistakes (excepting when the mistake leads to a likely misunderstanding of what I meant) when I use talk pages. This is quite different from when I compose article text, where I do take more care, and I do go back and fix accidental mistakes. --Jayron32 15:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
See also Halo effect: The human brain is invincibly convinced that well-written, polite messages are naturally from better, smarter, more thoughtful people, whose views should therefore be honored and respected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Fair warning here: I'm not going to tell anyone "Don't mean to be rude", because I am clearly about to say something rude. So be it. Given the subject of the thread, I'm not sure that "polite messages" accurately describes how Malleus is known to use the talk pages at Wikipedia. I'm not sure if you meant to imply that, but lets keep things somewhat relevent to the topic at hand. That being said, Malleus's article contributions are above reproach, and I don't think his lack of tact is necessarily related to his ability to be a great contributor to Wikipedia. Annoying at times? Sure, but then again, so am I, and I don't have the article contributions to justify my presence at Wikipedia that Malleus does, so who am I to judge. Be that as it may, however, I still think that using the term "polite" to describe anything regarding Malleus's interaction style to be almost humerously inaccurate. --Jayron32 18:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Jeez, you call that rude? You need to take some obnoxiousness lessons! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm always amazed at the rudeness of those so keen to denounce what they perceive as the rudeness of others that they are even prepared to lever it into a discussion like this one. I hope it's a condition I never succumb to. Malleus Fatuorum 03:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I've never once claimed I wasn't rude. I've also never once claimed I was anything resembling useful in regards to my presence here at Wikipedia. You, especially, Malleus should know me well enough by now to stop being surprised at my level of depravity and rudeness. --Jayron32 03:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm only here to grump. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
"well-written, polite messages" are also sent by lawyers and tax official, who may not be "honored and respected". I agree with those who write clear, concise prose in Talk pages, even if they use less copyediting effort than in articles. --Philcha (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Unbelievably disgusting

Unreliable, likely partisan and misplaced report
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Likely most of you think that it's not of your business what is going on in some other parts of the Wikimedia-Universe. But if you take a look at the current cases of mobbing, hostilities and persecution of/against Jewish contributors in the German Wikipedia you just have to be appalled. Not just as user/contributor of any Wikimedia project, but rather as a human. All of this happens under indulgence and/or active participation of virtually most of the admins. Some of the chasers don't even try to hide their motives. It's just unbelievably disgusting. --GelberZettelKrieg (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if what you say is going in is really going on (I have no idea if it is, or if it is not, but lets just assume that it is going on, just for the sake of this discussion. My comments following are not a validation of the truthfulness of your statement...) then I do find it disgusting. However, I personally lack any agency to cause any change in the situation. My level of disgust is thus impotent with regards to my ability to do anything. So what. I am disgusted. Now what do you want me to do? If you really want to effect change in the situation, you should do so through German wikipedia. I have never edited there, don't speak any passable German, and so I cannot do anything to make it better. My disgust is completely irrelevent. --Jayron32 16:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Yup, I'm watching those cases too. And I'm feeling growing concernment. --Erzherzog Rudolf IV. (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't bring your fights from here. –MuZemike 03:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

If such things are happening over at, you should contact the Wikimedia Foundation and let them handle it. But there is nothing that we English editors can do about what goes on outside of —Farix (t | c) 11:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
GelberZettelKrieg, the link you have provided does not support the statement you make here. There are contradictions and exaggerations. So far, only your titleword Unbelievably is supported. Let's get clear first: exactly what & why are you entering here? -DePiep (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I notice this is also the first contribution by the 'Yup' supporter of the poster. Looking at that de: page I quickly came to the conclusion my time had been wasted. Dmcq (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. It's not like a user's been randomly blocked; there's a community ban discussion currently running about 200 for, 50 against. Besides, as Jayron pointed out, this is nothing to do with en.wp. Rd232 talk 22:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Propose closing this. Btw, can anyone put a welcome-new-user template on OP page? Thank you. -DePiep (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Widespread verification issues on the Month/Day articles (August 1 et. al.)

I've been preparing the anniversaries section for Portal:United States, which has necessitated visiting a ton of of the date pages I described in the title. Let me cut right to the chase. Every time I went though one, I found at least a few entries ranging from 'plausible sounding but not in the articles and therefore not verified' to 'utter bullshit', with a few other that were a day off or switched June with July or other such errors.

Either way, all 365 of those pages need to come under close scrutiny. Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 02:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Have fun! --Jayron32 02:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Margret Green or Margaret Green?

I had just finished updating the Margret Green Junior High School as part of the July GoCE Copy editing drive, when I discovered that there is another article, Margaret Green Junior High School, almost the same as the one I did but not copy edited. The proper article name is with the "a" in Margaret. Now I do not know what to do, so I am asking for help here. Please make sure my improvements and copyediting is retained. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I just took a look, it seems that the a-less version was made into a redirect to the properly spelled version. I glanced over the current article and didn't see anything blatantly in need of copyediting, but my guess is that your copyediting per se has been lost, more or less. If you click on the first wikilink you posted, then click on the link in the "redirected from" bit under the title, you should still have access to the history, including your edits, in case you want to see what applies to the current article, but you'll probably have to redo the edits themselves. If you need additional help you probably would be better off asking at WP:HD. Wabbott9 Tell me about it.... 18:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

help... help... help

hello, I want to tell about:

  • (in Indonesian)
War Ends.jpg

Benny Lin



For the realization of the victory over the truth, soon dislodged the status of your account blocked IndoManiak, Si Opm Papua, and MukaMulez as well as block accounts Jonathan Ryousuke, Ninja sawit, and Bukan Pembantai. Thanks --Erik Evrest (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  • This is en-wiki; we cannot get involved in disputes on the Indonesian wikipedia. Ironholds (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Flag of London, Ontario.svg

The file commons:File:Flag of London, Ontario.svg, which is used on a very large number of pages (links), has been marked for nominated deletion on Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests July 2011. Rather than notify a large number of talk pages I am raising this on WP:AN and WP:VP to obtain the right intervention.

What to do

A discussion about whether to delete the file will now take place on Commons. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise:

  • Check for the type of usage in articles and templates (usually infoboxes)
  • If the deletion of the image will cause a problem, prepare to fix it:
    • Using a local redirect
    • By using a different image (i.e. in an infobox)
    • Contact someone at commons to delay deletion or work out a plan to overcome issues with the deletion

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Yep, this one is going to get deleted. Seems like the vast majority of the uses are from the London, Ontario navbox containing the image, and said navbox appearing in every London, Ontario related page. I'll remove it from the navbox so that we'll be able to see what's left on the usage list that needs dealing with. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Question about fundraiser idea

I'm not sure where to put this, so I guess I'll put it here:

I have an idea for a fundraiser for the WMF, which would undoubtedly require the WMF to be an active participant (at least in getting it set up), and therefore, would require the WMF higher ups to... well... notice the proposal.

I know there are other sites, meta primarily, where stuff like this goes, however I have no idea what page to go to or how to get there.

Could someone be as kind as to post a link to where I need to go please?

Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 07:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

A note to User:Maggie Dennis would either get it to the right place(and might even be the right place) or at worst, she could identify the right location to post.--SPhilbrickT 18:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I've been summoned. :D I've checked, and there are basically two options for reaching the WMF about this. You can leave a message at meta:talk:Fundraising 2011 or you can e-mail There is also an IRC channel for donations, #wikimedia-fundraising, but it'll be luck of the draw whether there's somebody there at the moment you use it to talk to. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


Τι αίσχη είναι αυτά στο άρθρο ? από πότε και με ποιο δικαίωμα οι διαχειριστές ακολουθήτε την πολιτική ενός παράνομου "κράτους" και κάνετε προπαγάνδα υπέρ του ?? από πότε και με ποιο δικαίωμα πολιτικοποιήται την βικιπαίδεια ? ίσως θα έπρεπε να αρχίσουμε τις μηνύσεις σε πολιτικά δικαστήρια , θα γίνει κι αυτό, για να σοβαρευτείτε λίγο οι διαχειριστές εδώ, επίσης παραβιάζετε τις αποφάσεις του ΟΗΕ , Με ποιό δικαίωμα κάνετε πολιτική ??? εσείς τολμάτε να κρίνεται για εμένα? η το σπίτι μου που το κατέχουν τούρκοι ? η την περιουσία μου που την κατέχουν τούρκοι ? ΜΕ ΠΟΙΟ ΔΙΚΑΙΩΜΑ ???? ΝΤΡΟΠΗ ΣΑΣ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Roger (talk) 10:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
In translation, the user is unhappy that the article does not support his personal WP:POV in the eternal Greek Cypriot–Turkish Cypriot dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to assist in adding donated content: GLAM/ARKive


I am the Wikipedia Outreach Ambassador to ARKive, who have kindly agreed to donate an initial 200 article texts about endangered species from their project, to Wikipedia, under a CC-BY-SA license. Details are on the GLAM/ARKive project page. Your help, to merge the donated texts into articles, would be appreciated. Guidelines for doing so are also on the above page. Once articles have been expanded using the donated texts, we are also seeking assistance in having those articles translated into other languages. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, on the project's talk page, or my own. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I've done about 1.5. Common box turtle was a total win. Very important topic and we had almost nothing (10 years into our project) and Arkive got us up to a B article or so. I did African rock python where we had more than CBT, but still our article had less text and a lot of unreffed content. Kinda cool cause it gets you into the topic and then I built CBT up a bit. Could be a way to get some easy wins. Oh...and if anyone likes reformatting citation, love to have the help. I'm concentrating on text integration, but I've always kinda disliked Wiki and the work involved in the in-text markup. Still gotta take care of Rock python.TCO (reviews needed) 21:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Liaison with editors of Wikipedias in other languages

What's the best way to:

  1. Alert multiple editors of Wikipedias in other languages, that a specific article has been created/ undergone a major expansion, and that translations are requested
  2. Request collaboration with editors of Wikipedias in other languages for a particular project?

I'm happy with on- or off-Wiki solutions (mailing lists, for example) but am a monoglot, so can only write in English. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Others may know a more elegant solution, but I would leave a note at a community forum or help desk in the other language in English, with a mechanical translation. I have found editors on most projects very forgiving of my language limitations and generally pleased to assist. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you; I'll try that, but what I was hoping for - and perhaps I wasn't clear - was a forum where I could contact editors from more than one Wikipedia at once. After all, there are 282 of them! ;-) Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
As I said, others may know a more elegant solution. :) But I don't know of any way to reliably appeal for assistance from multiple projects at once. There are (as I'm sure you know) cross-project communication forums, including, Wikipedia-l (for cross-language Wikipedia discussion) and several IRC channels ([8]), but appeals there will only work if the kind of people interested in helping you are watching them. :) I've had better luck with direct outreach, myself (although I've not tried Wikipedia-l and don't know how such requests would be received there). --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, the Wright challenge gathered 40 plus editors here by leaving a well designed template on 141 wikis. The brains was Andrew Dalby. Its been successful. If you want to find out more then sign up as a participant Victuallers (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You could prioritize. Just pick the top 10. Write up your message in English and drop in their Village Pumps (cut and paste). I interact with foreigners all the time for pictures and stuff and they are usually very kind and willing to talk in English.TCO (reviews needed) 21:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You might find people through the list at WP:Translators available. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This forum lacks a lot of features that other sites have

Extended content

1. Where is the private message feature?

2. The ignore feature?

3. A way to block people we don't want from posting on our wall.

4. Have to type those colons when you reply to someone and then they can edit your posts (in talk).

TCO (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but we'll likely never get these features. There are a substantial number of curmudgeonly contributors here who seem to have an irrational hatred of the social goodness that every modern forum software package has implemented for years. Everything that you're bringing up has already been developed and is freely available (in php, too!), yet those who do development work seem to agree with the people here who are against any improvements... it's frustrating, but I for one (and everyone else that feels the same, AFAIK) just let it go any more.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
That's because it is not a forum but a page for discussing matters arising from the co-operative writing of Wikipedia. If you want a social forum I daresay there are a lot of them about. Therefore we do not have a wall or any of the other features you mention as they are not really applicable here. Britmax (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The email this user is a private message. A considerable majority of established accounts have an established email account. An "ignore" feature - who? where?. I'm also fairly certain that "selective blocking" is not yet technically possible, even if you want it to be. Is #4 like WP:LiquidThreads? It's attracted some criticism, along with positive points. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, but how do I friend someone on this site?TCO (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't this is not a social networking site. GB fan (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
It is certainly possible to make friends on this site. (I have anyway.) You can watch their pages and comment there; and they can do the same with you. It just isn't possible to declare to declare that friendship in any software manner, but what would be the point? What would you gain from that that you can't already do? LadyofShalott 00:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

See what I mean? :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You kids get off my lawn! ;) LadyofShalott 00:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Look, I'm with you guys (and gals) in the idea that this isn't a social networking site, but there's a good reason for the little features that social networking sites use to enable socialization. Wikipedia's culture could use a healthy dose of social medicine regardless. There's a "corporate culture" here (maybe institutional memory would be more accurate?), largely expressed by the "that doesn't help the encyclopedic content" expression, that is fairly anti-social. I really feel that the significant issues that we have with civility are largely a side effect of the lack of good socialization mechanisms. So, in a somewhat roundabout way, I'd make a case that improving out social toolbox would help build the encyclopedia by allowing us to work together much better than we currently do. We could easily have improved social tools without getting rid of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not MySpace as well.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I am going to put a thing on my page where people can declare they are my friends. It will become a trend. Just like how I figured out who my talk page stalkers were.TCO (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool, I say go for it! :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't want us to connect to FB. But I do think PMs and better discussion threads make sense. I mean the colon typing BLOWS. We can improve the things internally. I mean my Nutrisystem experience...there were awesome boards there with all kinds of features. Totally walled garden. But very good community and helpful to weight loss. And fun. And they thought I was the strangest poster in the history of tha site. But I lost 70 pounds. I mean...WTF...four tildas? Who came up with that crap?TCO (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

There are some problems with emphasizing the social side. If you've got two editors who are wikifriends, and both of them happen to offer similar opinions in a content dispute, then we get accusations about WP:MEAT puppets, that one is mindlessly agreeing with the other, that they're WP:Tag teaming the dispute, etc. It's apparently easier for some peoplel to say, "Those horrible, unfair conspirators are tag-teaming me!" than to believe, "Huh, eight editors at the WP:External links/Noticeboard believe that my personal website is a bad choice for an external link in this article, and I'm the only person in favor of it. Maybe that means that it isn't appropriate." Having an official "friends" system would likely make this sort of distraction more common, because with the current system, you'd just have to know that they were friends, and with an official system, you could easily find out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Two counter arguments for you: the fact that it's not possible to see who people are "friends" with tends to lend credibility to the idea of "cabals"... paranoia works best in environments where there's incomplete information, after all. More importantly, to me at least, is that I believe that a more accessible social system on Wikipedia itself will help with the problems that you're describing rather than make them worse, partially for the reason that I started with above. We already try to get people to discuss issues with each other when a conflict arises, because we came to realize early on that the easiest way resolve disputes is to get people talking to each other. If people were willing and more easily able to talk to each other in general (about the encyclopedia, in some fashion, of course) then there will generally be fewer disputes that get started. There will be problems of course, but there are problems already (and I think that they're more serious, personally).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean by "colon typing"? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Didn't you notice what character you typed (twice) in front of your reply? :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually four tildes (4 x ~) Britmax (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but I don't see that as "blowing", and therefore didn't understand the apparent outrageous problem it causes. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Neither do I. Would looking at the time and printing out our name in longhand whenever signing a post be easier? Or what? Britmax (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
He's not talking about using four tildes when he's referring to "colon typing" (although that's part of the problem). He's talking about having to manually format replies by typing the ':' character. MediaWiki is good for article content, but suffers significantly in discussions, in comparison to modern web based forum systems or even mailing lists. That you have to type four tildes at all (let alone "printing out our name in longhand"... what the hell kind of idea is that?!?) is somewhat ridiculous. All of this is well trodden territory, by the way. As a matter of fact, there was a whole Usability Project Wikimedia project devoted to these sorts of issues, although they didn't seem to get anything done...
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm totally on board with the notion that 4 tildes deserves a WTF response. This is 2011 and we have computers. One's that could do the signing for us. Yes, someone would have to create the rules - sign talk pages, not article pages, don't sign if the user has opted out of signing. It's not that hard. We have bots with a thousand times more complicated rules. There is no excuse for not automating the signing. There are enough rules to remember without this completely artificial, completely unnecessary rule. In solidarity, I'm not signing.
Signbot (talk · contribs) only signs posts of users with fewer than 500 posts (I think that's the threshold. It's close, at least). :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

God damn! Have any of you all every been on a normal forum? Like anything post about 1995?? Where you have an avatar, have a signature, have your own space for your post that others can't edit into, have ability to make paragraphs, don't have everything run together in edit mode? I mean SHEESH. I'm DUMB. I'm OLD. And I still wonder where you all are LIVING. TCO (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that 1-Wikipedia is a social network site and 2-there are paid programmers. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikimedia does pay programmers. wmf:Staff#Technology lists a few and there are also some contractors as well. But yes, I agree with your first point. Killiondude (talk) 04:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I feel like we are being trolled. But if you want to contact someone privately, their user page has a link that lets you email them, if they have an enrolled email address. Not everybody chooses to enroll one. (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we're being trolled or TCO is oblivious to how Wikipedia works. In either case, it's disconcerting that they have several advanced user rights. Killiondude (talk) 04:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

In case anyone's not aware of it, the community could choose to install the LiquidThreads extension for discussion pages such as this one in order to address many issues above. – Adrignola talk 04:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Has there been any talk about a trial here on en? I think it would make sense to try it out only for User talk: pages on an opt-in basis, as long as bots don't freak out. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we need friends lists and PMs and the like, but an easier 'reply to' button would simply save the time spent in hunting the comment being accessed in a lengthy discussion and adding those colons in the response. DeistCosmos (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't really get how this Village Pump thing works...what exactly is it for? 'Soul 19:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SolarWind123 (talkcontribs)

How about a reply with quote button like normal forums have?TCO (reviews needed) 18:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Have you read WP:Indentation and/or Help:Using talk pages? Both of those have material relating to how to properly format things on discussion pages such as this one. Killiondude (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Based on his contributions to this and other pages, TCO seems to be unable to comprehend the basic fact that Wikipedia is not a social networking site. This is especially ironic because TCO makes such a big deal about how content creation is so important, but spends a good deal of his time being social. The purpose of talk pages is to facilitate collaboration in order to improve the encyclopedia. It is not to help you collect friends, it is not for socialization, it most certainly does not have a wall. Even if one user thinks another user is uncivil or annoying, the first user doesn't have the right, and shouldn't have the right, to prevent the second user from posting to the first user's page, or anywhere else, because the point of having talkspaces is to facilitate work being done. This is a bad idea rooted in a false premise. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

A more forum-like form shall prevail!

The funny thing is that WMF is going in exactly the direction I say. Even though I communicate it in a self-making-fun-of manner, basic common sense says that this whole talk layout is...fucked. I mean it is MISERABLE to have this tiny edit window, a couple sets of scroll bars (in edit window and regular window--note, I need both when doing any formatting) and then search for where someone made a comment, seeing a block mass of text and then do that funky colon-typing crap. I think teletype operators had better message formats! And then listening to the shellback trogolodytes say that this is the best of all possible worlds...pshaw...y'all are the kind that says "why have windows and such, I want a dosprompt".'re gonna lose!TCO (reviews needed) 05:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The point some folks seem to be missing is that on WP nobody cares who you are, the only thing that matters is what you do. Adding social networking features would have the effect of unfettered formation of cabals of people with shared POVs. The WikiProject system is a much more effective way to co-operate with others on shared interests while by their nature counteracting clique formation. Roger (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The foundation has a long history of over promising and under delivering. In fact their announcements hider regular developments since other developers/Toolserver users stop working avoid duplicating work. — Dispenser 12:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
My two cents for this thread: see my essay User:Dcoetzee/Why wikithreads are bad on why our current talk page system really does suck and needs to be improved. Dcoetzee 04:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Agree with everything in that essay of yours. I think liquid threads puts too much space in but that's a minor matter and can be fixed compared to the problems it solves. As to this discussion - I am totally against having special support for private conversations or forums. I can see soooooo many problems for Wikipedia coming from it and no gain whatsoever. If people want to socialize as private friends they can go elsewhere and I would hope they keep the two separate and not discuss Wikipedia in their private exchanges. Dmcq (talk) 09:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather the Foundation prioritised a way to get references out of the body text of articles (or even get a really working on-by-default WYSIWYG interface... one can dream). A large article liberally sprinkled with cite templates (especially in the one parameter per line format) is pretty hard for a very experienced user to edit; it's hard to imagine how off-putting it is to a newcomer. And don't get me started on complex tables... By contrast, minor formatting on talk pages (which users can always do without initially, it'll get fixed and they'll learn) is less of a problem. I mean, as long as we expect users to cope with wikitext formatting in articles, wikitext formatting in talk pages is trivial by comparison. Rd232 talk 10:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at mw:Future. --Yair rand (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

BAG candidacy

Since it looks like we need more active BAG members, I volunteered to help out; feel free to leave comments. On a related note, if any of you are experienced editors with good tech skills when it comes to bots + would like to make it a haunt, please feel free to open one up as well. --slakrtalk / 11:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I just welcomed an IP editor to the 'pedia and encouraged him to register an account.

Extended content

I am such a goodie two shoes now. TCO (reviews needed) 18:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

So whaddya want? A medal? Malleus Fatuorum 18:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 :=) Men will die for them!. TCO (reviews needed) 18:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Really, what is your point? I've welcomed hundreds of new users. I think I've gotten a "thanks" from about five of them, but that's really not the point is it? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Geo coordinates from Google Earth

Hi. I have just corrected the coordinates here and I was wondering if copying the coordinates from Google Earth after locating the place is considered copyvio. Thanks, Malafaya (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Coordinates are not copyrightable. --Golbez (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Not coordinates but what about the method I used to retrieve them? Malafaya (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
If the coordinates cannot be copyrighted then how could the method possibly not be kosher? You're okay, really. --Golbez (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm definitely okay :). Malafaya (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
actualy due to lack of caselaw the situation is unclear and database rights may mean it's best to avoid doing anything that could subject you to EU juristiction. open street maps is a safer option.©Geni 11:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The database problem could occur if you extract a big proportion of the data from the google database. If the method is locating the place on a map and then reading of fthe coordinates displayed on Google Earth, I am pretty sure that will not lead to a problem. What could be a problem is say extracting all the named locations with coordinates in a state and then using them here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there a list of Wikimedia Project shortcuts?

Is there a list of wikimedia shortcut prefixes (e.g. w: - for wikipedia; strategy: for Wikimedia Strategy or wikt: for wiktionary)? (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep - it's at WP:WP :) Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually that's not what you are looking for. I haven't found a definitive list, but meta:Help:Interwiki linking is the closest I know of. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanx) But I hope someone knows where we can get more complete list. (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Or may be it's complete enough))) (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Help:Interwikimedia links. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Or M:Interwiki map. Graham87 07:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
The shortcut redirects could be in a category? -DePiep (talk) 07:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The most surefire way to get the most comprehensive, and absolutely up-to-date, version of any MediaWiki based site's interwiki map is by calling the interwikimap site property through the API. the value given for the prefix= parameter is what you'd prefix the link with in wikitext. For example, for Wiktionary from the English Wikipedia, the entry is <iw prefix="wikt" local="" url="[$1$1]" />, so to link to wiktionary you'd use wikt, as in [[wikt:Main page]]. Help:Interwikimedia links is our local help page for this, and it should always be reasonably updated (the interwiki map doesn't change very often), but if you're looking for something new or relatively obscure then you'll probably want to use the API.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 08:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Bandera de la Provincia de Distrito Nacional.JPG

The file commons:File:Bandera de la Provincia de Distrito Nacional.JPG, which is used on a very large number of pages (links), has been marked for speedy deletion on Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions. Rather than notify a large number of talk pages I am raising this on WP:AN and WP:VP to obtain the right intervention.

What to do

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is time to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise:

  • Check for the type of usage in articles and templates (usually infoboxes)
  • If the deletion of the image will cause a problem, try to fix it:
    • Using a local redirect
    • By using a different image (i.e. in an infobox)
    • Contact someone at commons to delay deletion or work out a plan to overcome issues with the deletion

A further notification will be placed if/when the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocks should be punitive

Extended content

Let's make blocks explicitly punitive. IOW, change the current policy of blocks being related to ongoing disruption and just give them out as punishment.

  • It gets us out of angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin debates about punitive versus preventive.
  • It takes care of a person who causes problems and then no admin is there right away.
  • Every other chat forum I've been in was moderated this way.
  • Man's entire history has shown the effect of punishment to change behavior.

TCO (reviews needed) 21:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


  1. As nom. TCO (reviews needed) 21:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


  1. Are you kidding? For a start, this isn't a 'chat forum'. And the relationship between 'punishment' and behaviour is hardly clearcut. Clearly, describing blocks as punitive rather than preventive eliminates one cause for nit-picking debate, but why won't the debate merely move elsewhere? If people want to nit-pick, they will - no doubt about the level of 'punishment'. To justify a change like this, you'll at least have to offer some evidence that (a) we have a problem with the way things are done now, and (b) the proposed change would be in the interests of Wikipedia. a few bullet points are hardly sufficient grounds for proposing a fundamental change like this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  2. No This is not a forum, This is WIKIPEDIA. What I do endorse however is the punitive blocking of the original poster for bringing up this proposal. Heck, it doesn't have to be punitive, you're disrupting Wikipedia we can call it preventative. Hasteur (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  3. ╟─TreasuryTagconstablewick─╢ 21:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  4. No. Let's move on.--SPhilbrickT 00:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  5. If anything, I find it odd that TCO is the one suggesting this. If blocks were punitive rather than preventive, he would not be editing Wikipedia today. Irregardless, I oppose this on principle. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  6. No, nay, never. Anathema to core values.  Chzz  ►  02:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  7. lol. TCO's trollin. Swarm 18:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  8. Wikipedia has a high proportion of people who prefer to avoid all this feelings business. It is far easier to just work by considering improving Wikipedia by applying the rules to prevent damage and hopefully give the person concerned time to reconsider. Talking about punishment immediately brings up the question of rights and feelings and all sort of irrelevancies like that. This is not a forum, and the less conflict and hassle there is the better> lots of people don't want friends or fighting with enemies or all that messing around. Start edit warring with three reverts and you get blocked. It does not matter what the person feels. It is a correct thing to do and it helps the development of Wikipedia. None of this talk about punishment please. Dmcq (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


Comment: the distinction between "punitive" and "preventative" that Wikipedia has evolved is a bit odd. In the real world, all sanction regimes exist in order to prevent harm, by attempting to deter misbehaviour. Exceptions can be made in applying sanctions in specific instances when it's clear that the sanctioned behaviour cannot or will not be repeated (in which circumstance applying the sanction may appear uselessly punitive), but even then, there is the issue of deterring others. I suspect that perhaps Wikipedia's "no punitive blocks" really functions as a way to mitigate the inability to apply sanctions consistently and proportionately; this effectively takes deterrence out of the equation and focusses on whether a proposed sanction really prevents specific identifiable harms. Even on that basis, though, interpretation often ends up being too narrow, since sanctions that might be considered "punitive" can often (not always) also be construed as preventing repetition of the sanctioned behaviour by that individual. Rd232 talk 22:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It's intent though, innit? You don't lock someone up to "save their soul", you lock 'em up to stop 'em nicking things. Same here; we block to prevent harm to our project; the fact that it punishes is not the reason behind the action, it's a side-effect. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.  Chzz  ►  02:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
erm, I vaguely feel like you didn't read my comment (also that you don't understand Post hoc ergo propter hoc). I'm talking about the concept of deterrence. You lock people up for nicking things partly to directly stop them nicking any more, but partly because that's what you say you do (in order to deter unwanted behaviour), and if you don't actually carry out the threats then both those people and others will draw conclusions about the costs of repeating the unwanted behaviour. Personally I'm not all that keen on deterrence, but application of Wikipedia's bizarre "punitive"/"preventative" distinction often seems to leave very little room to even consider it. Odd, because traces of deterrence can be found here and there (like the concept of escalating blocks), but somehow, it's taboo. Rd232 talk 19:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Something no one is considering: The terms as used in Wikipedia come from the idea that punishment is reactionary; it cares only about the past: action A has been done, and cannot be undone, so punishment X is the mandated response. Regardless of whatever nuance or alternative definitions of "punishment" you may be using outside of Wikipedia context, in Wikipedia context "punishment" refers to the handing down of penalties solely on the context of past actions, and specifically without any focus on future actions. Preventative in Wikipedia context means that the past only matters insofar as it is a possible indicator of future behavior. Wikipedia sanctions exist based solely on the potential of the target editor to repeat the behavior in the future. If the we believe the behavior will not repeat, we do not sanction. If we believe that behavior would repeat, we sanction. --Jayron32 22:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

'31 hours'?

Something that has been bugging me for some time is the '31 hour' block that seems to be common for a first offence. Why 31 hours? Why not 24, or 48? Unless Wikipedia is actually run from a planet with a 31-hour day (which might explain a lot), I can't think of a reason for how this somewhat arbitrary figure was arrived at. Is it an inside joke, something arrived at by deep statistical analysis/reading of goat's entrails, or something so lost in the depths of time that nobody knows? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe it has to do with the fact most people are going to be sleeping for 7+ hours a day. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
(e/c) My understanding (I cannot recall where I first heard this, probably by lurking at a similar thread at WT:AIV) is that it was based on the assumption that most vandalism is being done by bored kids with computer access for a limited timeframe each day. For such people, a 31 hour block is as good as a 48 hour block on that particular person, while giving other people using that same IP at different times of the day access to it 17 hours earlier than a 48 hour block would. i.e. you're getting a 48 hour block on the actual target of the block, for the price of 31 hours of potential collateral damage to other editors. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) For simple vandals, a 24-hour block would mean the block will expire during the same time period that the vandal was active (their lunch, or library period, during computer class, etc.) This is the (main) reason for the 31 hour entry. See MediaWiki talk:Ipboptions for more. –xenotalk 16:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
To elaborate on the math: You block a kid vandalizing from school at 9am. 24 hours just lets him get back to it when he returns to that classroom the next day - for all we know, he never even noticed he was blocked. 31 hours, however, prevents him from doing it the next day, which kills his momentum and the following day he may either forget to vandalize, or, maybe, he noticed he was blocked the previous day and tries to mend his ways. 48 hours is overkill, comparatively - you've gained nothing by blocking him the rest of the day since he won't be back at that computer again. In other words: The 31 hour block is specifically geared towards vandalism that the admin thinks is childish, from a school-aged mentality. The odds are, you're probably hitting someone in school. --Golbez (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I never got one of those.TCO (reviews needed) 16:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks all - there does seem to be a rational(ish) explanation to this - the 'block the kid tomorrow, with the minimum collateral damage' one. (Though the 'it's a prime number' rationale seems to have some basis to it as well - and maybe there is something to it. Don't some species of insects breed every 13 or 17 years? (sound of tapping at keyboard) Yup, Cicadas. Wikipedia has an article on everything...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
To be fair, you can actually block for any time period you choose; the items in the selection box are there to be convenient, not restrictive. You can actually block someone for any arbitrary length of time you ant. The software recognizes any number of time units as well; the software is capable of figuring out the blocking time if, for example, you entered "48 hours" or "two days" or even fractional combinations like 0.2857 weeks or something like that. IIRC, it even recognizes and correctly works with odd time units like "fortnights". --Jayron32 00:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

"Battlefield Wikipedia" in 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence

Has anyone read the "Battlefield Wikipedia" in the Anders Behring Breivik Manifesto it's on page 1067. Also We seem to be a frequently cited in the document as a whole. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This is relevant in any way? Frankly the attention given to the ramblings of that psycho is getting quite disturbing. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
We lack any other forum to discuss it. Secondly I spent the better part of two days now reading through it is hardly the ramblings of a psycho. The section I referred to actually mentions some interesting suggestions for sophisticated POV warring. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Reading through it, I'd love to put him in a room with Varg Vikernes and let the two of them fight it out. I'm a bassist and a Mayhem fan, so you can figure out who I'd like. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Why did you bother spending two days reading through it? And yes it is ramblings as much as Hitler's Mein Kampf is ramblings, but compared to the latter they only have a fraction of a claim to notability. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Backyards, Greenwich Village, 1914.tif

The file commons:File:Backyards, Greenwich Village, 1914.tif, which is used on a very large number of pages (links), has been marked for nominated deletion on Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests July 2011. Rather than notify a large number of talk pages I am raising this on WP:AN and WP:VP to obtain the right intervention.

What to do

A discussion about whether to delete the file will now take place on Commons. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise:

  • Check for the type of usage in articles and templates (usually infoboxes)
  • If the deletion of the image will cause a problem, prepare to fix it:
    • Using a local redirect
    • By using a different image (i.e. in an infobox)
    • Contact someone at commons to delay deletion or work out a plan to overcome issues with the deletion

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


Hello people,

I think this is relevant to OpenInternet role in global diplomacy, cultural reconcilation. Opinions should be restrained with that in mind, mine certainly is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Statistics data (EN)

Does anyone know how or where (or if) I can get detail data behind the bot generated statistics for the EN Wikipedia?

I could crawl for it, but I'm sure the drain on the servers would not be appreciated. Since there is a bot generating that data already, I am assuming it is available somewhere. What I would like to get is a list of articles (by page_title or page_id or, better yet, both) in each box in that grid. (Yes, I know the placement is a best-guess of highest importance or class.) If data on quality/class only is available, that is what I am most interested in, but the importance data would be of interest, as well.

I would also be curious to see historical data regarding the statistics table (at the summary, table level of detail, not individual articles). Is that available anywhere? Perhaps monthly snapshots of Wikipedia...

Thanks in advance for any insight or help. Please let me know if there is a more appropriate place for this kind of request (I got some very kind and useful assistance the last time I posted here, so I am inflicting myself on the generosity of the crowd around the pump again). Wikipositivist (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, you shouldn't crawl for it, agreed, but you could run a number of database queries (or get someone with Toolserver access to). Anyhow, that table is maintained by the WP 1.0 bot team, so try asking them for advice, perhaps? The old versions of the tables are at (old, older). Regards, - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 09:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I don't know why I didn't think to look in the history for old tables... mea culpa there. I don't have toolserver access for running queries, but was hoping this might be a venue for finding someone who could run them. I will check with CBM to see if there is any way to get the details from the bot's activities. Thanks. Wikipositivist (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
CBM was very helpful and forthcoming. Thanks, Jarry1250, for the directions :) Wikipositivist (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Notice of AfD and maintained template

Recently I learned that the List of municipal authorities in Northampton County, Pennsylvania has been deleted. I was involved in the creation of these lists for every Pennsylvania county, some time ago, and I would like to know if an AfD is nominated for any of them. If I place a maintained template on these articles, then maybe I would be notified, but it would seem that I would need to update the articles. I have done that in the past, but not recently. I am going to place a maintained template on the List of municipal authorities in Adams County, Pennsylvania, as an example, but I welcome any comments here. Am I using the maintained template appropriately for this article?

The reason these lists are useful is that they show what municipal authorities have articles, and which ones need articles. For large counties with many important agencies, this is helpful for editors trying to document the county and local government operations. Another way to keep this information would be to place the article table on the county talk page, but I am reluctant to do that.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Image wrong way round

Hi, I'd like to draw people's attention to the following image:


which was found on the St. John's Water Dog page. However, the third reference on that article is the source for the image, and as you can see, the image is the other way round to the one on Wikipedia:


I have no idea how to edit this image, or even if this is the correct place to mention this (it seems like it would be forever before anyone noticed if I just used the talk page), but I hope someone can fix this, thanks. (talk) 08:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This is an image at the Wikimedia Commons. You can leave a request at "commons:Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop" asking for help. — Cheers, JackLee talk 10:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
If it really is 'public domain' then anyone can flip it, crop it, make a T-shirt...or whatever they want.
I can't check, 'coz the source mentioned is giving me an error, "due to exceeded traffic quota".
A better place for this request would've been helpdesk - or, as advised above, a request in the Graphics lab. But I'm not sure why you think it needs fixing. If it's just a rotated image, then probably someone-somewhere thought it better the other way around; if you think it isn't, you could perhaps start a chat on Talk:Labrador Retriever or whichever page/s it bothers you on.
Bur, really, there's no harm in spinning an image around.  Chzz  ►  03:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
1) I tried to look at the original image as given with two URLs, but one "doesn't exist" and the other one might or might not have the image some-where, but not at the specific URL given. So it seems to me that the citation needs to be up-dated.
2) It does make a difference if it's been flipped: A mirror image is not a true image. Look at a flipped image of Abe Lincoln: That is not what he looks like (except I guess to himself when he looked in a mirror). This is a small point in this case, but still it is wrong if it is flipped.Kdammers (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
No, it doesn't make a difference if it's flipped. We provide images to illustrate material, not to document the Truth™ about the original image. It doesn't matter what the image is; it matters what the image looks like. So long as that image continues to look like a St John's Water Dog, then that's all we care about.
Also—it could be the other website that flipped the image. It's not safe to assume that we're the people who flipped it. It could have been us, it could have been them—and it could have been the original photographer. It is possible that it was originally published in both directions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Um...I just realised something though - I happened to check back here...

That website says the pic is from a 1880/90s book, and indicates the specific dogs were possibly from around the 1930s. The image page says "Date between 1979 and 1981" There's no evidence of prior publication and...well, it looks like it doesn't meet copyright requirements. I've nominated the image for deletion, Commons:Deletion requests/File:St johns dogs pic.jpg.

Originally, I thought we were discussing just rotation of a free image - which, yeah, no problem. Kdammers, we can do anything we like with a PD image - crop it, rotate it, touch up the colour...anything. Print it on a T-shirt in pink-and-green, and sell them. But, the apparent copyright concern changes things,  Chzz  ►  08:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

File upload errors are not user friendly, rewording is needed

I was recently asked to come help a new user with file upload problems (link). The issue that the user had was that xe got the "File extension does not match MIME type." error message.

Let me be blunt: that error message is useless. Anyone with enough experience with files to understand what it is saying is experienced enough not to get that error message except by accident, and would know what to do when the message appeared. The vast majority of users, however, would have no idea what the message meant or how to proceed.

A new message is needed. It should explain the issue, offer instructions on how to proceed, and be worded in such a way as that people with no file experience would be able to easily understand the message. My explanation (at the above link) isn't that concise, and probably could be worded better. I was wondering if we could get some proposals here, and then after we get a good replacement, if we could have that replacement put into the upload form in place of the current message.

Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 04:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sven Manguard asked me about this in IRC, and I made a suggestion - so I'll post it here, for consideration;
The file extension does not match the file type.
For example, when uploading a JPEG picture, the filename should end with .jpg. See Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload.
I think the key to making it clear is, to give an example.
I also suggested that an icon showing a dot and three question-marks might work; possibly similar to File:Crystal Clear action stop.png - but with .??? instead of the X. It could be slightly rectangular (wider) instead of square.
We probably could/should give a link to helpdesk, when they have that type of problem, too. So they can ask for help.
What really would help would be, if - on ALL upload errors - if the uploader highlighted the part of the form that was incorrect (so, in this case, the 'file name' box).  Chzz  ►  06:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I think Chzz is dead right here - a nice Icon showing a file extension problem would be good; an example - linking to an explanation page showing what file types should have which extensions ... and getting the uploader to go back and highlight what went wrong would be soooooo good! Pesky (talkstalk!) 17:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. Rd232 talk 17:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks like the message is at MediaWiki:Filetype-mime-mismatch. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. My internet got knocked out at 2:30 last night (about 13 hours ago), so I'm just getting caught up. Before my internet died I was talking to Chzz about the idea of an image showing what needed to be done. I think I was more enthusiastic about that than he was, but what do you think about the idea of an illustration? Sven Manguard Wha? 19:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Action Question Mark.svg

zscout370 (talk · contribs) has kindly swiftly created a rough draft of the icon I was thinking of; File:Action Question Mark.svg shown here.

Sven Manguard, I'm not really sure what you mean about 'illustration'?

Also, I must point out... the proposed/new upload wizard thingy might make this whole discussion moot? Because, it deals with things very differently; see [11].  Chzz  ►  08:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Changing Howto article: Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft

I want to change the howto-article Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft, better saying the section Ready!. My proposal is that instead of instruct the user to move the page, I want that the user place the {{subst:AFC submission/submit}}-code on the page and thus getting a review by a AFC-member.

  • The "bad" pages which are unsorced, don't get immediatly deleted/CSD/PROD, because the reviewer will give him more instructions
    • The user has another/more chance(s) to improve the article
    • The user haven't to start without having nothing
  • new users (mostly unconfirmed) won't get confused by the fact that they don't have a move-link or by the footnote on that page, because many terms they normally don't understand
What changes
  • The backlog of the "new page patrollers" will be moved to the WP:AFC backlog
  • The "unfinished" userpsace drafts won't be public/in the article-space
  • "You may also ask for the move when requesting feedback or at the Wikipedia:new contributors' help page." Of the footnote should get into the article in a new section how to improve the draft.
What won't be changed
  • Experienced user still will be able to move the page; neither the userspacedraft-template nor the move link in the head-row will be removed
  • The backlog is there. Either at AFC or somewhere else

What do you think? mabdul 23:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I like that idea a lot, because that will stop a couple of techniques malicious users will sometimes deploy (waiting more than 30 days before moving it into articlespace is the most common; it gets it past Special:NewPages); if they are instead told to move it to AfC, we can nip it at the bud. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a good idea insofar as it may prevent new editors from getting discouraged if their good faith attempt at an article is put up for CSD/PROD right away. Receiving guidance from an AFC member may help new editors to ease into the process. Topher385 (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I second what Blade said; good idea!  Diego  talk  15:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Good idea, as a new editor this will really be helpful --Tashif (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Live Wire (band)

Does this article has no chance? --AS sa 10:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It depends if we can find some coverage in 'reliable sources' - for example, newspaper articles about the band, or news websites, or books, or magazines.
"" and the blog site are not reliable sources.
Please have a look at WP:VRS and WP:BAND.
If you think it should not be deleted, you can remove the {{prod}}. If you do that, it might be nominated for a deletion discussion.
Also, please can you fix your signature - it is still saying "Pustomytnyk". You can change it in Special:Preferences. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  11:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks --AS sa 12:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

WP in the media

I'm not quite sure where this really belongs, but this seems as good a place as any.

I know it's sort of political, but the secondary headline: "It will be much easier to edit Wikipedia, for one." means it belongs somewhere.

Why Obama Should Be Re-Elected

Money graf

* It’ll be a much simpler edit to Wikipedia. If a new guy is elected president, someone will have to go to his Wikipedia page and add the current president template and start an article about his cabinet — a lot of work for whoever it is that does that sort of thing. But if we keep Obama as president, they can just keep his page labeling him the incumbent and add an extra section saying, “2012 Election: Won it!” With all the spare time the Wikipedia editors will have, maybe they can get girlfriends.

--SPhilbrickT 18:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It's somebody trying to be clever by using an outdated WP joke. If we posted all of those, the servers would crash! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Obtaining a deleted article text

How would I obtain the text of the deleted article List of municipal authorities in Northampton County, Pennsylvania?--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Check your email. Also, please read the AFD discussions; if you think they were closed in error you can bring your concerns to WP:DRV. However, the AFD in question seems to have some tips on how to deal with this information in different ways, you could try some of that. --Jayron32 13:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt reply, and the email. I have placed the article on my talk page. I am going to put all the List of municipal authorities in (whatever) County, Pennsylvania on my watch list. (There is a chore!) What do you, or others, think of the template:maintained idea? --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The template isn't a bad idea, but IMO a merge would be far more reliable, and, at least for the smaller counties, probably more appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Just what would be involved with the merge? Consider List of municipal authorities in Elk County, Pennsylvania, for example. Would this list be merged into Elk County, Pennsylvania? --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
It's very easy and shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes:
  1. Open the "county of" article and type a new section heading for the material you want to add, named ==Municipal authorities== or something like that.
  2. Open the "list of" file and copy the first sentence and the entire table.
  3. Paste all of that in to the section you just started at the "county of" article.
  4. Get the reference from the "list of" page and reformat it to match the citation style for the target article. (I'd put the ref tag at the end of the first sentence.)
  5. Replace the contents of the "list of" file with a redirect to the specific subsection: #REDIRECT [[Elk County, Pennsylvania#Municipal_authorities]]. (You can keep the "Municipal authorities" cat, if you want; redirects can be categorized.)
  6. Save both pages: you're done! WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Radiography of weld joint of a tube sheet plate before machining.

Designed "Tube sheet" Plate thk. 50mm. 7mm kept extra for m/c allowance.RT taken @ 57mm thk. Acceptable slag per ASME. After machining to required size 50mm, above slag is acceptable or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 3.6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. – ukexpat (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Help needed at Energy Catalyzer

The 'Energy Catalyzer' is a device invented by Andrea Rossi, an Italian, which he claims produces power by Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction. If it does what it claims, it is likely to be revolutionary, given that it appears to work according to a principle of physics as yet demonstrated, but there are grounds for suspecting that it may be a hoax (or worse, Rossi seems to have had a controversial past). At the moment, the article itself is probably just about acceptable, if overfilled with data about 'tests' that appear to be rather lacking in scientific rigour. Sadly, the few sources that have reported on the issue are on the whole 'pro' the device, while the sceptics are evidently ignoring it, making balance difficult to achieve. In addition, the talk page has been subject to some abuse, in that it is being used to debate the credibility of the device, rather than article content, and I've had to redact large sections of text quoted verbatim from blogs etc - for copyright reasons, if nothing else. A recent 'sceptical' report from a source that one might expect to be supportive has added further to the debate, and I'd appreciate if a few more uninvolved contributors could step in to help preserve some sense of neutrality and commitment to Wikipedia standards - at the moment, I suspect that one or two of those contributing may not be entirely uninvolved with Rossi, or are at least less-than impartial.

In the past, I've asked for help both at WP:WikiProject Physics and at the WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, but with little result, and since I suspect things could get soon out of hand, I'm asking for help here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking for participants in AfD

There's an AfD discussion for Dritok and most of the participants are the usual characters in conlang-related deletion discussions and two SPAs. If some new people could come and weigh in it would make the discussion much cleaner. Hermione is a dude (talk) 03:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Does implementing the help system as networked wiki docs have shortcomings?

I recently wrote an article on how to edit Wikipedia, and as my pen took on a mind of its own, to my surprise my discussion of where the reader could find further help turned into a critique of the product I love.

Here's the excerpt that I'm talking about:

With the help system implemented as regular wiki documents in this way, there is no obvious point of entry to it and, once using it, it can be hard to know where the document being viewed lies in the greater network of help documents available. One might wonder in what order one "should" be reading the various topics while going about the endeavour to learn Wikipedia. This is compounded by the fact that since users can land at any given help document in any number of ways, many documents are necessarily written with an introductory tone as if each is the first document the user is expected to have landed at in the help system.

The help system does have a point of entry that could be argued to be a starting point, in the form of a series of links on the central page for contributors, the Community Portal. There is also a directory, linked to by the Community Portal, of help documents in order of the most introductory, called Help:Contents. However, all this might fail to stand out to the user since the Community Portal is one link among many on the left edge of the standard Wikipedia screen (see Figure 1).

In addition to the Community Portal, users can arrive at the help system via a link on the page used to edit an article described above, and by directly searching the Help and Wikipedia namespaces at the search home page. Figure 3 shows the structure of the help system. Around the perimetre are ways of entering the system, and within the cloud are key documents. An arrow indicates the user can get to the destination by following some link. It should be noted that, since help documents are regular wiki documents, some of those in Figure 3 are subject to change or even cease to exist due to users' edits.

As I mentioned, the fact that the user chooses his/her own path through the help system requires that things be repeated in multiple places--including topics being introduced to readers that might not have heard of them before in more than one document. Now obviously you can't knock this redundancy in itself; if anything it's a prudent effort to make the help system thorough and accessible to beginners. If you can be introduced to a topic in more than one document, does it matter which of these documents you read?

No it doesn't, but I'm not arguing that editors don't learn from the system the way it currently is. The same information will eventually be told to the reader regardless of which starting point and subsequent path he/she takes. If the user is looking for a specific answer, I would even say that they will find what they are looking for fairly quickly, as the links one should follow are usually fairly obvious (although I would argue that finding the help system in the first place can be unobvious--see my point about the Community Portal link). My point has more to do with the system itself. I think there is something to be said for centralization in an educational resource. I believe that when humans read information, there are unconscious processes that determine the confidence we have in our progress, which in turn determines how successful we are as we continue reading. Reading help pages one by one with no chartered course through them contributes to the sense that there is an overwhelming amount of information to be learned beyond the current page.

Perhaps it would be appealing to beginners if a high-level version of the help contents was frequently shown on help pages, indicating where the content currently being read lies in a typical Wikipedian path of learning. This would be based on a "recommended" order in which to learn things, since there's no clear objective best order.

There was also a proposal last November from Rd232, suggesting we make the New contributors' help page a more prominent part of the help system. Maybe that would help with the problem I claim exists.

I realize I'm criticizing the entire help system, which would take a huge endeavour to revamp. But that can't be an excuse not to consider whether it could be better than it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinPoirier (talkcontribs) 18:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by your description of the help system. You seem to say that to get to Help:Contents, the user needs to do something like click on "Community portal" in the left bar, scroll three-quarters of the way down the page, and then click on "Wikipedia help contents".
Did you ever notice the link that is exactly two lines above "Community portal", named "Help"? That link takes you directly to Help:Contents from every single page on Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually I'm not sure why I mentioned Help:Contents in my article. To me the Community Portal is the closest thing to a starting point for someone arriving at Wikipedia with the intention of being a contributor. I think mentioning Help:Contents was a late decision from when I'd forgotten my feelings about it, which I recall now at closer inspection: that it's a general-purpose help page aimed at all Wikipedia visitors, the vast majority of whom are users. What I mean when I say "help system"--and I should have been more specific--is those pages addressing editors. Help:Contents does link to such pages (see the 3rd item in the list), but if I was a new editor looking for help, there's a good chance I would forego the Help:Contents link in search of an editor-specific help link, with the assumption that Help:Contents would be mainly about how to browse the site, search for articles, and other for-dummies stuff.
But even if we forget what I said about what I call the "help system" being unobvious to get into... Once in it, does it not seem like you can "get lost" in all those scattered articles, without something on-screen to tell you where you're at in your learning curve? JustinPoirier (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I see what you're saying. The bit that's structured help is WP:Tutorial and I guess Article Wizard; there's also the book Wikipedia – The Missing Manual, online as Help: Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, but that's now 3 years old. All the other stuff doesn't have a clear learning curve structure across help entries. In general, the help system isn't as organised as it could be, because it's mostly conceived as situational ("problem? question? solution. answer."), rather than a "How to edit Wikipedia" course. And people tend (at best) to improve one entry at a time, and the perspective of a complete newcomer is often lost. PS There is Wikipedia:Help Project by the way; not enormously active but it's there. Rd232 talk 17:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, my days as a newbie were so long ago that my opinion is probably not worth much. I don't remember using the help system. Most of what you need to do is to mimic what's already there. I do remember running across Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia at some point and being pleased by it—but then I never used it much.
Wikipedia:Introduction has been created since then, and that's where I'd usually suggest that a new editor start. Are you familiar with that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually I did not know about Wikipedia:Help Project! Hopefully their efforts will reduce some of the redundancy I'm referring to. I did know about Wikipedia:Introduction--it's one of many places an editor could start out in the help system (more on that below).
Looking back I guess my article did discuss Help:Contents in detail, as it leads to many editor-oriented help pages (and not just via the 3rd item in the list, "Editing Wikipedia"). The key-document map I drew for my article illustrates these links. So I should have mentioned to the reader that the "Help" link on the standard Wikipedia screen is another way of getting there, you don't have to go through the Community Portal. Still, the Community Portal might be considered a more intuitive starting point for those wanting to edit ie. join the community. Its "Guidelines, help and resources" section contains links to some of the same items as Help:Contents, plus a link to Help:Contents itself, plus a few places that Help:Contents doesn't link to (directly), e.g. the Manual of Style.
All this to say that there is more than one "starting point" to the help system. I'm still on the fence about whether that's problematic or not. I'm more worried about redundancy deep in the thick of the help system, when an editor is reading about a complex topic and thinks "I remember seeing this in some other article the other day... I hope I'm not missing important details by reading about it here and not there." JustinPoirier (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Redundancy has advantages and disadvantages. Redundancy increases the odds of finding out what you want to know: if three pages tell you how to create a link to another article, you've tripled the odds that the first page you look at will have that information. It also increases the odds that the pages will 'drift' over time, which could result in page X saying, "You must always..." and page Y saying "Under certain circumstances, you should..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. JustinPoirier (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)