Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 47

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Village pump (miscellaneous) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80

Invitation to contribute to Bieber DUI discussion

All editors are invited to contribute to a discussion regarding the inclusion of certain content and references for the conclusion of the court case of Justin Bieber#Legal issues for DUI and other charges. Thank you very much. starship.paint ~ regal 09:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Are these two separate companies?

Last Fall, Furniture Brands International declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy. KPS Capital Partners was the successful bidder for the assets. News coverage at the time made it look like a name change, but KPS actually created a new company Heritage Home Group. I did a move at the time since that seemed appropriate, but last week I discovered the company created to wrap up FBI's affairs had its stock cancelled.

Should the history of FBI be in the Heritage Home Group article, or should the companies be treated as separate?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

No one commented, so I take that to mean leave the article as is, as if there was a name change.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
In the absence of comments it can be considered consensus by silence. "My" opinion: 1)- Companies change names all the time, 2)- The "new company" under the title name was cancelled, 3)- The "new company" has a parent company KPS Capital Partners, which by default would still be the name "except" the name of the "actual company", according to the article is, 4)- "FBI Wind Down Inc." of which there are several references.
Points to consider: a)- Would the new company actually deserve a Wikipedia article under either name? b)- was the Heritage Home Group and FBI Wind Down Inc. created for liquidation (as seems apparent) c)- Should we change the title of an article of an established company every time stock purchase takeovers give a new name change? d)- the name "International Shoe Company" became "Interco" then Furniture Brands International. e)- With the bankruptcy KPS Capital Partners formed "Heritage Home Group" and Furniture Brands International became FBI Wind Down Inc. and Meredith Graham was put in charge of liquidation, which according to the article, Heritage Home Group became a subsidiary of FBI Wind Down. It "looks" like that is what happened. Is there any conclusion to what happened when the Wind Down company did't fly?

Conclusion: Would an established name be better (which is the more common name)? I would say if a name is established it is better not to have to change it every few years. At the end, and if liquidation is the result and an ending to Heritage Home Group, what then? I have not looked at references so am just giving my 2-cents. Otr500 (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Why did this happen?

For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_maps Google maps is a redirect to Google Maps but then in your address bar the redirect URL turns into the redirect's target's URL (uppercase Maps). Why did this happen? I hate this new one, because it tricks me that I didn't type a redirect, or I chose the article from dropdown list, and prefer the other way, because when I reload page, I want the (redirect from (x article)) to still appear. It doesn't. Can this be changed? Everything I liked on the Internet is now gone. I love Wikipedia's information, but won't - yes, won't - use Wikipedia until this goes back to not correcting URL.A Great Catholic Person (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand that there could conceivably be some sort of programming or tracking need to have the redirect bit stay at the top (and in a way that could not simply be resolved with a memory span lasting more than five minutes), and am very curious as to what that reasoning is. Even then, I'm not sure I'd understand why you're being this emotional over it. Even if this was the end of the world as we know it (it isn't), I'd feel fine (and recommend the same attitude). For you to not use it because of an extremely minor site quirk isn't in line with your personal preferences is only going to hurt you, not the site.
That said, if you have a good, logical, reason (instead of emotional demands) for why you (and probably others) need it to work the older way, maybe one of the programmers might be interested in at least explaining why it works the way it does now? If not actually do something? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ian - I do not like not having the redirect bit stay there - I need it. One reason why is when I scroll down, put a new tab, and see the old url is gone, I get tricked for some reason. Everything I liked is being screwed up! Please, I want it to stay!

It makes me laugh when I see an uncapitalized version of target page or alternative name of target page (yes, I'm quite good at laughing, but I laugh less with this, keeping me angry longer. When I get angry, I use the redirect URL to calm me down, but it's gone!)A Great Catholic Person (talk)I use the address bar all the time to see what I'm looking for. When I type in search box, press enter, sometimes I'll be like "What!? That's what I'm not looking for", tricking me. It's easier the old version. 01:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you just continue viewing the redirected page without rephrasing it, or without loading it in a new page? Could you just manually make the small changes if you have to copy the URL, as you did in your first post in this thread?
Have you spoken to anyone else about these things tricking you, or about how the differences in capitalization can make you laugh or make you angry? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I think this pump is the only place to post it - it doesnt fit anywhere else. No, the capitalization does not make me angry, it makes me laugh, but I can't calm down without it.A Great Catholic Person (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, but have you spoken with anyone outside this site about not being able to calm down without the capitalization? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for taking long, but I don't see anyone who I can discuss this with outside this pump.A Great Catholic Person (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
@A Great Catholic Person: This isn't really a VPM matter, but is more in the area of Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). The problem may be related to that at WP:VPT#Redirects to sections. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Seems that it is: Tech/News/2014/35. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Please, I want this to at least be in user preferences. You guys ruin everything. A Great Catholic Person (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Quoting dialogue in a reference

Hi, I don't know if I'm asking in the right place, but I'm trying to find how to format dialogue in references. I am working on a TV article but I don't know how to format the dialogue of two characters. Possibly something like this:

Character 1: Hello.
Character 2: Hello, how are you?

Does anyone know how this or anything similar can be achieved? Thanks, Melonkelon (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

There is {{Dialogue}}. Are you trying to stuff this into a citation template? --  Gadget850 talk 01:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
A citation is not really the right place to quote dialogue. Blueboar (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Recommend Article Creation

Is there a place on Wikipedia where a user can recommend that an article be created? The reason I'm asking is that I don't have the knowledge (or time) to do it myself, but there are some people/topics that should have an article on Wikipedia who currently do not. Emivam (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Emivam: Yes, WP:RA. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

BLP with non-NPOV portraits: Freeway Rick Ross case study

Please take a look at the "Freeway" Rick Ross article. The article contains a portrait of its subject. It seems to me that this portrait is a flagrant violation of our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy as it clearly attempts to portray its subject in a positive manner at odds with the reason for the subject's notability. It should be removed from the article no differently than any non-NPOV text. It appears that it is likely the portrait is also only included as part of a self-promotional campaign ultimately paid for by the article's subject himself. As such, the uploading and inclusion of this image seems to be a Conflict of interest, which is in line with our policy on paid editing, although the image was uploaded before that policy can into effect. I'd like to pretend for the moment that the image is NOT due to paid editing, however, as it could have been uploaded by anybody. The old phrase "a picture is worth a thousand words" contains much wisdom. Clearly here the subject's 1000 words summarize to say he is a no nonsense powerful business man, sharp dresser, and otherwise cool dude. Nowhere in those 1000 words does it mention that he's primarily notable for being a convicted felon for drug trafficking. Unfortunately, it seems to be the only image of him we have. So the options are to use the image or to not use any image. Which is better for the article? In my opinion, not using any image is best in this situation, even if the image was not due to paid editing.

I have been worried about non-NPOV images for a while. I once even started writing an essay about them. See User:Jason Quinn/NPOV is a problem for images (I'd be interested in discussion about this essay on its talk page too). What are your thoughts about this particular case? The topic in general? Jason Quinn (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

If the suggestion were that an image were overtly negative POV the issue would be worth considering.... but I can't see it making any sense to yank the only image we have out of an article because it's "too favorable". The way the article is written there is zero chance of confusion. If anything, that picture paired with that text rather amplifies the "Drug Lord" effect. Alsee (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with that image. Drug traffickers and gangsters who have grossed almost a billion dollars often dress well. It's stereotypical. You say, "Clearly here the subject's 1000 words summarize to say he is a no nonsense powerful business man, sharp dresser, and otherwise cool dude"... is that what that picture REALLY says to you? Because it does not say that to me. Combined with the article text, it says to me "posed picture of a gangster". I think you underestimate the intelligence of the average reader here, and I am not an advocate of catering to the lowest commond denominator who might thing he looks "cool". Marteau (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the Notifications and Watchlist

Please take a look at this RfC about watchlist and notifications. Thanks. --Gryllida (talk) 05:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thinking about creating Zorin OS article. Opinions?

I'm thinking of recreating the article on the Linux distro, Zorin OS. I'm very well aware that this article has been deleted seven times already, but I feel that I have substantial material to justify an article on it. Here's what I found on an internet search:

I'll stop here, but in my opinion, all the links above show that there is enough coverage to justify a Wikipedia article on Zorin. It's also worthy to note that there are a few well-known names in there, like PCWorld, ZDNet, TechRepublic, and Lifehacker. Furthermore, just the very fact that this article has been created seven times shows that many people think this article is notable enough for coverage. I'm looking forward to opinions on this. Thanks! Writing Enthusiast (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You might want to create it in your userspace or in the Draft namespace, where you could collaborate with other interested editors and make a quality article before moving it to mainspace. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I have, in fact, already created a draft page. By the way, how do you get editors to collaborate on your article? Writing Enthusiast (talk) 02:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I linkified "draft page" for you. I assume you won't mind :) Now this entire section serves as an advertizement for anyone interested. A suggestion - you might want to copy the entire contents of a similar Linux distro and paste that into the draft. That way you get all the goodies like the Template and a good article structure. Then just change the template contents and work on re-writing the text. A few good sources, and copying the framework of an existing distro article, the zorin article should be accepted even if the text still needs a lot of work. It looks like lifehacker makeuseof hecticgeek blogspot and maybe some of the others are blogs (or self-published). Those aren't good sources. Stick to stuff like pcworld zdnet and other magazines or newspapers. Alsee (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
@WritingEnthusiast14: I added a pair of WikiProject templates to the Draft talk page, in the hopes that editors from those WikiProjects will come to help. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll get started on the draft soon. Writing Enthusiast ☎ 23:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Usurpations of usernames changing or going away 15 September 2014

information Note: Due to the local rename facility being removed from the bureaucrat usergroup, the ability for bureaucrats to execute a "WP:USURP" of a local unattached account will be going away 15 September 2014.

Perhaps stewards will still process requests if it meets local criteria in the interim until accounts are fully globalized. It is presently unclear what the global usurpation policy will look like post-SUL finalization.

If you had been considering usurping a local username, you must file a request immediately in order to be given consideration before requests can no longer be processed locally. –xenotalk 21:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Does this mean the bureaucrats will not be able to rename users at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WritingEnthusiast14 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Bureaucrats that also hold the global renamer permission will be able to rename users with global accounts globally at the usual venue. Anyone that does not have a global account should click special:MergeAccount to ensure you can take the SUL. It is possible a user on a different project may hold a better claim, in which case you should request a rename without delay. –xenotalk 22:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

RFC seeks wide involvement

See Talk:Eagles (band). Thank you in advance for your participation. --Jayron32 23:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Notable Anti-Wikipedians

Hi, I wasn't sure where to ask this question, so I'm asking here. I wrote an essay about "anti-Wikipedians", and I added a section labeled "Notable Anti-Wikipedians". The only problem I had was that I'm not aware of any notable anti-Wikipedians. Does anyone have suggestions for the list? Thanks in advance. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 07:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Got it. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 23:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Slavery in Yauco

In the 1841 census, YAUCO had 495 slaves. In the 1854 census it had 608. Surely more slaves than Corsicans. Why have they become invisible in this account of the history of Yauco? (the 1841 census can be accessed in PARES, Ministry of Ultramar; the 1854 is photocopied in the Centro de Investiaciones Historicas at UPR, Río Piedrs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.64.209.253 (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Attention malacologists  !

The stub on Unionidae lists its genera. It is depressing to see how many are red linked. Please help by at least writing stubs on these. Certainly these genera are more deserving than some of the things covered extensively.Kdammers (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Convenience link: Unionidae.--Commander Keane (talk) 05:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bivalves but that has just 9 watchers. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Template Love/Hate

Let's talk about templates. Templates are one of the earliest features of WikiText, and one of the most powerful, and affords us to do all sorts of cool stuff. They're also starting to show their age. Some features of templates are confusing, especially for new editors, but also considered tricky by more experienced editors in Wikitext. Some features provide headaches for the development community, which means that sometimes cool ideas or cool new features fail to materialize, fail to be good, or cost far more time and effort than they would have otherwise. The software needs to support the needs of editors, and the words "problem", "difficulty", "complicated", "hard" and "annoying" seem to correlate strongly with the word "template" in discussions.

I want to start exploring what we love about templates, and what we hate about them - and possibly where there is disagreement if something is great or terrible as a first step on what to do about it. I've started discussion about it on the Wikimedia-l mailinglist ([https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-September/074221.html archive of that thread), and started a page on meta to start summarising that information.

Two things I myself love about templates is that it makes it so easy to insert a page element in a uniform style across many pages (the typical example being an infobox), and that they're just wikitext, which can make them really transparent.

Two things I hate about them is how complicated they can become, especially when they in turn call other templates. Whenever I see one I maybe want to edit, I almost immediately give up with a shrug and a "I have no idea how to deal with this stuff". Another things I don't like is how some templates should be subst:'ed and some others shouldn't, and it isn't clear which is which, sometimes leading to trial and error (the resulting content or preview will tell me I've done the wrong thing, and have to switch it around).

It would be really helpful to have a broader idea about what other people like and dislike. Which templates do you love to use? Which don't you like? And why? Which features do you find really useful - or really not useful? Template editors probably have other likes and dislikes than template users, and I'm looking for both perspectives. What do you think? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Ten years of Wikipedia in Asturian language

Oviedo, September 8, 2014

Next September 12 and 13, the Asturian Wikipedia community of users will celebrate with the support of Wikimedia España Chapter the tenth anniversary of Uiquipedia, the free encyclopedia in Asturian. The events will take place in Auditorio Príncipe Felipe (Plaza La Gesta, Oviedo).

Asturian language is alive.

The first article in Asturian was «Zazaki», a minority language spoken in Turkey. That first edit was in July 26, 2004. Ten years later, more than 800 000 edits have been made on almost 20 000 articles, and numbers are growing every day with the work of tens of volunteers. And it doesn’t stop there: other Wikimedia projects in Asturian have been developed, such as Wikicionary, Wikisource and Wikiquote. Managed by Wikimedia Foundation, all of them make part of a global movement that started in 2001 when Wikipedia started with the goal of delivering freely all human knowledge.

To commemorate this date, Uiquipedia and Wikimedia España are carrying out two days of celebration events so that the projects in Asturian are better known. Literature, poetry music and traditions in Asturian will be present. It’s free and everybody is welcome. In addition, Wikimedia España will have its annual General Assembly in Oviedo.

See here the schedule of activities.

B25es (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

More input needed about possible renaming of "administrative" categories

There's a discussion on the talk page of Wikipedia:Categorization to "Simplify and refine naming of category classes" due to the confusing/misleading phrase "administrative categories". It needs more input and ideas. You're invited for comment there. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Note that Emilio Botin died on 10 september acording to spanish wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Our article states that he died on the 9th, citing a BBC source. [1] If you think this is incorrect, I suggest you raise the matter at Talk:Emilio Botín. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

List of honorary doctors

In no: there are a few lists of honorary doctors from Norwegian universities. I was wondering if I should translate the lists into English, and use them as a starting point for writing biographies of the various dr.h.c. here on en: As the only five lists that excist here on en: are from New Zealand universites, there are no lists from the large, old European or American universities. I am in doubt as to the value of such a list. Maybe it has already been discussed here at the Village pump, and concensus achieved? Kjersti Lie (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kjersti Lie: No reason why you shouldn't, but you might prefer to keep the lists in user space. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

RS policy and apparent contradictions / bias on the part of WP editors

A question/complaint about reliable sources: I have been told in talk page discussion that Breitbart is not considered a RS; but the same page is using multiple sources from what I consider "clickbait" sites, such as Buzzfeed, that are pretty much entirely about editorialization and provoking the user into reading as many pages as possible, often by using deliberately inflammatory headlines. I would like to know why the latter are apparently permitted. The only justification I could glean as to why Breitbart isn't considered reliable, from the responses I got, is that it's biased; but WP:RS explicitly tells me

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking.

Meanwhile, smaller "internet newspapers" such as The Daily Dot seem to be treated as RS - a specific example that I find particularly curious, given that the Wikipedia entry for The Daily Dot tells me that

In 2014, The Daily Dot acquired The Kernel, founded by Milo Yiannopoulos.

who is a prominent columnist for Breitbart.

I do not understand any of this, but it was suggested to me that I take the argument here since I'm apparently now getting more into general WP policy. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

We have a Reliable Sources Noticeboard with neutral parties who specialize in sorting out these issues. Alsee (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Innocent Pierre MUNYANKINDI

The user named above has behaved strangely. (I know it was in June, I just noticed this.) On 12 June, 07:30, he blanked Sathiala and replaced it with his bio. Clue Bot NG reverted him reverted him and gave him a level 1 warning. Around an hour later, he put his bio in a category (but he didn't blank it). After some confusion, it was removed and I gave him a level 2 warning, followed by, a few days later, a notice that he was a V.O. account. Strangely, he didn't edit again. Can anybody speculate why? The Lightning Strikes! Try me! 11:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Because leaving confusing, formal "warnings" on people's talk pages is a proven method of getting them to leave? He probably needed a friendly explanation that Wikipedia was not for writing about himself, rather than a vandalism warning and a note from you about being a "V. O. account" (which, if anyone's confused, probably is Lightning's preferred way of shortening "vandalism-only").
Next time, try {{uw-autobiography}} or write a nice note yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Reviving WikiProject Industrial design + re-scheduling its already prepared in 2010 initial Coordinator election

☀︎ Please visit the following page for details, or to take part in this election. Be sure to add yourself to the WikiProject membership roster if you are going to participate: Wikipedia:WikiProject Industrial design/Coordinator. Thank you. --Mareklug talk 22:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Why was there oversight?

This may not be an appropriate WP:VPT question. So I'll ask it here. Several of my contributions to The Teahouse have apparently been oversighted, or whatever the other term is for what happens when you can't see the diff. How do you see what was done and why?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You can see the deletion log for this at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. Drmies and Acroterion did revision deletion to hide material that violated WP:BLP. NeilN redacted the text off the page saying this : WP:BLP violation. The loss of your diff is collateral damage, but if you need it I can supply your "diff" leaving out the offending material. Though I think your edit is adequately shown and credited in Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 249. On this page you can also see what is left after the redaction. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
@Vchimpanzee: They're not oversighted, they're WP:REVDELled - the main difference is that admins can view a revdelled edit (including a diff), but not an oversighted edit. If you're not an admin, revdelled edits and oversighted edits look the same in the page history (the middle edit of these three was oversighted).
If you look at this section of the page history of Teahouse, you'll see that the edits from 18:25, 8 September 2014‎ to 00:04, 9 September 2014‎ are struck through. The earliest in that block are the problem ones; but when revdelling, every edit between that point and the actual removal of the problem content needs to be hidden too. But if you compare the last edit before the struck-through ones with the first one after, like this,you'll see that your posts are all there. The problem section was the one headed "Seeking help with challenging entry: Kirkland Lake - Notable People: Nadine Antoniazzi". --Redrose64 (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't need my diff, then.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

where is the template for allowed sockpuppets?

Where is the template for allowed sockpuppets? I can't find it here: Template:Sockpuppeteer or in categories section. I have seen it before... Thewhitebox (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean like the box shown at User:Redrose64a? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Check the section WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. It may have the template listed that you want. I second that "alternate account" is the term you probably want. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice of discussion re "blowjob" redirect

There is a discussion that could use some thoughtful discussion at Talk:Blowjob. Lightbreather (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for a "current event" on the main page

Jens Voigt set a very important cycling record. See also Hour record. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

See WP:ITNC and add your opinions there. This is already under discussion. --Jayron32 01:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Is inaccurate information acceptable for inclusion if it comes from a self-published source?

Example - a questionably "notable" organization includes false and misleading information about its own legal status on a self-published website. The inaccuracy is later exposed by two different secondary sources after each conducted their own investigations of legally filed, public information documents exposing the inaccuracy, (a non-profit's tax exempt status, and date the organization was formed). They published an exposé and provided copies of the documents for verifiability. Is it acceptable for editors to base the organization's Wiki article on the self-published information that is known to be inaccurate, or do we use the correct information published by secondary sources and verified by legal documents in their reports? Is it not the responsibility of editors to strive for accuracy? Atsme☯Consult 01:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The answer is, where there is a conflict between sources, speak in the sources voice rather than Wikipedia's. State unequivocally "the organization claims XYZ, while "source 1" and "source 2" state that ABC us correct". When you directly attribute statements in the text itself, you are stating verifiable facts (that is, it is verifiable that the organization claims fact XYZ, while it is also verifiable that named sources 1 and 2 states ABC). If you do this, you avoid any accusation of bias: you simply are stating what each source claims, and leaving it to the reader to draw their own conclusions. Direct, in-text attribution (where the prose itself states the source of the information) is the BEST way to deal with conflicting or controversial information. --Jayron32 01:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, and would that apply to the first sentence of the lead (even if the lead is only one sentence long)? Atsme☯Consult 02:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Why would it being in the lede make any difference? The lede is supposed to summarise article content, not present one side of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
The real question being if a source from an organization claims to be founded in 1995 can it be considered reliable if another source claims otherwise?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that you ask the 'real question' - citing the relevant sources, and the material they are being cited for - at WP:RSN. Asking vague hypothetical questions here isn't going to achieve much... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
It sounds like you need to consider the remarkable variety of meanings for "founding" or "starting" an organization. Filing legal paperwork isn't always the first step. Especially for small, grassroots groups, officially incorporating may happen years later, or only when they want to handle money. Saying "the soup kitchen was founded in 1990, when Sister Mary Holy Water started offering bowls of soup out the back door of the church kitchen every Friday" is just as legitimate as saying "the soup kitchen was incorporated in 1995, shortly after a lawyer and an insurance agent wondered why so many people were lined up out back". Neither of these dates is factually wrong, and both could be called "founding" the organization, but only one can be verified with government paperwork. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the input. After careful study of policy, I am convinced that it is not our job as editors to draw conclusions, or make assumptions about a company's founding, or consider a self-published source reliable, especially when there are reputable secondary sources that have published legal documents proving the inaccuracy of the self-published source. The actual date of organization is of the utmost importance because it establishes when the determination for notability should begin. The entity itself must meet the notability criteria for inclusion - see Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). The first paragraph defines it well: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it. The organization's services must be worthy of a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization or product. No inherent or inherited notability, therefore a famous founder does not a famous organization make. A history section can be included in the article, but the organization itself must stand on its own, and meet the notability criteria, excluding the notability of its founder(s). Atsme☯Consult 17:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
"The actual date of organization is of the utmost importance because it establishes when the determination for notability should begin"? Absolutely not. Notability is determined by significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Coverage now, not at some arbitrary time in the past. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
A self-published source is generally considered quite reliable for facts about itself. When the self-published source conflicts with a non-self-published source, then you present both sides: Joe Film says that he was born in 1965, and Gossip Magazine says he was born in 1955. The organization says its name is IPT and it was founded in 1995; Reporters R Us says its name is IPTF and it was founded in 2006. What you don't do is say that you just happen to know which one of those sources is telling The Truth™ and refuse to include the other side entirely.
It's true that the unexplained (though not inexplicable) discrepancy is going to make the org look like a bunch of liars to a few readers who see conspiracy theories everywhere, but until someone decides to explain the difference, we can't say anything beyond the fact that there is a discrepancy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Any chance someone could say what this is all about? WhatamIdoing has provided some excellent advice above, but specific details (a link to an article and a description of the exact problem) are needed to avoid wasting more time. Johnuniq (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps Investigative Project on Terrorism? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Investigative Project on Terrorism and Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation; notice the sandbox draft at User:Atsme/Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, too. This is all based on a very quick skim, but the basic story is not very unusual: IPT largely gets its funding from IPTF (the ACLU Foundation that largely funds the ACLU; the Human Rights Campaign has the HRC Foundation; I'd be surprised if every Roman Catholic diocese in the US didn't have a similar setup after their sexual abuse scandals [it's a classic asset-shielding maneuver]). The IPT website claims that IPT was founded in 1995. A pair of sources say that the IPTF was incorporated in 2006 (or thereabouts). Lo, the numbers do not match! Scandal! Headlines!
Yeah, well, they're legally separate organizations, so it's not surprising that they have neither the same name nor the same start dates. (Actually, the only surprising thing about this is is that it took them a decade to set this up. This is pretty much Exempt Orgs 101 for lawyers who deal with non-profits.)
If you'd like a little general background, orgs officially begin on whatever day you choose to begin them. Corporations (a subset of organizations) begin when you file the paperwork, and it is typical for a corporation to start its actual life as an unincorporated organization. Non-profit status is determined by the organization's setup; the IRS provides recognition of that status, not the status itself. Without formal recognition of the non-profit status, donations aren't tax-deductible and the org may not be able to take advantage of some tax benefits, but it is still a non-profit organization. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
The IRS is the only entity that can grant federal tax exempt status, and designation as a public charity or private foundation, etc. under the U.S. Tax Code. Hopefully you've been watching the Lois Lerner fiasco. Corporations can incorporate as a not for profit corporation according to their respective State laws, but that doesn't mean the corporation is automatically tax exempt, or that it is designated as a charitable organization or foundation. The IRS makes that designation. Most States require the IRS designation before they will grant exemption from State franchise and sales tax. And yes, it is important to have the correct date of organization, and if/when exempt status was granted, especially when it involves millions of dollars in tax exempt charitable donations. It doesn't appear to me that anyone is considering the distinct differences between John Doe making tacos as an employee of Taco Bing, and John Doe setting up a proprietorship and selling tacos as Taco Bingo, dba, and Taco Bingo Grande, Inc., a C-corp with tax exempt status as a private foundation (which involves others) that accepts charitable donations the foundation uses to operate its taco stands to feed the indigent. Without question, this encyclopedia should strive for accuracy. I tried to keep this discussion neutral by not naming names, but now that the cat is out of the bag, yes, I was trying to get feed back regarding the issues facing IPT and Steven Emerson. Emerson's notability was inherited by IPT which makes the article noncompliant, and one of the reasons it needs to be deleted. Emerson was an independent reporter, and terrorism expert from 1995 until 2006, but it was his work, reputation and notability that created the current IPT article (which is riddled with inaccuracies and violations). The article is noncompliant, but until you jump in and try to edit the darn thing to get it beyond stub or starter, you won't realize the full scope of the problem. Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) is quite clear about the notability requirements for an organization, but you better be aware of what organization you're writing about before you begin. You cannot role everything Emerson did into IPT, and then role Emerson and IPT up into the legal charity because other people are involved, and to do so is a violation of WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH. The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation is a separate entity, it was organized in 2006, period the end. The baby wasn't born yet, so stop trying to put clothes on it. Now that it is born, let's get it dressed. Policy states that notability is not inherent or inheritable, therefore the real organization must rest on its own laurels from the day of organization. Atsme☯Consult 03:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
It is hard to see a connection between the above exposition and the OP. The quick answer to the original question (as explained in the first reply) is that so long as an article on an organization exists, it should say what the organization claims about itself, along with whatever is said by reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
This can be oversimplified as Atsme saying she's decided that only the IRS-recognized non-profit organization "counts", so the article should ignore the existence of the existence of the other one (yes, "the other one" is the sole raison d'être for the IRS-recognized one that she wants to write about). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, the IRS is the only entity that can grant federal tax-exempt status. However, "tax-exempt" is not a synonym for "non-profit". "Tax-exempt" is also not a synonym for "donations are tax-deductible for income tax purposes". (Tax exempt only means that the org itself pays no taxes.) You achieve the status of a non-profit organization by the act of deciding not to take any of the profits home. That's all that is required (assuming that you don't mind paying taxes and being unrecognized).
  • The IRS does not "designate" anything as being "a charitable organization". They classify 501(c)(3) exempt orgs as being "public charities" or "private foundations". They classify other tax-exempt orgs in other ways. An org can be a charitable organization without having the IRS classify them at all (see, e.g., charities operating in the entire rest of the world plus thousands of tiny charities that don't handle money and therefore don't care about the official status). An org can actually be a charitable org even if the IRS classifies it another way, and a few orgs that are officially classified as public charities do not actually appear to be charitable orgs in any meaningful sense (see, e.g., the frequent scandals about fundraising machines that spend less money on actual charitable purposes than the typical breast cancer awareness marketing campaign).
  • "Corporations can incorporate as a not for profit corporation" – yes, and you can also create an unincorporated non-profit organization. The moment of incorporation is not what makes you be a non-profit organization.
  • "Most States require the IRS designation before they will grant exemption from State franchise and sales tax." – assuming that they even do that much, which is not true for all of them. The IRS designation is not universally required, nor universally respected, and going along with what the IRS says is mostly done as a cost-cutting convenience.
  • "the real organization must rest on its own laurels from the day of organization" – This is the main problem you seem to be having. IPTF is not "the real organization" as far as Wikipedia is concerned. The whole thing–the founder, the IPT, and IPTF–are the subject of the article. We don't have a policy that says you must only write about the IPTF and can exclude everything else. In fact, we have quite the opposite at WP:N, which says that editors may choose to merge closely related subjects into a single, comprehensive article. "The day of organization" is nonsense when you're talking about two legally separate organizations. This article needs both dates: both the date that's relevant for when the work started and the date that's relevant for government status. It does not need a fairy tale about nothing existing or happening in the decade before they (apparently/finally) talked to a decent lawyer about their corporate structure. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes to part of what you say, but we're getting off point. I'll try to clarify. As it stands right now, IPT is nothing more than what the name implies - a project - a project created by Steven Emerson - an investigative project on terrorism created by, controlled by, and owned by Steven Emerson. It is not an organization. An organization is a "body" of people. It did not become an "organization" until it was organized as a nonprofit tax exempt sect 501(c)3 foundation in 2006. Prior to that time it was all about Steven Emerson, the terrorism expert. Therefore, information about the Investigative Project belongs in Steven Emerson, not as a separate article. IPT has no notability of its own. A project cannot inherit its creator's notability, and it has no inherent notability. Read the policy. However, if we are talking about a legally organized Foundation - a separate entity comprising other investigators, a Board of Directors, and an Executive Director - then we have a separate entity (corporations are not people), and potential for notability provided the "organization" meets the notability requirements. It's just that simple. Atsme☯Consult 07:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
      • What? There is no rule that says an organization needs to file any specific paperwork or get government recognition before they're considered an organization. By that logic, Al Qaeda is not notable and it should be merged into Osama bin Laden. It's true that notability can't be inherited and there is no inherent notability. But if there are reliable sources discussing the project or group by name, then it's notable, regardless of any paperwork they've filed. Strictly speaking, they don't even need to be an organization to be notable. Things don't have to fall into a well-defined classification to get an article. We can have articles about movements and abstract concepts as long as there are sources discussing them. Mr.Z-man 13:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
        • There are many types of organisation; the chess club at a school is an organisation, and I'll bet that they didn't file papers with The Man to get started. The method for "starting" an organisation also varies; for example, in the UK, a business partnership begins when the parties shake hands on the deal - they may get a solicitor to draw up a contract, but that's optional. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I won't get into the issue of Notability... but on the issue of accurately saying when IPT was "founded", the solution is easy... don't use that specific word. Instead the lead could say something like: "The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) is a Washington D.C.-based non-profit research group started in 1995 by counterterrorism expert Steven Emerson, and organized as a nonprofit foundation in 2006." I think wording along those lines would accurately reflect all the sources and viewpoints. It's a simple fix. Blueboar (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It should not be this difficult to understand what is at issue here. Al Qaeda is not bin Laden because it is a stand alone organization, involves others, and has notability on its own - it meets the criteria for notability - while Steven Emerson is IPT. It is Emerson "doing business as", a dba. Prior to his organizing the nonprofit private FOUNDATION in 2006 - we are talking about TWO different IPTs - it was all about Emerson, so the information belongs in Steven Emerson. IPT the dba has no notability on its own - it is Emerson's notability, and belongs in the Emerson bio under an IPT section. It may be possible to separate some of the information after 2006 and attribute it to the work of the FOUNDATION, but I question whether it meets the criteria for notability because of the sources we have available - most being self-published, and/or unreliable. IPT the dba should not have a separate article because it is Steven Emerson, and has inherited Emerson's notability - policy violation. However, the Foundation is a stand alone entity, and involves others, BUT the only way a 2nd article is worthy of inclusion is if it is written about the true organization, The Investigative Project on Terrorism FOUNDATION, with a brief history note that Emerson is the Executive Director. The current article violates WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR, and includes more information about Emerson and his notability than it does any of the work the FOUNDATION has performed because there are no reliable secondary and third party sources writing about it or reporting it. Look at what a good job this whole affair has done to confuse you! That was Emerson's plan. He wants people to believe his organization has existed since 1995, when in fact, it was just Emerson. Believe me, as lead editor for the article, I know exactly what the problem is, but I can't seem to get beyond the resistance from editors who are spending more time trying to disprove what I say then understand what I'm saying. If you read the sources, you will find they refer back to Emerson, and the website for IPT which contains misinformation about itself which has been reported in reliable secondary sources with articles accompanied by legal documentation. The reason is simple - Steven Emerson is IPT which inherited his notability, and the organization is the IPT Foundation which has questionable notability, and why the two must be kept separated. You will find plenty of secondary sources that criticize Emerson, but only because of his own notability, and that info belongs in Emerson, not in an article about the IPT Foundation, a private charity. You will also find criticism about when and why Emerson formed the IPT Foundation in 2006, his prior work as an independent reporter, and self-proclaimed terrorism expert, and the extensive data base he maintains, and how he is funneling money to himself using the Foundation. That is not the kind of notability we can source to meet the notability criteria for the true organization. It belongs in Steven Emerson. Editors, PLEASE, try to grasp what I'm saying here. Read the policy - Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). Atsme☯Consult 15:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
It would have been a lot easier to grasp what you were saying if you had made it clear what the specific issue was from the start, rather than asking vague hypothetical questions. If the issue concerns the notability of the subject of an article, we don't need to get involved in complex, confusing and unnecessary debates about what exactly constitutes the founding date of the subject. A subject is notable if it has had significant coverage in third-party sources. It doesn't matter when it was founded. It doesn't matter whether it is a legal entity or not. It doesn't matter whether it makes misleading claims about itself or not. All that matters is that notability can be demonstrated through sources. If it is your contention that the available sources do not demonstrate that the Investigative Project on Terrorism has notability independent of Steven Emerson, then that is the argument you need to make. I suggest that you ask those claiming that the Project is independently notable provide a list of sources demonstrating this independent notability, and then start a discussion (at WP:RSN, or through a RfC?) over the question. This discussion here is clearly going to resolve nothing, as it seems to be asking the wrong question, in the wrong place, and not to be involving one side of the debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

If only it were that simple. Whenever I try to seek help, collaboration in improving the article(s), or even feedback, I get accused of canvassing. I simply tried to avoid that issue. I did not intend for this discussion to grow into such confusion. However, it has served a beneficial purpose in that it helped me to better understand what I'm facing regarding the issues with IPT's notability being directly linked to Emerson's, and the IPT Foundation notability being a sourcing problem. I thank all of you for your input. Atsme☯Consult 16:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

"" BUT the only way a 2nd article is worthy of inclusion is if it is written about the true organization"
This is not true.
Look, let's take this from a different approach. You keep going on about what WP:ORG says, and I keep telling you that you're interpreting it incorrectly. So before we go any further, please click here and scroll down to the list of the all-time top editors for that particular guideline. After you find my name in the #2 slot and Blueboar's name in the #3 slot, then come back here and read the next two sentences:
The notability guideline does not require that any organization have any official existence. The notability guideline does not require that any organization have more than one person involved. You will not find anything that says anything in that guideline (or any other) that says anything remotely like, "If a consulting shop turns out to only have one person involved, and it's not incorporated, then we can't have an article about the consulting shop and you can only write about the person, even if the sources mention the name of the business instead of the name of the person." We have no rules against treating doing business as organizations as real organizations. We do not treat them as something different from incorporated businesses. In fact, a major theme of the guideline is that all organizations—big and small ones, local and international ones, non-profits and for-profits, incorporated and informal—all get treated exactly the same. Coca-Cola, Inc. get treated the same as your local dba-only plumber.
There are two organizations here, with two (slightly) different names and two different starting dates. You need to mention both.
And if you don't like the fact that we have an article about the main person behind it and an article about the organizations, then propose a WP:MERGE. Don't try to pretend that the organization that's mentioned in sources for a decade before the foundation was incorporated never existed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Wow - truly impressive, and I mean that with all my heart. However, you are not correct in this situation for the following reason -- there's that darned old WP policy that keeps getting in the way. Simply stated, an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose. This includes commercial and non-commercial activities, such as charitable organizations, educational institutions, hospitals, institutions, interest groups, social clubs, companies, partnerships, proprietorships, religious denominations, sects, etc. Gosh darn it. See it here: Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). If you want to actually help me in a collaborative effort, please stop trying to disprove what I'm saying, and do a tiny bit of investigation. You will be surprised at what you find (and that doesn't include skimming). I don't have any other agenda than to correct the problems, and there are many. It appears few editors want to get involved with Emerson or IPT. Just view the edit history for both, and you'll see what I mean. I would love to work with an editor of your caliber, but first, you need to understand the issue. The main violations include WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and unreliable sources. And FYI, Steven Emerson existed as Steven Emerson, reporter/terrorism expert, and then with his think-tank, The Investigative Project, and then he invented the common name The Investigative Project on Terrorism as the umbrella for his work as a terrorism expert - but the so-called organizations inherited HIS notability. The longer we allow the misnomer to continue, the harder it will be to correct. The legal entity which is NOT soley Steven Emerson dba, may actually have notability provided you can find reliable sources, will separate it from Steven Emerson's IPT, and then strive for accuracy by including only FOUNDATION related activities in the article....which is what I've been working on. Unfortunately, too many editors are quick to judge without studying the situation, and they end up jumping to conclusions. Tells me they got tired of thinking. Atsme☯Consult 20:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
One person with a dba is called a sole proprietorship. If you check the quotation above for the word I'm underlining, you'll find that proprietorships are included in WP:ORG. Similarly, US corporations frequently involve only one person, and they, too, are included. (The main point of that particular sentence, BTW, is to define informal multi-person groups out of BLP.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
This is not about WP:ORG. It is about Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). If you consider IPT a sole proprietorship, then you just validated the reason to merge to Steven Emerson. Atsme☯Consult 21:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Take a moment and click the link that you just posted for WP:ORG. It's a redirect for Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies).Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Again, you seem to be making up rules that don't exist. There's no reason a sole proprietorship can't be notable separately from its owner. The only thing I can think of is that you're using an overly literal interpretation of WP:ORG and assuming that an organization that doesn't consist of a "group of more than one person" can't ever be notable. But A) WP:ORG is only a guideline and B) It is not the only notability guideline. If a subject meets WP:N, it doesn't matter whether it meets any subject-specific guideline. Mr.Z-man 02:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Please, just look at the article as it was created by Firefly322 back in November 2009, [2]. Look at it now, and read the Funding Section. Do you see the conflicts? Atsme☯Consult 05:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how that could have anything to do with notability. The only relevant question is: What topics are the sources discussing? If secondary sources treat IPT as a distinct organization, then so do we. To do anything else would be original research. It doesn't matter whether the organization only consists of 1 person. It doesn't matter whether it's doing anything unethical or even illegal. Notability is only concerned with how secondary sources treat the subject. If all IPTF does is funnel donations to IPT, then it's IPTF that probably doesn't need an article, since most sources are really discussing IPT. For some strange reason, you seem to be hung up on whichever organization has filed more paperwork even though that has nothing to do with notability. Mr.Z-man 05:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that they do not treat IPT as a distinct "organization". They treat it distinctly as Steven Emerson. Editors who have researched the sources understand the problem. Those who just see the name IPT in a Google search do not understand the problem, and simply conclude the cited sources are reliable. The fact that Emerson is the focus, and IPT is just another name for Emerson validates the need to merge. The fact that readers cannot distinguish the difference is also a problem because there IS a difference. The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation is the only organization that is actually a separate entity involving a group with a managing director, and Shillman Fellows who provide testimony at Congressional hearings, not just Emerson, but even then, most of the sources are questionable because they are self-published press releases. Reliable sources are a major issue because most make trivial reference to IPT but the focus is Emerson. There is also the undue weight issue because of the problem with sources, POV, and lack of reliable independent second and third-party sources. See the following articles (not a reliable sources) which mentions IPT as a group, but refers only to Emerson. [3]. [4]. None of them distinctly distinguish notability for IPT to the point of notability not inherited from Emerson. IPT is worthy of mention as a section in Steven Emerson, but not as a stand alone article. The only substantial information that meets the criteria for establishing IPT as a "group" originates from their website, a self-published source, which does not meet the criteria for notability, and neither does trivial mention of it in secondary and third-party sources. By keeping IPT a stub, or starter article because it lacks reliable sources to expand it, makes it a Coatrack for the template, raises a BLP issue because IPT is Emerson, and fails to meet both the notability and neutrality requirements. Atsme☯Consult 15:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Dating comments in the edit window

I have come across many a comment in edit windows with no indication of who put it there or when. Could I please ask that editors be requested to sign and date such comments. I realise this may require typing out the username instead of using the 4 tildes but it would be useful if someone wants to remove the comment. They may wish to communicate with the originator of the comment first. Jodosma (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The majority of users that don't sign their talk page comments are usually new editors that have no prior experience with talk pages, or find it strange that four tildes would do anything. SineBot does this happily. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 22:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I think Jodosma was referring to <!--comments like this--> in the article. Adding a user name and date could be useful in some cases, especially in articles with large edit histories where it would be time consuming to go through and find the edit where the comment was originally added. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
It would need to be typed manually - 4tildes doesn't work inside comments, as I shall demonstrate: --Redrose64 (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
...which is why most people don't bother. Not to mention it probably didn't occur to many people that this would be a good practice. I never sign and date my HTML comments, and it never occurred to me that I should until reading this. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 11:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe this is something that should be brought up with developers, perhaps by having the little in the edit window actually insert your signature and timestamp instead of just the four tildes. It's a thought. VanIsaacWScont 23:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Notability of a Wikipedia

Just wondering, what kind of notability does, for instance, the Zulu Wikipedia have that justifies its article? I don't see it in the article, and the general notability criterion (be the subject of independent published works) doesn't seem reached to me...

Sure, I'm addressing the issue via an easy target, being one of the smallest Wikipedias to have an entry here; but in general I'm trying to understand if a Wikipedia has any "intrinsic" notability (because it's widely used, because Wikipedia in general is very notable...), or if it should be considered as any other website for notability purposes. And in that case, am I the only one feeling that many Wikipedias having an article here do not have the corresponding notability?

Thanks, Cos-fr (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps there are reliable sources about said encyclopedia in the Zulu language. Remember, the concept of notability doesn't require that the article actually has to cite source; merely that the sources exist or are presumed to exist. I have no feeling one way or another about this one article; but in general notability is not about citations currently in the article, and it isn't confined to the English language. It's quite possible that sources exist in Zulu to establish notability, but we just don't cite them in this article as yet. Not saying that is the case, but just noting that is one possible answer. --Jayron32 22:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
(Editing an archived discussion, no intent to revive it, just clarifying and concluding...)
Thanks for these precisions. Just to clarify, I know the article is not required to show the notability of the subject; when I wrote "I don't see it in the article" I simply meant that I had trouble finding any notability clue, and the article itself, which often helps, in this case didn't. Then, falling back on a general criterion gave me the impression that notability wasn't reached.
Since then I've found the relevant debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zulu Wikipedia. In short: not so obvious as I thought... I'll leave it there.
Cos-fr (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

who wrote this flyer advertising wikipedia?

I found a copy of this at Busboys and Poets in Washington, D.C. yesterday.

[5]

It appears like it was not done by a lot of editors as it can be written better. For example one of the revert edit sentences stands out as not being very clear. Thewhitebox (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

While I'm not familiar with it, it says on the page who wrote it. :)

Version 2.3 — July 2013 prepared by User:Groupuscule & User:FutureImperfect using OpenOffice. Edit talk page if you want a copy or have questions & comments!

Given that it's over a year old, they may have an updated version? In any event, they seem to be open for comments. However, neither of them looks to be very active at the moment. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Autopromo?

Hi! This article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pablito_Greco seem to be written by one person, the numerous sources seem to refer only to blogs or private websites of the same Pablito Greco (or dead links) who seems to be only present on the web through his own sites. So I wonder if the article meets the criteria of admissions of wikipedia?... Aleyo fr (talk) 06:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pablito Greco--Ymblanter (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Universities adopting Wikipedians?

I am not sure this is the right place to ask this question, but I didn't find any forum more suitable. I recall reading about an outreach program whereby universities cooperate with Wikipedia by offering library and research services to Wikipedians. Is this so, and if so, how do I try to promote this idea at my local university? Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

If you scroll down the page "Wikipedia:Reference desk", you can find a link to "Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library".
—Wavelength (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
@Ravpapa - You may also be interested in the Wikipedian in residence concept. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
That's it! Thanks! --Ravpapa (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

African-American Categories

What criteria determines whether or not a person is placed into categories such as "African-American singers" or "African-American actors"? The reason I'm inquiring is because numerous times on Wikipedia I have come across a person who is biracial or multiracial and is being placed into one of these categories. Frequently these persons do not even appear African-American (which in the U.S. is basically a synonym for black) e.g. Derek Jeter, Alicia Keys, Mariah Carey, and many many others who have a similar "ethnic mixed" appearance. How do we even know these people identify as "African-American"? Also if there are no sources saying they do, then why are they automatically being placed into these specific racial categories? 2604:2000:7FC0:1:E8D7:5FA9:D5A4:AD1 (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Also posted at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#African-American_Categories - let's keep the discussion there so it's all in one place. GoingBatty (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting graphic flow chart on plagiarism

Credit to Patrick Allan at Lifehacker for this: [6]. --Jayron32 01:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Good find, we should steal it. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Is there a readable version anywhere?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Royal Society of Chemistry - Wikimedian in Residence

I've just started work as Wikimedian in Residence at the Royal Society of Chemistry. Over the coming year, I'll be working with RSC staff and members, to help them to improve the coverage of chemistry-related topics in Wikipedia and sister projects.

You can keep track of progress at Wikipedia:GLAM/Royal Society of Chemistry, and use the talk page if you have any questions or suggestions, or requests for help. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations, and good luck. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Congrats, and keep up the good work. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Adding a diagonal stripe to kit displayed in Template:Infobox rugby team

Hi, I'd like to be able to use the club/provincial teams infobox for my local rugby club ...

Template:Infobox_rugby_team

... however our team has a black diagonal stripe from right-shoulder down to left side across a white shirt, and I'm not sure how or indeed if there exists a way in which I can display this on the "| body =" line? I've looked for other examples, but as yet have been unsuccessful.

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Very many thanks,

Mike

mikejamestaylor (talk) 09:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mikejamestaylor: Have you asked at Template talk:Infobox rugby team, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union or perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league? Those pages are followed by people with much (if not all) of the specialised knowledge required. This page is somewhat ... miscellaneous. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Ahhh, no I haven't, but now that you say it it is startlingly obvious that perhaps I should! :-) Thanks for the heads up, much appreciated.

mikejamestaylor (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment asking that Jimmy Wales step down

Duplicate of post at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 173#Request for Comment asking that Jimmy Wales step down. Johnuniq (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Active editors continue to drop on wikipedia Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia#Criticism
The singularity is not near: slowing growth of Wikipedia
The rate of reverts-per-edits (or new contributions rejected) and the number of pages protected has kept increasing.

The greater resistance towards new content has made it more costly for editors, especially occasional editors, to make contribution. We argue that this may have contributed, with other factors, to the slowdown in the growth of Wikipedia.[7]

I want to create a request for comment. This request for comment would argue that the only way to reverse the negative trend of deleting other editors good faith edits would be for Jimmy Wales to step down.

Thoughts? Walterruss (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how the presence of Jimmy Wales causes people to delete good-faith edits... --Jayron32 11:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Editing Task

I am a member of wikipedia contributing to articles and such when I can. I was wondering if there was like a way to be given a list of things that need to be changed so I could help out by doing some of the edits and such. If something else needs to be done, just a list of changes that need to be done and give me a chance to help out more by actually making the changes that you requested.

Wikipedia Editor, Nix — Preceding unsigned comment added by A007Nix (talk • contribs) 13:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@A007Nix: Have a look at User:SuggestBot; it sends messages like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
@A007Nix: You can also try Wikipedia:Backlog or joining a WikiProject related to your interests. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Or Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. @A007Nix:--BabbaQ (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on this RfC regarding the Ebola epidemic

Hello, per RfC policy, I'm publicizing this RfC here at the Village pump. This issue would benefit from input from the wider Wikipedia community.

The RfC link is here.

The question is:

Should we keep these newly created separate country articles about the Ebola epidemic and allow them to develop, or should they be deleted/redirected to Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa?

Your participation is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

SW3 5DL (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC:Should an article be created containing all states that have launched a Military intervention in Iraq against ISIS in 2014?

The RFC is here:Talk:2014_Iranian-led_intervention_in_Iraq#RFC:_Military_intervention_against_ISIS_2014_in_IraqSerialjoepsycho (talk) 03:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Ggitzen history

User talk:Ggitzen history says nothing about The Art of Dialling even though the user created the article but it was very recently deleted. Are deleted contributions in the user history, or not?--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

If a page is deleted, the edits are moved from Special:Contributions/Ggitzen to Special:DeletedContributions/Ggitzen. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I understand the situation now. I also learn from trying it that I do not have permission to seeSpecial:DeletedContributions/Ggitzen. Not a problem for me in this case.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Categories of US Senators by mandate

I don't understand why there are no categories of US senators by mandate. For example John Edwards was a US senator in the 1998-2004 (or 1999-2005) mandate, if I understand right. I don't understand why there are no categories like Category:United States Senators 1998-2004 or something like that. Something similar with Category:MEPs 2004–09. —  Ark25  (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The U.S. senators are not categorized that way. In the U.S. senate, senators are organized by "class", of which there are three. See Classes of United States Senators. Unlike Parliament, the U.S. Senate never elects all of its members at the same time, only 1/3 stand for election in any given 2-year cycle. --Jayron32 01:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I think I understand that. But if a senator was elected for example in 1998, then he had the 1998-2004 mandate. Say we are in year 1999. At this moment in time, a third of the senators have the 1998-2004 mandate, another third have the 1996-2002 mandate, and another third have the 1994-2000 mandate. Replace „mandate” with another, more suitable word, like „term” for example. —  Ark25  (talk) 08:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
What the hell is a mandate? I've never heard "mandate" used to describe a Senator's (or a House Representative's) term in office. Sessions of the US Congress are always named (ordeal) United States Congress. For example, the current session is called the 113th United States Congress. Next year will begin the 114th United States Congress. —Farix (t | c) 11:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Yea, it's not a classification or categorization that has any meaning in American politics. Tarc (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Like I said, the word mandate is not important. I translated it wrong from my native language. John Edwards for example was elected in 1998 and he was in office from 1999 to 2005. He was not the only one in this situation - a third of the senators (more or less, 33) were in office from 1998 to 2005. So, I was thinking that it makes sense to have a distinct category for those 33 senators - but I'm not American so you know better than me if it makes sense or not. Thanks. —  Ark25  (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
If we do it for all United States Senators‎, we should also do it for all Members of the United States House of Representatives‎ as well. The problem is that the number of terms is not limited, a Senator may serve any number of six-year terms (subject to the provisions of Article I, Section 3, Clause 3), not just one; and similarly a Representative may serve any number of two-year terms (subject to the provisions of Article I, Section 2, Clause 2), not just one. This is in contrast to the President, who under Amendment XXII is effectively limited to ten years: two full four-year terms plus the unexpired portion of the previous incumbent's last term. A politician elected to the House at, say, the age of 47, and who is re-elected every two years until the age of 79, would serve sixteen terms in total; that would mean sixteen categories. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
This is just overcategorization. Each member of the Senate will have a minimum of 3 categories for their term in office and the categorization doesn't provide anything useful. And for someone like Robert C. Byrd, who served 9 terms (51 years), would be in 26 such categories. And with 30 categories already on the article (which could already use a trimming), how would throwing 26 more categories be beneficial to the reader? —Farix (t | c) 10:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
As I understand Ark25's suggestion, a Senator wouldn't be in a minimum of 3 categories for their term in office, only for those six-year periods for which they were elected. Byrd was a Class 1 Senator throughout, so would be in the cats for 1959-65; 1965-71; 1971-77; 1977-83; 1983-89; 1989-95; 1995-2001; 2001-07; and 2007-13, but would not be in the cats for Class 2 or Class 3 terms. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant. 9 terms = 9 categories. But yes, that means doing it for the members of the House of Representatives too, and for example for Sam Rayburn who had 24 terms that means 24 categories. That would be a lot. However, such a category would make reader's life easier, if they just want to see a list of Representatives for example in the 2005-2007 term. Having to figure that list from articles like United States House of Representatives elections, 2004 is quite a mess - at least from my point of view. Or maybe there are such lists (on Wikipedia) and I don't know where they are? —  Ark25  (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
After thinking a little bit more about this, I came to the conclusion that I would probably favor the idea of adding such categories, but as hidden categories. So the lists of senators and deputies by term will be (relatively) easily available. —  Ark25  (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Hidden categories are generally reserved for encyclopedia maintenance, since most people who read Wikipedia don't see them at all (I know, it's easy to forget that if you're used to having them turned on). I don't think those categories would be useful both because of the sheer number of them and because that information is already readily available. We have Classes of United States Senators to list current senators by class and show which states are in which classes. We also have a whole series of articles like 113th United States Congress which list every member of Congress (House and Senate), as well as chamber leadership, by each legislative session. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 02:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/October 2014

Greetings all, just thought I'd mention that our monthly disambiguation linking contest is underway at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/October 2014, and that thanks to a sweet deal that we struck with the Wikimedia people, the top three disambiguation link fixers will get a free t-shirt from Wikimedia. I would really like to see some new blood come in and claim those top spots this month. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

bd2412, I'm curious how you decide who the top participants are. Can you get some sort of database report, or do you have to add it up by hand? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
There is a database report that is automatically updated every hour or so (details are at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links). bd2412 T 11:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Help with a difficult editor

I'm seeking advice on how to deal with a difficult editor. I have been editing Wikipedia since 2007 or so, and have never dealt with a situation like this before.

An editor made a change. I reverted it, because (in my view) it contradicted the consensus of major textbooks and leaders in the field. He restored it. I made a detailed argument on the talk page, provided sources and proof and removed it again. Her reverted my revert. Slow edit-warring ensued. The editor has made arguments, but they are almost incoherent and reflect and extremely poor grasp of basic terminology used in the field. Every time I try to fix the article again, he reverts my edits. I started an RfC, and reiterated my argument. It was unanimous in my favor, but it was struck down as "poorly formed". Another RfC was started, again unanimous in my favor in terms of content, with a few editors who were opposed to the wording of the RfC. It will probably be struck down as well.

This has been going on for weeks. This is my question: I have provided a solid argument based on reliable sources. This other editor has not. I don't want every edit of mine to be reverted. How do I convince this editor to stop restoring an edit for which there is no consensus and which contradicts major sources?

To be clear, I am asking a procedural question -- what options does Wikipedia provide to allow me to restore the article? Is there any way to win this, or is the other editor free to keep reverting from now till next spring? Should I be bold and just keep restoring it until the three-revert rule kicks in? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@CharlesGillingham: All parties should be aware that WP:V is core policy, as are WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. WP:EW is relevant, even if the problem is slow-moving. WP:RFPP should halt the mainpage editing (with the risk of WP:WRONGVERSION being protected); if one or more parties are admins, and they edit through a protection, WP:WHEEL may apply. There is WP:DR - try to avoid going to WP:AN and especially not Arbcom - that can end up with sanctions on all parties, including the filer. If all else fails, you could WP:DISENGAGE, go play the piano, maybe phone Adam and write a song together. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi CharlesGillingham,
I'm sorry that you're stuck in a horrible dispute. WP:DR processes are inconsistent and understaffed, and overall we do a mediocre job of solving these types of disputes. Have you contacted the most relevant WP:WikiProject for help yet? Sometimes that's a way to get someone who both knows the subject and is willing to put some time into improving the article.
(I'm not sure why someone felt entitled to reject the results of the RFC as "poorly formed"; there is no such provision in WP:RFC.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, to both of you. He has now made a personal attack ... do I have other options now? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
It looks like he's strangely decided that you saying (at Talk:Artificial intelligence) "Qwerty's actions are irrelevant in that he did not disprove these facts" is somehow a personal attack. I suspect that he's not read WP:NPA.
For dealing with the editor as a person, there's WP:RFC/U, but it's slow, painful, and voluntary. If this is part of a much larger pattern of behavior, then there's the possibility of a WP:TBAN, which can be requested at WP:AN. I think, though, that bd2412's suggestion of getting a good admin (or three) to resolve it might be better. User:Dank is experienced with incendiary RFCs, and if he's not too busy with his latest FAC, he might be willing to dig through it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for thinking of me, but I won't have time, I'm working on a big copyediting project. - Dank (push to talk) 20:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
My two cents: it might help to put together a three-admin panel to assess the outcome of the current discussion. We have used those successfully for some past high-octane disputes. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

tired of Pennsylvania creeks being featured every day - subject hog

Seems like every day, the US/EN page features an article on a Pennsylvania creek or stream. Looks like someone has created an article on every single stream, creek or river in eastern Pennsylvania (a laudable effort), and is also on a quest to everyone in the US to read each one (a bit fanatic). I've lived in Pennsylvania, and canoed in its waterways, but seems like this single subject is hogging the features articles section daily. The articles are all about the same, nothing unique that merits a featured article, anyway.

Can we take a break on these Pennsylvania streams, or limit them to maybe once a month in the featured articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.180.254 (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

May I suggest dropping a note on Talk:Main Page? -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
It's really a matter for WT:DYK. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Editors considering RfA

Are there any editors considering RfA in the next 2 years? If yes, please just indicate "yes". If the answer is no, a short response with a reason would be appreciated. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up

Okay, not a lot of responses. Oh, well. I posted here further to:

Basically, some say that all of Wikipedia is dying, and the low RfA is a symptom. Others (me, mostly) think that the low RfA is because it is a scary gauntlet. I was hoping this post would shed some light. It didn't. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Give it time Anna. Responses are coming through.Irondome (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Does RfA matter any more? Wikipedia is not dying. It is transitioning from a project to write a great encyclopedia to a playground for social networkers. The partly written encyclopedia will have to be enough. What matters now is that Wikipedia is becoming a great platform for users who are here to be important or to push moral agendas on drama boards. This process started some time ago with the foundation and their efforts to flood Wikipedia with users who are not equipped to write useful articles. Now Jimbo is furthering the transition to the new order by sanctioning attacks on the remaining serious content builders. It seems that among this group are content builders who some people believe are toxic and dishonourable. Apparently this is the real problem on Wikipedia. It is a mistake to think this group are any more useful or should be treated differently from other groups, such as vandals. There are over one thousand admins, far more than actually needed to block and ban the serious content builders that social networkers decide are offensive. Then peace will descend. There will be little left for admins to do apart from bathing in love and kindness with the social networkers and their special agendas. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The users who are really important are those who get on quietly with adding content and who are always a pleasure to collaborate with and help, who never get blocked or warned, and who stay away from the drama boards because they have got better things to do. In short, the trolls who were determined to destroy the frail fabric of Wikpedia management by disrupting RfA as much as they could, and by sowing mean rumours around the site that all admins are are rotten, are losing their credibility (did they ever have any?), increasing their block logs, and . sounding like the crackling of thorns under a pot.
If anything, by yearning for a management-free structure, the anti-adminship campaigners are inviting the very anarchy that will lead Wikipedia into being a free for all for political POV pushing despots, spammers, rappers, and and vandals. Of course Wikipedia is not dying but it has reached the top of its parabola as a serious encyclopedia. Those former great content providers have little else left to but criticise those who do the maintenance work, and they generally blunder around making a nuisance of themselves. Admins are now needed to keep the crap and vandals out of the encyclopedia.
Any serious contender for adminship today has a very fair chance of passing and getting a reasonably clean environment for their RfA. Anyone who thinks otherwise should go and do their homework. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I would apply, the tools would be very useful for a bunch of janitorial-related stuff (page-move mostly), but I really don't feel like going through that horrible process again. Maybe the atmosphere changed since the last time I even visited an RfA page (2+ years ago), but I really doubt it would be anything less than a witch hunt for fuckups in my 120,000+ edits, followed by irrelevant question about the difference between a block and a ban, people supporting/opposing based on whether or not their favourite troll would be vindicated or punished, or what if questions about page patrols or vandalism when I never once gave a shred of a crap about that area of Wikipedia. That's my two cents. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
After seing Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#RFA_is_dying, maybe I could be convinced, but not before I really take a look at the last year or so of RFAs to see what the atmosphere is. Maybe. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Kudpung for your guidelines on proper behaviour for content builders. As always you are correct. Content builders are mistaken if they think they have a right on this site to express their own views about the system. Only admins have enough clue for that. Content builders that do not know their place and do not keep their heads down can now be simply eliminated following the new guidelines set up by Jimbo: they can be goaded and provoked until they say something immoderate, at which point they can be declared to be uncivil, toxic or dishonourable and be site banned for life. Content builders are disposable but admins endure. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment on chapter-to-episode statements in Game of Thrones episode articles

This isn't exactly a Wikipedia-altering issue, but it is likely to affect all the Game of Thrones episode articles and could set a precedent for other articles about adaptations from books. The content dispute has been going on for some time now and it's important to get enough new voices whose perspectives aren't skewed by previous conflicts or agendas.

RfC: Should the article state which chapters appear in the episode? is meant to determine whether Game of Thrones episode articles should have a statement like "This episode was based on [specific chapters] of [specific book]" in the body text. The first four respondents present the arguments for and against inclusion pretty thoroughly. Right now, some of them have chapter-to-episode statements and some don't. They look and are placed like this: [8] Previous RfCs have addressed using this particular source or that, but this one is about including or excluding the statements based on whether or not they improve the article. Participation is greatly appreciated. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Without a reliable source, no because it crosses the line of original analyst. And it is for that reason that we removed similar statements form episode lists of anime that were adapted from manga or light novels. —Farix (t | c) 19:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
@TheFarix: Secondary sources for this material have been already been found (or several, depending on how you look at it). However, just because something is properly sourced doesn't mean that it would earn its keep in the article space. The current RfC is about whether the statement improves the article enough to merit inclusion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Page view spike.

Any idea what caused the spike in views across all Wikipedia pages on 28 September? Thanks. Nathan121212 (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Where do you see the spike? I haven't heard anything about this, but someone like User:Okeyes (WMF) might know more. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is some weird tag being added to every edit I make?

Since a few minutes ago, every edit I've made has been tagged "HHVM". What does that mean? Am I doing anything wrong that I'm tripping an edit filter or something? Gparyani (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Clicking the tag takes you to this site, which indicates that you either accidentally turned on that feature or were randomly conscripted for testing it or something. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
@Gparyani: You'll probably find that at Preferences → Beta features, you have enabled either "Automatically enable all new beta features" or "Faster servers with HHVM". If neither of these are enabled but your edits are still being tagged, it may be a WP:VPT matter. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I explained the rationale for the tag in a note I sent out in September. I know that some users find the tag obtrusive, and I'm sorry about that. We added it for a very simple reason: we were worried about the possibility that HHVM would mangle edits somehow, and we thought that having the tag would make it easier to get a handle on the problem and clean it up. Thankfully this hasn't happened, but the idea is still sound, so we'll probably keep the tag for the remainder of the migration (which we expect to conclude within six to eight weeks). When it is complete, we could go back and erase the tag if users find it bothersome. What do you think? --Ori.livneh (talk) 04:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC) (performance engineer at Wikimedia)

Call for OTRS administrator applicants

The OTRS administrators are considering expanding the admin team. We invite all community members to review the call for volunteers on Meta-Wiki at m:OTRS/Call for administrator.

We would like to keep questions centralized, so please direct all discussion to the talk page: m:Talk:OTRS/Call for administrator.

On behalf of the OTRS admin team, Rjd0060 (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

IP user blanking their talk page

Is there a particular common approach for dealing with IP users blanking their IP's talk page? Should they be reported, or should I just let it go? Or what? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a very common approach, you let them blank it unless it is forbidden according to WP:REMOVED. GB fan 21:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
This is a confusing one, as the user was recently vandalizing, then they blank the warning about that. OK, if they get to blank the page, I think that's nuts, but I'll live with it. No skin off my back. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Eh. Blanking that kind of stuff is frowned upon but it really isn't a big deal. The warnings are still there in the history. If the problem persists just go to the next level of warning and maybe add a line to the effect that blanking the page isn't going to help. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Statue honouring Wikipedia

In case you're not aware, there will be a statue to honour Wikipedia built in Poland. (Sorry if this is not the right venue for this.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It already has an article, Wikipedia Monument. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Fascinating, thank you! Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
You can add an entry to the commemorative book here. Aphranius (talk) 08:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC - Should the article 2014 Isla Vista killings (Elliot Rodger's killing spree) be in the category "Violence against men"?

If interested, please participate in an RFC [9] regarding whether or not the article 2014 Isla Vista killings should be in the category "Violence against men" [10], which is described as category: "for articles on the topic of sexual or gender-based violence against men or boys". --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Monument - a commemorative book

Hi! On October 22, 2014, at 6:00 p.m., at the Frankfurter Platz in Słubice the Wikipedia Monument will be unveiled. We would like to give the Wikipedia community a chance to express their thanks to the originators of the Monument, i.e. the employees of Collegoun Polonicum in Słubice and the Mayor of the town, by preparing a commemorative book. The entries to the book will be collected on a dedicated polish Wikipedia page, and afterwards they will be printed and presented to the hosts of the unveiling ceremony by the representative of the WIkimedia Polska association.

If you wish to thank the originators of the idea of erecting the world's first monument to Wikipedia, add a few words of your own on this page. We will collect the entries by October 18 (Saturday), 23:59 CET.

Feel free to write in your native language if you want to - you don't have to use English (or Polish :) ). Regards, Awersowy (talk) 09:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Community goings-on reminder: voting in progress (now at mid-point, monthlong) for a wikiproject coordinator

Quoting from the page (italics and pre-tags added for emphasis):

— 
1 Coordinator election
1.1 Results
1.2 Responsibilities
1.3 Selection
1.4 History
2 Current election (the full month of October 2014)
2.1 Mareklug
2.1.1 Comments and questions for Mareklug
2.1.1.1 Comments by AndyTheGrump
2.1.2 Votes in support of Mareklug
Coordinator election
An election has been proposed and has been set up for this project.
(Revived 14 September 2014 by Mareklug talk)
If you wish to stand, enter your candidacy below, ideally before the end of May September and ask your questions of anyone already standing. Voting will start on the 1st of June October 2014, and shall close at the end of October 2014. The intention is for the appointments to last from 1 November to 1 November (of next the following year)

--Mareklug talk 16:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC

Hello, there's an RfC here that might be of interest to the wider community so I'm posting it here. The question is:

Should the French name Médecins Sans Frontières be used or should the English translation Doctors without Borders be used in the article?. The article is Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa.

I'm posting here per the RfC publicizing section which allows it. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that the French title should be used throughout seeing as most of the world uses the french version. Perhaps one should include the english translation in brackets after the first use of it, ie Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders). Schuy B. (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@Schuy B.: The post by SW3 5DL above is a notification, it is not the discussion itself. Per WP:MULTI, please discuss on the actual RfC, which is at Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa#RfC. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Sorry about that; thank you for the clarification. Schuy B. (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Translation

The answer to my question probably exists 'somewhere' but I have limited time to wade through various topics.

I would like to translate some pages from Spanish into English, or at least to expand certain English pages by adding information from the Spanish page. In all cases I have in mind, these are pages about Spanish cities or communities where there is frequently miminal information in English but mountains of history, geography, topography, gastronomy, famous people, and town sporting clubs, etc., on the page in Spanish.

Question 1: how do I attribute the information from the Spanish page (which probably has many editors) to either the correct author, or to just the wiki page I am working from?

Question 2: is there anyone overseeing translations? I am not bilingual but am at the Master's level in Spanish language, linguistics, and phonetics. This, however, does not suggest my translations are perfect.

Question 3: is there anyone within the Spanish wiki with whom I should be talking?

Any help or suggestions appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaling (talk • contribs) 05:09, 16 October 2014

'Somewhere' appears to be Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate.
  1. There are multiple options for crediting the original. A link to the original in your first edit summary is typical (just like you'd do if you WP:SPLIT an article on the English Wikipedia). There's a template to mark translated pages. You can even request that the entire (Spanish) page's history be imported for full, detailed credit, although people don't usually do that (especially if an article already exists here). See Wikipedia:Translation for a list of options.
  2. Not really. You could see if Wikipedia:WikiProject Translation is active. Your translations don't need to be "perfect". It's not a test of translation skill. You just need to produce a good encyclopedia article.
  3. Not really, although if you told them which article you might do next, then you might discover a partner who would check it over for you in advance.
Good luck, and thank you for doing this! WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@Amaling: See also Wikipedia:Local Embassy#español (es), es:Wikipedia:Embajadas, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Spain. And don't forget to use {{lang}} for any Spanish text (titles, quotes, etc.) which is not translated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

———
Thanks for the information. I'll look at your links, find a page to work on and see what happens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaling (talk • contribs) 14:32, 21 October 2014‎
It appears the WikiProject Spain page is where I should start. Thanks again.Amaling (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

A Nobel Prize?

Just a thought for possible future action, but Nobel Prizes can be awarded to organizations. Wikipedia is an organization (or, at least, the Wikimedia Foundation is formally one). Engaging in the free distribution of knowledge provides an invaluable resource in favor of world peace. I would also dare say that Wikipedia is a great producer of literature (the Prize is not limited to fiction; Winston Churchill won for his historical and biographical writings); and acts as an important positive force in the fields of physics, chemistry, medicine, and economics by giving the average person access to information about these fields. bd2412 T 16:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"possible future action" by who? As far as I'm aware, the Nobel committee does not accept self-nomination, and it would be grossly improper to canvass for nomination. As for Wikipedia being "a great producer of literature" I can only suggest that opinions are likely to differ on this (it will also depend on whether one looks only at the best of Wikipedia, [11] or on more typical content [12]). Anyway, while I suppose that given the propensity of the Nobel committee to hand out peace prizes apparently at random, or possibly as some sort of post-modernist satire, one can't entirely rule out the possibility that Wikipedia might one day receive one, I don't think we should be making plans right now as to what we will do with the prize money... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Possible future action by anyone who is eligible to take action, which includes "University professors of history, social sciences, philosophy, law, and theology...". I'm sure we have a few of those among our ranks. Although people generally don't canvass for Nobel Prizes for themselves, they are often canvassed for by others (the Peace Prize, after all, has a nomination process; anyone doing the nominating would be "canvassing" for that nominee). The professors who nominate organizations for such prizes are likely to have some affiliation with the organization, even if is just as a cooperative volunteer. bd2412 T 20:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
what we will do with the prize money I was thinking of spending my share on a holiday... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
A bucket of ice cream for me. And do we each get to keep the medal for a week? -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
If we limit it to editors who are highly active, and if we can assume zero transportation time, then we could probably each keep it for an hour a year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I propose that the top twelve editors each get to keep it for one month of the year. bd2412 T 01:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
How do we get it from person to person each month without it melting on the trip from (say) London to Sydney? --Redrose64 (talk) 06:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I think BD meant the medal, not the bucket of ice cream. -- llywrch (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll give you my ice-cream when you pry it from my cold, sticky hands -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the Nobel Prize is a long shot (for this coming year). How about a Pulitzer Prize for Public Service? Surely we can find some set of noble articles to merit consideration for that honor? It's not as though Wikipedia is bereft of awards. bd2412 T 19:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Why go for these puny awards, why not go directly for the Oscar, Lifetime Achievment Award for best Drama any year. Just submit any talk page to the Academy. w.carter-Talk 20:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC - Mainstream scientific assessment of climate change

Opinions of neutral uninvolved eds eagerly sought!
We have a

Discussion of the latter article is often chaotic, as many editors talk about diverse issues in the same breath. However, the issue I'm trying to present is laser-focused on the leads of the two articles.
The lead of the main article tries to summarize the mainstream scientific perspective. To comply with WP:FRINGE's requirement to establish the context for fringe statements, the lead of the latter article does that too. However, for a long time they have been out-of-synch, using overlapping but different text and sources. A poll question has been posted asking

Given that the mainstream assessment is summarized on the basis of the RSs with greatest WP:WEIGHT at the main article "Scientific opinion on climate change", would a neutral uninvolved editor reasonably expect the same sources to be used to present the same summary [at the sub-article "List of scientists opposing..."] unless there was a really good RS-based reason to do something different?

Please offer your thoughts in the thread located at the subarticle via this link. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC on the Vietnam war

RfC: Should the lead for the article Vietnam War state "War crimes were committed by both sides"? Please add your views :)OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The RfC is at Talk:Vietnam War#RfC: Should the lead state "War crimes were committed by both sides"?. OnBeyondZebrax, please make sure that you include a direct link to the RfC itself, otherwise people may comment in the wrong place. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
NOTICE: Substantially identical debate by the same individuals spilled out across Talk:Vietnam War, Talk:World_War_I, Talk:Korean_War, Talk:First_Indochina_War and possibly elsewhere. I directed all the other discussions back to the RfC at Talk:Vietnam War. Please comment on the general issue of adding war crimes to the ledes, as well as any concern of specific treatment of any specific war. Alsee (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lead's coverage of French history be broadened?

RfC: Should the lead's coverage of French history in the France article be broadened? Please add your views on the France talk page.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The RfC is at Talk:France#RfC: Should the lead's coverage of French history be broadened?. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC opened on meta on how to credit the contributors when translating or copying an article to another Wikipedia

Since enwiki is the biggest source for translations to other wikis, you might be interested in this RfC I have opened on meta: m:Requests for comment/Wikipedians and the CC-BY-SA license. Elfix (talk) 08:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Linking to audio pronunciation of names

I ask for the opinion of experienced and authoritative members. When a name contained in an article has no information about correct pronunciation, or when there is just the IPA transcription (not transparent to all users), it would seem an improvement to provide audio pronunciation by means of an audio file with the correct reading of the name (performed by native speaker under supervision of someone scholarly trained in phonetics or the like). Best is obviously to upload that file to Commons. But, in case this is impossible because the file belongs to some other institution, what is the best way to link to the URL where the file can be listened to? --- EdoLV (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps use the {{external media}} template? The alternative would be to link to it in a footnote or reference, but that would easily be missed. Qwfp (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
You can also add an WP:explanatory footnote that links to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC - Suitability for a Watchlist notice? (29 Oct - 2 Nov)

Hi! I wonder if I could get views on the suitability of a potential Watchlist notice to run between Friday 29 October and Sunday 2 November ?

It would be to support a campaign to use an an online index that's been created on Commons to systematically go through the one million public-domain images the British Library has uploaded to Flickr and add the Flickr tag 'map' to every image that represents a map or a ground-plan. This means we will then be able to run them through the British Library's crowd-sourced georeferencer project, and upload the identified and geolocated maps to Wikimedia Commons. (more information).

The project is going to kick off with a day-long Digital maps Halloween tagathon event at the British Library on Friday 29 October -- for which there is already a Watchlist geonotice running, currently being seen by users in the southern half of the UK as a line of text above their watchlist. (So if anyone is going to be free in London that day, please do sign up and come along).

But it's going to take more than that opening tagathon to get the job done. It would be fantastic if we could really make inroads into it over that weekend, because (i) the BL Labs group is holding its annual review symposium on Monday 3 November, so it would be great if we could show the attendees a real concrete win from the BL having worked with Wikimedia; and (ii) the critical thing for making the images uploadable to Commons is getting them georeferenced, but the BL will only start their next round of georeferencing once the maps have all been identified. So the sooner after the 31st that we can get them all found, the better.

It would therefore be great to be able to run something like the following watchlist notice, across the board, over the weekend from 29 October to 2 November:

This weekend, give us an hour (or half an hour) to find the remaining maps in the #BL1million. See project latest status.

Most of the index is divided into blocks of about 15 books, each one linked to a page of images on Flickr for people to scan, tag the maps, and then remove an UntaggedMaps template from the wikipage. So even in half an hour, one can do a good bitesized bit.

The reach of the collection can be judged from this map locating 3000 maps on the globe that have already been identified and georeferenced. Each red dot can be clicked on to reveal a map, which can also be laid over a modern map for comparison, like this. It also gives an idea of the global distribution of non-map images in the collection, which is similar (accessible through the same index pages). As yet unidentified, it's been estimated that there may be a further 10,000 maps in the collection, still to be found.

If enough people are ready to give the project a half hour, it should be possible to blitz through the collection, and find all those maps in really not very much time at all. But it means getting the word out. According to the keepers of the keys of the watchlist notices (and quite right too), an across-the-board watchlist for something like this should only be run if the community has said it's okay. So here I am asking: in your view, would a notice like the above be acceptable for the weekend of Friday 29 October to Sunday 2 November?

Thank you for your thoughts. Jheald (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Best promo videos

I'm in need of a couple of short videos, promoting Wikipedia and its sister projects, to show at an event. It's surprisingly hard to find them!

We have lots of videos in Commons:Category:Wikimedia project videos, but many, while no doubt useful for their educational content, are not the kind of things to show to a lay audience - either the quality is not high enough, or the content is too specific.

I'm looking for things with impact, like File:Open Letter for Free Access to Wikipedia - three months later, MTN responds.webm

Suggestions, please! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like you got some useful responses on the Wikimedia-l mailing list[13]. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summer love (novel)

I want to draw attention of an administrator to close the discussion for afd of Summer love (novel) .The nominator have also agreed that the article must not be deleted. AmRit GhiMire 'Ranjit' (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Amrit Ghimire Ranjit: This isn't the administrators' noticeboard... but a better place would be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Drawing of Kim Jong-un

We need a lead image. So, why not find an artist here at WMF who can draw a picture of him based on several photos? If it clearly resembles him, and the community thinks so, then it could become the lead image here and at other language Wikipedias. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggest JNW Hafspajen (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
User-contributed drawings have been removed from articles as visual WP:OR, rightly I think. Johnbod (talk) 01:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Johnbod. You may have a point there. But Wikipedias can draw a gear and that's fine. What about a species of plant leaf? Probably acceptable. So, what about a shrew? Still okay, maybe. So, why not a person if it looks just like him and is really professional? My point is, shouldn't it be case-by-case? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's not without precedent; see Hassan Nasrallah. Tarc (talk) 01:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Tarc. And that image is accepted at 15 Wikipedias. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Previously drawn images of Kim Jong-un have been removed due to being derivative works of press photos, making them non-free, and as Jong-un is still alive, unacceptable per NFC. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anna Frodesiak, while browsing about this caught my attention. I mentioned it at lunch to my boss, who is an artist, joking that maybe she could draw one. Sure enough, she took a pencil and drew a sketch, scanned and tweaked it! :) She has an account at the Commons so I asked her to upload it. I don't know if it's good enough for the Wiki, but it was a fun lunch and the pic is yours if you want it: File:Kim Jong-un sketch.jpg Best, w.carter-Talk 10:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, W.carter. Many, many thanks. :) That is a very nice drawing she did. I like it. For the article, I think the community may only approve of a piece that conveys more than a sketch can. I am not sure, though. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
No problem, it was all done just for fun. In fact her words were: "Hope this doesn't make me a new Lars Vilks now!" ;) w.carter-Talk 14:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, folks! I just put it in the Spanish-language article. Thanks! --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Wish someone knew biometric scanning software. We should have an app that lets you scan any media image and tries to work out the facial parameters and ethnic type data into a single text-based string (the kind of thing the NSA probably runs every time you walk near a Walmart, or of course Facebook). Get five media photos, run five times, strike an average on parameters, then have another program flesh out a head from the data, voila! No more damn copyright on public figure faces, ever again. Wnt (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Tesseract

Very interesting article and dimensionality, yet I tend to disagree that it has 8 cubicles. If there are 6 sides that occupy space, and the center cube, then where do you get that it would have 8? The outer one could not count if all the others are in the same space, it would just be the common bond. Agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B016:5018:7512:4F12:AD45:C40A (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This is really a question for WP:RD/MA, but the eighth is the outermost cube seen here. Watch this animation or this one for a bit, you'll get the idea. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
A line segment has two ends, because if you draw it on a line from 0 to 1, there are parts of the line to either side. A square has four sides, because if you draw it on a graph paper from (0,0) to (1,1), there are numbers less than 0 on two axes and numbers greater than 1 on two axes. A cube has six sides - two for each of our three dimensions, at the upper and lower limit for each dimension. So a tesseract has eight, the same way.
Another way to put it: you can make a cube by holding any one of (x, y, z, w) constant. So (0,0,0,0), (0,0,0,1)... (0,1,0,0) are 8 points in a cube with x=0. You can do that with x, y, z, w each set to 0 or 1. Each of those describes the corners of a different set of points, a different cube. Wnt (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

RSN on Book of Elchasai

Please weigh in at RSN on reliability of the sources used for the Book of Elchasai, per WP:RS. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

New tax on Internet traffic in Hungary

The Hungarian government proposed to impose a new tax on Internet data transfers from 1. January 2015. The draft tax code contains a provision for Internet users to pay a tax of 150 forints (50 Euro cents) per gigabyte of data traffic.

The internet tax put a great restraint on Internet access. The Hungarians would now access the services they have used much more expensively, or in an extreme case, not at all. Up to present only dictators has controlled the Internet either financially or with raw power.

This is a great restraint for the Wikipedia users too. First of all the contributors access will be notably expensive. Please support the Hungarian wikipedians and internet users!

More: in Reuters

--Texaner (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The article suggests that the residential tax will probably be capped at approximately US $3 per month. How does that compare to a typical person's telephone or Internet bill in Hungary? In the US, I think that might amount to a 5% increase in internet costs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
The article says that the current tax cap is US$ 3. The draft would increase dramatically the cost of internet connections.
I think that the Wikimedia blog and the Signpost should publish articles about the subject, since it affects Wikimedia readers. --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
It appears that the proposed tax is capped at 700 forints, or about US $3. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Query I can see how this works for home and business internet access, but how does it work for Wifi hotspots, or in trains or restaurants etc? Who pays there? Peridon (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
    Presumably those are "businesses". I assume, for example, that the restaurant (which is a business) is the one paying for the wifi access, and therefore it's the restaurant that pays the tax. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

This is indeed a serious issue, and WMF is in a unique position to criticize it given their Wikipedia Zero initiative. If WMF can convince telecommunications providers to allow free access to educational content, it is reprehensible for a government to step in and put a tax on learning! The Internet providers make a very good point that they already pay VAT and corporate taxes on the actual money they make; this is a tax on information! Also, given issues like caching, torrenting, compression, etc., the impact of having to meter bandwidth and arguing over how it is done could be substantial. Wnt (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a link to point that the Hungarian Wikipedia community has discussed this recently and apparently they don't want to "protest" against this law. --Elitre (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
They voted down a proposal to shut down the site (I think) on the day before the vote in protest. That doesn't mean that they don't object to the tax, only that that particular response didn't get a majority. Wnt (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Category loops

Hi, I generated this list of category loops, the first 200 of 2571 category loops. I was trying to solve the category loops in Portuguese Wikipedia, the list there is smaller (309 loops) but still big and difficult to solve. I searched by some guide about category loops but the unique page I found is Wikipedia:Computer help desk/Category graph study, that says the category loop is a problem but difficult to solve. So I bring the question for enwiki to more people opine about what is the best way to deal with these loops, is it better try to solve all loops or there is no problem to have loops in categories? (sorry bad English) Danilo.mac (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a problem per se provided that each category is a justifiable member of its parents. The only cat loops that are (pretty much) always undesirable are those where the cat is a member of itself, and we have a weekly report for that. There are in fact two cats that are intentionally members of themselves: Category:Hidden categories and Category:Noindexed pages, because of the way that those cats are placed on pages (the __HIDDENCAT__ and __NOINDEX__ behaviour switches). --Redrose64 (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Catloops are a bad thing, says me. I have occasionally been stuck and confused in them, and it must be far worse for newbies. When we find them we ought to break the loop, often with a See also. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Interesting issue. There are benefits to a more rigorous category system, mainly when someone tries to compile "all subpages" descended from a category. But that's a pretty rare usage, and it would take a staggering rebuild of the entire category system and an ugly mess trying to permanently constrain the creation of new categories. On the other hand the benefits of the current free-form category system are probably at least as significant. People can add any category viewed as useful for any reason, and readers can follow any category links that catch their interest. Someone who found themselves following a category loop presumably found each step in that loop to be worth following. I don't think it's worth trying to do anything about loops unless there is some compelling problem I'm missing. Alsee (talk) 11:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I have posted a message to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories, mentioning this discussion, and providing a link to User:Danilo.mac/Category loops.
—Wavelength (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with Alsee. Most (my guess is 95-99%) of categories are correctly parented; as you go up the category tree you get to categories for more general topics (and vice versa). The name of a category, any text and the category's parent categories should all be consistent and indicate the inclusion criteria for the category. A category loop indicates that something has gone wrong; you couldn't specify inclusion criteria for each category in the loop such that it only covers part of the scope of each parent category. Categories can have links to things that are not parent/child categories (e.g. this links to this). Note: there are only 2571 category loops (assuming Danilo's analysis is correct) and one badly parented category can cause many loops so (given the size of the en wp category structure) it's quite rare. If we remove some of the anomalies it may make category intersection more workable (see my comments on project talk page). DexDor (talk) 11:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone know which category is the most common in these loops? If we could find the "one badly (worst-ly?) parented category", then we might be able to clear up many of these loops at once. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
About 25 of these loops involve Category:World War II. For example (not actually a category loop) Category:Zaire is under Category:Canada (via categories like this, this and this) which doesn't make much sense (e.g. I doubt that many libraries would place books about Zaire on the Canada shelf). DexDor (talk) 06:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Notification of a TFA nomination

In the past, there have been requests that discussions about potentially controversial TFAs are brought to the attention of more than just those who have WP:TFAR on their watchlist. With that in mind: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article. If you have any views, please comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Pending requested move

Comments etc here, to determine an outcome, would be welcome. Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation contest update.

I have received the t-shirt I won for being one of the top three finishers in the monthly disambiguation contest. Want to win your own? The next contest starts November 1. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to participate unless the caption on the t-shirt is disambiguated... so people know which months contest the t-shirt is talking about. Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't get greedy, now. bd2412 T 17:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Repeated Images

We collected a huge list of Images (about 6000 Images) which are repeated with commons (name or content) please make a decision about them (deleting them here or on commons)Yamaha5 (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, very useful.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Editing services offered

I am happy to help with these:

  • List articles that would be better in table format. (Most are not better as tables, but tables have sortability, which is sometimes good.)
  • List articles that are in table format and the items link to articles with images, but the list article table has no image column and no images.

I like converting lists to tables and adding images from the linked articles because the transformation is really nice. Plus, I have a way to do it quickly.

So, if you know of any such list articles, please let me know at my talk, and I will be happy to improve them.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: You could try working on the 99 articles tagged with {{List to table}}, which are in the subcategories of Category:Articles requiring tables. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Fantastic! I never even knew that existed. Thank you, GoingBatty! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding a new article on Wickipedia... Confused!!!

Hi there, its Jack here... Actually I was searching for a singers biography on wickipedia. 1st I tried google search but found nothing. Then I did some searches on wickipedia but couldn't found anything related. Just found her name in some articles. The singer's name is "Zoe Viccaji". She is from Pakistan. She did some of the Coke Studio Sessions also. She served as a judge in Cornetto Music Icons too. The wickipedia asked me to create page myself. Actually, I don't have much info about her. I was thinking if someone from wikipedia itself, create a page on her bio and other songs etc. I can provide you with her facebook fan page: https://www.facebook.com/zoeviccajipage

I'd love to hear from anyone over there... Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksparrow43 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Jacksparrow43. Content on Wikipedia must conform to our policies on verifiability and neutral point of view, among others, and content about living people has to meet even more stringent criteria. Unfortunately we can't use a Facebook fan page to establish a person's notability, which is our term for determining if someone or something should have an article or not, because Facebook is not a source that we consider reliable. If you know of some more reliable sources about this person, like an article in a newspaper or a magazine, or a book about her, you can ask for an article to be created by listing her at Requested Articles. However, if you list her there and do not provide quality sources, the request will be removed. Cheers! Ivanvector (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I have to admit I was dubious, but I tried a quick search on NewsBank#Access World News which found six articles containing "Zoe Viccaji" and with either "Zoe" or "Viccaji" in the headline, which suggests a Wikipedia page could be created using such sources as references. They were in Express Tribune, Dawn (newspaper) and Daily Times (Pakistan) — Jacksparrow43 or someone else could probably find the articles on those newspapers' websites. I don't have the time or motivation to create the article myself I'm afraid. Qwfp (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Need an experienced editor at ANI

Having failed to follow the first law of holes, I find myself in a position to mediate a user conduct dispute that I've managed to aggravate, and that is very much beyond my ability to solve. In addition, the giant walls of text generated seem to have repelled pretty much everyone else watching the page. If an experienced editor would help put an end to it I would very much appreciate it. --Richard Yin (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

  • DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
  • Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
  • Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
  • British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
  • Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
  • Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
  • JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team.23:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.

RFC on the Electronic Cigarette article

There is currently a Request for Comment on the E-cigarette talk page.

  • The question is: Is this article primarily medical in nature and should it follow the section ordering suggested at WP:MEDMOS?
  • Alternate phrasing:Should the e-cigarette article follow the page order for a medical device or the order of Cigarettes and articles in Types of Cigarettes category?

Since this is about a consumer product article I invite all consumers to participate. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

"Right to be forgotten"

It's back in the news at http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/10/31/pianist-asks-the-washington-post-to-remove-a-concert-review-under-the-e-u-s-right-to-be-forgotten-ruling/. (Thanks to BoingBoing for the link.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

User research

The Wikimedia Foundation's design research team, Abbey Ripstra and Daisy Chen, are looking for people to participate in research about editing. They want to talk with both experienced editors and new editors to better understand what you do, how you do it, what is difficult and what works well with editing tools. Currently, they're doing some hour-long research interviews over Google Hangouts. In the future, there will be other types of research programs, probably including a card sorting task to determine how editing tools and tasks could be organized to suit you best.

If you would like to hear about opportunities to participate in user-based research, please sign up here. This is a survey to fill out so the research team knows a little bit about your experience level and how to contact you to invite you to research. You can always opt out again, and signing up does not obligate you to participate. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


E-cigarette - Unknown, Concerns, Unclear, Uncertain, and Possibilities RFC

There is a RFC on the E-Cigarette Talk page "Should more claims of the Unknown, Concerns, Unclear, Uncertain, and Possibilities type be added to the e-cigarette article?" it may be of interest to some Wikipedia editors. AlbinoFerret 13:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Articles in 'Draft' mode.

I've started coming across articles like Draft:Molly Fowler. Has something new been added to the 'pedia, today? GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we added a "Draft:" namespace within the past few months. I've got forty or fifty drafts there right now. bd2412 T 02:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
The Draft namespace was added in December 2013 but some features may make it more visible. Where are you coming across it? PrimeHunter (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
It would be really nice if when an editor went to create an article, the page creation screen could warn him or her if there was already a Draft with that name, the same way that it warns that there is already an article with that name. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I list my drafts in my sandbox, next to a redlink for the article title to which they will eventually be moved (unless there is an existing article there that I intend to displace). bd2412 T 03:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm coming across it on Wikipedia (example: Draft:Ken Sibanda). -- GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Yes, we realise that it's in Wikipedia, but how are you coming across them? Is it in some report or tool that didn't previously show draft pages? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how. I assumed all editors were coming across them, per random button. GoodDay (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Just now, I tried Random article (in the left margin) ten times, and every page returned was a regular article, no drafts. How many times - roughly - did you click it before a draft appeared? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Here yesterday, gone today.Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#Draft_namespace_added_to_ContentNamespaces — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thincat (talk • contribs) 20:53, 9 November 2014

Nominations for the 2014 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are open

Nominations for the 2014 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are officially open. The nomination period runs from Sunday 00:01, 9 November (UTC) until Tuesday 23:59, 18 November (UTC). Editors interested in running should review the eligibility criteria listed at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates then create a candidate page following the instructions there. Mike V • Talk 01:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed mergers

It seems like no one is working in Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. Could anyone help with them?--John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Third European conference of African Studies (ECAS)

Hello, I'm not sure this is the right place for this info, since I'm not contributing to WP in English… Anyway, just to let you know that the ECAS 2015 will take place in July 2015 in Paris (France). There will meet many of the European (and more) researchers in African studies, in all disciplines. At that occasion, a panel is proposed about “Wikipedia and African studies”. The call to contributors is opened. Sitanix (talk) 08:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

User Page

Hi. Is this UP allow here? And, is the picture really free licence? Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

No, pages like that aren't allowed - see WP:FAKEARTICLE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Great. What do people do then? --Ganímedes (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Use the WP:MFD process to nominate the user page for deletion. --Jayron32 17:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
No, we can also add {{userpage}} to the top or bottom of an article. HYH.124 (talk) 08:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
No, we can't. {{userpage}} is only for use in user space, not on articles. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I never be able to open sucessfully the process in this WP. Can someone do it for me, please? Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 09:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Community job opening at Wikimedia

Hello! There are a few job openings on our Community teams, and I thought someone here might be interested. Feel free to share if you know someone who might be interested! JSuzuki (WMF) (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Specifically:
Please do pass the news around. :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I corrected "Liason" to "Liaison". Yes, the misspelled page names redirect, but it's really much better to get it right the first time. --Thnidu (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Ack, the dangers of copy&pasting. Thanks. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: The full-time position will initially focus on working with the Flow team (with me :) and also with the Editing (VE) team (mostly at non-English wikis); However, a lot of smaller or short-term tasks continually come up, so they're particularly looking for someone who is adaptable, and interested in everything.
The part-time position will primarily focus on working with the Mobile teams (as the link above explains). HTH. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Latest stable software release VS Multiple stable software releases Templates

Hello,

I found out, that for different latest versions of a software should be used the Template:Multiple stable software releases template. For more info look e.g. here: Template:Infobox_web_browser#Different_latest_versions. I created it for Skype and Maxthon in the way described there (results were Template:Multiple stable software releases/Skype and Template:Multiple stable software releases/Maxthon). Then I made a request for speedy deletion of Template:Latest stable software release/Skype and Template:Latest stable software release/Maxthon templates because they fulfilled the criteria for speedy deletion: these templates were unused and invisible for common wikipedia users. It was nonsense to keep them. But the Wiki admin User:RHaworth had another meaning. He moved both newly created templates from Multiple stable software releases to Latest stable software release even though the syntax of each is different, so I don't understand his/her intention. Could anybody explain me this measure (intention) of Wiki admin? Or could anybody tell me, what was I doing wrong? I really want to find out my mistake in order not to make it again. Dvorapa (talk) 11:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, it is highly annoying that most links to topics on talk pages, discussion pages, administrative pages, reference desks, etc. sooner or later break because the content is hived off to archive pages. This means that old discussions that are linked to or bookmarked can no longer be found, except with a lot of trouble. Is there any way this situation can be remedied? 86.145.139.73 (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

In fact at least one of the bots fixes links when it archives. Example:
It is very likely that many other methods of archiving break links, and perhaps such methods should be discouraged. Johnuniq (talk) 05:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I guess the ones that I have noticed broken were not archived with that method. However, it cannot in any case fix my local bookmarks. 81.157.10.242 (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:Flow will eventually fix this, by giving each discussion a permalink. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this is one of the major potential benefits of Flow. One method currently in use elsewhere and occasionally suggested for this is subpages - see, for example, discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or Wikipedia:Featured article candidates - but this only really works when there's a unique "title" for the subpages. Articles for deletion/Pagename is clear and comprehensible, but trying to use subpages for things like the VP or the help desk would end up with a lot of people trying to create things like Village pump/Technical question - see examples above like "user page" or "proposed mergers". In addition, it's not very user-friendly to fiddle all the page transclusions etc to make it work. So we make do with the current system... Andrew Gray (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Sysops, please transwiki Template:Internal link helper. Otherwise, may I know whether I could activate the function through my Preferences? Pls inform me once you have replied to this thread. HYH.124 (talk) 08:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Dating postcard

From the vehicles it looks like a prewar scene. However the German Beetle car is problematic. There where German beetle cars wich where produced before the war. I think from 1938 onwards, but how likely is this car to be exported to Engeland? It would have been problematic to drive with a German car in Engeland during the war. After the war I would think it would take a long time to export German cars again.Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

There is an Ebay item [14] but it has has no details and a different backside.Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not at all sure that it actually is a VW in the pic. I could be sure if I saw the front, but the back and side profile does not quite look right... it looks to have three windows on each side while the early VWs had only two. Blueboar (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
It could very well be one of the Volvo PV series. The earliest versions had a split window in the back. But the bumper looks a bit like a Chrysler Royal Sedan (three windows on the side and a split one in the back). w.carter-Talk 23:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
There is no Beetle car in the pic. If the car in question is the light blue one to the rear of the second bus from the left, that's definitely not a Beetle - not only are there too many windows, but the rear and side are the wrong shape entirely. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I agree this is not a Beetle. I have changed the category to (Vintage cars in England) with includes the other cars. Maybe it can be classed under a "Fastback" but I dont know the definition of this category. I suspect it would certainly be a 1930s car. I also added the (London buses) as I dont wich specific type of routemasters are in the picture.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
They're not Routemasters - they're too "square", have too many windows, too much white paint and the radiator is entirely the wrong shape (and the Routemaster didn't go into quantity production until 1959). The two whose fronts are visible are AECs, either AEC Regent or AEC Renown (depending on the number of axles); the second bus from the left has three axles so is probably an AEC Renown (although just possibly a Leyland Titanic).
A Chrysler Airflow? Would fit timeframe and the back looks similar, but seems a bit small. Irondome (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
@Irondome: You might be able to scale the car from the two adjacent buses. In the 1930s (and right down to about 1948/49), the maximum dimensions for a double-deck London bus were 26 ft long (if on 4 wheels), 7 ft 6 in wide, and 14 ft 3 in high. Six-wheel (three-axle) buses could be 30 ft long. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The #6 bus on the right may help. According to this (I can't believe someone has actually indexed all these...) the #6 didn't have Kensal Rise Station as a named part of the route until October 1939, and it looks like that's the bit on the boards. So it's probably postwar. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Postwar, yes: it's not likely to be wartime - there are too many private cars and no black covers on the headlights. That info about the no. 6 bus route indicates that between May 1939 and May 1951 it was operated by buses of the STL class - over 2,600 of these were built for use in London between 1932 and 1946. They had an AEC Regent chassis (4 wheels), measured 26 ft long on a 16 ft 3 in wheelbase, and were 7 ft 6 in wide. After May 1951, the RTW was used, which apart from being six inches wider, had a much sleeker body style. So we can say 1945 to 1951. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I have uploaded 3 other UK postcards. File:Newcastle Black gate and castle.jpg has a 1930s look. File:Renfield street, Glasgow.jpg could be older. I suspect that Glasgow Cross

pre WW I?

is the oldest one and could even be pre WW I.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I would not go for pre WW I on the Glasgow Cross. You can see too much of the ladies' legs. See 1910s in Western fashion, 1915–20 is more likely. w.carter-Talk 10:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
The Glasgow pic looks twenties to me. I doubt WW1. No uniforms in sight, and the skirt length I do concur with. Is that a small motorised fuel tanker to the left of the bus? Redline "Glico"? Interesting. One thing for sure, it was 3.51 pm :) Cheers Irondome (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
And according to the sign on the right "Suits & Coats" cost £1. w.carter-Talk 21:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: Accoding to this site which has a lot of postcards from this location, including the one above, uncropped and better detail, along with detailed descriptions of them, the picture is taken in the early 1930s. w.carter-Talk 21:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

E-cigarette RFC on Vapor vs Aerosol, which term is best to use.

A RFC has been started at E-cigarette. The RFC deals with the use of Vapor, Aerosol, or Mist asking whick term is best to use to describe what comes out of an E-cigarette. Please help by commenting, this could really use comments from uninvolved editors. AlbinoFerret 23:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Languages in censuses

Hello, Dear wikipedians. I invite you to edit and improve this article and to add information about your and other country.--Kaiyr (talk) 08:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Zdzislaw Krasnodebski duplicate

Hi there, I ahve a problem adding new article. I want to add article on Zdzislaw Krasnodebski - polish sociologist and member of the European Parliament. Unfortunately, he share his name with Polish pilot and and article abut pilot already exists in en.wikipedia under Zdzisław Krasnodębski. I am a new user and I am unable to change the name of the article. Could you please change pilots articles name to Zdzislaw Krasnodebski (pilot) so I can add Zdzislaw Krasnodebski (sociologist)? Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by BiuroZK (talk • contribs) 11:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi ‎BiuroZK You should be able to create Zdzislaw Krasnodebski (sociologist), as it is a red link. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, you can request for confirmed user rights, in order to rename (move) an article. HYH.124 (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Afd problem

We need a way to alter the way Afd works so that it will be added automatically to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, rather than requiring it to be added manually. With the fact that we have to add it manually, it's very easy to make a mistake of adding it to the wrong date. Look at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of flags by color combination

Any thoughts?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I wonder why there isn't a bot that adds every new AfD subpage to the correct daily log – it should be easy for one to do that. There are already some scripts/tools that make nominating pages for deletion easier (Twinkle being the most used). SiBr4 (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Request explanation of the practical significance of the ArbCom and Protection of GamerGate Controversy article.

Hi there

I ask this here rather than the GGC:Talk page as this is more of a "forum" type enquiry. Please advise if I should ask elsewhere.

The Gamergate controversy is protected and there is an ArbCom case[15]. Meanwhile the regular editors of the article are continuing discussion and editing of a draft article, so that they can be ready for when the article is not protected. The only absentee is user:Ryulong who is having a voluntary break from editing an article that is protected (that's confusing). The group of editors is relatively small.

Maybe i misunderstand the situation. If there is article is protected and ArbCom opened this indicates to me that there has been major problems with the writing of the article and that one would not expect things to go back to how they were before protected status. Can someone lay out in general terms the practical significance of the current situation? Is it that ArbCom have a discussion, sanction a few editors, then the protection comes off after a time and we go back to the situation pre-protection. But the pre-protected status situation was dysfunctional, hence the application of protection and the ArbCom case (Is that a logical assumption?). Can someone provide a non-partisan explanation. There is much interest in this article and I do not think than non-regular editors like myself understand the scope and nature of the Wiki dispute management procedures. Thank you for taking the time to read and reply. Jgm74 (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects society at large. Insofar as the GamerGate situation is a steaming pile of vitriol and hatred (equally on all sides) in the world at large, the behavior of editors at Wikipedia reflects that as well. The existence of the protected state of the article and the ArbCom case currently open is a symptom of that; read the comments section of any article out there on any GamerGate article or blog post, and understand that people behave exactly like that when the show up at Wikipedia as well. To stop that sort of behavior, protection was necessary, and ArbCom is currently working on the rules of engagement to allow editing to return. I hope that helps. This sort of thing is common for any article about a topic where people outside of Wikipedia tend to hold unhelpfully strong emotions towards. --Jayron32 01:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I'll watch the situation unfold. I haven't seen this sort of dispute before. Jgm74 (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

"Today's Featured Article" coordinator - change proposed

See WT:TFAR#Notice of intention to stand to down as TFA coordinator and the discussion that follows it. BencherliteTalk 15:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Maintenance help needed! Medical Translation Project

We over at the medical translation project are experiencing growing pains with the need to move from Wiki-table tracking over to other forms of progress tracking. We've decided to go for google spreadsheets for the simplicity and versatility.

We're in dire need of helping hands because the moving of the links is is some pretty time-consuming manual work. If anyone could lend a helping hand with it we'd be so grateful!

What needs to be done is the links need to be copied to:

from

-- -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

page error

Hello, don't know where to put this but while broswing the page 1952 Pacific typhoon season there is a list of errors which I guess the author didn't resolve. It's been awhile and I was wondering if anyone would know how to fix it. Thanks. Turn➦ 13:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed it. The Help Desk might be a better place to ask about things like this if you come across similar problems in the future. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
@Turn685: Or WP:VPT; there are lots of template-cognisant people watching that. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch everyone! Turn➦ 15:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Black or African-American?

There is a a Request for Comment on Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown. The question is: Should Michael Brown's ethnicity in his infobox be listed as black or African-American? Comments are welcome. – JBarta (talk) 04:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Update: Resolved. – JBarta (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Kim Kyong-hui died on 29 november? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for this? This recent Wall Street Journal article has a source that says she's been dead for a year. You may wish to discuss this at Talk:Kim Kyong-hui. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

When will Google see my article?

Hi, I am writing an article about May 18th National Cemetery. It is ranked high in Bing, Yahoo and Naver, but I am not seeing anywhere on Google search. That article is over two weeks ago. How long before Google sees it?--Tksgk262 (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

When I google "May 18th National Cemetery" the article shows up as the third listing. Google knows it's there and people searching for it will find it. How high it appears in relation to what people search for is up to the Google ranking algorithm. I wouldn't worry too much about it. If people are looking for it, they will find it. – JBarta (talk) 07:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
@Jbarta: I understand, but I am confused why it is not showing on Google Korea ([16]). It does show on non Korean Google like Polish ([17]). But why not on Korean?--Tksgk262 (talk) 08:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
When I search for it on www.google.co.kr the article is returned fourth. Again, Google knows about it. One aspect of Google, if I recall correctly, is that search results may be customized for the user. Google tries to get to know you by your past activities and return results that it believes YOU are looking for. – JBarta (talk) 08:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I also see it now in the 4h result at [18]. @Tksgk262: Try it at home and tell us if it is better now? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Following the links above for Google Korea, it comes out 6th; for Google Poland, 7th. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Win your shirt at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/December 2014

The emails have been sent notifying the winners of last month's disambiguation contest that they have won a free T-shirt from the Wikimedia foundation. Line up to win yours in the contest that has just started for this month, at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/December 2014. The top three editors will win the prize - which, I expect, will be me and two other people. ;-) bd2412 T 16:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Change to al template

The {{al}} template shows the toolbar links for editing articles; for example, it appears at the top of each GA review. I've suggested a change to it at Template talk:Al but want to make sure the suggestion is widely seen, and I know this template is widely used. Please comment at that page, and let me know of any other places where I should post this note. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It appears the right place for this discussion is Template talk:Ln, so if you have an opinion please comment there. This would affect quite a few article link templates. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Linking to Wikipedia

We didn't seem to have a page on linking to Wikipedia from other websites; so I made one: Wikipedia:Linking to Wikipedia. A second pair of eyes on it would be appreciated, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

"Selfcopyvio" :: the same man put the same text in Wikipedia and in an external page

Where did he put it first? Because if the text was first published at Wikipedia, then the Wikipedia CC-BY-SA license applies. If it were published offsite first, then it would be under standard copyright. --Jayron32 17:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I am sorry this has caused a little issue. I am the owner of the text at http://www.kittybrucknell.com/music_glamour_and_damage_lp.html. To save time, i copied the majority of it for this Wiki article. If you would like me to temporarily place a notice on this webpage to prove my ownership then this is fine. 86.129.179.252 (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a note, I have added a note to within the body of text on the Following webpage to show that we grant permission with the text being used on the Wikipedia article. http://www.kittybrucknell.com/music_glamour_and_damage_lp.html LemonPudding (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

If an email has been sent to WP:OTRS about donating the text for use here then it should get sorted out soon. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Publishing a clean Olympics and other competition medal tables‏

Community of Editors Wikipedia


Dear Editors,

I feel that there are considerable question marks on athletes from many nations who compete in Olympics, European Championships, IAAF meets and other sports competitions, and so I would find it very useful to be able to see a medals table of nations fielding clean athletes. Thus, would you be able to publish a clean table beside the official medals table for all sports competitions.

Such a clean table would zero out medals from East Germany, Soviet Union, Russia, China, Kenya, North Korea, Bulgaria before proper certification, Romania etc. Athletes from other clean nations would be credited with the medals voided from dishonest nations.

Such a publication would also spur nations to clean up their sports federations.

Thank you.

His Majesty Ad Solem Regnum Sun King Dewan Mamoon of The United States of America — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.234.55.225 (talk) 14:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Who are we to judge? Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Fundraiser

This may have been discussed at length already, and I know it's not something that's really in our control as editors, but I find that the current fundraising notice (as seen in the UK, not sure about anywhere else) just a bit too aggressive. It fills more than half of the browser window, making the actual WP article unreadable until the X button is clicked.

Of course, the foundation can't run without donations, so I wouldn't suggest removing such notices altogether, but personally if I were a casual person reading Wikipedia I can imagine this being extremely irksome, and might even put some off reading our material altogether. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Criteria clarifications...

I need your help in setting the criteria for the script to make it as useful as possible, please see Criteria clarifications... on the WikiProject Orphan talk page. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Appreciation for tool vote system

Since I didn't see a thread already, I wanted to start one to applaud WMF for the tool/gadget voting scheme they just launched and announced on watchlists. I'm really glad to see them taking feedback from editors for what tools they want support for, and I hope that this kind of engagement with the community is the norm going forward. --PresN 19:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, PresN.
For future reference, or anyone who dismissed the notice already and wants to find the details again, the text reads:
Please vote on tools or gadgets that you want the Wikimedia Foundation to improve. This is pilot for a larger survey coming in Q3. The WMF will consider results when planning the product roadmap for future quarters. Learn about the privacy practices and terms for this third party survey here.
It's not a perfect system/solution (there are extremely limited configuration options, such as character-limits and no hyperlinks) - and many people would prefer a more complex system (e.g. where all the options get displayed on a single page (which others would find overwhelming)) — but it seems be getting a large quantity of input, and positive feedback (see also this wikimedia-l thread), so it seems somewhat promising as a tool to include in the repertoire of getting manageable feedback from thousands of people; or, at least as a good overall question to be asking. :)
HTH. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

E-cigarette RFC on Vapor vs Aerosol vs Mist.

This has been on the Village Pump before. But activity has slowed. The E-cigarette is a commercial product. The RFC deals with the use of Vapor, Aerosol, or Mist asking which term is best to use to describe what comes out of an E-cigarette according to the guidelines.

Please help by commenting, this could really use comments from uninvolved editors.AlbinoFerret 13:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

MfD: Wikipedia:Starting an article

Wikipedia:Starting an article has been nominated for deletion here.--Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 18:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

All our ideas

What idiot(s) devised the survey that's appearing on our Watchlists? [19] What's the point of asking the same questions countless times, albeit if different combinations. How much time do they think we have to spare? Graham Beards (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Graham Beards: See m:Community Engagement (Product)/Product Surveys; it's got a talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

En dashes in page titles

I wonder if any thought has been given to switching from hyphens to en dashes in webpage titles on the English Wikipedia? Our own Manual of Style explains the difference at MOS:HYPHEN and MOS:DASH. The German Wikipedia use hyphens: cf. the English German National Library - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and the German Deutsche Nationalbibliothek – Wikipedia. I'm not aware of any other languages that do the same, but this would seem like the best practice. Ham (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand. Both enwiki and dewiki currently use hyphens. Ruslik_Zero 12:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I know that the subject of dashes vs hyphens has been discussed extensively at WT:MOS... and it is a subject that engenders heated debate. I suggest that everyone read those discussions before opining here (and, perhaps the proper place to discuss a change would be at WT:MOS, not here). Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The German Wikipedia uses en dash in de:MediaWiki:Pagetitle. This means IP's and users with the default language setting de see en dash. Users with en or any other language see a hyphen, unless de is specified in the url: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Nationalbibliothek?uselang=de. En dash might not display correctly according to MediaWiki talk:Pagetitle. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
"I wonder if any thought has been given to switching from hyphens to en dashes in webpage titles"
Oh dear. There definitely has been discussion, and that discussion lasted for around a year, involved users making bots make mass changes to article titles, users getting topic banned, arbcom decisions, and was known as "the dash wars". I wouldn't approach this topic with a 6 meter pole.AioftheStorm (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Suit yourself, and I can't see how objecting to polite questions helps with anything. Could you link to these "dash wars" discussions, please? This and this are the closest things I can find to what you describe, and neither seems to concern the question I'm asking, which is about page titles‍—‌nothing to do with the titles or content of articles. Ham (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, off the top of my head, how about Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive244#Admin attention to an RFC/U, please? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Ham is not posting about dashes in pagenames like Eye–hand span but about the html title tag described at the end of HTML element#Document head elements. The title for IP's and users with the default language setting en is set by MediaWiki:Pagetitle which currently says "$1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". $1 is substituted by the pagename. The appended text " - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" has a hyphen and not an en dash. For example, the html source of Example contains <title>Example - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</title>. Apart from the already linked MediaWiki talk:Pagetitle, I found two discussions about en dashes at Special:WhatLinksHere/MediaWiki:Pagetitle: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 103#Entirely serious dash-related question, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 93#Hyphen to n-dash. 15:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)PrimeHunter (talk)
Thank you; these discussions are the kind of thing I was looking for. So the rationale is "[en dashes] might not display correctly depending on the font selected for the window manager" (from here) and "a dash could look funny in some older browsers" (from here)‍—‌though this apparently doesn't trouble the German Wikipedia. Is this still the case and could it be circumvented in any way, so that those browsers which can't show en dashes don't but those that can do? If not, fair enough, but it's a shame as I can't see anyone arguing that the spaced hyphen is satisfactory. Ham (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
No answers to the above questions? Ham (talk) 12:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry for coming across as objecting to your question. That was not my intent. Rather I wanted to convey the sense of controversy that discussion of hyphens and dashes can cause here.AioftheStorm (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
In that case, sorry for my misunderstanding. Ham (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the overall status of things following the dash wars, but some project areas, including most sports, have used endashes in the titles for many years without problem or complaint: i.e.: 2014–15 Calgary Flames season. Of course, we do create redirects from hyphen versions, 2014-15 Calgary Flames season. But there are other areas where I know harmony does not exist. Political jurisdictions being one, I believe. Resolute 20:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC United States same-sex marriage map

I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas: RfC: How should we color Kansas?. Prcc27 (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Need Help With WP:YGO

The Yu-Gi-Oh Wikiproject has almost been abandoned except for me (I have been trying to salvage the project) And I really need help! Any help would be Well, Helpful! Thanks, TF { Contribs } 11:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyone? *Sigh*. TF { Contribs } 18:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
You could comb through the Yu-Gi-Oh related articles, and find the top editors for each article, and invite them to the Wikiproject. For example, If you start at the Yu-Gi-Oh! article, click "History" tab brings up this. Then clicking on the link in "External tools" that says "Revision history statistics" brings up this page which lists all the top editors. Go through a dozen or Yu-Gi-Oh articles, compile a list of a dozen or so active users, and drop a note on their talk page inviting them to join up. --Jayron32 19:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Jayron! I'd Like you to join if you're interested. TF { Contribs } 18:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

New articles with bolded headings

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned somewhere, but doing NPP lately has gotten me to see quite a few pages with bolded titles, like this one. I also fixed one yesterday. Is something going on? — kikichugirl inquire 00:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Historical German linguistical area.PNG

The map isn't used in any article here. It isn't used in any article in German Wikipedia, either. It's German nationalistic propaganda, even Nazi - 1910 census results with 1937 borders. Xx234 (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC) The author has been banned.Xx234 (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The image is hosted at commons. You'll have to take it up there. --Jayron32 13:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I was there and obtained "It is in use, so that's not a valid reason to delete. If inappropriate, check on Wikipedia.".
The main problem isn't the map itself, but rather the large biased description written probably by the editor banned in 2007. The map has been removed from en.wiki articles since then but was proliferated among many wikis and is understood in two ways - either as a prove of German pressure (Drang) or as a prove of German tragedy after WWII (it shows however 1910 not 1937 situation).Xx234 (talk) 08:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
It's a poor description, poor in many ways including the ones you mention. Deletion of the map isn't the usual way to handle such things. Better to discuss, in its Commons discussion page, what parts ought to be trimmed out and perhaps also some words that ought to be added. Jim.henderson (talk) 08:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
We do not usually delete such maps at Commons, Commons serves as a repository of files, it is up to individual projects to decide whether to use it not. It is not used in article space here in Wikipedia, but it is used in article space in other projects and it is down to those communities to use or reject the map as they see fit. The only times we delete contested files, without copyright concerns, is for vandalism, when it is being repeatedly added to a page against the consensus of the local community, but this can only be done if it is only being used in one community. If you have problems with the accuracy of the file add {{fact disputed}} to the file page; and detail your concerns as to why it is inaccurate on the talk page.--KTo288 (talk) 08:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Getting really, really freaking annoyed by the banner appeals.

I was so annoyed, I tried to donate $0.01 just so it would cost you more to process the donation. You're lucky that you had the $1 minimum that stopped me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.140.56 (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The solution to making the banner go away is to fund an endowment for the Wikimedia foundation which will cover their expenses in perpetuity. If you give them enough money that they never need it again, they'll stop asking. Think BIGGER not SMALLER. --Jayron32 17:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think all registered users, especially WMF employees, should log out for a day, just to see how annoying those banners are. It's really, really bad, and on a small screen, it's even worse (if that were possible). On my decent-sized laptop screen, the banner took up most of the height. I clicked the X, and closed the browser. When I re-opened it, the banner reappeared, albeit smaller. The small-donor strategy has its virtues, but at the cost of driving readers crazy. An endowment, as suggested by Jayron, would definitely be much better. -- Ypnypn (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, get your checkbook out and fund that endowment... --Jayron32 04:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The English WP is lucky not to see pop-ups like on French WP in November; the right place to discuss this seems to be m:Talk:Fundraising principles. Oliv0 (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@71.168.140.56: One quick workaround is to stop using the site. The banner ads will cease to bother you. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't "live"

...for unregistered readers. There may be a lag time from minutes to hours showing the most recent edits. Can anyone explain why this is the case? Viriditas (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Except for glitches, this should only be the case for a small fraction of articles, those with Pending changes protection. Ntsimp (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I assume that much of what I'm experiencing here in Hawaii is due to replication lag? It appears to impact most articles (and noticeobards) that I read while logged out. If this is the case, then our unregistered readers are not able to follow live edits and discussions. Has anyone attempted to measure this delay, and does it change depending on your region? Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Replication lag does not affect Wikipedia itself, but tools, scripts and reports that obtain their data from parallel databases like those on Tool Labs. What is happening here is Squid caching, and has been normal behaviour for some years. If you want the most up to date version of a page, log in. BTW this is really a WP:VPT matter. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I think we actually use Varnish now, rather than Squid. But the principle is the same. Peter Coombe (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer "You need to attribute this" attribution format - unethical and borderline license abuse?

Let me start off with this obligatory note: I'm very, very thankful to everybody making Wikipedia the great thing it is and I think the Media Viewer looks great. It's a great improvement compared to how pictures were shown before. Great work on that and kudos to those involved. I do however have one problem with it...

If you click on the download icon (the downwards facing arrow above a short horizontal line) on any picture as it appears in the media viewer, a message appears: "You need to attribute the author" and below it, in a smaller font: "show me how". When you click that, you get an html code which, when used on a website, ends up looking something like (skipping the code for the image itself) this, in the case of this picture:

Sadhu In Haridwar by Naresh Dhiman - Sadhu. Licensed under CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons.

Am I exaggerating if I say this is borderline license abuse?

The "BY" part of all Creative Commons licenses clearly states that a URI related to the work that has been specified by the author MUST be included. While Wikipedia's attribution code of course does this, it puts a link to the work on Wikimedia FIRST, making this appear to be the URI specified by the author. Why is there even a need to include the Wikimedia links at all, in cases like these when the picture was originally taken elsewhere? Especially when users are led to this code with the words "You need to attribute the author / Show me how", it certainly makes it seem as if the links to Wikimedia are indeed "needed" when, in these cases of photos taken from flickr, they are not, not at all. Except of it being merely superfluent (and as such, per the definition less than ideal), it is without a doubt in my mind detrimental to the chances the author has of being properly attributed - making the attribution overly long definitely reduces the chances of people bothering with it at all.

Furthermore... while I perfectly understand the need and 100% agree with the use of rel="nofollow" for all user-added links on Wikipedia, I was surprised to see the you the html for the links to the source and the author's own page were tagged as such. While it could be argued whether/why Wikipedia should encourage people to use CC pictures tagged in this way outside of Wikipedia, I find it especially insidious how rel-nofollow is ONLY added to the two non-wiki links, i.e. the URI as specified by the author and the URI to his flickr profile are rel="nofollow" tagged, while the two Wikimedia Common links are not.

The end result here is that photographers gladly using CC licenses can have their pictures taken and uploaded to Wikipedia by Wikipedians and spread further on from here, each instance giving Wikip/media an entirely undue credit for the picture and moving Wikimedia's URI, rather than the original flickr URI, higher in the search rankings (i.e. potentially above the author specified URI). This is something I'm sure seedy stockphoto pictures who get all their content from the Commons and Flickr do and get away with because it follows the letter of the license, but not the spirit - but should Wikipedia?

Signed, A Concerned Photographer AKA 1.79.39.25 (talk) 09:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If someone downloads it from Wikimedia then they are downloading it from the Wikimedia resource. Were the Getty or Corbis stock photo libraries also to hold a copy, it would be on their resources also. Therefore, the Credit line would include > / their name of photo library < after the authors attribution when downloaded from there. Finally, this author does not specify any URI's that I can see (except for the one that is implicit in the licence and that is in the html code you refer to). I don't see how following accepted practices is going against any sprirt. If you have any more queries you may get a faster response at: Commons:Village pump/Copyright.--Aspro (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
You don't have to explicitly say you prefer the photo to be associated with flickr, unless anything else is specified on the flickr page, it should automatically be! But even if another URI had been explicitly specified (as will be the case with other images), the download code presented would still be the same (again, the particular photo I used was just an example).
Both Wikipedia and CC are done non-profit - so how a comparison to Getty/Corbis relevant? Copyright and CC are way different. I personally believe Wikip/media should follow the best standards for attribution as set forth by the Creative Commons group: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/Best_practices_for_attribution. Putting a link to your own library ahead AND behind of that is again, to my mind, borderline license abuse. Signed, A Concerned Photographer AKA 183.74.201.44 (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
You state (explicitly) “it should automatically be!” without stating why, so its impossible to comment on that statement. Apples are apples. Getty/Corbis are relevant because Flickr don't host out of altruism but to make a huge profit for Yahoo! That good practice link is for non hosting end users (say on someone's blog). So how can that best practice example be applicable for this re-hosting situation? How can one link to the WC hosting page (or any other hosting page) without providing the link to that page? It is not possible. If you think you have an answer that, then please take it to the hosting site in question as I suggested above, since you seem to be using a begging the question approach which will keep you chasing your own tail.--Aspro (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (December 2014)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for new accounts and research materials from:

Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team.00:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.

Duplicate sections RFC

There is a RFC on Safety of Electronic cigarettes. This one deals with adding summaries of sections or pages that are parts of other pages. These were never part of the page, but other pages. Here is a link Please comment. AlbinoFerret 13:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Subject of blp racist?

Commentators continue to reference/allege Card's piece involving a fictional, future Obama's coup d'état by way of urban guirillas as racist (eg see here in Slate, 2013; here, HuffPo, 2013; here, Wired, 2014). Should our article mention this aspect of controversy with regard to the piece here: "Orson Scott Card#Politics"?

(Also see a 2013 blogpost by M Aspan citing this from Card in 2000 rgding allegedly non-racist use of nigga'.)

See discussion here: Talk:Orson Scott Card#RfC: Subject of blp racist?

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

List of largest machines

I was looking for the article linked above, but I couldn't find it. Does it exist under a different name that I'm not able to find in my search results? Xaxafrad (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I found these: MV Blue Marlin, Bagger 288, and Crawler-transporter Xaxafrad (talk) 05:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Don't forget Bertha, Bertha and Bertha. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
You might find something equivalent in Category:Lists of superlatives. Otherwise, you might wish to start the specified article and categorize it in that category.
—Wavelength (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips, it's done. Xaxafrad (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Take a deep breath...

Is this the longest sentence on Wikipedia?

FBI records show that 85% of COINTELPRO resources targeted groups and individuals that the FBI deemed "subversive", including communist and socialist organizations; organizations and individuals associated with the Civil Rights Movement, including Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and others associated with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the Congress of Racial Equality and other civil rights organizations; black nationalist groups; the Young Lords; the Rainbow Coalition; the American Indian Movement; a broad range of organizations labeled "New Left", including Students for a Democratic Society and the Weathermen; almost all groups protesting the Vietnam War, as well as individual student demonstrators with no group affiliation; the National Lawyers Guild; organizations and individuals associated with the women's rights movement; nationalist groups such as those seeking independence for Puerto Rico, United Ireland, and Cuban exile movements including Orlando Bosch's Cuban Power and the Cuban Nationalist Movement; and additional notable Americans (for example, Albert Einstein, who was a socialist and a member of several civil rights groups, came under FBI surveillance during the years just before COINTELPRO's official inauguration).

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Give up! Tell me the answer?--Aspro (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
What article? COINTELPRO? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
It seems to be a list. Here's a more readable version:
  • communist and socialist organizations;
  • organizations and individuals associated with the Civil Rights Movement, including Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and others associated with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the Congress of Racial Equality and other civil rights organizations;
  • black nationalist groups;
  • the Young Lords;
  • the Rainbow Coalition;
  • the American Indian Movement;
  • a broad range of organizations labeled "New Left", including Students for a Democratic Society and the Weathermen;
  • almost all groups protesting the Vietnam War, as well as individual student demonstrators with no group affiliation;
  • the National Lawyers Guild;
  • organizations and individuals associated with the women's rights movement;
  • nationalist groups such as those seeking independence for Puerto Rico, United Ireland, and Cuban exile movements including Orlando Bosch's Cuban Power and the Cuban Nationalist Movement;
  • additional notable Americans (for example, Albert Einstein, who was a socialist and a member of several civil rights groups, came under FBI surveillance during the years just before COINTELPRO's official inauguration)
Xaxafrad (talk) 06:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Boldly converted to bulleted list. If you would like to discuss this with me, please {{Ping}} me. Thnidu (talk) 08:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Reporting suspicious editing

I'm curious. I just noted in prodding some articles for deletion that the article creator has created a lot of articles as redirects. Take a look at this page;

Now on one page, Adelaide Arsenal, the article is then created by an IP and the IP seems similar across several articles started as redirects by Pidzz. I suspect that Pidzz is using his variable IP as a cover, and is therefore engaging in sock puppetry. Am I right? Is this an acceptable tactic to use? If not I think this should be looked into further, but I don't know where. Speedy Climber (talk) 01:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

If you suspect that Pidzz is evading bans by using IPs, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
No he has no ban history. Speedy Climber (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Here are two examples of what I'm talking about.
[21] [22]
Now is this legal or not. I think it's obvious that Pidzz and the IP are one in the same. Speedy Climber (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think its a case of intentionally hiding his/her identity... more likely a case of not always signing in.
That said, it looks like a case of someone creating a redirect page for the sole purpose of having non-notable subjects be "blue-linked" in other articles. It also creates a "circular redirect"... where the only article that mentions the blue-linked name is the article that is pointed to by the redirect... For example: if you are reading the Humpty Doo article, and click on the link for Humpty Doo Hotel, you get sent right back to the Humpty Doo article you were just reading. I would send it to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Point taken, but it looks like Pidzz's sole interest is creating redirects and nothing else. Either way I think this is intentional. Further, there are so many it would take too long for one person to go through all of them. Heck there are 50 redirects there and goodness knows how many more. Speedy Climber (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The important question is, is this person doing a Bad Thing? And I strongly suspect that some of the technical folks who hang out in the Grease Pit or Phabricator to answer questions and take fixup assignments could easily whip up a search to automate finding these redirects and checking them out, and perhaps undoing them as well. If you would like to discuss this with me, please {{Ping}} me. Thnidu (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Updated tilde help

@Ed Poor:

The Tildes section of Help:Magic was out of date, in that the 3- and 4-tilde expansions did not include the talk page link:

Use the TILDE CHARACTER to insert your username and/or a timestamp. This makes discussions easier to follow.

Three tildes (your name) 

~~~

Four tildes (name and date) 

~~~~
  • turns into Uncle Ed July 7, 2005 14:26 (UTC)

Five tildes (just the date) 

~~~~~
  • turns into July 7, 2005 14:26 (UTC)

I've fixed it... and, what the heck, updated the date for 4 and 5 tildes into the bargain. If you would like to discuss this with me, please {{Ping}} me. Thnidu (talk) 07:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


changed ==== to ''' in the quote to avoid bogus TOC subsection entries. ``Thnidu (talk) 08:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_47&oldid=1252053901"