Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2014-03-05

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2014-03-05. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Discussion report: Four paragraph lead, indefinitely blocked IPs, editor reviews broken? (1,369 bytes · 💬)

• Comment Yay, I am the first one to comment, let's celebrate. *celebrating* *pop* --Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa¹²³|UPage|_☺★ (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I think you forgot the "Previous Discussion report" link at the bottom right above this comment section. I contributed to some of these discussions through this article, so thank you for gathering them all up like this :D --Nicereddy (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

1. dear barek I want you to recatgorize rubber band guns article because rubber band guns are not nessarly harassment devices take for example a concenual safe , sportsmanlike conducted game which is not harassment, it's only harassment when in bad faith. Postmahomeson (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Conspiracy Theory was withdrawn on the 4th. Does it count as active by the 5th then? Zell Faze (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

News and notes: Wikipedia Library finding success in matching contributors with sources (1,357 bytes · 💬)

LexusNexus. LOL. Int21h (talk) 06:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Dibs on naming an auto dealership that. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

That was an interesting typo. My thanks to Eloquence for fixing it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The word "mashup" is not in my dictionary (the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary). I suppose you meant "mixture". Please don't use slang or neologisms that obfuscate the meaning for non-native speakers. JoJan (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

"Mashup", Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary. -- GreenC 16:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Traffic report: Brinksmen on the brink (7,691 bytes · 💬)

• "However I suspect that it might follow IPv6 to the Exclusions list before too long." - Got a link for the rationale behind that? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd only need a rationale if I'd actually done it. Which I didn't. Serendi^podous 09:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Now I'm even more confused. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I posted it, because I couldn't see a reason not to; however, I was suspicious of it, because it fit the profile of a number of other exclusions (like IPv6, Java) and made me think that sooner or later I would be moving it to exclusion. As it happens, looking at the raw data this week, my fears were unwarranted, as it failed to make the top 25. Serendi^podous 10:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• And what is the rational for excluding IPv6? Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 18:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It was just too popular; it followed no patterns, appeared unaffected by outside events, and was too obscure a topic to feature in EVERY SINGLE top 25. Of course I could be wrong, but it's on record that I was not the one who suggested removing it. Serendi^podous 19:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

So the same exclude rational could be applied to Facebook? IPv6 was last on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-02-19/Traffic report and I see no discussion on the talk page. Where is the actual discussion on the matter? Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 21:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

He's saying that its spike is artificial, as in there is probably a link bot or whatever that is helping that article. Goddamn, this guy decided to waste his time to report what are the top 25 articles that has been visiting this week, and for whatever reason, you guys want to lynch him! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.63.35 (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry; I'm used to it. Serendi^podous 11:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: @Sun Creator: articles are commonly removed from the listing if their hit counts appear to have no basis in reality, especially if these hit counts are something obscure (Cat anatomy comes to mind, from last year's top 25s). And it's worth remembering that this is a curated list, not a blind listing. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ed: "However I suspect that it might follow IPv6 to the Exclusions list before too long" was unclear to those who do not know why IPv6 is not included, or if it was even worth including. The answer, "I'd only need a rationale if I'd actually done it", confused me even more, because it suggested that IPv6 was not excluded at all. I know this is a curated list, but I'd expect the editor in charge of this section to a) make sure that the average reader can understand what is included and b) answer questions in a way that is less confusing that the original statement which was questioned. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that the 25th anniversary of Tim Berners-Lee's proposal for the WWW will mean a spike in related articles - the "celebrations" seem to have been going on for a while, Britain's House of Lords were at it back in January.Le Deluge (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Why does no one EVER look at the top 25?? The link is there! It's right frigging there! Serendi^podous 21:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I must admit I missed that the link to the Top 25 page also takes you to an explanation of what exclusions are and why. My fault, but from what you say, I guess I'm not the only one. It may be worth slightly rewording the link in future to help others avoid making the same mistake - e.g. to say something like 'for an explanation...'? Markpackuk (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• I tried to fix the ratings symbol for the True Detective show (displayed as stub, should be C-class) but for some reason it's redlinking the file. I've been staring at the wikicode for a while now and I'm baffled - any ideas? Acather96 (click here to contact me) 22:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Serendi^podous 22:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Is there a particular reason List of deaths in 2014 isn't using the list icon that the project templates use? Circéus (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• And what is that? Serendi^podous 10:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• {{Classicon|List}} — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Y'know, there's no reason to ask so rudely... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Where do you keep the list of excluded articles and their rationales out of curiosity. I've always wanted to see that list. Also thank you for the great list, its one of my favourite features. Zell Faze (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It's in the Top 25 report. The link's in the opening paragraph. Serendi^podous 15:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject report: Article Rescue Squadron (5,779 bytes · 💬)

More questions

@Dream Focus: @Green Cardamom: I wonder if I can get You to answer these questions:

• In your experience what type of articles are more likely to be nominated for deletion?
  • The ones that someone hates enough to go around looking for similar articles of that type. Some also check on the article's number of views watchers, going after those that have the least number of people to notice first. Dream Focus 15:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • In general, living person articles and recent topics are much more commonly nominated for deletion than historical articles. I don't think we as a culture are very good at predicting future notability for recent stuff so they tend to be more controversial. I try to err on the side of inclusion when things are unclear for newer stuff. However older stuff it's easier because time is the greatest judge. -- GreenC 04:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Have you ever noticed articles nominated for deletion as a form of censorship?
  • Yeah. Look at Israel Palestine articles for an example of that. Go talk to those Wikiprojects and they'll find you some examples of obviously bias single person accounts making statements in the AFD that show their political viewpoint. Dream Focus 15:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Censorship is a controversial word, but I have seen certain editors in AfD who are topic-focused, for example against alternative health care, or paranormal, or MLM companies. It's needed I guess but systematic targeting is also a fine line as it can easily tip over into doing more harm than good. -- GreenC 04:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Where can interested editors find statistics about the number of articles nominated for deletion/% deleted/% kept etc over the years?
  • Ask on the main ARS talk page. People have posted links to that information at times. Dream Focus 15:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • AfD statistics information for any individual editor can be seen using the AFD Statistic Tool. One thing that I found very helpful was knowledge that when an editor is voting the wrong way more than about 60% to 70% of the time over an extended period of time (as seen with the tool), it can be grounds to ask an administrator to investigate. Also anyone doing better than 60% or 70% correct !votes over an extended period is probably doing better than average. (It's not a zero sum equation since everyone can be right if everyone !votes the same way). -- GreenC 04:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Does the project collaborate with other related projects, such as wp:editor retention?
  • People edit on their own as they see fit. I used to patrol new pages at times and help new articles by finding references for them. Dream Focus 15:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
• Why was this project itself a candidate for deletion?
  • Some were upset they had attention being brought to articles they could've deleted if fewer people noticed and showed up to comment. Dream Focus 15:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Maybe they were jealous there is no "Article Deletion Squadron", but that would go against the editing policy of WP:PRESERVE. -- GreenC 04:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Have you ever considered expanding to save other wiki-content such as templates, categories, etc?
  • Did that at times. Whatever people ask for help with. Dream Focus 15:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes I'd like to see more Fair Use content disputes brought up, in particular when blocks of cited text are deleted from articles on copyright grounds. This often seems to go unnoticed and uncontested. -- GreenC 04:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)