Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2013-08-28

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2013-08-28. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

In the media: Chelsea Manning, Box-office predictors, and 'Storming Wikipedia' (3,728 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2013-08-28

Discuss this story

• "listed in and and used" ? -- John of Reading (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Entirely my fault, I wrote "listed in [[Category:2009 movies]] and [[Category:2010 movies]]". I shouldn't have tried linking them. I don't want to edit it from my cell phone for fear of making another mistake. I'll fix it later today if no one else has. Andrew³²⁷ 14:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed -- John of Reading (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• A potential problem with this new feminist editing effort is that a significant amount of significant contemporary feminist discourse is carried out online, in sources that, at least at first blush, would not count as reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes, such as blogs. Sure, one could write about feminist blogs as an object of study on Wikipedia to a certain extent, in their own articles, but that would in many cases relegate the views expressed in them to a more obscure part of Wikipedia. For example, if one wanted to write about discussion on feminist blogs about the famous Miley Cyrus twerking thing, it would be much less likely to be read if mentioned in an article about feminism or feminist blogs than if it was mentioned in an article about Miley Cyrus or an article about the VMA event at which this took place - but Wikipedia policies on reliable sources might work against the latter two options. I am sympathetic to this problem, as I myself want to write in unorthodox views on economics and politics into Wikipedia, and a lot of that these days is found online ages before it makes its way into print, and may be far more accessible online - although of course, as with feminism, there is also a wide body of printed literature. I'd like to open up a discussion about this general problem. Any suggestions gratefully appreciated. --greenrd (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Most contemporary feminist scholarship takes places in peer-reviewed journals, just like any other discipline. There is definitely a visible public, larger element of feminism that comes through in blogs like Jezebel, but there is lots of high-quality feminist scholarship published in high-quality peer-reviewed journals. There are entire journals dedicated to the topic, such as these. Wadewitz (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• The first of the two cited Toronto Star articles contains this technically correct, but still misleading sentence: "The Wikipedia article has since been edited and is different now than it was three years ago, but the archived page can be viewed through a website called the Wayback Machine." -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• The first piece in this Signpost is about Wikipedia being praised for using 'Chelsea Manning'; however English Wikipedia had reverted back to the page name 'Bradley Manning' ~24 hrs ago. Im guessing that the change happened before publication of this issue of the Signpost. :/ John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

News and notes: Looking ahead to Wiki Loves Monuments (735 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2013-08-28

Discuss this story

• The article refers in different paragraphs to 49 and 51 participating countries this year. I suspect that one figure is wrong. ϢereSpielChequers 15:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It's a weird situation because they're all countries except for Antarctica. I'll look again when I'm home next. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 13:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Recent research: WikiSym 2013 retrospective (1,162 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2013-08-28

Discuss this story

• These are really interesting topics although, as it is stated above, you can not take the results of a small sample study and extrapolate the conclusions to all Wikipedia/WikiMedia. I wish I could have attended and I hope I can locate some of these papers online, especially ones about conflict. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Baidu & Wikipedia

Just so everyone knows, Baidu engages in a large scale forking and copyright violation on Wikipedias (predominantly Chinese Wikipedia, but also English, Japanese, and French). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Technology report: Gallery improvements launch on Wikipedia (6,027 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2013-08-28

Discuss this story

• The Module namespace has used CodeEditor since launch. The new addition is for CSS and JS pages. Anomie⚔ 14:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• The packed-hover is a good tech. Nice additions. Benison talk with me 15:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Wow, the new gallery is amazing! I quite like it. — -dainomite   16:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• The new galleries are beautiful - well done to all involved. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Quite appropriate that Adam should demonstrate it with some of his own restorations, since it's often files like that which don't conform to standard dimensions (like #3, above) and you really notice the difference in galleries with the whitespace.. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Heh, well, it's a bit hard to find a really oddly-proportioned gallery on Wikipedia, because they looked so awful with the old gallery style, but I've had a gallery of FPs on my user page for years. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• See also the galleries on mobile view. "Packed-hover" looks strange. --Atlasowa (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I suspect that's an issue with one caption taking up two lines in that example. Mobile view, as I understand it, strips most gallery code. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• At WikiProject Open Access some of us organize a "file of the day" and put new non-text media into a gallery daily. I just changed this to a packed gallery and the images are slow to load and some do not load at all. This is on Commons, not Wikipedia. See Commons:Commons:Open_Access_File_of_the_Day. Where are conversations about this tag? Nothing is happening at Help_talk:Gallery_tag. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Packed-hover behaves like packed-overlay on my iPad. Known issue? - PKM (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Should have mentioned: On the mobile site, that's a planned change, since many touchscreens don't have a hover-over option. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Category search

"new user-facing features, like the ability to search within a category, are planned"

Great news! :) Now it would be cool to make it even easier to search by crossing many categories, and allowing searching subcategories as well. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

From conversations, it sounds like those are planned, but realise this is very early stages: The old search was a mess, so it had to be rewritten into a stable version before any other improvements could be done. We're going to get new search features, but I don't think anyone can promise anything until coding's a lot further on. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• New search backend live on mediawiki.org. --Atlasowa (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: How is this any different from incategory:? πr² (t • c) 20:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That you'd need to ask the developers about. I would presume it would include subcategories, perhaps? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

What we are talking about is incategory:, yes. The major difference we've accomplished here (which I think was lost in the blurb) is that we've made it possible to have multiple incategory: terms in a single search, opening the door for category intersections. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Traffic report: Reddit creep (5,042 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2013-08-28

Discuss this story

• It's always interesting to see stats on what people come to Wikipedia to view. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• I always read the top 25 list. Could that list be the default one, instead ? Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Me too. SchreiberBike talk 19:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The top 10 was decided when this became a signpost feature. I actually prefer to keep the top 25 separate, as it means I have less to edit and pare down for neutrality's sake. Serendi^podous 18:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Could you, from time to time, spot one or two articles not on the top 25 that should not be, say, in the top 100 ? Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you asking me to scan the top 100 for spam? Serendi^podous 18:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has too many interesting articles. Some of these get on the top 100 for unknown reason, even spam. If it was a bird, an archeological artefact, a sport player, etc., then it would bring some diversity to the regular (Facebook, List of Bollywood films of 2013, etc.). Those clearly in the top 100 because of spam should not be picked. Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you want. Are you asking for the top 25 to be expanded into a top 100? Because the list takes long enough to compile as it is. I mean sure YOU could do that if you wanted... Serendi^podous 10:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• To be fair, the use of that image on the main page of the signpost made me immediately click on the traffic report without even reading the other sections! Nicely chosen. Miyagawa (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Just curious to see if you ever figured out why Yahoo! was in the top ten for a couple of weeks in June? XOttawahitech (talk) 03:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Never figured it out. It's actually still in the top ten; I just don't include it any more. Serendi^podous 05:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    • @Serendipodous: should this not be mentioned somewhere? XOttawahitech (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I mention it in the subsection of the top 25. Serendi^podous 16:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks for mentioning it at:Wikipedia_talk:Top_25_Report#Yahoo.21, but shouldn't the notice be a bit more prominent - after all your report is read by many who may not know you are using your own discretion in the the choice of sites added to the table(?) XOttawahitech (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
          • Why Yahoo in particular, and not any of the other ones I remove? Serendi^podous 16:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
            • @Serendipodous: sure I am interested, which other entries do you remove? X15:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject report: Loop-the-loop: Amusement Parks (1,670 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2013-08-28

Discuss this story

T'would liked to have read this before being hired at an amusement park, although in hind sight some of the things mentioned in the article now make more sense to me :) TomStar81 (Talk) 07:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Do county and state fairs fall under this project? The talk pages of articles that I have checked at Category:State fairs seems to indicate not.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Amusement Parks covers funfairs, which appears to include county fairs and state fairs. –Mabeenot (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• @TonyTheTiger:When I saw your comment above, my first inclination was to tag the talkpage of Category:State fairs with this WikiProject's banner. But then I checked Wikipedia:WikiProject_Amusement_Parks/Assessment#Quality_assessments and it looks like no one at that project is paying attention to assessments of their articles{?} XOttawahitech (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger:IMO, they should. I have started a discussion regarding this matter.--Dom497 (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)