User talk:Boson/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Administrators' newsletter – July 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.
Technical news
- Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding
?fuzzy=1to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term. - A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.
- Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding
Miscellaneous
- A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
- A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
- Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.
Latest news from the Wikimedia Collaboration team, about Notifications, Flow and Edit Review Improvements. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you.
What's new?
The team is currently working on three main goals, which we expect to complete this summer or in September:
- Graduate New Filters for Edit Review core features out of beta:
- The core New Filters features slated to become standard parts of Recent Changes are the ones that have been out in beta for a while and fully road-tested by the community.
- These include the new filtering interface, the machine-learning filter groups “User Intent Predictions” and “Quality Predictions,” the highlighting tools, the ability to save your filter settings for later use, and the new filter groups: “Watchlisted pages,” “Last revision” and "User registration and experience."
- There’s a list of “blocker” tasks we need to complete before these features are ready to graduate out of beta.
- We expect to release those features by default in September. A more precise message will be sent to communities. If you have questions about it, you can write a message on Mediawiki.org, in any language.
- Extend the New Filters to Watchlist: The Watchlists of very active editors can include thousands of pages. To help these busy folks keep up with their work, we’re adding the New Filters UX and tools to Watchlist. The Watchlist and Recent Changes pages are similar, but there is some work involved in adapting the tools to their new setting. That work should be ready some time in late summer or early fall. Stay tuned for an announcement!
- Continuing work on “Integrated Filters”:
- While the New Filters for Edit Review beta brought probably 70% of the old-style Recent Changes features into the new user interface, it left some behind—like the Tag and Namespace filters and the controls for the number of days searched and number of results presented. As the name is meant to suggest, “Integrated filters” integrates those old-style tools into the new UI.
- It also adds some new tools users have asked for, such as:
- “Live updates” which provides a near real-time automatic refresh of the Recent Changes page.
- Category filters, which enable users to search by category.
- User filters, which let you define searches that include or exclude edits by particular users.
- We will put the community-defined related links that cluster at the top of most Recent Changes pages into a collapsible panel, in order to clarify the Recent Changes page.
We should note that it’s not certain these last two additions will make the cut for inclusion this year. If you want a make the case for either one, we want to hear from you.
Edit Review Improvements [More information • Help pages]
Recent changes
- Some styling adjustments are ongoing on the filters for recent changes. [1]
- RecentChanges with the Beta feature were very slow to load on Wikidata. It is now fixed. [2]
- In the Beta feature, you can try the Live Updates feature. Just add
&liveupdate=1at the end of the URL in Recent Changes page. [3]
Future changes
- ORES review tool will be deployed to Romanian and Albanian Wikipedia soon. These wikis will be able to use predictions filters. To have the predictions filters on your wiki, you need to work on the labeling campaign for your wiki or request it. [4]
- Sometimes the RecentChanges page were reloading before the filters have ended to be loaded. It is going to be fixed. [5]
Notifications [More information • Help pages]
Recent changes
- It is now possible to display the number of unread notifications in the browser title bar, using a gadget. [6]
Future changes
- It will be possible to restrict who can send you notifications on a wiki. This new feature will accessible in your preferences, in the Notifications tab, on Wednesday, July 26. [7]
Collaboration team's newsletter prepared by the Collaboration team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
16:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Merger discussion for United States of Europe
An article that you have been involved in editing—United States of Europe—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Oldag07 (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, hope you seen my latest edits on the 1972 ECA article, I have requested a new map be made showing the UK in orange when there was just nine states, also any other questions regarding the 1972 ECA in general can be added here. I am hoping to make some expansions later this evening UK time. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC))
Administrators' newsletter – August 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).
Administrator changes
Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 (first RfA to reach WP:300)
Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem
Guideline and policy news
- Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
- A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
- An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.
Technical news
- LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
- The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.
A favor, please
Hi Boson,
I'm trying to explain the use of shall as opposed to will to modern readers of some 19th century personal letters, and am unsure of this use of "should" – is it correct to say that these are the subjunctive mood?
- I should have enjoyed some of that cake you write of
- Tell them I should like to be with them
- I guess if we were to go to the North Pole now, we should smother to death
- I am astonished that Mabel Wood should be so far ahead of the field
- How I should like to see her!
Is the Mabel Wood quote different? Many thanks for any help. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
In the context you are talking about, I think the main point is that (as explained at Shall and will) particularly in older (and/or British?) English, shall and should replace will and would in the first person, so "... if we were to go to the North Pole now, we should smother to death" is "equivalent" to the third-person "... if they were to go to the North Pole now, they would smother to death". The asserted difference (in the second and third person) is that the modal auxiliary will/would expresses futurity, supposition or expectation, whereas the modal auxiliary shall/should expresses intent. In the first person the meanings are reversed. The usual example quoted is "I shall die, for no-one will save me." I would say the Mabel Wood quote is different. I would treat the others in the same way as sentences with would in modern English (in remote, or hypothetical, conditional constructions).
Subjunctive?: It's a bit difficult because in English schools, grammar was often taught in conjunction with other languages (especially Latin), so traditional grammar may use terms less suited to modern English, which uses analytic constructions with modal auxiliaries instead of inflection. This may, of course, be helpful when teaching English as a foreign language. In more inflected languages, the conditional or subjunctive mood would probably be used. I believe some people use the term "conditional mood" for an analytic construction with a similar function that uses a modal auxiliary (would or should). So in "If I were you, I would do it", were is often called the past subjunctive (I prefer irealis) and "would do" might be called the conditional. For your purposes, it may be best to think of "would do" (and "should do" in the first person) as the conditional mood of the verb "do" (but I wouldn't write anything like that in Wikipedia).
Personally, I would not call such use "conditional mood" or "conditional tense"; I would generally prefer to talk of secondary uses of the preterite (simple past form) of modal auxiliaries to express remote modality. "I am astonished that Mabel Wood should be so far ahead of the field" is different, and, to me, less old-fashioned I would put it under "assorted idiomatic uses of should" in subordinate clauses to express weak emotive modality. This probably doesn't help very much. --Boson (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, it does help, and I very much appreciate your taking the time for an extensive discussion. But let me go back to a more basic question, since none of the people I would be addressing will have any idea of your terminology: In standard English grammar, would it be less incorrect to call these uses (other than the Mabel Wood quote) subjunctive or conditional? Those are probably the only two grammatical terms that might be at all vaguely familiar to them. (You can see that I'm confused, myself.) Milkunderwood (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- If you really want a term for the verb phrase "would x", I would (reluctantly) go for conditional for the would/should form, when used together with an if-clause (or when a similar condition is implied). If you call it a subjunctive, you have a problem with sentences like "I guess if we were to go to the North Pole now, we should smother to death, because the were is called a subjunctive. If you want a term for the would or should by itself, when talking of modern English, I would say mainstream grammarians call would and should the past tense of will and shall, respectively, and use the term "past subjunctive" exclusively for the word were (though you will find some who say that the had in 'if I had... is a past subjunctive that is morphologically indistinguishable from the simple past). If you use the word subjunctive for the verbs in hypothetical conditions, you have to say "past subjunctive" anyway, so people have to get used to the idea that "past tense" doesn't necessarily refer to past time but can refer to something that is "unlikely" or "hypothetical". --Boson (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- I think this answers my confusion -- again, I very much appreciate your help. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- If you really want a term for the verb phrase "would x", I would (reluctantly) go for conditional for the would/should form, when used together with an if-clause (or when a similar condition is implied). If you call it a subjunctive, you have a problem with sentences like "I guess if we were to go to the North Pole now, we should smother to death, because the were is called a subjunctive. If you want a term for the would or should by itself, when talking of modern English, I would say mainstream grammarians call would and should the past tense of will and shall, respectively, and use the term "past subjunctive" exclusively for the word were (though you will find some who say that the had in 'if I had... is a past subjunctive that is morphologically indistinguishable from the simple past). If you use the word subjunctive for the verbs in hypothetical conditions, you have to say "past subjunctive" anyway, so people have to get used to the idea that "past tense" doesn't necessarily refer to past time but can refer to something that is "unlikely" or "hypothetical". --Boson (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you
Dear Boson, Thank you so much for editing the John Cabot University page. All the best, Berenice at John Cabot University (talk) 07:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).
Administrator changes
- Nakon • Scott
- Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee
Guideline and policy news
- ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
- Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.
Technical news
- You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
- Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
- In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.
Arbitration
- Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.
The article European Cybercrime Centre has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No reason why this one body of Europol could not be described enough in the main article
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
Hey Boson, I proposed deleting European Cybercrime Centre since I don't think there is any reason to keep an article of one office of Europol while it could certainly be described in the main article with enough coverage. I'm currently rewriting and editing the main article on Europol. Cheers! Shadowdasher (talk) 09:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Latest news from the Wikimedia Global Collaboration team, about Notifications, Structured Discussions, Edit Review Improvements and Content translation. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you.
What's new?
- This newsletter is the first for the Global Collaboration team!
- Global Collaboration team formed in July by merging the Language and Collaboration teams of the Wikimedia Foundation. The team is part of the Contributors department.
- The newsletter now includes updates about Content translation. The Global Collaboration team now have an extended report (in English), with more information and data about the different projects we take care of.
- Due to vacations and Wikimania, no newsletter has been written in August.
Major changes, with possibly an important impact on the wikis, are now marked with the star icon in the newsletter. Let us know if you like it.
Edit Review Improvements [More information • Help pages]
Recent changes
- Filters for Recent Changes will be deployed by default on all wikis. [8]
- Some features for Recent Changes remain on Beta. See the list.
- The initial deployment was scheduled for September 26. It has been postponed after October 3 for performance issues. [9]
- The filters for Watchlists, as a Beta feature, have been deployed as a Beta feature on Sept. 19. [10]
- "User registration" and "experience level" groups have been unified. It is now possible to select only actions from logged-out users or from logged-in users. [11]
Content translation [More information • Help pages]
Recent changes
- Delete action on the list of translations is now more reachable. Now it's possible to open it on click, and easier as well, because active area is bigger. [12]
- Content Translation language selector is restyled to be more compact. [13]
Future changes
- The translation editor of Content Translation will be replaced by the visual editor. Work is ongoing. [14]
Notifications [More information • Help pages]
Recent changes
- For users who don't use JavaScript, a button has been added to Special:Notifications to mark all their notifications as read. [15]
- It is now possible to restrict who can send you notifications. [16]
Structured Discussions [More information • Help pages]
Recent changes
- Flow has been re-scoped to become Structured Discussions and the development has restarted. Phabricator projects and repositories have been renamed. [17]
- Administrators on wikis that use Structured Discussions as a beta feature or by default can now create and move Structured Discussions boards. [18]
Structured Discussions' help pages have been updated. Translations may require updates as well.
Collaboration team's newsletter prepared by the Global Collaboration team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
17:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – October 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).
Administrator changes
- Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem
- Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box
Guideline and policy news
- Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
- Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.
Technical news
- You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.
Arbitration
- Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
- A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Administrators' newsletter – November 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).
Administrator changes
- Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93
- Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite
Technical news
- The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
- A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.
Arbitration
- Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
- Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.
Obituaries
- The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.
Latest news from the Wikimedia Global Collaboration team, about Notifications, Structured discussions, Edit Review Improvements and Content translation. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you.
What's new?
- The Global collaboration report for October is now available.
- All wikis now have the Filters for edit review as the default system on Recent Changes page.
Edit Review Improvements [More information • Help pages]
Most recent changes
Filters for Watchlists are still on Beta. Please try them and give feedback before we release it for all users!- Shortcuts to filter Namespaces and Tags are now more visible. [19]
- Discovery of the search bar has been improved. [20]
- If the Recent Changes page or the Watchlist fails to load or is time-outed, a message is now displayed. [21][22]
- The bookmark icon for creating a "Saved filter" is now grayed when it is not possible to save. Before it was not visible. Bookmarking is unavailable when, for example, the current filter set is already saved. [23]
Future changes
- Live updates on Recent changes will be moved out of beta and into the standard feature set by the end of the year. [24]
- Extension:Translate filters for RecentChanges are going to be integrated to the new filters. [25]
- Automatic edit summaries will be filtered as tags. [26]
Content translation [More information • Help pages]
Recent changes
- List items (suggested items and in-progress/published translations) layout restyled to prevent overflows on small screen sizes.
- Search results for new translation dialog are now embedded, instead of being displayed in floating menu. Search results remain displayed when tabbed out and can be closed using ESC key.
- Missing pages are no longer shown when there is no match for search query. Message informing that there are no results is displayed instead.
- Embedded search results enabled to provide users with more translation opportunities. Articles user recently edited (in currently selected source language wiki) are surfaced when there is no input in search bar, with additional info if article is missing in user's currently selected target language.
- Long suggestion descriptions are limited to three lines, and the rest is truncated, which is indicated by ellipsis.
- Chart data representing user translation statistics in now showing all the months since user's first published translation. Months that went without translation are now displayed in chart as well.
- A loading indicator is shown while suggestions are loading.
- Button to discard dialog is now shown through the whole process of selecting article to translate.
Notifications [More information • Help pages]
Recent changes
- Edit-user-talk notifications are now expandable. [27]
Structured Discussions [More information • Help pages]
Future changes
- Some work is ongoing to store Structured Discussions contents from HTML to wikitext. That change will allow some specific templates and magic words to work properly on Structured Discussions. [28]
- Some tests are conducted in order to prepare the rewriting of Structured Discussions' interface. That rewriting will have no visible impact on users but it will ease future changes.
Other projects
- Compact Language Links has been deployed on German Wikipedia. [29]
Collaboration team's newsletter prepared by the Global Collaboration team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
15:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Boson. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Help updating New York Life Insurance Company
Hi, Boson! It's been quite a while since you assisted me with edits requests re: AIFMD etc and I wondered if you'd be interested to help with some updates for New York Life Insurance Company. I've recently posted a proposal to update the infobox and am reaching out to a few editors who have helped review my edit requests for financial-related articles in the past. Would you have a few minutes to look at this request? Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.
Technical news
- Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
- A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.
Arbitration
- Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.
Miscellaneous
- Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
- The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.
Latest news from the Wikimedia Global Collaboration team, about Notifications, Structured discussions, Edit Review Improvements and Content translation. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you.
What's new?
Edit Review Improvements [More information • Help pages]
- The filters are now deployed as a default feature on all wikis on RecentChanges and RecentChangesLinked pages.
- The filters are still available as a Beta feature on all wikis on Watchlists. Please try them!
- LiveUpdates have been deployed as a default feature for all wikis.
- On wikis using Extension:Translate, translated messages can now be filtered. System messages can be filtered as well, on all wikis. [30]
- "View new changes since $1" link is now more prominent, to invite users to use that native feature to update the list of results. [31]
- Pagination and time period selectors are now combined and located on the right on left-to-right wikis. [32]
- When a user wanted to click outside of the filter menu to close it, it was possible to click on "revert" link by accident. It is not possible anymore. [33]
- It is now possible to filter the following events using the Tags menu: Making a page a redirect, Changing redirect target, Changing an existing redirect into a non-redirect, Blanking of the page, Removing more than 90% of a page content, Rolling back an edit. [34]
- Some design improvements have been done to Related Changes page to integrate the new filters. [35]
- "Save current filter settings" menu and legend overlapped the results. This is now fixed. [36]
- Some small design improvements have been done. [37]
Content translation [More information • Help pages]
- Now Content Translation prevents source and target language to be set to same language. [38]
- The dialog for selecting article to translate is standardized. It introduces a new component that is used for the selected page on both the "New translation" dialog and the "Suggested pages" list. [39]
- More space is given to the language filter, to increase responsiveness and show more language names without truncation. [40]
- While searching for a new page to translate, duplicates are not shown anymore for user search input. [41]
- Various PHP warnings and JavaScript errors have been fixed. [42][43]
Structured discussions [More information • Help pages]
- It is now possible to use Special:Nuke on hidden Structured discussion topics. [44]
- The Reply button is not active anymore until something is typed. [45]
Miscellaneous
- For wikis that use ORES, preferences for ORES have been rationalized in Special:Preferences, on Recent Changes tab and Watchlist tab. [46]
- ORES will be deployed on Simple English Wikipedia. That wiki will be able to use the Prediction filters. [47]
Collaboration team's newsletter prepared by the Global Collaboration team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
14:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Adverb edits
I hope that this is the proper forum to inquire about the reversion post by Boson regarding the 21 December 2017 and 22 December 2017 edits that I submitted to the "Adverb" article. My first question relates to Boson's reason for the reversion, which was given as, "series of unsourced, unexplained edits." Accordingly, what sources might I need beyond links to relevant Wikipedia articles, which were cited in order to define the context of my edits? My second question relates the type explanations that might be required for the type of edits that I submitted. Specifically, would it be advisable for me to explain (1) why each example that I provided in my edits is consistent with the nomenclature presented in the Wikipedia articles to which I linked as references, and (2) why the unsourced examples that I attempted to delete are contextually mistaken? (Indeed, the examples that I attempted to delete were correct in certain respects, but they were not suited to the purposes for which they were presented, as can be inferred from the Wikipedia articles that I cited and linked in my edits.) Your feedback on those two questions would be greatly appreciated.
124.49.158.79 (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC) Kent
- Yes, this is OK for asking about what I meant, or asking for advice, etc. If we want to talk more about the content itself, we should do that on the article talk page, where others who have worked on the article can get involved.
- I assume both sets of edits were by you, though two IP addresses were used. That is OK, but it might be helpful if you registered an account. I could then leave one message on your talk page and you would be alerted to it when you logged in again. I could also leave a message saying that I have replied here. This is often not helpful with IP addresses, because you might use a different address. If you had an account, you could also put my talk page (this page) on your watchlist, which keeps you informed when I reply. I could also send you a welcome message with useful links to policies and guidelines. Feel free to contact me here if you have any questions (though I might take a while to reply over the holidays).
- As regards "unsourced", a published "reliable source" should usually be given for substantive changes. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources (as Wikipedia uses the term). So, for the Adverb article (in a section about English grammar), you could, for instance, cite a standard work on English grammar, for example The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language or A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language.
- As regards the "unexplained", it is customary to use the edit summary to write a short explanation. In this case, I would expect a reason why you made the edit, e.g. why you thought the text that you replaced was wrong or why the new text expresses the same thought in a clearer way. When making changes that might be contentious, you can also use the article talk page to discuss the changes. If the existing content has been there for some time, it is usually regarded as having consensus (see Wikipedia:Consensus), so more explanation may be appropriate. If you need a longer explanation, you can put this on the article talk page and write "See Talk" in the edit summary.
- For instance, you changed
- "However, as seen above, adverbs may modify noun phrases, and so the two functions may sometimes be superficially very similar:
- *Even camels need to drink
- *Even numbers are divisible by two"
- to
- "Adverbs may, however, modify articles and determiners. In such cases, the combination is called an adverbial phrase:
- Even the camel needs to drink
- Only a dotard would think otherwise"
- and added an example
- The theater features nightly shows
- "Adverbs may, however, modify articles and determiners. In such cases, the combination is called an adverbial phrase:
- This requires some sort of explanation. For instance, it seems to suggest that nightly is here used as an adverb, though dictionaries commonly define it as an adjective. It would probably be better to use a different example. The old text gave an (alleged) example of an adverb modifying a noun phrase ("Even camels need to drink"). You replaced the example with a (purported) noun phrase and replaced it with an example where the adverb purportedly modifies an article or determiner ("Even the camel needs to drink"). You seem to be saying that "even the" is an adverbial phrase. I think you need an explanation and a source for this.
- This is the sort of thing that is best discussed on the talk page.
- Unfortunately the existing article is not a good model for how things should be done.
- --Boson (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I'll take care of the account issue before I post anything after today.
I'm still a bit unclear about how to address the "explanation" issue without unintentionally offending whomever wrote the original material that I attempted to edit. For instance, the original article (and the reversion) included an example that stated, The show features dances galore, in which "galore" was said to be an adverb. Rather than explain and cite the relevant Merriam-Webster and Cambridge Dictionary entries that present "galore" as an adjective (which, I would hope most learned people would already know), I substituted the example, The theater features nightly shows. As you may have missed in my attempted edit, I did explain that nightly is an adjective, and not an adverb, despite its -ly ending. I neglected to add the relevant Merriam-Webster and Cambridge Dictionary citations to substantiate that usage because I believed - wrongly, perhaps - that learned people might consider it patronizing to cite a source to what I would hope would be a rather obvious exclusively adjectival meaning of what "galore" means. Would you mind commenting on what (further) degree of explanation is needed in such a case?
Additionally, I attempted a revision of the sentence, When the function of an adverb is performed by an expression consisting of more than one word, it is called an adverbial phrase, an adverbial clause, or simply an adverbial because it is constructed in a way that implies that those three terms are interchangeable. To avoid such a conflated interpretation, I added, - depending on its particular usage to the end of the sentence. That attempted edit also was undone. In the future, do you advise offering my reasons for edits on the article's talk page, or to include them in the article itself?
Thanks again for your interest and replies.
183.103.241.174 (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC) Kent
- Although it is not a strict requirement with no exceptions, you should always provide an edit summary which indicates to other editors what you changed, removed or added. Especially if you are changing or removing something, your summary should usually indicate the reason. For instance, if you had merely changed the example with "galore" to one that you thought better illustrated the same point, you could write something like "Changed to better example because 'galore' is not a good example of an adverb." This would probably better than writing "because galore is an adjective", since that might be contentious (some dictionaries, e.g Random House Webster's, Chambers, give "galore" as an adverb; which may have something to do with its etymology), and a contentious example would be a bad example.
- With your edits, however, it is slightly different. To simplify somewhat, as I understand it, the text previously stated, for instance, that noun phrases can, in some circumstances, be modified by adverbs and gave (alleged) examples and what could have been a source; you changed that substantively, and that should be made clearer in the edit summary (or in this case, probably an additional talk page explanation).
- You asked about explanations in the article itself. I presume you are thinking of your explanation arguing the case for your interpretation (using typical words like "consider ...). Especially without sources, this appears to be what Wikipedia calls WP:Original research and should be avoided. It is confusing because the reader is expecting examples of adverbs and is given nightly (with an explanation that it is not an adverb), here which the general reader has probably been told (e.g. in dictionaries) is an adverb, and then told that it is a pronoun (so why is it included). The reader is told (in an article on the adverb) that here is a pronoun and that it stands for something like "in the WikiCommunity" (which the reader would probably think of as a prepositional phrase with an adverbial function). In my opinion, this sort of explanation is appropriate on the talk page to explain what you mean to other editors but, if unsourced in the article, I would see it as original research. Even with sources, we need to avoid synthesis. There may be a place in the article (for instance in the form of explanatory footnotes) to explain terminology. This is partly because different linguists use different classifications, and these differ from traditional grammar and dictionary entries. If you want to state that adverbs modify determiners, I think you need to cite a source. Another thing that would probably need an explanation (initially in an edit summary, but later, perhaps, in a talk page discussion) is the addition of gerunds to the classes of words that can be inserted in "The _____ is red." The potential confusion to the reader who distinguishes between gerundial nouns and gerunds is unnecessary, so it might be better to avoid an example that implies that painting (in "The painting is red") is not a noun. This is the sort of discussion that would belong on the article talk page.
- --Boson (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that wrap-up. The tutorial on using the edit summary and talk pages was particularly useful. It's prompted me to consider making prospective edits individually rather than wholesale. (And, FYI, by the time I had reconsidered the "The ______ is red" example and had decided to restore it to its original for the same reason you indicated, my edit had already been removed.)
Kent Dominic (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).
Administrator changes
- Muboshgu
Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned- None
Bureaucrat changes
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.
Technical news
- The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
- The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.
Arbitration
- Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.
Additions to German Wikipedia
After understanding the COI policies better I feel more comfortable asking this favor. I'm petitioning to publish Bottega Veneta from English into German. I was wondering if you have time to help me out. I have a paid COI regarding Bottega Veneta, but my main concern here is ensuring that the information available in English is up to date in German as well. I have a translated version of the article on SandboxDE. Would you mind reviewing it for accuracy as well as its compliance with Wikipedia guidelines? Thanks!--Chefmikesf (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, I suggest you contact someone on German Wikipedia, where guidelines may be slightly different. For a translation from English Wikipedia, for instance, I believe German Wikipedia prefers you to first import the English article (with its version history) to your German user space (for reasons of attribution/copyright). --Boson (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)