The Signpost: 27 January 2020Edit

The Signpost: 1 March 2020Edit

please switch tatweel to zwj in nastaliq templateEdit

please switch tatweel extension character to zero width joiner in template "Arabic alphabet Nastaliq shapes". Your template {{Arabic alphabet Nastaliq shapes| }} doesn't work, i tried to make a simple change to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_(letter) but i found i couldn't just type zero width joiners instead of extension characters because it was made with a template, then i found that template was made with your template. Then i found your template was far too complicated to edit. Can you please switch the extension character to zero width joiner. U+0640 tatweel only works in Naskh fonts, in nastaliq it doesn't connect properly and often ends up looking like the letter is crossed out, or just generally makes it confusingly illegible. Irtapil (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020Edit

Disambiguation link notification for April 26Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joe Wicks (coach), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Good Morning Britain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020Edit

The Signpost: 31 May 2020Edit

The Signpost: 28 June 2020Edit

The Signpost: 2 August 2020Edit

The Signpost: 30 August 2020Edit

New Wikipedia Library Collections Now Available (September 2020)Edit


Hello Wikimedians!

 
The TWL owl says sign up today!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing new free, full-access, accounts to reliable sources as part of our research access program. You can sign up for new accounts and research materials on the Library Card platform:

Many other partnerships are listed on our partners page, including Adam Matthew, EBSCO, Gale and JSTOR.

A significant portion of our collection now no longer requires individual applications to access! Read more in our recent blog post.

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 09:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.

Language tagging and Babel userboxesEdit

Hi, when you add {{lang}} to Babel userboxes, could you please use |italic=no? Upright font is the expected behaviour of these templates that are standard on hundreds of Wikimedia wikis. Thank you, —Kusma (t·c) 12:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for commentEdit

 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Axis powers on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Articles containing Tupi languages-language textEdit

 

A tag has been placed on Category:Articles containing Tupi languages-language text requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 17:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020Edit

The Signpost: 27 September 2020Edit

Orphaned non-free image File:Gaydar.co.uk screenshot.pngEdit

 

Thanks for uploading File:Gaydar.co.uk screenshot.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Patrick Wolf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wimbledon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Black Theatre Co-operativeEdit

Why are you modifying tons of articles, adding a link to an article that doesn't exist? Robman94 (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Robman94:

A red link, like this example, signifies that the linked-to page does not exist—it either never existed, or previously existed but has been deleted. It is useful while editing articles to add a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. Red links help Wikipedia grow.[1]
— WP:REDLINK

Also:

Create red links everywhere they are relevant to the context for terms that should exist in the encyclopedia.
— WP:REDYES

I was watching the first episode of a Lenny Henry documentary series last night (about race in British comedy, it's worth a look; here's The Guardian's review) and noticed Black Theatre Co-operative doesn't have an article (and should). I'm in the middle of a bunch of other stuff atm, so I'm not likely to create an article just yet, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't redlink it in the mean time. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
There's really no reason to add tons of red links if you're not likely to create an article anytime soon, as they're likely to get deleted because it doesn't look good to have red links in articles. On the other hand, if you do create an article, then please add as many links as you can. Btw, are you associated with CapnZapp, as he seems to be following you around adding "now known as NitroBeat" (also a redlink) to all of your BTC mentions. Robman94 (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Robman94: No, no connection to @CapnZapp:, though I did point him to this conversation, subsequently. To answer your claim that "there's really no reason", though, I refer you back to the quotes I posted from WP:REDLINK. "It doesn't look good" isn't a reason to remove links to potential articles that would be notable. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Robman94: Actually, OwenBlacker is right - nothing wrong with creating red links, as long as they're credible as future articles. The "they look bad so we delete them" may be common opinion, but that just isn't the policy. OwenBlacker is not obliged to create the article within a certain time, or even at all. Obviously, the longer they stay red, the higher the risk the phrase is delinked by a future well-meaning editor. But if you delink them you must be prepared to argue the destination actually isn't a likely article if anyone contests you. Just the fact the link is red is not a valid reason. CapnZapp (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I have no connection to OwenBlacker, btw, I just noticed he added a red link over at Dido Elizabeth Belle, became curious, found out its an old name for a theatre company called NitroBeats (or NitroBEATS), and edited the passage. Then, for consistency, I repeated that edit wherever I could find it. I did not initially notice all these links were brand new. It's not that I have any particular knowledge here - I just assume that any future article is likely to be created at (or moved to) the current name. Obviously the other option (to leave the Black Theatre Co-operative link) works too, because if that link becomes a redirect that's fine too. I won't stand in the way of consensus. CapnZapp (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Diomidis Spinellis and Panagiotis Louridas (August 2008). "The collaborative organization of knowledge". Communications of the ACM. Vol. 51, No. 8, pp. 68–73. doi:10.1145/1378704.1378720. Most new articles are created shortly after a corresponding reference to them is entered into the system. See also Wikipedia:Inflationary hypothesis of Wikipedia growth.

Feedback request: History and geography request for commentEdit

 

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2020Edit

Direct, reliable sources needed for Days of the Year pagesEdit

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages now require direct reliable sources for additions. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page. Almost all new additions without a reliable source as a reference are now being reverted on-sight.

Please do not add new additions to these pages without direct sources as the burden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages.

Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2020Edit

Inappropriate lang taggingEdit

See my fix and edit reason at Camille Vidal-Naquet, thanks. Kingsif (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: The lang tagging is appropriate, per MOS:LANG and elsewhere. I mistakenly put italic=no when I meant italic=yes, but I corrected that and you reverted both the error and the correction. I have restored the corrected version, which has both language-tagging and italics, as is intended and per the Manual of Style. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
You're wrong. A film title is a name, a proper noun, and should not be treated as a common noun. If someone's given name is French you don't put it in italics. Reverting your mistake. Sauvage should be in italics because it is a film title, not because it is in French. If it were a short film and originally stylized not in italics, it would not be in italics. That was my point. See MOS:FILM for its sections on naming and italics. Kingsif (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: You're missing the point. it would be (and is) in italics because it is the name of a film. That is not under dispute here. However it is also a French word and, as such, should be language tagged. The rules around italicisation of foreign terms don't override the italicisation of the film title, as you correctly state.

But I'm not unitalicising anything. I'm (correctly) leaving the italics as-is and (correctly) tagging the French term as being in French.

If it were a term that should not be italicised (like a song title, for example), then it should still be language-tagged, but we would use |italics=no to prevent the italicisation.

Does that make sense? — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I know you're not unitalicizing anything. I never said that, in fact, the opposite. I'm trying to explain that it should not be language tagged, italics regardless. Did you really not understand when I explained that it's a proper noun or do you not understand the function of a proper noun? Or do you go around language-tagging "Emanuel Macron" when you see it, too? Sauvage should not be treated as a French term, as you put it, because it isn't, it's a film title, something that follows its own style guide, no matter what you think of it. Or think about it this way: I work extensively on foreign-language film and related articles and you are the only editor I've ever encountered who thinks the titles should be language-tagged; even consider the purpose of language-tagging, and then that a film title never needs translation to be understood and is never contextualized regarding language or definition (since it has none). Please self-revert yourself on this article and everywhere else you've made the same erroneous edits, or I'll have to take it further to correct you without going over 3RR. Kingsif (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
@Kingsif: I'm afraid you are mistaken — the purpose of language-tagging is not about "needing translation to be understood". Quoting from MOS:LANG:

Rationale: {{lang}} enables speech synthesizers to pronounce the text in the correct language.[1] It has many other uses; see Template:Lang/doc § Rationale for a comprehensive list of benefits.

Indeed, the example used in MOS:LANG is Assemblée nationale, a proper noun. These edits are not erroneous; that you have not seen language-tagging like this before is a symptom of the poor catering for accessibility across Wikipedia. All instances of foreign-language words should be language-tagged, per MOS:LANG. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
(PS: It's getting late here, so I'm about to log off for the night; I'll be back tomorrow, UK time.)
I've tried to explain, but perhaps this should go to a film-based RfC. I believe you're wrong, given the purpose of film titles which can easily be gibberish and should never be automatically assumed to mean/be what the word would literally mean/be. I also think it's been quite rude of you to keep reverting the article to a disputed version while discussion is ongoing, but at least it doesn't change the appearance for readers. Since even reason won't convince you, someone else needs to make the decision for you to stop you from erroneously insisting that film titles should be treated as foreign words. Shall we open a discussion at a film talkpage? And if such a discussion recommends that language tags are used for film titles... well, that would be a lot of pages to amend, but I'd help you work through the list. Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
@Kingsif: I don't understand what you think the downside is here. This isn't a film issue, it's an accessibility issue — adding language tags to foreign words means that assistive technologies such as screenreaders can know how to pronounce the words. For film titles that are gibberish then obviously they wouldn't get tagged (there's nothing to tag them with), but when the title is a word in a human language then yes, it should be tagged, just as other foreign words should be. This isn't "reason not convincing me" — I'm following the Manual of Style here and you are advocating not doing so. Have you read the appropriate MoS sections (MOS:LANG, WP:MOS#Titles of works, MOS:FOREIGNITALIC) and the rationale for language-tagging? I don't understand why you think certain instances of foreign words should defy the MoS to the detriment of accessibility, when there is no downside to doing so. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 08:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
My main concern was editors looking at the interface interpreting film titles as words to be translated, and assuming that film titles should not be in italics if not originating from foreign words. There's no way to resolve those concerns when using the template. Read the film MOS, because this is a film title issue, not your language style guide, as I've said. Film titles shouldn't be treated as foreign words, no matter what: film titles sometimes even can reflect foreign words but be intended as gibberish, also as I've said already. Kingsif (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
@Kingsif: Aaah, I think I might have understood where this disconnect in our conversation is. Template:Lang is nothing to do with Content translation; the use of {{lang}} is not indicating that content should (or could) be translated. Indeed quite the opposite: when text is put through the Content translation tool, the content within {{lang}} should not be translated. The purpose of Template:Lang (and language-tagging on the Internet more generally) is to help assistive technology know how to present content to users (so using a voice that understands how to pronounce French spelling or the different Braille rules for example) and how to handle things like hyphenation and quote marks. Please go read the rationale for language-tagging, so you can see what I'm talking about, as it seems that you have misunderstood the purpose of language-tagging altogether. There is no downside to language-tagging content; this isn't causing some harm that needs mitigation.
And, to be clear, this is not a film-title issue and it's not "my language style guide". I'm referring to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style on the rules that all content on the English Wikipedia must abide by. It is no more optional than the rules about article titles and the formatting of titles of works. Film titles are not being treated as foreign terms that should be translated and the italicisation caused by {{lang}} does not change the rules around italicising other film titles. There is no conflict in the rules here and editors working on articles are still expected to understand the guidelines around the content in question — be that WikiProject Films guidelines, WP:BLP guidelines or whatever. And, as I have already said, film titles that are gibberish — and other instances of nonsense word — should not be language-tagged; for a film where the title is intended as gibberish, I would expect it not to be tagged. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I think you've fundamentally misunderstood some of my comments (e.g. I clearly said "read film MOS [...] not your language [MOS]", but you interpreted the end of that sentence to be me insinuating you had invented your own style guide...), as you responded about a content translation tool when I was referring to human editors seeing a template forcing italics because of language and thereby assuming film titles in English don't need italics. If you can assure me there won't be confusion, and it's easier to approach this from a perspective not understand every line about language-tagging (if you want my full knowledge, I have come across lang tags almost exclusively in article leads and so have added it myself to the lead with translations, but nowhere else), then leave as it is. But if you can imagine editors seeing lang template=italics, so no lang template=no italics, perhaps there's something needs to be done. Kingsif (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
@Kingsif: Ah, it seems like I have misunderstood you then 😊 I've never seen anyone confusing italicisation rules as a result of language-tagging before and it doesn't seem to me to be any more of a problem than users not realising that titles need italicising at all, surely? Would it be helpful for us to make a change to the section of Template:Lang/doc that talks about automatic italics, maybe? Fundamentally, new editors are likely to make bad assumptions that we more-experienced editors can correct them on, so I don'think any solution will ever be perfect. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
If the documentation doesn't already mention something about the italics it would be wise, though it still makes me uneasy to consider a film title as a conventional word. If necessary, the accessibility aspects could be updated to mention language in the film MOS. Kingsif (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ H58: Using language attributes to identify changes in the human language, Techniques for WCAG 2.0, W3C, accessibility level: AA.

The Signpost: 28 December 2020Edit

Precious anniversaryEdit

Precious
 
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello!Edit

I am very glad to hear from you on the 20th birthday event. I have thought about finding out Autistic Wikimedians, and their Wikimedian experiences. and starting the Autistic user group to make advocacy workings in the movement. I want to know about your thoughts on this idea. - Ellif (Talk) 17:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2021Edit

New Wikipedia Library Collections Available Now (February 2021)Edit

Hello Wikimedians!

 
The TWL owl says sign up today!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing new free, full-access, accounts to reliable sources as part of our research access program. You can sign up to access research materials on the Library Card platform:

  • Taxmann – Taxation and law database
  • PNAS – Official journal of the National Academy of Sciences
  • EBSCO – New Arabic and Spanish language databases added

We have a wide array of other collections available, and a significant number now no longer require individual applications to access! Read more in our blog post.

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects!

This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.

--12:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1408 disestablishmentsEdit

 

A tag has been placed on Category:1408 disestablishments requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 16:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2021Edit

The Signpost: 28 March 2021Edit