Open main menu


History question

When did the developers make it so that admin rights were required to edit MediaWiki pages? Looking through the history of MediaWiki:Recentchangestext shows tons of vandalism; I knew that Willy on Wheels had attacked it once, but now I see that he attacked it several times, using accounts that weren't even autoconfirmed unless the autoconfirmation standads have been changed. Nyttend (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Back in the day, even the HomePage could be edited by literally everyone. I think you will find that Willy predates autoconfirmed by several years. Rmhermen (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
The difference is that HomePage/Main Page is in mainspace, and there's no technical reason except protection why it can't be edited; if I unprotected it, we'd probably see a flood of IP vandalism before someone reprotected it and filed an emergency "desysop Nyttend" request for the bureaucrats. In November 2004, there was already a distinct editinterface userright to restrict the editing of MediaWiki pages, but since IPs were editing the recent changes in 2005 (around the time Willy was vandalising it), it was clearly something everyone had. Nyttend (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Does Help:MediaWiki namespace#History explain why? Rmhermen (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The recent changes changes thing is due to it for a long time being based in the wikipedia namespace and then being transcluded into the mediawiki namespace. When it was decided that full time protection was needed it was decided that this was pointless and the two were merged.Geni (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello there!

Hey everyone!! I don't really have any reason for writing this other than to show off my kick-ass new Wikistamp. Enjoy and let me know what you think!!

--Metsfreak (Hello!)| 00:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Strange occurrance

I'm not quite sure where to ask this question, to find a solution, but I guess I will be advised accordingly if this is not the right place. I've been editing for a while using either a laptop or an iPad. The laptop has been used on various Wi-Fi networks, along with the iPad, which is also using 3G from the same IP supplier. Over the last few days I've noted that when using the iPad clicking on any buttons or tabs, such as Unwatch, Watchlist, Logout, Preferences, Preview, Save page, etc, now requires two presses of the item selected, before it activates. Additionally when selecting a 'Diff' or a username, such as in an edit history or my Watchlist popups and preview boxes appear, again requiring two clicks to activate the selection. This happens only when on a Wiki, IE, Wikipedia, Commons, etc, and only with the IPad, so that tends to rule out problems with preference settings and IPs. Can anyone offer a solution (NB: advice to stop using the iPad is not an option. :) or have any other editors noted the same problem ? Richard Harvey (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I have this problem on my iPod Touch, though I don't remember with WP or not. It has been a problem on certain sites and I think it has to do with sites that involve mouseover: one click to "mouse over" the link and then another click to actually go to it. Clicking on links to images everywhere is the main example I can think of: I click once to select the image, I click twice to go to the image. I'm not sure why it's suddenly doing this, though. Perhaps check your settings or something? Sorry, not much help. kikichugirl inquire 21:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Athletics record code CUR

Hi, in the 2013 European Athletics U23 Championships article, what does the CUR mean? ChickenFalls (talk) 09:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

You might have a better chance of getting an answer at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Athletics or Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment, which covers sport. I see that you have already asked on the article talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
CUR means Championship Record, i.e. it's the best ever result in European Athletics U23 Championships. See for example the legend at the bottom of Championship Record is usually called CR but I guess U is added here to clarify that it's the championship record for U23 and not for all European Championships. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Reviewed by zombie user !?

On logging in just now, I got the following notice:

User:Thnidu/Beta reader was reviewed by DragonflySixtyseven

I didn't see any information about the review (should I have?) or any comments, so I went to that user's page.

The user was indefinitely blocked as of 04:03, 31 December 2005, and the user page was deleted 20:16, 2 September 2006. That's over twelve years ago.

Ergo, WTF?! I've been reviewed by a zombie? Can anyone tell me what is going on here?

Thnidu (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You want to double-check that user page again? Or their contributions? They look in good stead to me! sroc 💬 04:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
You might also want to double-check your arithmetic. Or your calendar. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Usernames are case sensitive (except for the first character). The block you mention is for User:DragonflySixtySeven who capitalized "Seven". Did you get to that page by clicking a link? The link you posted here goes to the right user. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Thnidu, was December 2005 over 12 years ago, really? Or I forgot my English to the point that mistakenly processed “twelve”? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Ohhhh boy. You are all right: I missed the cap."S", and I mis-subtracted. My apologies to everyone. I should NOT repeat NOT be editing -- wikis or anything else -- when I'm that tired. --Thnidu (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. We all have the occasional brain fart. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
All good. sroc 💬 22:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Short articles with lots of references, long articles with few

I'm trying to see if there is a correlation between the number of references in an article and the time it takes to load it in the visual editor. To help me it would be useful if people could suggest any articles they can think of that are either

  • Long articles with few references; or
  • Short articles with lots of references (the more the better)

For both, a mixture of some that a primarily plain text and others that have a higher proportion of other objects in (e.g. images, tables, templates) would be useful too. Subjects don't matter, but the pages need to be in either the article or user namespaces. Thanks. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:Database reports/Long pages:
For short(er) articles with lots of citations, probably controversial (and recent) articles are best, since crowd-sourcing of these articles generally results in well over one citation per sentence. For example:
-- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

New plugin for wordpress using the wikipedia API: Wikipedia for tag pages

I have made a plugin for wordpress that integrates wikipeida with the tag pages for wordpress-sites. The plugin can be downloaded from This plugin shows excerpts from wikipedia articles that correspond for the tag shown on the tag page and supports multiple languages. The plugin can be seen in action on the tags for the webpage

--Haldaug (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation in crisis

Up until July 4, the disambiguation project was making steady progress in combating disambiguation links, reaching an all-time low of only 62,419 disambiguation pages with incoming links. Since then, the number of disambiguation pages with incoming links has quickly shot up by over a thousand. I don't know why this number is suddenly increasing, whether editors are becoming more active and less careful in making links, or new articles are justifying increased numbers of disambiguation pages, or frequent disambiguators are getting discouraged and leaving the project, but we are falling behind and need help. Please make sure that the links you make point to the right articles, not to disambiguation pages. If you turn an existing page or redirect into a disambiguation page or a redirect to disambiguation page, please fix the incoming links, as your regular disambiguators are likely too swamped to get to them. If you can find and fix a handful of disambiguation links, that would be great. bd2412 T 17:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Useful information is at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links.
Wavelength (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I recommend that you repeat this message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikify, so that wikifiers be alert to check the expressions that they wikify.
Wavelength (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I have done that. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
It's possible the numbers are more accurate now if dpl's disambig_links.php script started using the page property introduced by Disambiguator. Previously the list of disambiguation pages was based on MediaWiki:Disambiguationspage, but the new page property is based on a parameter of a lower-level template, {{Dmbox}}, and thus probably catches more edge cases. The good news is that there are new tools coming thanks to Disambiguator. The Mobile Team has already started working on a dabsolver prototype for mobile, and then there's (which needs review). Kaldari (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
We get daily reports of the numbers of disambiguation links fixed, and the number of new links created. So far as I can tell, this is not a circumstance of longstanding errors being newly discovered, but of new disambiguation links that were not there before being created at an unusually high rate. bd2412 T 20:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a crisis, but simply a result of this being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It can be dealt with one edit at a time, just like anything else that's not perfect. No maintenance project will ever be complete, and if people are giving up because of that then they don't get the idea of this being a wiki. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

We have been working on "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" for a long time; this sudden increase in erroneous links over the past ten days is out of the ordinary. If there is some root problem that has caused it, I would like to find and address it. bd2412 T 20:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The most obvious change in that period has been rolling out the visual editor. I have noticed a small but significant increase in new editors with good subject knowledge but little wiki-knowhow, and using the VA, which would extend to to disamming. But I suppose that was what it was supposed to produce. Johnbod (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
That undoubtedly doesn't help with this situation. Ideally, the interface would warn editors when they are about to save a change that introduces an erroneous link, in the way that it warns editors who are trying to add an external link to a blacklisted site, or saving an edit without an edit summary. bd2412 T 21:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
This is on the list of to-do's for the developers, see Bug 50240. I'll link this conversation to the report to let them know about it. PEarley (WMF) (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really understanding why this is being blamed on VisualEditor. The number of dab links now is 2,700 fewer than it was a month before VisualEditor's general introduction. I checked more than a dozen pages, and not a single one showed an edit introducing a dab problem using VisualEditor. Now perhaps my sample size was odd (and it is very small), but I really don't think we have any reason to believe that this is anything other than normal variation, or perhaps even a temporary reduction in effort by the dab-solving team. (Presumably they like to go on vacation in July and August just like everyone else, right?) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that you know very well why this is being blamed on VisualEditor but prefer not to say, i.e. that everything will be blamed on VisualEditor however tenuous the connection. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't know whether VisualEditor has anything to do with it, but when we have had spikes in the number of pages with disambiguation links in the past, it has usually coincided with some change in the system, or in how we count the links. This may be a coincidence, but something is happening. Also, @Whatamidoing, the number of links has gone down over the past month, but after reaching an all-time low on July 4, it started to rise again. The more worrying trend, to me, is not the number of disambiguation links to be fixed, but that the number of disambiguation pages with incoming links is going up. If there was a single disambig page with ten thousand incoming links, we might be able to fix that in a few days, because we would quickly figure out the most likely fixes. However, when a few hundred links are made to different disambiguation pages, more individual time must be spent to figure out the fix for each. bd2412 T 19:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I assume this is because it is easier for newbies to edit articles. So when they add links they merely highlight what they want to link and click the link button, clicking on the first item that comes up.--Coin945 (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
(ec) FWIW, the VE rollout was 1/7. I'm not clear why the uptick started on 4/7 - I agree it's probably related in some way, but I can't see why the delay! Andrew Gray (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Another possible explanation that seems more likely to me is that someone has been doing a clean up exercise to properly tag disambiguation pages with the {{disambiguation}} template, so more disambiguation pages are being placed in the proper category and so appear on the list. If that is the case then it is a good thing, not a crisis. I'm unhappy about the way that the VisualEditor has been implemented, but that doesn't mean that I leap to conclusions and blame it when I see anything unexpected happening. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Whatever the cause, there is a cause. It may have to do with VisualEditor. It may be that pages that needed a {{disambiguation}} template are getting one; it may be that pages that don't need a {{disambiguation}} template are getting one erroneously. It may be that lots of new articles are being added with titles ambiguous to existing articles, so new disambiguation pages are being made (although, really, such changes should go through WP:RM, and are sometimes poorly conceived). It may some combination of all of these. Whatever it is, I would like to get to the bottom of it and stem the tide. bd2412 T 03:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I haven't spent any real time with the A/B test results, and I'm not sure that the final report has been written. This test compared VE vs old editor users in the last week of June. My impression from a quick skim of the draft a few days ago is that most of the items came back as "no statistically significant difference", except if memory serves, the users randomly assigned to VE were slightly less likely to even attempt an edit, much less to keep editing. So I'm not sure that "it is easier for newbies to edit articles" would be a valid explanation at the point that the uptick happened. (VE has improved since then, but it still has a ways to go.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The lack of NavPopups in VE makes it much more difficult to check whether a link in an article goes to the intended article, or a wrong article, or a dab page. That makes it less likely that I will spot and correct a link to a dab page in an article I'm stub-sorting. There may be other editors who would usually spot and correct a link to a dab page while NPP-ing or other work, and who won't be doing so if they are using VE... but I get the impression that relatively few editors who are established enough to have found the Popups gadget are using VE, so this might be a red herring! PamD 22:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The number of disambiguation pages with incoming links continues to rise. It has now increased by about 1,400 since July 4. bd2412 T 14:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no way of knowing whether that is a "crisis" or a good thing without also knowing what has happened to the total number of disambiguation pages. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how the total number of disambiguation pages is relevant. If many more are being created, but the creators of those pages are not correcting incoming links to the newly created pages, that is still a big problem - more so if the creators of those pages would be the best situated to fix those links, but are leaving that task undone. bd2412 T 17:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
It is very relevant if what is happening is that more pre-existing disambiguation pages are being correctly tagged with the disambiguation template, whether because of the deployment of mw:Extension:Disambiguator or because someone is doing the tagging manually. If that is the case then the actual number of disambiguation pages with incoming links is not growing, but simply being more accurately reported. You seem to be very long on hyperbole but very short on evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I have said from the beginning that I want to get to the bottom of this trend. The evidence is clear - on July 4, 2013, the number of disambiguation pages with incoming links was 62,419. As of this morning it is 63,804. This represents the largest increase in the number of disambiguation pages with incoming links over such a period in several years, with previous increases coinciding with things like toolserver breakdowns preventing disambiguators from making repairs. We have been working very, very hard to fix these errors. Your theory about these hundreds of new links resulting from disambiguation pages receiving missing tags is an interesting theory, but how can we determine whether that is the cause (or the only cause)? bd2412 T 19:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
One approach would be to track the number of pages transcluding {{disambiguation}} (and related or wrapper templates) on a daily basis (eg, and see if this number tracks the other. If it's static while the number of links to disambig pages increases, then we're getting more links; if it rises in parallel, then we're probably just getting more disambig pages. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) The reason why I might have been a little snarky here is that from the beginning, from the very title you selected for this discussion, you have assumed that this is a "crisis" rather than an apparent anomoly that may or may not be a crisis, and that some other editors have leapt to the conclusion that the visual editor must be to blame. The best way to determine whether Quiddity's and/or my hypotheses might be correct is to compare the figures that you are quoting with the total number of pages categorised as disambiguation pages, but you dismiss such a call for evidence as irrelevant. Do you really want to get to the bottom of this or do you simply want people to agree with your unfounded conclusion that this must be a crisis? I agree that people work hard at fixing disambiguation pages with incoming links (several years ago I took on pages such as Vatican and Congo that had many hundreds of links) but that work is just as worthwhile, and in fact even more important, if the number of such pages identified is growing. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
As of now, there are (according to the category's counter) 232,595 disambiguation pages. We can easily track whether these go up as the number of disambig links go up (presuming the latter trend also continues). bd2412 T 21:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
This morning's Daily Disambig count stands at 63,859 disambiguation pages with incoming links, an increase of more than fifty since yesterday. The category count indicates 232,602 total disambiguation pages, an increase of seven (although, to be fair, this is a one-day sample, and we still have about six hours until the comparable time yesterday). Without knowing what new disambiguation pages were created we can't know if any of those seven are included in the fifty pages with incoming links, but it would not be surprising. bd2412 T 14:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Personally I seem to have noticed an increasing number of terms where disambiguation has over-reached itself, & the plain term goes to a disambiguation page when it should go to a primary usage. This trend has been creeping up for some time I think. Maybe this accounts for the problem, if there is one. Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
That reminds me of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 107#Partially disambiguated titles. Anomie 00:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

VE and article creation

MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext has a message warning that it is not much watched - and it had only one thread in the last two years - so alerting a few more people here to a VE-related issue that isn't a bug in VE. See Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback#Article_creation: if new editors are getting used to editing in VE and then choose to click on a redlink to start a new article, at present they are faced with Edit Source (which they may well never have used, I guess), and need to spot the "Create" tab next to the open "Create Source" tab, and realise its significance, if they want to create their new article in VE. I suggest we should offer them more help. PamD 19:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

This might be worth an enhancement in the MediaWiki software. It would be nice if somebody could send an enhancment request to the 'Bugzilla' bug tracker by following the instructions How to report a bug. This is to make developers of the software aware of the issue. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

New Bot

This isn't really an RfC, but I was told by BAG to warn everyone about a new bot that may be going into effect soon. It's sole purpose is to tag pages, containing blacklisted external links with {{Spam-links}}}. So far it has found over 130,000 links on Wikipedia that are blacklisted and not whitelisted. A discussion is welcome though. Feel free to go to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cyberbot II 4.—cyberpower ChatOnline 15:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Place names and specificity

Following an editing disagreement, I was looking for guidance on how to decide whether a place should be identified in the style "Chicago" or "Chicago, Illinois" or "Chicago, United States" or "Chicago, Illinois, United States" or "Chicago, Illinois, in the United States" or some other form. Specifically, the concern is which style is appropriate (or at least which information to include) for the first mention of the place in the lead section of an article about an event that occurred in that place. This could be either a general rule for all countries or a list of rules for specific countries. I'm not going to mention the specific article where this arose, because I'm looking for a general guideline if there is one, but I will say that different contributors seem to agree in this particular case that there is a common-sense choice, but disagree about which one it is.

Considerable discussion of place names can be found in the WP:MOS and linked articles, but as far as I can see, most of it is about how to decide which of several possible names to use for a place (e.g. whether a place is in Spain, España, or Tarraconensis) and how to form the titles of articles about places. These are both irrelevant; we're not naming an article and we agree on what the name of the place. Likewise, the MOS includes style advice for lead sections, but there's nothing specific about the treatment of place names in lead sections. And it includes a section on style issues in articles relating to the specific country in question, but nothing there is relevant either.

Is there a style guideline that would resolve this "Chicago, Illinois, United States" issue, or do we have to fall back on common sense after all? And if there isn't one, what's the right place to propose that there should be?

-- (talk) 06:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a guideline, but I think this is a good point. Too often I've seen things like "[x] is a singer from Milwaukee, Wisconsin", without giving any clue to the general reader where Wisconsin might be. And things like "[y] is a writer from New York City, New York, United States" which is stating the obvious — everyone knows where New York is. A certain amount of common sense is needed, and is often applied in articles, but I do wonder whether there should be a guideline (at the risk of further bloat of guidelines etc.!).
Perhaps such a guideline should say things like "Bear in mind the likely audience for the article. If the place name is well known (such as California, Paris and Tokyo, it is usually not necessary to add 'United States', 'France' and 'Japan'. Sometimes it will be necessary — for example, if the capital of France is mentioned in an article about Texas, 'Paris, France' should be used instead of just "Paris" to distinguish it from Paris, Texas."
Perhaps the guideline should list places that don't require their country to be appended (e.g., New York City, Paris, Moscow, Rio de Janeiro, Rome, London, and so on), but pointing out that most US states, Canadian provinces, Australian states etc. generally do require their countries to be appended.--A bit iffy (talk) 07:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, no. With all due respect, it is just ridiculous to say "Austin, Texas, United States." Where else would Austin, Texas, be? We assume some degree of awareness by our readers. As if some benighted soul doesn't know where Milwaukee, Wisconsin is, well, the context of the article should make it immediately apparent. And then there is always our internal link to take him or her to our fine article on that great city. GeorgeLouis (talk) 09:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree that common sense should apply, and New York City is probably the prototypical example of an unambiguous city name, but defining a list of cities that don't require clarification is a slippery slope. Who decides? I can see edit warring and wikilawyering, with a risk that specificity will be removed if a particular city is put on the list. It would also necessarily result in inconsistencies.
I do think, though, that articles generally should be explicit and avoid making assumptions about whether everyone will "know" where we are talking about, as Wikipedia has a global audience and everyone has their own knowledge base (see Wikipedia:Geographic imbalance). As a general principle, I think the preference should be to include the full details (city, state/province, and country) unless: (1) a shorter reference is obviously understood and unambiguous within the context of the surrounding text; and (2) a longer reference would be overly cumbersome. How we judge these things is another question.
I don't think it needs to be in the format of "Chicago, Illinois, United States" necessarily, as the detail might be inferred from the context (e.g., "an American author born in Chicago, Illinois"). But the information should be there. It shouldn't be left for the reader to go searching it out though, nor should we be reliant on information in the infobox to clarify the body of the article (as this is not the purpose of infoboxes and I believe they may not be visible in all cases). sroc (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I would add that the lead is meant to establish context; making the location where something happened is an important part of this. See MOS:BEGIN: "[The opening paragraph] should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time." sroc (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
There are some things we just KNOW (or can get from context), like where the moon is, and where Wales is, and we don't have to say, "Moon, Solar System," or "Wales, United Kingdom." To do otherwise is to insult the reader, and I feel insulted when I read "the U.S. state of Florida." I mean, where ELSE would Florida be? Again, if we don't know, there is always the internal link to follow. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I correspond and chat with people in the United Kingdom quite often over various Internet applications, and not all of them know (for example) that Mississippi and Louisiana are member states of the United States of America. If my friends, who by and large are literate and intelligent people, can't be counted on to know this, then I feel it a reasonable precaution to add the information in some way. If this information doesn't already appear in a phrase like "an American writer who grew up in Des Allemands, Louisiana," it should be added. loupgarous (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Florida (disambiguation). --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
As a brit, some states are obivous (New York, Texas, Florida), some are ambiguous (Georgia), some require a bit of thought to remember that they are in the US (Idaho, Illinois (unless mentioned with Chicago), Rhode Island), some I tend to mistake for being in Canada (Vermont), and some I probably wouldn't recognise until it gets pointed out (Wyoming). On the other hand, while I would consider it obvious that Yorkshire, Devon, Cornwall, Hampshire, and Merseyside are in England, I would probably still state that if I was linking them. No offence meant to residents of any of the above states! MChesterMC (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
And some of us Celtic irredentists deny that Cornwall is "in England" any more than Man or Brittany or the Six Counties are. "Ruled by England" yes; "in England" no. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Also, Wales is a country, so it's not a relevant example. Nor is the moon. sroc (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
"Wales is a country, so it's not a relevant example"... actually that is why it is a very a relevant example... in some respects so is Illinois. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are separate (semi-sovereign) states within Great Brittan... New York, Vermont, Illinois etc. are all separate (semi-sovereign) states within the United States of America. Saying "Chicago, Illinois" is like saying "Cardiff, Wales"; "Glasgow, Scotland" or "Burton-on-Trent, England"... Or (to internationalize this) like saying "Lyon, France" or "Brussels, Belgium". Saying "Chicago, Illinois, United States" would be like saying "London, England, Great Britain", or "Paris, France, European Union". Blueboar (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Identifying down to a national level (e.g., Cardiff, Wales) is not the same thing as identifying down to a supra-national level (e.g., Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom). Your comment smacks of a US-centric view that everyone knows where US states are so we don't need to specify what country we're in (e.g. Chicago, Illinois) whereas anything foreign needs to specify the country (e.g., Glasgow, Scotland). Wikipedia is meant to take a WP:WORLDVIEW.
  • I'm pretty familiar with the rules about this that concern article titles and while I don't have much of an opinion on this prose question there are some policies or guidelines that could provide guidance here. WP:USPLACE says to use city, state and not city, state, country. If you guys are looking for a list of well-known cities to omit some otherwise required information, you could follow the lead of USPLACE and use the AP style book, maybe say "no country when it's on the list" or "omit the state if it's on the list." AgnosticAphid talk 17:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference, Agnosticaphid. I think we need to look at the wider context of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), of which WP:USPLACE is just one section. The general rule of thumb in article names is to use the name of the city and a national sub-division (state/province/county/etc.) where necessary to disambiguate, although some use "city, country" instead. The lead of the articles will naturally establish which country the place is in. The present discussion, however, is about how to refer to places within an article. Once again, context needs to clearly indicate which country the events described in the article are taking place in, rather than assuming knowledge that the reader cannot be expected to have (bearing in mind they could be from anywhere in the world) and without relying on them clicking a link (in which case omitting the information is just unnecessarily unhelpful). sroc 💬 01:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Here's what I think. Saying "Chicago, Illinois, United States" is in my opinion at least a bit verbose and awkward, and I just don't personally like it – probably because it further interrupts the flow and I never read it since I live in the US. But nonetheless, I agree that since Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia we can't just assume that everyone knows where Florida or Arizona is. (I think maybe California is different – I was just in asia for some months and even in like rural areas in Burma when I met people that spoke English they all knew where California was. But I doubt it's worth making an exception.)
Still, I think the best answer is to do something like say "American author from Chicago, Illinois" or "Hurricane Katrina was a tropical storm that hit the American city of New Orleans, Louisiana, on ..." There's other ways that context might indicate that a place is in the US, too. I would suggest avoiding city, state, United States if at all possible but I realize that it may not always be practical to do so. AgnosticAphid talk 18:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. sroc 💬 21:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

wikiArS consolidation IEG Midpoint report

Hi all; my Midpoint report as Wikimedia Foundation IEGrantee working in the consolidation of wikiArS initiative is now available on Meta: meta:Grants:IEG/Consolidate wikiArS to involve art schools/Midpoint. I tryed to use it also as a reflection tool about what we learned, giving ideas for whom wanting to start similar experiences and about how to deal with next academic year. Comments & feedback are welcome. --Dvdgmz (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The most controversial topics in Wikipedia: A multilingual and geographical analysis

I recently heard of a study from a message to wikimedia-l. You can read it online here if you are interested. πr2 (tc) 16:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The search term "LWWEe2" is listed in this article as one of the ten most controversial topics in Wikipedia(en). I can't even FIND it in Wikipedia(en) now. It appears to be UK usage. Can anyone enlighten me as to what "LWWEe2" means? Thanks in advance. loupgarous (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
That's a footnote link. Look at the bottom of the page: List of WWE employeesScott talk 11:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


PLease note that JJ Cale has died acording to his website. ””””

Thanks. It's been added to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


Please help develop the articles Yevgeni Kindinov and Lidiya Fedoseyeva-Shukshina. I don't want them to be deleted. Scymso (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Scymso, and welcome to Wikipedia. There's actually a policy that deals specifically with your situation: WP:SOFIXIT. Happy editing, Theopolisme (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


I wasn't quite sure which section of the VP to put this in, so I chose this one in case it didn't fit in one of the other ones. Anyway, I was wondering: if I have to replace bare URLs with full citations, using Template:cite web, do I have to do them one by one manually or is there a faster way? I think the latter may be the case. Jinkinson (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

@Jinkinson: - You may wish to try Reflinks - just be sure to check and correct the results before saving. HAppy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes content on Wikipedia

Just a heads up: if you're looking to incorporate data from the popular film review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes in articles, there's now a template, {{Rotten Tomatoes score}}, which automagically updates to include the latest data from Rotten Tomatoes, no manual updating required. Check it out, and your assistance in helping to add it to articles about new movies would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Theopolisme (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The page view statistics site has finally died

It hasn't received a new update since the 23rd of July. Is there a way of creating an alternative, one that doesn't rely on the goodwill of a random external contributor? Serendipodous 06:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is with the database as opposed to the stats website. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#No Page View Statistics. Technical details of the problem are discussed at mailarchive:wikitech-l/2013-July/070740.html. Cheers. (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Stub tag, or not?

Should a fairly short article (109 words) with five inline citations and "class=start" on the talk page have the {{Canada-tv-prog-stub}}? I removed this tag, and another editor put it back. I will not start an edit war on World's Weirdest Restaurants, so I seek advice or help here.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this article is a stub, but it is rated start-class because it has an infobox, which appears to be a requirement for start-class by many projects. Still, there is not enough detail written in sentences to qualify as not a stub in my opinion. — kikichugirl inquire 18:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I would not regard it as a stub, which is (or, at least, used to be) an article that's only a small step above content-free placeholder. This article has a well-written introductory paragraph, which means it provides all the information most readers want to know about its (yawn) fascinating topic. I would remove the stub tag. I don't know if/where there is any definition of what actually makes a stub. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
That kind of stub tag as merely a request for help. What very short article could not use help (and some knowledgeable interest, also hopefully get people started editing somewhere) -- that tag is not like the other more intrusive tags that are placed at the top of articles or sections. Unless, there is some other process reason to remove it, why not leave it there? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I came across this article on Wikipedia:Database reports/Long stubs; I updated the talk page to start, and tried to remove the stub tag from the article, because that is what puts it the long stabs report. Since there is disagreement here and no other editor is willing to remove the stub tag, I suppose it will remain as-is. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Who owns the wikipedia? What would the WMF projects be worth, if WMF weren't a non-for-profit?

I just read an essay that was new to me -- WP:You don't own Wikipedia.

On its talk page I expressed my concern that this essay undervalued the importance of volunteer's contributions.

In my talk page reply I suggested that since the wikipedia is one of the top ten internet sites, if it weren't a not-for-profit, if it were a site that venture capitalists could consider buying shares, during its IPO, that IPO would generate at least as much anticipation as facebook's.

I wrote that my recollection was that facebook's IPO attracted $40 billion. (Maybe the stock was initially valued at $40 a share, and fb's value was a lesser number of billions? This doesn't really matter for the fuzzy math here...)

I estimated that donors had invested somewhere between $4 million and $400 million too buy the WMF servers, and pay all its bills, from day one, until today.

I suggested that if the WMF would have been worth tens of billions, but donors had only invested millions, tens of millions, or hundreds of millions, that over 99 percent of the wikipedia's value was due to the hours of work donated by the project's volunteers.

Why is this important? It seems to me the tone of the essay is that volunteers should feel grateful the WMF allows them to volunteer, that volunteers could be easily replaced, and that volunteers should ignore any instances where they found WMF actions cryptic or high-handed.

I think the failure of Google's Knol shows that the wikipedia's volunteers could not be easily replaced.

For what it is worth the essay seems to be inspired by the need to rein in "power users" who feel a special sense of entitlement. FWIW, I am not a fan of those who feel a special sense of entitlement either, but I question the value of giving a foxtrot oscar to the other 99 percent of the project's volunteers. Geo Swan (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

In order: We own Wikipedia (everyone owns their individual edits; the Wikimedia Foundation owns the servers, domains, trademarks, etc., that our collective intellectual property resides on), and it's impossible to know. Yes, if Wikipedia as it is now were for-profit it could be worth billions. But, would it have gotten where it is had it been for-profit from the start? That's the question that's impossible to answer, yet is so fundamental to an understanding of how we got here. --Golbez (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I think you are restating my point, from another perspective, the essay treats the WMF hierarchy as in charge, and that the main people they should feel loyalty to would be the donors -- not the volunteers. But the real value is not the servers, it is the information assembled by volunteers. Read closely it is a disturbing essay. Geo Swan (talk) 01:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the English Wikipedia (whether it be hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation or by some "English Wikipedia Group" founded separately from the WMF) still has stuff to pay to keep the hosting servers going and to maintain and the "billions of dollars of knowledge" visible online. The Right to Fork has always been an option, but the English Wikipedia's certainty of that lies both monetarily and popularly. However, perhaps the WMF is moving in a completely different direction than what the English Wikipedia (and perhaps some other Wikipedias) desire. --MuZemike 06:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
"But the real value is not the servers, it is the information..."
This is not actually true. There are many complete copies of "the information" on the web. (See WP:MIRROR.) Even though they contain all of the information, none of them are as popular as Wikipedia, or even close. The information alone is not where the real value lies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
This is an excellent point. The true value of Wikipedia lies in its name, bylaws, rules, community, and infrastructure. It's trivial to throw up a copy of Wikipedia elsewhere, and such experiments (and they are many) show that the value goes far beyond the mere information. It's also the infrastructure that allowed that information to be generated and collected. --Golbez (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • "Keep in mind ... still has stuff to pay to keep the hosting servers going and to maintain and the "billions of dollars of knowledge" visible online." Aren't the server costs trivial, if, in fact, the wikipedia is worth billions? Since the WMF opened its doors, have its total capital and operating costs crossed $100 million? $20 million? Geo Swan (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Just because you have something worth billions doesn't mean you have billions. --Golbez (talk) 05:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

To address Geo Swan's comments, the problem is that "Wikipedia" is a confusing term, therefore "you don't own Wikipedia" is a confusing statement.

  • Wikipedia is a website hosting service provided by the WMF. So no, users don't own that service.
  • Wikipedia is a collection of texts. Each person is responsible for their pieces, each article is copyrighted by their contributors.
  • Wikipedia is a community that develops an encyclopedia. Of course the community controls a lot what appears in the website. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The OP's question generates a bit of a "chicken-and-egg" conundrum, which I believe can be answered thusly: Wikipedia's value stems almost completely from the fact that it is a not-for-profit endeavor. That is, Wikipedia would not and could not exist in any form if it were not built on the model that it is: a community controlled encyclopedia that allows everyone to edit on an equal footing, and which does not aim to make a profit for shareholders or owners, and which does not accept advertising or money-with-strings in any form. Any change to that model of operation would irrevocably destroy what Wikipedia is, and as such, would completely devalue it. The internet and its history is littered with for-profit or advertising-based services that attempt to provide a similar service to Wikipedia, and their reach and visibility (which are the internet currency, after all) are orders or magnitude smaller than Wikipedia. In simple terms: it is pointless to ponder what Wikipedia would be worth if it were run like a for-profit company because Wikipedia would not exist if it were run that way. Wikipedia's value is in the way that it exists today, and that existence is part-and-parcel with the financial and governance model that keeps it running. If you eliminate that, you eliminate all of the value . Think of it as the anthropic principle of Wikipedia: Wikipedia exists only because of the specific manner in which it runs. If you tweak the way it runs, it wouldn't have existed in the first place to make you the money you imagine it would make you if we only let it make you money. --Jayron32 02:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

WWI 100 years on

(Nothing to do with the immediately preceding query - rather the Passchendale reference on the MP).

Are there any proposals for WP to have a 'WWI event of the day 100 years ago' (should there be suitable ones)? Not saying there should but the anniversary bandwagon will be appearing in quite a few places. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I like bandwagons! Err, my mistake, I meant, I like anniversaries! Wikipedia should do this kind of stuff. I support the proposal. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

What interactive elements do we provide in Wikipedia?

What are the current interactive elements that readers use (ie. excluding editing), in Wikipedia articles?

  • Clicking text links
  • Clicking thumbnails of images/videos
  • Playing audio files
  • Scrolling sideways for oversize data-tables and panorama images.
  • Clicking [Show] - to un-hide the collapsed elements in navigation-boxes (and occasionally elsewhere)
  • Click to expand the m:WikiMiniAtlas in coords, and then drag or zoom the image.

Is there anything else at all?

Do we have anything like Phun, or google finance, or wolframalpha, or timeline.js, where interaction is a core-component? Anything with toggle-able layers or datapoints, like google charts or gapminder?

(I'm mostly interested in finding all examples of what we do currently have. I'm aware of the pros and cons of interactive elements, and I'm not looking to debate the philosophical or technical problems&solutions, at this moment). Thanks. –Quiddity (talk) 06:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Sortable tables should probably be on your list. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
All of those suggestions from all 3 of you (Whatamidoing, Atlasowa, Vanischenu), are great; much thanks. Does anyone else have further suggestions? –Quiddity (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Hephaestus Books

I missed out on an eBay listing the other day but noticed something I thought Wikipedia might like to know (though I suspect you know about it already)

Hephaestus Books already seem to be known as a rip off merchants (see I find this listing hilarious - [1] - because the "title" of that book is just a collection of Wikipedia articles that *I* created! If I'd known you could charge so much for collating Wikipedia articles through some kind of content scoop I'd've done it years ago! I suppose that now I can call myself an author given that a bound book of my content is on eBay!

I know "creative commons" means that they're not scamming anybody...or are they? What is the thoughts on something like this [2] which again seems to be a slim back collection of Wikipedia content? doktorb wordsdeeds 10:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure they're scamming people. They're just not violating the copyright, as long as they are including proper attribution and such as required by the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license (or the GFDL, I suppose). Anomie 11:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Here's another one [3]. I take your point. They can charge what they like if they attribute their sources (I'd love to see if they do!). It's staggering how it's done, though, am I just naive? doktorb wordsdeeds 11:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
And a warning about them [4] But she does say that they do admit to being content scoopers so there's something... doktorb wordsdeeds 11:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm amazed at how much they charge for these books. I always wondered if anyone actually buys them (because it seems quite obvious to me that the books are just collections of Wikipedia articles with no editorial input at all), but the link you provided suggests that people sometimes unwittingly do so. — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
@Doktorbuk: I found one when sorting second-hand books for Oxfam. Yes, the license was printed at the front, and lists of contributer names were printed at the back - my moment of fame, as I happened to have fixed a typo in one of the included articles. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks User:John of Reading. Maybe I should buy a copy to have at least one piece of evidence to show for my literary ambitions.... :) doktorb wordsdeeds 20:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
See User:PrimeHunter/Alphascript Publishing sells free articles as expensive books.
Wavelength (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Republishers --  Gadget850 talk 02:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Italicising article titles

Does anyone know how I can force the italicisation of the title of an article about a book? Prioryman (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Either add {{Italic title}}, or use {{Infobox book}} which adds the italic as a side-effect. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks for the speedy reply. Prioryman (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Naming German monarchs on the English wikipedia.

Why is it the likes of Wilhelm II, so often referred to by their German name, having their articles named for the significantly less often used English styling? Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:54, July 31, 2013 (UTC)


Last month I promoted Paris to GA. It previously looked like User:Dr. Blofeld/Paris April 2013. As you can see the sourcing was diabolical, poorly sourced, most sources being dead links and shoddy websites, completely overhauled with book sources. I and several others added a wealth of new material including information on the media, healthcare, fashion, music and cuisine etc.. I felt it necessary to condense the overly long Demographics and Administration sections to balance out the article. My version of the article is endorsed by some of the experienced editors on here, including User:Tim riley and User:Schodringer's Cat who have produced dozens of GAs and FAs, but a small group of disgruntled editors from the wiki Jurassic period have since crawled out of the woodwork with nothing but unpleasant comments on the changes I've made to "their" article. It's a classic case of WP:OWN and one of the former editors is making a proposal to completely revert my additions and sourcing back to the April version. They also think the lead was better back in April and don't understand that the lead is supposed to summarize a full article. I'd greatly appreciate some input from some of the more experienced individuals here as to whether their proposals are justified or not. I'm not canvassing for support, I'm simply asking some decent editors who watch this page compare the article versions and to comment on the issue at Talk:Paris.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Great work on the revised article. Takes a lot of work to get an article up to GA status. For the most part, I quite like what you've done. I do however think the present lead is too long and contains too much specific detail. For instance, I think the entire paragraph about sports shouldn't even be there. I think the older lead was perhaps better in its style. Regardless of that, I sense above that you perhaps are too involved at the moment and it's causing stress. A few days away from material you've been writing can sometimes allow insight into your own work that can't be seen otherwise. Keep in mind that the other editors also have the best interest of the article in mind. That's just my advice. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Question about Wikipedia assessments


I have a question about Wikipedia assessments, specifically pertaining to the edits of User:Mesoderm (contribs) who has been demoting a number of B and C class articles to start class articles for the apparent reason that there are some issues with the references (primarily not enough inline citations): some examples are [5], [6], [7]. I started a thread on the user's page. He (or she) is of the opinion that "One of the primary criteria for an article to move from Start to C class is for everything to be backed by reliable sources" (emphasis mine). This to me seems like an unsupported bright line assertion that doesn't mesh with my own view on what start class articles are. These are, in my view, generally articles that are rather poor and have advanced beyond being mere stubs, yet are still incomplete haven't begun to comply with many of our content guidelines. Whereas C class articles have begun to comply with most of our guidelines, yet might be deficient in some areas (such as possibly having insufficient references or inline citations, but not altogether lacking them). I think some outside input would be valuable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I meant to provide also a link to the assessment scale. Here is that link. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies if this is not the right forum. Ideally, I would have posted to a noticeboard but none seems relevant, and the Wikipedia assessment stuff is a bit fragmented, so I don't know if there is a Wikiproject that would be a more natural target for this discussion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I have read the criteria and could find nothing like that. It is only at B class that we have "The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary". Mesoderm has also been sticking in unnecessary {{cn}} under the impression that every statement needs an inline citation rather than following the good article criteria or the verifiability policy. Dmcq (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
He's off by a rank. C articles are fine to have substantially unsourced. I'll also echo the concern that Dmcq noted about the citation needed-s. --Izno (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, it seems that the consensus (both here and at the WikiProject Math talk page) is that Polynomial should be rated as C-class, so I will revert it back to C (along with the other articles I rated as start class). As far as the citations needed tags, what I did is being mischaracterized (i.e. I did not by any means place the {{cn}} tag on "every statement"), but I am not going to argue if people want to remove those as well. I, however, plan to just replace them with useful citations so that the readers can easily verify the content (instead of expecting the English-speaking readers here to verify everything in the article using a handful of German texts from the 1880s, provided at the bottom of the article).-- Mesoderm (talk) 02:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
There are two fairly common rules of thumb for referencing in B-class articles. The most common is that you should find (at least) one citation in every ==Section== of the article. The second most common is that each paragraph (or at least most of them) should contain one inline citation. There is no one-citation-per-sentence anywhere on Wikipedia (see WP:MINREF), and B-class articles are expected to have fewer inline citations than Good articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Policy on victim lists

Does Wikipedia have a policy on the inclusion of lists of victims' names in articles about accidents, terror attacks, and other disasters? -- (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it varies based on the situation. We have an opinion piece at Wikipedia:Victim lists and relevant policies would be WP:NOT#MEMORIAL and more loosely WP:NOTDIRECTORY. If such a list were to exist, it should mostly be populated with subjects who have articles of their own, much like List of victims of Nazism. Killiondude (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. That's about what I thought. (Same person, different IP address) -- (talk) 05:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Newly discovered Chilean settlement, 12790 years old

A settlement was just discovered in northern Chile (Quebrada Maní), with over 1000 pieces, including arrow heads, seashells and camelid bones, dated at 12790 years old. I don't have the article, just a press note Could anybody edit the article Settlement of the Americas? (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation update

I posted an update on 24 July about the activities of the Wiki Education Foundation (WEF) at the education noticeboard; I should have also posted a link here (or some other very visible location), per the terms of the grant we received, but forgot to do so. I've just been reminded, so here's the link, and I will remember to post here in the future. If there's a better place to post these notices, let me know.

For those who don't know the background, the WEF is a new nonprofit. It was formed as a result of work done by a group of educators and Wikipedians, who (at the request of the WMF) spent some time over the last year or so designing a new organization that could assist with the increasing number of classes in the US and Canada that are making Wikipedia editing part of their coursework. More details on request, here or at the education noticeboard. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

A thought

Imagine what Wikipedia could do in one year with one-tenth of the NSA's budget. Twang (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


Please have a look on the objection raised at the Kali talk page. Thanks --आशीष भटनागर (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Creation of Sam and Diane

20 months passed, and who never thought that the article about relationships of Sam Malone and Diane Chambers of Cheers would exist? Did anybody have an idea of how to create an article about the couple, which is graded a B-class currently? --George Ho (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

2013 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-c

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 24 August 2013.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 05:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this announcement

No pop-up banners please

Please don't use pop-up banners. They are so annoying, they are a reason not to donate funds to Wikimedia. Everyone knows Wikipedia is a non-profit from the ".org". The least intrusive way to ask for money would be to move the "Donate to Wikipedia" link to the top of the left sidebar, calling it "Donate funds." Also, since "free" means "free of charge," click ads could be put on the left sidebar. Irritating ads would lose readers almost as fast as not being free. I don't read the London Times online because they want me to pay them. Also, since you can not easily access their articles, they are not a reliable source. For sources like that, you would need some kind of peer review maybe by email attachment of sources. --Truexper (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It might be helpful if you could explain what you exactly refer to (linking to an example). I am not aware of any popup banner use in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is free of advertisement anyway. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 08:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Ad-injecting malware is another possibility. Anomie 13:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I suspect you don't know the precise meaning of pop-up ad. "Pop-up" refers to a window or box popping up on top of a page and not being a part of the page. Are you referring to a donation request at top of a page but not in a separate window? Wikipedia allows reliable sources for pay, both online and offline, but that's another discussion. See WP:PAYWALL. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


Hello all I would ❤ it a lot if you made a Klingon Wikipedia Yours sincerely Blakeleonard (talk) 10:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


Notification of commons:Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Russavia_(de-Bureaucrat) per Cecil. JKadavoor Jee 11:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Account creation process

The account creation process is used by people who wish to have an account on Wikipedia but are not able to create it in the usual way. This could be due to, for example, their IP address being blocked with account creation disabled or if they are unable to read the CAPTCHA. There are regular backlogs of potential contributors waiting for an account to be created for them. If you meet the minimum requirements and want to help please consider making an application to join the team. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me or leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Request an account. Thank you, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Page curation

A couple of days ago I started a new article, Neurolytic block, with content that was too big for its "mother" article (Interventional pain management). Within 20 minutes, the new article had attracted four maintenance tags.[8] One of these was {{refimprove}}: "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Every assertion in the article was supported by a WP:MEDRS- compliant source, so I removed the template. The templater restored it. I removed it.

I went to the templater's talk page and explained that, "careless tagging is the kind of harassment that drives away new editors. Please be more careful." They didn't see anything wrong with the tagging, and told me to get over it when they deleted my last comment from their talk page.[9]And they haven't edited since.

One of the other people who templated the article, another "page curator", has less than 100 article space edits and fewer than 150 total edits. When I pointed this out on their talk page and asked why they're reviewing the work of others when the "page curation tool" is meant for experienced editors, they stopped editing.

So, I'm worried I may have scared off two willing volunteers. And I'm worried people are being encouraged to review the work of others when they don't, yet, have the necessary experience or competence. Is anyone in charge of the page curation project? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Cannot comment on the actual issue, but with regard to PageCuration itself, might also be worth a try. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 10:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The above link is really to discussions about technical aspects of the curation softaware itself. For discussions about New Page Patrol and its issues, please see WT:NPP where you are welcome to post your concerns and where they will receive more exposure. That said, we are acutely aware of the problems mentioned and have been montoring the performance of page patrollers for a long time. This was discussed again at the highest level last week during Wikimania. We hope to be proposing some possible solutions soon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Kudpong. (I wouldn't mind at least watching the discussion about the structure of that upcoming RfC.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Editors with BLPs

Other than categories related to CoI warning templates, is there a category or userbox for editors who are the subject of a BLP? I'm sure there must be many, self-declared, who edit non-controversially, in unrelated areas. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The following page is a list of such, and also has some relevant categories that might be helpful to you. Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles Gaijin42 (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Very useful indeed, thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


I'm sorry but I still do not know how to correctly deal with spam and Googling for an answer does not make anything more clear.

User: Tedickey seems to think that he needs to delete all minor edits by any users on

I have already reverted his edits but he seems to think that he has the sole right to edit this article. Another user's edit has also been reverted by this malicious user but I have not yet reverted that edit.

Could someone please help me solve this problem? This is the second time I have had to report such a problem on Wikipedia, so if someone could help me report these issues correctly in the future that would be great. The first issue was resolved by removing the user who continually reverted edits unnecessarily, spat his dummy out and then started spamming. It would be nice if we could stop this user doing the same.

Thanks. KenSharp (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I'll add the link to my bookmarks I promise! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenSharp (talkcontribs) 20:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

@KenSharp: the usual first step is to try and talk with the user in question on their talk page. If that does not work, it's best to follow the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to try and come to a peaceful resolution. Hope this helps. (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Vidstatsx and YouTube

There's an request for comment underway at Natalie Tran. The question is about using Vidstatsx statistics to track YouTube views. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation update August update

A note to any one interested in the education program; I've posted a WEF update at the Education Noticeboard. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Redirecting talk pages of template sub-pages

I have requested a bot undertake a task which will have it search through all templates on Wikipedia, and look for templates with the following subpages: /doc, /sandbox, and /testcase. If the talk page for these subpages does not exist, and the talk page for the main template does exist, a redirect will be created. This prevents fragmentation of discussion between the various talk pages; particularly as documentation pages seem to be under-watched. I've been making edits like this manually for five years or more; I don't think I've ever been reverted.

It had been suggested that wider publicity would be in order; please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BlakesBot where your comments will be welcome. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Forum for exchanging books?

I'm aware of WP:RX, but is there any centralized place on Wikipedia for the exchange of books for use as sources? I happen to have some too-heavy-to-ship books (including a set of fairly new science encyclopedias) that I no longer have the space for, but I'd rather give them to an editor within delivery range who'd make use of them. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

  • You might be best off posting something on WT:RX. If you'd rather not: I would suggest contacting someone you know who edits Wikipedia and who is interested in the books' topics. If you aren't well-acquainted with any WP editors in real life, I would suggest asking some editors you've worked with in the past. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
As a member of a local chapter, maybe the local chapter mailing list would be a good way to reach active members, and ones who are likely to be within driving distance. (Not identifying the chapter in case it is private information).--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC) is still the very best forum for exchange of books one doesn't need and which WP:RX or your local chapter can't find a willing editor to take. I was amazed how quickly an obscure bound religious tract I'd found and couldn't use sold after I placed it on And when called on a source for an edit, I almost invariably can find it on and send the URL for the article on (obviously an 'honest broker' as to whether a source exists) to the person asking about the source's provenance and availability (VERY important for article sources not otherwise available on the WWW or currently in print/provided with an ISBN). And provides a way to recoup shipping costs which is very equitable (USPS Media Mail charge per unit weight). loupgarous (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Local chapter mailinglist or local noticeboard on-wiki are your best bet. There's no centralised location I know of. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Alexis Reich

User:‎2600:1011:B115:215D:6D30:B23C:785F:B383 appears to support the rule that a trans woman should be referred to as he/him before the operation and she/her after the operation. I reverted this user 3 times and I don't want to violate the 3RR. Please try to think of something to do. Georgia guy (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


  • While on the template’s deletion issues, SpacemanSpiff removed template from the article. If so, nominated for the deletion will not display on the page. When I revert he/she does the same, but warned me. I asked a question, but no answer. See User talk:Tamil23# August 2013
  • Still the article Tamil people has wrong info vs picture. SpacemanSpiff did do anything than Edit war with me. If he/she is keen on article, why can’t she/he take care of it. Eg: There is no picture of S. J. V. Chelvanayakam and Muttiah Muralitharan, but name links are there the in infobox. Picture and link has no order too.

I ask you to the community regarding injustice done by a single person, so called administrator. What is his/her motivation? --Tamil23 (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

  • That's totally not for this board, and since discussion on Spiffy's talk page is ongoing I wonder what the point of this is. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, it seems clear what's going on: editor creates a template (Template:Infobox Tamils) and puts it in an FA; Spiff proposes deletion and argues against inclusion in the article because the copyright status of some elements is unclear. See the article talk page discussion. Spiff has not acted inappropriately anywhere, and he certainly has not acted in his capacity as an admin. Drmies (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Where else i can complain? //copyright status of some elements is unclear // <> //Spiff has not acted inappropriately anywhere// It seems you not clear, but come to conclusion. --Tamil23 (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I think I'm being perfectly clear, conclusion and all. You can ask him specifically, on his talk page, what the infraction is. And if all of this escalates you can take your complaint to WP:ANI, but if you do that with the debate in its current state you'll find it shut down very quickly. Drmies (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


WP:CfD/2013 August 28 - Category:Wikipedians by gender and subcats is something everyone should read. The decision to participate is all yours and I don't care one way or the other if you do or don't and if you do I don't care if you support or opposed. I'm only posting this here so that you will be aware and take any action you deem appropriate. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC concerning the Lavabit email service

There is a request for comments (RfC) that may be of interest. The RfC is at

Talk:Lavabit#RfC: Should information about Lavabit complying with previous search warrants be included?

At issue is whether we should delete or keep the following text in the Lavabit article:

Before the Snowden incident, Lavabit had complied with previous search warrants. For example, on June 10, 2013, a search warrant was executed against Lavabit user for alleged possession of child pornography.

Your input on this question would be very much welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Possible feminist canvassing?

It seems that an organization called FemTechNet is recruiting more women to participate on Wikipedia. That's great, although "goal being to collaboratively write feminist thinking into the site" makes me wonder. See this article in Mother Jones. If there's a male or non-feminist bias to articles, that's fine to correct them, especially if significant contributions from female scientists were neglected mention. Still, I could be wrong, but the Mother Jones article suggests a flavor of inserting feminist bias.

Not sure what noticeboard I should use to discuss this. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I brought this up yesterday at the feminist wikiproject, it seems they already have editors engaged with them.AioftheStorm (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. My personal view is that there are two classes (at least) of editing WP articles for feminist reasons.
One is to include (as an example) references to Rosalind Franklin's X-ray diffraction crystallography work in characterizing the structure of DNA and her puzzling omission from the Nobel Prize awarded for the discovery of that structure in articles dealing with DNA and the Nobel awarded for the discovery of its structure. That's (if done appropriately - not in a "shotgun" fashion for every mention of DNA in WP, regardless of the relevance of Franklin's work to the article in question - and, of course, with valid sources conforming to WP:PROVEIT and other WP source standards) fine, to me. Other editors doubtless have other opinions.
Another would be to waywardly approach every article in WP with feminist implications with edits that say "by the way, the feminist perspective on this is.... " - I can't think of anything less encyclopedic.
And I'm sure those two cases are simply points on a continuum, so that one doesn't exclude the other, and other cases entirely may be present. I don't see any actual harm in the sisterhood getting together to talk about feminist issues they feel are inadequately addressed. Being feminist doesn't automatically eliminate good WP editorial judgment.
We ought to wait till someone in particular transgresses our norms, then consider what in particular caused him or her to screw up, not assume that if a feminist made a mistake in editing that this was a deliberate attempt to impose the conclusions of a "feminist canvass" on a WP article.loupgarous (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Franklin's omission from the Nobel prize is not puzzling: She died in 1958. The award was given in 1962. They do not accept nominations for dead people, no matter how obviously deserving the dead person was. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanx for the info. I hadn't considered that when I wrote earlier; that policy of the Nobel committee also prevented Australian physicist Henry Moseley from getting the Nobel in Physics in 1916 (for confirming the validity of the concept of the atomic number as a means for organizing elements in a periodic table by X-ray spectrography) many of his peers considered he'd earned before dying in the World War I battle at Gallipoli.
The controversy over non-attribution of Franklin's work (with Maurice Wilkins) on X-ray diffraction of DNA actually turns on Watson and Crick's original paper on the double-helical structure in Nature only mentioning the previous work in a footnote; many people think a proper discussion of the subject would have given more attention to Franklin and Wilkins' work (something covered in the WP articles on DNA and on Rosalind Franklin). To Crick's credit, he insisted Wilkins share the 1962 Nobel in Physiology or Medicine for the discovery of the double-helical structure of DNA, and accordingly it was awarded to Watson, Crick and Wilkins (so that Franklin's contributions are recognized in the award to her surviving co-worker). loupgarous (talk) 03:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Given our own admitted problems of imbalanced viewpoints here, the idea that we would be getting an influx of feminist editors, especially tech-savvy ones, does not exactly fill me with fear. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC) (Full disclosure: I am a feminist, and have not only been known to associate with women but to marry one and be the father of another, the son of another, the brother of two more and the uncle of more. Some he-man girlhaters may therefore consider me to be biased and pro-gurll.)

Any thoughts about this article? It seems to be pushing the line into soap, agenda, pov, and teaming up to edit and/or promote an "ism" or group. --Light show (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

At WT:NOT, I suggested that you reply here, I didn't mean to suggest a repost of the same conversation-starting 1-liner!
FWIW, this project (which is being promoted using a silly tabloid-esque titles in these external articles) is being spearheaded by one of our most respected editors, Wadewitz, which is pointed out in the thread that AioftheStorm links to in the initial reply above. I recommend you read that (and everyone interested). –Quiddity (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, I read and understand the discussion there and here. But little of it actually covers the policy question I raised, about "isms" or groups in general. The article in Campus Reform states that "“A woman's point of view or feminist point of view is not yet expressed . . . in Wikipedia" for various fields.
It seems the issue began based on the fact that about 85% of WP editors are men. But the purposes being proposed by the group somehow digressed into writing about feminism itself, which is really a different subject. Is anyone claiming that there is active discrimination against women which limits their right to edit WP? If not, how is a canvassing effort to write articles devoted to feminism going to affect the gender ratio? I don't get the connection, since feminism movements aim to fight inequality and women's rights. --Light show (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Is only "active" discrimination worth addressing? We know from previous studies that the "passive" discrimination of a hostile environment discourages women from contributing. A lot of women who have edited Wikipedia and since stopped or reduced their involvement report that the rudeness, profanity, uncollegial unfriendliness, and personal attacks make Wikipedia an unpleasant place. (This behavior also hurts retention of non-Western/non-white men.)
There is some "active" discrimination. In an editor survey a while ago, a significant percentage of women reported that they had been subjected to sexual harassment on Wikipedia. This isn't institutional discrimination—it's not like we have a policy that says you should treat women badly—but it hurts us anyway.
We also have content-based discrimination. People have noticed, for example, that new articles about female novelists are more likely to be deleted than new articles about male novelists. (One hypothesis is that the people who review these articles just happen to be more familiar with the male names, and if you've personally heard of an author, you tend to assume that there's a chance that the author is notable.)
What sort of message do you think women receive when they discover that "typically male" subjects, like football teams, have top-quality articles, but "typically female" subjects, including pretty much anything to do with children, are in poor shape? It's not about us actively trying to get rid of women, because I'm sure that everyone would be pleased to see Infant or Preschool education become a featured article or for Flower arranging and Homemaker to have even a single good, independent, secondary source, but the effect is the same: a disproportionate number of women look over the site and conclude that this is a place created by guys and for guys. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, I've noticed that the editing quality of new or revised materials is consistently higher from women editors overall. But that's based on the user name being a female name. Most names, like everyone commenting in this section, are genderless. And it seems that the ability for men and women to collaborate with fewer disputes on all subjects is probably greater on WP than in the real world. --Light show (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Trolling for Wikieditors

So, I'm minding my own business on the Los Angeles Craigslist, when I see this ad from an unidentified "industry" seeking to hire Wikipedia editors. They want active editors only (I assume to get around various WP rules), and they want to hire them to build out a bunch of articles on their industry. Their goal is to end up with a "a quality resource guide for our industry". The pay is pretty low, too. Maybe I should not be surprised at the venality of this, but I am. I don't think anyone "can do something about" this, but I wanted to make people aware it's going on. (Shades of Gibraltar.) - Tim1965 (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

JFYI: there was a talk on the pros and cons of this issue at Wikimania 2013. --bender235 (talk) 09:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
This could be done in a way hostile to WP or in line with it. They could publish a set of articles off-Wikipedia, or as drafts, with a suitable licence and with Wikipedia style and verifiable refs, then leave it up to the existing community to decide whether they are suitable for inclusion. Not necessarily a bad thing, so long as they're sincere about "a quality resource guide", though the reluctance to identify the industry doesn't exactly inspire hope.
Isn't the "Shades of Gibraltar" remark a bit insulting to all the new Wikipedia contributors who have made unpaid, high-quality contributions to Gibraltar topics on Wikipedia? MartinPoulter (talk) 10:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The mistreatment of the community/process as a whole by editors who had a very specific PoV/Motivation with respect to Gibraltarpedia scandal has entered the wiki-culture lexicon. I think that while the individual phrase may be unfortunate, the implication behind the phrase is definitely worth being aware of. Hasteur (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


Osmanagić pyramid hypothesis needs some eyes on it. We have an enthusiastic new editor who is having some trouble avoiding {{copypaste}} problems. I've just explained on his talk page, so it may be all fine now, but I'm going offline and would like to have someone else check in on the article later. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

As of this posting the history looks good. Biosthmors (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia:Article feedback actually serve any useful purpose?

A simple enough question: does Wikipedia:Article feedback actually serve any useful purpose? I rarely bother to look at article feedback, since it seems to consist largely of pointless comments such as this gem for our Human article: " did not find what they were looking for. IMPROVE this page". Do other contributors actually (a) read article feedback, and (b) act on it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I personally have read hundreds of comments and acted on dozens. Without article feedback, I would not have realized how many people reading about less-common medical conditions are primarily interested in the prognosis. (I had always assumed that symptoms would be more interesting to our readers.) Without article feedback, I would not have realized that some of the articles on my watchlist, like High school diploma, contained zero images despite images being readily available. Images aren't very important to me, and there are more than 2,000 pages on my watchlist, so I haven't really read most of them for years, if ever.
If you personally don't care about these reader comments, then ignore them, but leave them for those of us who do care. Generally, AFT is only enabled on a page these days because an editor specifically chose to enable it, so if it is currently active, someone at that article wants it there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Sure, it serves some useful purpose, as WhatamIdoing explains. Other other side of the coin is if it serves any disadvantages. I think it does. It splits the communication process into multiple channels causing extra complexity. This encourages a division between readers and editors, and probably negativity impacts the uptake of new editors because of that. So the real question is if the benefits outweigh the costs. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me, the majority of readers aren't in the slightest interested in editing or learning about how Wikipedia works. The split between the consumerist majority and us producers has always been there. What some consumers are willing to do, is rate and especially to complain. They should get every opportunity. Of course, the complaints of the semiliterate, semithoughtful majority must be handled cautiously. They have no idea of the big picture, and we must guess and calculate how and whether their concerns should be met. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Whom should I ask about getting the feedback tool put on Cancer pain? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

See the simple instructions at Wikipedia:Article Feedback/Help/Editors#How can I add this tool on articles I watch?. It might take a minute to have an effect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I tried that but User:Nemo bis removed it with an edit summary I didn't understand, and now that category is a red link. Is there some other way of inviting reader feedback? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems that after someone "enables feedback" (in the toolbox on the left side), somebody else disables feedback, anonymously - since WMF developers forgot to log somewhere when and who enables/disables feedback... This is almost funny. ;-) At Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5#Re-enabled_on_all_pages User:Blethering Scot writes "When i enable feedback AFT5 appears at the bottom then 24 hours later i have went in to these articles and it is no longer enabled." At Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5#The_category_system_was_not_great.2C_but_the_status_quo_is_far_worse User:Altamel writes "why doesn't the Article Feedback Activity Log track who enables and disables feedback on pages? I re-enabled feedback on Laurie Island after somebody disabled it, but I wish I could discuss with that user why they disabled feedback." Currently this special AFT page Articles with feedback on English Wikipedia says that: These 125 articles have feedback enabled on English Wikipedia. ... This list is refreshed daily. But those articles that i checked all had feedback disabled. --Atlasowa (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

As ive stated several times i strongly suspect there is a bug rather than users simply entering a disable war. Ive had to reenable on a page every day since the cat was removed and given its page view stats seems highly likely its not being removed by a user.Blethering Scot 21:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi folks, thanks for reporting these issues -- and sorry for not responding sooner. We are disappointed to hear that anonymous editors disabled feedback on over 2,000 articles without consulting their fellow editors about this. Our deepest apologies to those of you who were inconvenienced as a result, especially Anthonyhcole, Altamel, Atlasowa and Blethering Scot, to name but a few. Fortunately, we kept track of which articles had feedback enabled as of last month on this spreadsheet, and we will re-enable feedback on these articles shortly. We are also working on a patch that will prevent anonymous editors from enabling or disabling feedback on a page (to complement Gerrit patches 64621 and 64620). If all goes well, these patches should be deployed next week, so that only logged-in editors can enable or disable feedback -- and all these actions should appear in the logs, for transparency and accountability reasons.
The Article Feedback experiment is still going strong on the French Wikipedia, where feedback from over 40,000 articles is now being evaluated by their editor community. They are finding the tool useful and keeping up very well with their moderation workload, without the issues reported by the English community before we deployed our new tools. Our current plan is to continue to monitor this experimental feature on a few pilot sites through the end of the year, then determine our next steps with the community, based on these pilot results. In January 2014, we plan to report back to you with these findings and recommendations, and discuss their relevance for the English community.
After the March RfC on Article Feedback, the closing administrator resolved to keep this tool on an 'opt-in' basis on the English Wikipedia, so that editors who want reader feedback for their articles could use it for that purpose. To support their needs, we created this special 'opt-in/opt-out' tool that makes it easier to enable or disable feedback (without requiring prior knowledge of the AFT5 category name). As a result, you can now simply click on 'Enable feedback' in the article toolbox to enable feedback on pages you are working on, as described here -- and the old AFT5 category is no longer needed. Once the new patches are deployed, anonymous users will no longer be able to disrupt this experiment -- and enabled articles will be added to this list, which is refreshed daily.
We will post an update on the Article Feedback Talk page once the new patches have been deployed. We regret this temporary inconvenience, and will do everything we can to make sure it doesn't happen again. For an update on the current status of this project, check these updated slides. Thanks again for your interest in Article Feedback! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 01:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that great response, Fabrice. I know you've got a lot on but, if you remember, could you or a helper possibly ping me once the above is fixed? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
You're very welcome, Anthonyhcole. I will be sure to ping you when these issues are solved. Thanks for your patience and understanding! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
To answer the original question, I have personally made many improvements to articles based on specific feedback from readers. Dcoetzee 01:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your experience, Dcoetzee. I am glad that the tool has been helpful for you, and appreciate that you took the time to point that out. I have heard similar reports from quite a few editors, who don't always have time to participate in discussions like these, but find the tool useful as well. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Also addressing the original question: this tool needs to be used with discretion. It would be pointless on Justin Bieber or Pokemon, anything of value would be lost in the background noise. But as the main author and watcher of Cancer pain, I want all the criticism and advice I can get, and this little tool may facilitate that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. The Article Feedback is particularly effective on pages like yours, which typically get a lot more useful feedback than high-traffic, controversial pages like Justin Bieber, as you point out. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I find article feedback to be really useful. Especially on newer articles that benefits from feedback from more than one user. I think article feedback should always be available on all articles.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I have the feeling that the responses here, while correct in itself as opinions, come from those people who were among the minority of users that supported it during Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article feedback, while the then rather larger group of people with other opinions no longer can be bothered about it and just ignore it. I have to admit, this thread made me look at the feedback for the first time in many months, so for me personally, the tool is totally useless, as it only serves to have comments in different places, instead of one location per article. Furthermore, looking at the general fedback page, I saw that there are 213 comments where oversight has been requested; these should either be swiftly oversighted, or changed to some other status (oversight denied, whatever), but not simply ignored (as they seem to be now). Many of them don't need to be oversighted IMO, but others (like one about an alleged love child of Vin Diesal (sic)) shouldn't be kept for 7 months. Fram (talk) 10:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

And maybe WMF can keep their help pages up to date? [[10]] States that you simply have to add Category:Article Feedback 5 to your page, but that category is deprecated and deleted...

As for the feedback: three hours ago, this was posted and sits at the moment unreviewed (not hidden, no oversight requested): "Hello I need your assistance ASAP before a child gets hurt. My son met a 18 yr old by the name of XXX from Cambridge Ohio. My son lives in El Paso Texas. I want to know if this person XXX is a Pedifier. I called Cambridge Police de" (I have replaced the full name with XXX here of course). This on a very high traffic page (80,000 page views a day!), not some obscure page with no viewers. Seeing that "oversight requested" is still at the same 213 pages I reported above, this seems rather useless. Just disable the thing, like most people wanted at the RfC anyway. Fram (talk) 07:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It's gone now, at least 8 hours later. I don't believe it would have stayed that long on the normal talk page of Facebook, but that's guesswork of course. Fram (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

HTML tables cleanup! Help needed!

At about 4,500 pages use HTML tables. Check Wikipedia:CHECKWIKI/031 dump. This causes problems in rendering and to the Visual Editor. Help is needed to start cleaning/converting these tables. In most cases are just lists of players and it should be straightforward. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Since when are HTML-style tables deprecated? Shouldn't VE be fixed instead? Anomie 10:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I thought I would look at an article. Wow! A set of steak knives goes to the first editor who can replace the html table in the infobox at the top of Zhuang people! Not that I've ever tried to nest a table inside an infobox—maybe it isn't so hard? Johnuniq (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Anomie Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback#Deleting_a_row_from_table_has_disastrous_results. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

And yes, I think in many cases we can use wikicode instead. Meanwhile, we can work on closing tr and small tags. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Converting HTML table markup to wikimarkup is quite easy using AutoEd. But wikimarkup tables break inside infoboxes. --  Gadget850 talk 11:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Gadget850 then I guess we can do as much as possible but not all. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
{{multiple image}} works inside infoboxes; see Scouting in California. --  Gadget850 talk 11:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, this bug only occurs in very one specific instance, i.e. a HTML table with a closing </tr> tag but no corresponding opening <tr> tag. It was reported as T55464 where the developers quickly responded and there is a patch that should fix this awaiting a review so it should be fixed soon. There is therefore no need to deprecate html tables anywhere (although anyone can of course convert tables if they want to). Just if you happen upon one while source editing you might want to check it has properly formatted row syntax. I'd be surprised if as many as 1% of html tables have this issue though. Thryduulf (talk) 02:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Still working with wikitables is better in order to add/remove rows, spot unclosed tags etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikimedia Foundation

I started Wikipedia:Wikimedia Foundation as a community information/communication directing page. Can you guess the Wikipedia shortcut? It could use links to things such as the mailing lists, grant opportunities, Bugzilla, etc. to help newcomers understand the WMF and how they might engage with the WMF, if interested. Biosthmors (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I think a soft redirect to meta:Wikimedia Foundation (which I think has the information you're referring to), Wikimedia Foundation or maybe a DAB page to both would be better so that we don't duplicate content. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 08:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not worried about duplicating content. I'm just trying to help English Wikipedia editors know how to engage, if they choose. I don't want them to have to leave English Wikipedia to learn, either. I think that's a potentially jarring and confusing disincentive for new editors. Biosthmors (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
In the same vein as Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback, for example. Biosthmors (talk) 09:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Some Suggestions

Dear Sirs First of all congratulations for changing the whole world of Learning with Wikipedia. Whenever I go to study first i open Wikipedia in a window only then start my real topic of study. I think it must be the case with most of the learners through out the world. For me Wikipedia plays the same role in my learning process which Oxygen performs in my breathing process. I am sure in future Wikipedia is going to be revolutionise the world of learning of world.

May i dare to give some suggestions, which i think will make it even more useful. I think Wikipedia should have four levels for every search item.

1. Line Level - Information about the item should be in one line, with/without one photo.

2 Paragraph Level - Information about the item should be in one para with one photograph.

3 Page Level - Information about the item should be in one page.

4 Booklet Level - Unlimited Information about the item.

This will help the user immensely. Presently when i use wikipedia sometimes the information i need about the item can be only one paragraph and its really difficult to select the desired amount of information.

I know you have already got a very very big project and to suggest changes may be so easy for me, even than i am writing to you.

I have personally benefited so much from Wikipedia I am at your service for any technical job.

Thanking you Dr m K Pande Dehradun India — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that in an ideal world there would be a short version/short versions of English Wikipedia. Would you like to volunteer for Wikipedia? Feel free to create an account and come back. You can ask questions at the WP:Teahouse. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


I've started a userspace draft for combining diacritics for editors whose browsers don't support the toolbar, but I was wondering whether or not it would likely be deleted if I moved it to the template namespace. Thanks. — SamXS 14:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Won't know till you try right? :) Besides, even if it does get deleted, it can still exist and be useful in your userspace. -- œ 19:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. To anyone who happens to see this discussion, feel free to make any improvements to the template, which is located here. — SamXS 19:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize

If it goes to Jimbo, who might split it with him? Albert deBroglie (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


Note the death of Donald Featherstone in recent deaths. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scymso (talkcontribs) 15:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I assume you mean Donald Featherstone (wargamer). I have just removed the '3 September 2013' statement from thae article, as such matters must be cited to a published reliable source. If you know of one, please add it to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

HighBeam requests?

Is there a place to request for people with a HighBeam account to add information to articles? I was working with another editor whose free account expired at the beginning of the month, and he did not get the chance to do a couple of final lookups for me. In this case, is there anything that could be added to John Zeleznik [11], or Nene Thomas [12]? BOZ (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Why not apply for your own free HighBeam account? See WP:HighBeam. -- œ 02:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm going to do that sooner or later. I'm busy with a few other initiatives at the moment, but I am going to need an account because I have a ton of things to look up. ;) These two are just kind of "need it right now" lookups because we got interrupted by circumstance. BOZ (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • @BOZ: you can ask at WP:REX and they'll provide you with the source material, but I'm guessing that you will have to do the article editing part. (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! It looks like a lot of requests there may go unanswered for a long time, but I will give that a try all the same. If I wind up needing to do it myself, then I guess them's the breaks! ;) BOZ (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Website scrapbookpages

Hey everybody, is it normal that eight articles still use the in my opinion revisionist website as a source? First, it's in my opinion not a quality source, as it is the personal blog of a guy like you and me, I can't remember the profession of the guy... probably not an historian, any way... Second, the website is quite revisionist, see for instance the blog of the website,, or read carefully the website. Those are two good reasons not to use this website as a source... I've already told you about this problem a few years ago, but there hadn't been any true reaction then :-(( I'm concerned that Wikipedia may use other crap websites as a source... Is there any possibility to choose the sources more carefully for those types of articles, to be a bit more restrictive? (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

No comment on the site, but you may want to try asking at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. -- œ 02:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, actually I've read a bit the talks about the subject yesterday, and I've noticed that at the time of my first alert about this site, in 2008 I believe, there were actually many more links to this site, maybe more than one hundred. Since then, I've seen that other people have protested as well against those links, and if I understood well it's been black listed, but all the articles haven't been cleaned... Well, just eight links remaining, it's still eight links too many, but it's much better than one hundred, I was a bit hard yesterday when I wrote there hasn't been any true reaction :-)
Anyway, thanks for your answer, I'm going to write to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, as you recommend :-) (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this a free license?

"Publishers may use material from this site free of charge, as long as:

  • Credit is given to the "City of Johannesburg website (";
  • If the article is used online, a link is provided to the original article on this website;
  • The name of the article's author is acknowledged;
  • The webmaster is informed of how and where the material is used (fill in this brief online form)."

I found it on the website of Johannesburg Municipality. Does it allow us to use their content?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The last bullet point would make this non-free as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Our licence allows reuse with attribution without telling anyone about it. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's a type of free license. You might be interested in some copyright FAQ. We cannot use their content on Wikipedia because nothing is said about derivative work based on their content. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. Killiondude (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Why not contact them, and explain CC licensing, and suggest that they switch to using one? If you need some local support, I can put you in touch with some SA Wikipedia activists. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
It's too bad that it can't be considered a free license. I wrote them an email a week ago, but maybe I should send another one. Thank you for the replies!--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


Please help ad a reference to my article Larisa Kadochnikova. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scymso (talkcontribs) 19:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Am I harming Wikipedia?

I've been a Wikipedia editor since 2004, and a member of WikiProject Citation cleanup almost as long. I've made over 170,000 edits to Wikipedia, and a lot of them looked like this one. That is adding bibliographic information that was missing (e.g., journal volume, issue, etc.) and implementing citation templates for a consistent citation style within one article. I know the use of those templates is neither encouraged nor prohibited. I simply use them out of convenience, to let the templates take care of the exact layout.

Recently, it has been pointed out to me that those sorts of edits "are strongly discouraged". Some "site-wide consensus", which I am unaware of, has been cited according to which "changing from non-template references to template references" is prohibited in general, even if no contributor to a particular article objects them. Is this the case?

I have been aware of WP:CITEVAR, which discourages disputes over citation styles and offers a rule-of-thumb resolution ("keep the original style") in cases in which a group of editors of some article cannot find consensus otherwise. But I never took it for a general ban on changing citation styles in cases of no dispute.

So have I, for the past years, violated Wikipedia rules by doing this? If so, I'll stop doing it immediately, and leave. --bender235 (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion/arguments about citation templates are several years old now, so as an experienced editor you should be well aware of them. For example, here is a thread from WT:CITE in 2008: [13], but there were many more discussions than that. For example, there is an explicit arbcom finding about optional styles at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#Optional_styles.
In the end, a compromise was reached about citation templates:
  • For articles that use templates, they should not be removed by editors who happen to dislike templates
  • For articles that don't use templates, they shouldn't be added by editors who happen to like templates
In other words, citation templates are just another optional style that should not be changed without substantial reason.
So, if you are still asking whether it is appropriate to pick random articles and unilaterally convert them to use citation templates because you personally think templates are better, the answer is that it is indeed inappropriate. It would be equally inappropriate to pick random articles that use templates and then remove them. Neither of these edits is an actual improvement to the encyclopedia, and these edits only get in the way of content creators. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
On the other hand, if there is a mix of styles present, then anyone willing to do the work is free to make them all match. Furthermore, the problem is the "unilaterally", not the "convert". If Bender wants to clean up refs (a tedious and often thankless task), and the article doesn't follow the style he'd like to use, then all he needs to do is to post a note on the talk page that says "Hey, I'll fix this, unless you object to the use of citation templates". If there are no objections within a short period of time, then he has met CITEVAR's requirement for an apparent consensus to change the style.
Given how very rare it is for people to actually object to citation templates that happen to appear alongside of substantive improvements (Dear Bender: Please turn your attention to WP:MED's articles about diseases; practically all of the editors there want citation templates), I suspect that he'd be justified in doing what he wants to, and then adding a "feel free to revert, because I'll never edit war with you" message to the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
No, he should not go around posting to talk pages about how he wants to change the style. CITEVAR does not say "do not change due to personal preference unless you ask first". It says, "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." – note the "or". Similarly, the arbcom principle Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#Optional_styles has no provision "unless you ask first". The principle at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#Fait accompli is also relevant to this: if an editor cannot get consensus that a style is preferred, it is inappropriate for them to go around implementing it on numerous articles as if it had consensus. In the case of citation templates, we all know that the actual site-wide consensus is that they are neither better nor worse than other templates, and there there is no general agreement either for or against them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, do please notice that or. If he "first seek[s] consensus for the change", then he is allowed to change the style. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
"Or" does not mean "unless". The guideline text says that (1) one cannot change due to personal preference; (2) one cannot change just to match other articles; (3) in addition, if there is some other reason, the editor needs to seek consensus first. Changing solely due to personal preference is inappropriate, and the last thing we want is dozens of editors doing that (each to their own personal preference, of course). — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
If Bender wants to clean up refs (a tedious and often thankless task), and the article doesn't follow the style he'd like to use, then all he needs to do is to post a note on the talk page that says "Hey, I'll fix this, unless you object to the use of citation templates".
I always found this impractical. Instead, I simply did the changes I wanted to, and if someone did not like them, he/she could revert them. I accept this. I never started an edit war over citation styles, and never will. Like I said, less than 1% of my edits of this nature were reverted. Only recently CBM started to revert them on a per se basis, because they were "strongly discouraged" in general, according to him. --bender235 (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
You have, in fact, edit warred over styles, e.g. [14]. But the fact that others didn't revert your edits does not make them correct, it just means that you are (intentionally?) picking articles that few other people watch. If you had been doing this to featured articles, you would see much more reaction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I did not edit war. I restored information you (involuntarily?) deleted, like "issue" number and DOI/JSTOR links.
As for the articles I choose: find me a feature article with inconsistent and/or incomplete citations, and I'll fix it. Thankfully, however, there are none. They aren't featured for no reason. --bender235 (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
There are plenty of FAs the do not have DOIs and do not use citation templates. One is Duino Elegies, the TFA from August 2. This does not mean that one can change the article to use templates based on the ruse that the citations are "incomplete" for lacking DOIs. But this is exactly you did on Additive model. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Nice try, but I'm not getting myself into hot water again. You know very well this is one of the many articles User:ColonelHenry claims ownership for, a user who recently launched a ludicrous AN/I against me. The article's citation style is not-so-clean and incomplete (pages?, year?, spelling error ("Gesammelte Werke") in German title, not mentioning missing DOIs), but I'm not even thinking of touching it. --bender235 (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't own shit Bender, and quite frankly wouldn’t care. But I'd prefer you avoid casting aspersions regarding my motives just because I had the high holy audacity to disagree with you and your bellicosity. On that occasion, I said your contribution in violation of WP:CITEVAR was not appreciated and disrupted myself and other contributors to the article. However, the issue is moot and I'd rather avoid rehashing the bitch-fest because apparently you still refuse to see it anyone else's way and continue to be snide about it...and that was and still is the problem: am I wrong in not agreeing when someone insists and barges forward with their agenda disregarding that other stakeholders said "no, we disagree"? Apparently, you think so--simply because your agenda was momentarily thwarted and you took umbrage. That's the same philosophy that gives us such barbarism as "no means yes, yes means anal."[15] Insisting and continuing to insist will get you no where with a lot of people in this life…and just because you throw a petulant temper tantrum because you didn’t get your own way, and continue to do so, doesn’t make other people agree with you. Someday, you'll learn that. Thank you by the way for noticing three largely insignificant citation errors that no one in the Duino Elegies FAC noticed. I'll have to rush to fix that just because you mentioned it. (*sarcasm*) --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The article I mentioned contains many more inconsistencies in the citation style. Usually I would fix them, but you told me to "stay away from your articles", so I do. Which, again, confirms what I already wrote. I do not insist, I do not badger, I do not edit-war. I only fix as I see, and when somebody reverts, I ask—if anything—for a brief explaination. Unfortunately, in your case the reply to a "don't like citation templates?" was a "stop talking to me, or I'll ask AN/I to have you blocked". That was a first, in nine years. An embarassing, ugly exception to Wikipedia's usual way of dispute resolution. Thanks again for displaying your interpretation of calm and polite discussion. --bender235 (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
"I do not insist, I do not badger..." I have to call bullshit on that. How many times did you insist that your way was right despite myself and other editors pointing to WP:CITEVAR and saying the equivalent of "enough, go away, your services are not wanted here" in varied shades of frustration because of your continued stubborn refusals and insistence upon plowing ahead. Apparently, your attempted intervention at The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock wasn't your first, and as indicated above has not been your last venture down this path. How many other articles that you've never worked on are you going to barge into just to change it to your personal citation preferences? You never worked on the Prufrock article, who were you to dare ignore the people who have spent months on the article insisting "hey, we're changing the citation templates" and damn what you think. What fucking balls. How many editors who actually work on these articles (unlike your drive-by) are you going to keep ignoring? How many times are you going to ignore WP:CITEVAR because it's inconvenient? Here you are YET AGAIN asking why someone had to stand athwart your plans and YET AGAIN you wonder what you've done wrong for intervening despite being well aware of the clear, unambiguous language of WP:CITEVAR and yet here YET AGAIN you continue to act obtuse by feigning ignorance thinking that is a position to argue from. You never learn. --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
That is not an edit war. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
"In other words, citation templates are just another optional style that should not be changed without substantial reason."
What is the basis for this statement? --bender235 (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
"The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged: an article should not be switched between templated and non-templated citations without good reason and consensus" - WP:CITE. "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Optional styles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, citation templates aren't the only Wikipedia technicality that is "neither encouraged nor discouraged". Because so are infoboxes. Does that mean anyone adding infoboxes is violating Wikipedia rules?
By the way: what does, in your opinion, qualify as "good reason" for a style change? --bender235 (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Personally I think what Bender is doing is good and I for one appreciate that he is doing it. Most of the articles he is editing had the references added by folks who don't know ho wto use the templates nor how to properly format the references. So he is in fact just cleaning up a mess. I would also note that I have had problems with CBM and his personal preferance for undoing edits he doesn't like without discussion and have even been threatened with being blocked if I didn't do as he said, often where there was no consensus except for his personal opinions. So IMO, CBM needs to take a step back, stop being a DICK and let bender continue to clean up the mess because I for one am tired of CBM getting into the middle of things he has no input or interest in other than showing he has the power. Kumioko (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
CITEVAR is clear enough, and I would revert such changes to an article I have written on sight. There are some articles I am unable to continue to develop because I have missed an unwanted and unneeded change of style, and it is now too complicated to go back and unpick it, and I can't work in a blizzard of template cruft. Always ask first - very often no one will object and you can go ahead. Johnbod (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Although I do agree that if an editor is actively developing the article they should be able to revert such changes while the article is being developed, I also do not think that every edit should require discussion. It should be discussed by exception, not by default. There are good reasons for not having the templates and there are a lot of good reasons for having them. So we really shouldnt be fighting about this. Kumioko (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the topic, User:bender235. I do a lot of this too! I think I can help here by adding a few important pieces of information I know from my experience:

  • Very rarely are large pages with a decent number of references consistent in the citation style used. There is almost always a mix. Why is this important? Because it means that in practice users like Bender235 (and myself) are making pages consistent, not converting them. As this is the dominant situation, I think it is fair to answer "no", you are not harming the Wikipedia, Bender235. You are helping it.
  • These edits aren't merely converting the references, they often are adding/correcting information in those references or correcting spelling or other obvious errors in the article simultaneously. Why is this important? Because we must not lose sight of the extra value provided by users who like to edit references. Given this, if there are no objections to the change, it starts to violate common sense to disallow to it. Plus, things like doi's can't really be handled the same way with manually formatting as the cite templates handle them. So if a person wishes to add doi's or other such parameters, they really have little choice but to convert. The point here is that there are side-benefits that occur from users who edit like bender225.
  • If there are inconsistencies in the reference formatting, it is an improvement to the article's quality if they are formatted consistently. Why is this important? Well, if there's an editor willing to make them consistent in format but only if he/she wants to convert the article from no templates to cite templates, do we really want to discourage them in the name of "preventing conversion"? Truth be told, for articles with a large number of references, manually handling the formatting is error-prone and tedious. I can see why a "reference gnome" would tend to prefer the cite templates.
  • Many articles have virtually nobody maintaining them and are in poor shape. Why is this important? Improving references may lead to other substantial improvements. If an editor makes "lateral changes" like reference style changes on neglected or abandoned articles, there's a good chance that they may also contribute to the content in the future too. So, I'm willing to give them "room to maneuver" here and there to edit as they enjoy rather than pushing them away.
  • articles with few references haven't really established a pattern. I think it makes to no sense to talk about article with just a few references as having established any convention that must be followed. That's could be a whole discussion itself. But in my entire comment, I am assuming enough references are used to clearly establish that a convention is in use, or it is not.

None of this means that conversation for the sake of conversion should be encouraged. But in practice, such situations almost never arise as the reasons stated above suggest. As with Bender225's experience, I have never had any objections to my reference formatting edits; his 1% figure is an over-estimate compared to my experience.

Also, let's keep clear that the date formatting RfA is about date formatting. So, while some of the conclusions about that RfA make great advice for citation style formatting, they are separate issues. As citation templates can support whatever date formatting a user wants, they are also completely independent. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Bender, please keep converting references into citation template format. If someone reverts you on a particular article, discuss the matter on a talk page, or, heck, just leave that article alone. It is absolutely, completely, 100% ridiculous to think that adding extra details to citations with more information that will help readers find the information in the future to verify the facts in the article is in any way wrong. If there is a mixture of styles in an article, WP:CITEVAR says you can make it consistent, and if there's disagreement about which is best, use the style used by the first major contributor (still, making it consistent with that). And I would argue that if you had an article that just had a bunch of plaintext references, you could argue that that's not actually a "style" in the sense that WP:CITEVAR means. Wikipedia is now a serious reference work. We need to have, whenever possible, our references be complete, accurate, and of lasting value. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
No you are not harming Wikipedia. I am another cite tweaking, repairing, drudge who also toils in the trenches of obscure, rarely touched articles and some not so obscure. And my tool of choice is templated citations.
One of the things that few editors realize is that humans aren't the only things that read Wikipedia. Bibliographic software can read Wikipedia and from the Citation Style 1 templated citations extract the bibliographic data. You may have seen this referred to as COinS metadata. I confess that I'm no expert on COinS. I do know that CS1 citation templates support it and that hand-crafted citations do not.
@Editor Jason Quinn: {{Doi}}, {{PMID}}, there are probably others. It isn't necessary to convert to CS1 to cite an article using doi or pmid.
Trappist the monk (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Good point, Trappist the monk. Forgot about those while writing my comment. Stuck that sentence. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • In other words Bender you are free to add information to citations anyway you want (and yes you are improving the Pedia - assuming you are adding correct info), but don't do it where there is objection to that style (if you only use that style). Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the support, everyone. But what I still want to find out is the "meaning" of WP:CITEVAR. Does "if there is disagreement about which style is best, defer to the style used by the first major contributor" mean
(a) a per se ban on citation style changes, or
(b) the quick-and-easy solution if and only if there's actually a dispute?
This question brought me here in the first place. --bender235 (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
My experience is that manual citations are often too imprecise, and anyway are human-readable-but-not-machine-readable. Turning that into semantic markup, especially generated from a DOI, PMID or similar (and checked) is surely an improvement to the encyclopedia. That it's better to have stuff in a semantic markup, rather than a human-readable string of text, goes back to the very design of the Web. If policy sacrifices, say, the discoverability of citations in favour of keeping an editor's subjective preference (I don't know if it does) then that policy works against the quality of Wikipedia If there's a DOI for a source, and the Wikipedia citation lacks the DOI, then adding the DOI is an improvement: people denying this need to actually make a logical argument. There should be no excuse for deleting DOIs that are accurate. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
One deficiency I find with {{cite book}} template is its not been easy to figure out how to do it where you cite the same source but a different page. Do you just repeat the whole template again but with a different page number? Or leave the page=feild blank and tag the page on to the end outside the template: "p.X"? Or do you put "Author, page" for the second cite or "Author (date) page" if the same author is cited for multiple works? Or . . .? Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Investigate {{harvnb}} and {{harvid}}, or else {{sfn}}. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Right Harvard is another work around but when multiple editors edit the article, harvard has to be set-up by basically one person first.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
To answer your question, I'd suggest to always repeat the entire {{cite book}} (with a different page), since this much more practical on our mobile frontend. Mobile users usually don't see the references list in its entirety, so reading "Smith (2010), p. 123" is useless to them unless they click thru all other footnotes to find the complete "Smith (2010)" reference. --bender235 (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Does that work the same way with "ref name =" or does ref name ignore the fact that you are basically repeating the same cite (with a different page)? Then do you basically assign two different refnames, etc? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
That's why it's important to link multiple cites to the source (i.e. using {{harvnb}} as well as <ref name="..." >). Duplicating the entire ref is pointless and unhelpful. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok, you're right. Things are different when "Smith (2010), p. 123" is a link to the full citation. --bender235 (talk) 12:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Late comer to the discussion. If you want to make a change that could be controversial, Propose the change on the talk page of the article (and potentially at WikiProjects that are on the talk page). If you don't get any opposition, you've acquired a consensus (if silent). Make the change. If someone reverts you citing an objection for that page (and not the far reaching "We generally" or ArbCom ruling) invite them to discuss it on the talk page (WP:BRD is such a beautiful thing). Editors who bulk revert the changes are, themselves being disruptive to the primary purpose of wikipedia, so they would have to prove their case more than you would. Sidebar: I personally prefer citation templates over raw references for the simple fact that a lot can get screwed up when an average user types in a reference Hasteur (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I've always been an advocate of WP:BRD. In practice, however, it means submitting the (possibly) controversial edit first, wait for someone to revert second, and then discuss. It does not involve asking for permission on each article's talk page first, which if you think it thru would be way too cumbersome anyways. --bender235 (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
That is fine for general editing, but WP:CITEVAR specifically says: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change". I suggest you take that to heart, however "cumbersome". Johnbod (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Then I'm sorry, but I'll stop doing those sorts of edits on Wikipedia. I'm doing citation fixes on a couple of hundred articles per month, which already consumes a lot of time and energy. I certainly won't start several hundred discussions on talk pages all over Wikipedia and having to monitor all of them for a month or more. Most definitely not. --bender235 (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
A week would be fine if no one comments/disagrees, maybe less. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Please don't bender, the above arguments are absolutely fallacious. What they are saying is, very clearly "Do not improve the encyclopedia" by adding useful, helpful information and making unformatted citations neater, more complete, machine-readable, etc. I almost never invoke WP:IAR, but it's obviously necessary here. Again, I do agree that if people revert you, it's up to you to go start the discussion, but having to start a discussion first is simply wrong and counter to every other principle we have on editing. The only other instance I know of when editors are "required" to ask first is on changes to featured articles...and even that isn't strictly required. I guess maybe you could say that any major change on an article under discretionary sanctions...but this reading of WP:CITEVAR essentially places all references on all articles under this unduly burdensome requirement. Because, here's the thing: you're not changing it for "personal preference". You're changing it because an unformatted reference lacks information that a formatted reference has. And again, I agree that you shouldn't go changing, say, cite templates into Harvard style, but that is, as far as I can tell, not what you are doing. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
No, they are just saying "Follow the guideline". A move from (consistent) no templates to templates is certainly caught by CITEVAR - please don't pretend otherwise. Yes, there are some messy articles where there is no predominant style, and no sign of particular editors sticking with the page, or the main editors left WP years ago, where boldly wading in may be appropriate, but some of Bender's edits cited above do not seem appropriate. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I always only fix citations if there is something to fix (i.e., either bibliographic information missing, or inconsistent citation style, or both). I never have and never will switch a non-templated citation style that is both consistent and complete to templated citation style.
The problem, so far, has been some users' (e.g., User:CBM's) definition of "consistent". In his eyes, there are only two styles – with templates, and without. So even if every footnote varies in punctuation and order of information, it'd still be "consistent" in his eyes because it does not use templates (see this recent dicussion). Of course, this definition is nonsense. "Not using templates" is not a citation style, and neither is "using templates" (an article using both {{citation}} and {{cite book}} is far from being consistent). --bender235 (talk) 07:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
That's fine if the issues are really major, but not if you are just using a few discrepancies as an excuse to change the whole style. Johnbod (talk) 10:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Johnbod...saying "hey, some citations lack commas or dates" has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with supporting your insistence that you have the right to unilaterally change from non-template to template or vice versa in violation of WP:CITEVAR. It's the equivalent of saying you had justification to kill a man because he was committing a crime when all he was doing was littering. an entirely disingenuous stance.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree, if you do the change and someone has a problem with it then it can be discussed, other than that, I think your doing a helpful service and should continue. Kumioko (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes Bender. Obviuosly IAR would apply if CITVAR actually meant what some above seem to argue, but it cannot mean that where no one objects (such a claim is unreasonable). On the other hand, it is one thing to IAR, and quite another to IOE - ignore other editors. It looks like you have found two editors who will always object, so steer clear of thier articles (eg. where they have edited them) (or DR with them if it is important). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I usually don't check who owns an article before I edit. Plus, User:CBM seems to track my edits and arbitrarily reverts them on articles he, too, has not edited before. So there's no way to avoid "his" articles, because I have no idea which ones are his. --bender235 (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
That's a behaivioral issue. Do you want an interaction ban? That, you would probabely have to discuss directly with CBM, if you cannot work that out (but you might try WP:DR first). As for not checking the edit history, ok, but that would just be one way to potentially avoid the issue, the work, and the stress. Because it looks like policy allows you to add this info and policy allows others to object. But if someone is following you, they should not - not for this. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't waste your time with DR or an interaction ban with CBM. He has had ownership and behavioral issues with Math related articles for years. He rarely edits anymore and most of what he does do is just revert other peoples edits to articles he feels like he owns and seems to single out the same editors over and over. Nothing has ever been done about it and I doubt it ever will. Kumioko (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I've never heard of him before, but if any editor finds another is consistently breeching guideline, whether on this, vandalism or a POV issue, or things like WP:ERA, WP:ENGVAR etc, he is doing a useful service by following that editor and reverting or adjusting them. Surely we've all done that? It seems some people here just don't like WP:CITEVAR, but it is the guideline, and the community does support it. Johnbod (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
No. We're all saying that your interpretation is unreasonable, overly strict, and obviuosly leading to a potential for disruption, here, and no, no one, follows anyone around to enforce an unreasonabale interpretation of policy, not if they want to work with other people. If you have a systemic problem with Bender, then take him to DR or AN (after you kindly talk to him).Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I've never heard of Bender before either, but there are several disruptive cite-bandits out there, many less restrained than him, and too prolific to follow far back. The interpretation of the policy is not only reasonable but correct, and even if no one here seems to like the policy, it normally finds a lot of support from other editors on talk pages. See for example, currently, Talk:Roman Empire. If you don't like the policy you should try to change it. Johnbod (talk) 09:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
One of those "cite-bandits" is why don't edit anything involving aircraft. I carefully format cites and refs, fully linking everything, only to have them come along and strip out the lot, because "the cite template puts a comma in the wrong place" or somesuch trivia. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
As has been noted multiple time, it's one thing to discuss a particular article. It's quite another to blanket revert someone's else's edits on multiple articles based on the fallacy 'its always wrong.' That is unreasonable. Policy does not say, its always wrong, quite the opposite -- if the reason is article improvement by more informative citations, and the result is more informative citations, then it has a substantive recognized claim of being 'right and good' under CITEVAR. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Yep, concur with Alan. Kumioko (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Having just read all of this, ditto. — Scott talk 11:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I'd like to take a different approach to this discussion: CITEVAR is apparently unclear. For that, let me apologize. The reason I apologize is because I wrote the thing in the first place. I therefore think it not unreasonable of me to have some idea of what CITEVAR is supposed to say.

Speaking as its original author, CITEVAR is not supposed to prevent you from taking a mess of mixed-up, inconsistent citations and imposing (any) one form on it (except bare URLs). It is supposed to prevent you from taking a perfectly good citation system and changing it to some other citation system. There are three things that it tries to stop: Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style:

  1. merely on the grounds of personal preference,
  2. to make it match other articles, or
  3. without first seeking consensus for the change.

Let me expand on these three items, and then get back to the fundamental requirement:

  1. If your goal is to change the style simply because you love/hate Style X, then you do not get to make the change. Notice the word merely: if you've got a good objective reason (e.g., you happen to hate citation templates, but there's also a major problem with using them in this article, because they're slow and you're citing 500 different sources), then that's a different kettle of fish.
  2. If your goal is to change the style because everybody knows that all articles about widgets are supposed to use Style X (even if "the WikiProject said so!"), then you do not get to make the change.
  3. If you first seek consensus for the change you want, and you obtain consensus (or at least don't find any significant resistance), then you may change the style to whatever the consensus supports (or at least doesn't oppose).

Now back to that fundamental requirement: These three things only apply if any article actually has "an established citation style". If you find an article that doesn't have "an established citation style", then according to CITEVAR, you can WP:BOLDly do whatever you want to it.

So if you go over to Pain, you will find that there is an explicitly established style that does not use citation templates. You will find that 119 out of 124 current citations are plain wikitext, and the other five were added by people who didn't notice that the article doesn't use citation templates. The rejection of citation templates was discussed at length on the talk page. So if someone were to convert all of those citations to using templates, even if this is done to make it convenient to add dois, then that would violate CITEVAR.

But if you go over to Community-acquired pneumonia and figure out why the little blue superscripted "[1]" leads to two different citations marked "1", and fix it, then you've done a good thing. Ideally, you'll fix it in a way that involves the fewest number of changes/is most consistent with the dominant style, but you really are allowed to fix that mess. Similarly, you may go boldly, without a single word of discussion in advance, fix Ebastine so that it uses some kind of inline citation, rather than 100% general references. This is allowed under CITEVAR.

If this isn't clear to everyone from reading CITEVAR, then I hope you will join me on the talk page at WT:CITE to see how we can improve its clarity. I'd also be open to starting a {{supplement}} page to give specific examples of what should be discussed in advance and what should just be boldly improved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree more clarity is a good idea. The working of the "or" between 2 & 3 seems to be the issue with the current wording. But let's pursue it there. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
"Speaking as its original author, CITEVAR is not supposed to prevent you from taking a mess of mixed-up, inconsistent citations and imposing (any) one form on it (except bare URLs)."
This sounds good in theory, but in practice it is too vague. Consider this recent edit of mine. I added all sorts of missing bibliographic data. Now, if User:CBM had his scope on this article, he would likely revert my contribution, saying "the article's established style was non-template", and I could have added all the missing bibliographic information to the existing non-templated style.
The point is: CITEVAR needs to explain to certain users, what a "consistent citation style" actually is.
[16], Nikki R. Keddie, Social Research via, Summer 2000; accessed September 21, 2008.
Revolution, Islamization, and Women’s Employment in Iran, by Roksana Bahramitash
According to some users, these two form a consistent style, because they both do not use templates. That is just nonsense. "Non-templated" is not a citation style, and neither is "templated". Contrary, there are thousands of citation styles within the "non-templated" category, and in fact even various within "templated" ({{cite book}}, {{citation}}, {{vcite book}}, etc.).
I changed both of the citations above to:
Keddie, Nikki R. (2000). "Women in Iran Since 1979". Social Research. 67 (2): 405–438. JSTOR 40971478.
Bahramitash, Roksana (2002). "Revolution, Islamization, and Women's Employment in Iran" (PDF). Brown J. World Aff. 9 (2): 229–241. ISSN 1080-0786.
Could I have done that without templates? Sure. But that, too, would have meant to change the citation style. That is my point. --bender235 (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Generally speaking, the underlying format (e.g., citation templates vs manual formatting, whether templates are displayed on one line or one line per parameter, list-defined references vs inline) is considered by most editors to be a part of the "style", even though (1) the reader will never see it and (2) I personally think that's just a bit silly to consider anything that is invisible to the reader to be part of the "style". I don't "win" every discussion, but I do know WP:How to lose, and I was definitely in the minority on that discussion.
  • Even if you have to change the citation style (e.g., because there isn't a consistent style), it is usually preferable to make the fewest possible number of changes. Therefore, cleaning up that mess without templates (or without switching from WP:PAREN to little blue footnotes, or whatever) would be the ideal approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm wondering. If changing WP:CS1 without templates to CS1 with templates is considered a citation style change that violates WP:CITEVAR, does adding microformat generating date templates violate WP:DATERET in the same manner, and is therefore prohibited? --bender235 (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, then I'll stop doing those sorts of fixes. If I have to spend valuable time trying to figure out which of the myriads of citation styles in one article is the one the owner of the article wants me to choose, or (worse) none of the existent citation styles includes bibliographic details like volume, issue, and page numbers (see above) and I would have to arbitrarily choose a position anyways, but still am not allowed to do choose the easiest option and go for templates, it is just not worth it.
To give an example of the article that caused me the most trouble recently:
Eliot, T. S. "The Unfading Genius of Rudyard Kipling", Kipling Journal, March 1959, pg. 9.
Sorum, Eve. "Masochistic Modernisms: A Reading of Eliot and Woolf." Journal of Modern Literature. 28 (3): 25-43. Spring 2005.
Walcutt, Charles Child. Eliot's "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock". (1957). College English, 19, 71-72.
Three completely different citation styles in one article. Which one was the correct one, i.e. the one the owner of the article wishes to have? So instead of rolling the dice and then arbitrarly picking one of these, I rather choose WP:CS1 in the first place. --bender235 (talk) 06:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Well if you can't be bothered to propose this on the talk page, then wait a week or so to see if anyone objects, then you should stop editing in those circumstances. Johnbod (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, so tell me what to do in this example: I did some fixes, User:CBM reverted citing WP:CITEVAR (even tho he, like me, never edited the article before), and then I left a message on the article's talk page. Nobody reacted, apart from CBM. So, does that mean no opposition? Can I now implement the change? --bender235 (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
The talk page discussion you started is stuck at the two of you, neither contributors. While that continues I think you have to leave it. His drive-by objection is as valid as your drive-by change. "citation clean-up" is not the clearest edit summary. Johnbod (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
So CBM, or any user who doesn't like templates, is entitled to track my edits all over Wikipedia and revert them, citing CITEVAR for an apparent controversy they themselves created in that very moment. That's a perverted rule of there ever was one. --bender235 (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Benefits of citation templates

Much work has been done on citation template recently, adding useful features such as trapping invalid ISBNs and other errors, which seems to have been overlooked in the discussion here to date, and which advantages are not available in untemplated citations.

Furthermore, for some years our citation templates have emitted machine-readable metadata in the form of COinS markup, which is an internationally recognised and interoperable format. This means that they can be understood by citation management tools such as Zotero and Mendeley, and thus more easily and conveniently reused by editors in other articles (I do this regularly using Zotero), and by people who need to cite the same source in other works, or query their library catalogue, or whatever.

Anyone replacing an untemplated citation with one using any one of our citation templates could arguably be said not to be doing it for "personal preference", but for the added value it brings to our fellow editors and to our readers. I realise that this view may not be popular with those who object to the use of templates, or metadata, for whatever reason, and indeed may attract the kind of attempts at opprobrium which Bender235 has experienced, but the fact that such mechanisms exist is unarguable and the benefits undeniable. It's my understanding that CITEVAR pre-dates such benefits (if not, its disregard of them is lamentable) and so should be revised accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. People tend to forget that Wikipedia is also read by machines. That is why our infobox templates support hCard microformat. Having our citation templates provide COinS markup is just one of the many benefits.
Unfortunately, this is not the place to suggest a change in CITEVAR, or MOS in general. --bender235 (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree too. Just the ISBN validation can be expected to catch many errors that would otherwise go missed. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Very good point Andy, and given Wikipedia's mission is to enable the widest possible audience to benefit from free knowledge, templates which open up that content to other audiences (for citation analysis, quality checking or just for reading in novel ways) further that goal. Thanks for keeping the focus on "the added value it brings to our fellow editors and to our readers". I hope other editors take your cue. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I would wager that the concerns over manual vs. template citations losing the ISBN validation and other technical benefits could be met with some program (maybe even a bot created ) to look for that. Just requires the time and ingenuity for someone to write it. And Wikipedia relies on redundant alternatives to address the needs of its varied users and contributors. The same should apply here, with WP:CITEVAR, the technical ramifications, etc. What we have here is a "six of one, half dozen of another" quandary. By making Wikipedia more machine-friendly, we make it less contributor-friendly. Forcing such a change would drive away editors that run from an article they've thought about adding to when they see template cruft (I'm one of them...just not worth my time to wade through that crap...and it keeps me away from making the contributions I prefer making and enjoy making). Wikipedia already has enough editors disappearing, the increasingly esoteric coding would just lead more of them to other hobbies, and content on Wikipedia would suffer. Machines don't contribute the quality content, whether they read it or not is incidental because Wikipedia is ultimately dependent on contribution.

In political philosophy, technocratic societies tend to exclude people who would otherwise be a benefit to it except for their technical knowledge. The increasing emphasis, as Weber and other reification scholars point out, undermines notions of community and purpose, and creates an augmented alienation and among those who might want to identify with that community or purpose. Ultimately, it is that alienation that leads them to find other things to identify with. It creates castes, and precludes mobility. That's the psychological/sociological basis for why an editor would leave or avoid contributing to Wikipedia or any similar increasingly technocratic community. People find things (hobbies, activities, etc.) that validate their worth. Making it harder for people to feel the merits of contributing make them contribute elsewhere. Wikipedia suffers. That historical and sociological lesson ought to be applied here. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Your wager ignores two important points: who will write and operate such a tool? And why would they expend such effort, given that we already have a working technical solution. Will you? The visual editor will remove the perceived barrier of what you dismiss as "that crap". Otherwise, your philosophical essay ignores the advantages which I describe, and offers no viable alternative means of providing them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Visual editor should remove it, but it has its own shortcomings. If someone gets around to it, all the better, but I know it won't be me writing/operating such a tool. That's not my area, and I recognize my limitations...especially it would keep me from stuff I actually like to do. No one method is everything for everybody, that's why alternatives exist. If you can't open a can with a can opener, there's an automatic one, or you can use a hammer and screwdriver the rough way. By way of another analogue...not everyone can make chocolate soufflés...there's only one way to do it and it's a bitch to do. However, a lot of people can make chocolate mousse or for the less able chocolate pudding and there are several ways of doing it from scratch or by an instant mix. If the world only allowed chocolate soufflé we'd have a lot of crappy soufflé, and a lot of people would start hating chocolate.--ColonelHenry (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see anyone trying to force you to make chocolate soufflé (use citation templates); but I see some people saying that because they can't make soufflé, nobody should be allowed to in a particular kitchen (on a given article). If you want to add citations as plain text, it's quite clear from the conversation above, that someone will turn your raw ingredients into a delicious soufflé. However, (and while I don't intend to prolong this discussion further), I should be happy (after my weekend wikibreak) to talk you through the use of citation templates, which are no more complex than the infobox template which you recently asked me to expand, in order that you can use it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the offer, but I already know how to use the various citation templates, I just prefer not to use them. They slow me down, and I despise having to edit around them. For the record, I don't screw with infoboxes--that got me in trouble years ago when I was still learning and I find it wiser to avoid that imbroglio--so I appreciate your assistance on that. As you can see, in some areas, I'd rather ask someone to do something rather than stomp on what is putatively someone else's backyard...something WP:CITEVAR intends to accomplish by keeping drive-by editors from getting a one-night stand with an article and unceremoniously disregarding the workspace preferences of those who actually did or do most of the heavy lifting. When you walk into an architect's office, it's usually bad form to move his pencil jar just because. When wielded in a way as to ride roughshod (the changing of formats) for the sake of personal preferences, sure the intentions may be good (hey, we're all improving the encyclopaedia), but it's hard to assume good faith when its done unilaterally over protest. We'll always have to agree to disagree...then move on to better things. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I always thought chocolate soufflé was pretty easy. I mean, you just cook your sauce and beat your egg whites and fold it together. It's not really harder than an old-fashioned (raw egg) mousse. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Last night's episode of Masterchef made me think of that example. I make a pretty good soufflé, too...but I've had a lot of bad soufflés by people who didn't know to make one and hear too many others run scared from it. So the analogy still works. ;-) --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Correct me if I am wrong, but was there not a template cap? Or was that a previous version of mediawiki that we have since moved beyond? Resolute 16:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    For most cases, we don't hit it. --Izno (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    • No, we don't. But that limitation is as meaningful to us and our readers as the existence of metadata within the templates is. Resolute 18:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
      • What is the "template cap" and how does it work or help, here, for the woefully uninformed like me?Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
As I understand it, template cap has to do with how much time is required to process and render the text that a template produces. Simple templates take a short amount of time. Complex templates, like CS1 when they used {{citation/core}}, required much more time. With the transition to the Lua Module:Citation/CS1, citations can now be processed rendered many times faster.
If you look at the page source for this page and search for "NewPP limit report" you will find the statistics for this page.
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to ColonelHenry's believe, "by making Wikipedia more machine-friendly, we make it less contributor-friendly," I don't think citation templates do that. While it is true that editing templates (in particular infoboxes) tends to confuse unexperienced users, existing citations should be the last thing edited by new users. A citation (once it is complete) does not need to be touched anymore. If anything, users might want to add new citations. And if they do, they easily can without using templates, and simply wait for an experienced user to fix them. The same way it happens with all others types of newbie edits on Wikipedia. --bender235 (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
So creating inconsistent styles, allowing you to sweep in & change everything to the style you like? Johnbod (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Is it better to leave inconsistent citations inconsistent? Are we still trying to improve Wikipedia here, or is this all about people propagating their stubborn ideology? --bender235 (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
A bikeshed painted green is simply intolerable! The only correct color with which to paint a bikeshed is blue! -- (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

infobox film template

(I've tried looking around to see if this has been brought up before, didn't see anything. So here goes...)

Since nearly all articles about films, especially new ones, contain the films critical ratings from the review site Rotten Tomatoes, has there ever been any consideration to adding this item to the infobox? (thereby necessitating a template change).

For example, the bottom of the infobox could (sort of) look like this;

Country - United States

Language - English

Budget - $150,000,000[1]

Box office - $642,740,000[2]

RT rating - 71%[3]

This, of course, is if we just add it to the bottom of the list. The order of precedence could be debated.

Any thoughts anyone? - thewolfchild 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

See Template:Infobox film#IMDb, Allmovie, and other external links for a brief summation. ;)
Also, we tend to avoid non-official External links in infoboxes, with a few exceptions in the sciences. –Quiddity (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I had read that already, but I wasn't suggesting adding external links to the infobox (they're fine where they are at the bottom of the page). I was merely suggesting adding the value of the Rotten Tomatoes rating. As I said, this is already included in the body of virtually every film article, this would just make it quicker to reference. Also, since it's right under the box office total, it provides a greater picture, at a glance, of the film's success. I also suggested RT as it seems to be the premiere/ go to site for critical consensus (as supported by Alexa rankings).
This is a minor adjustment that can only enhance the infobox and therefore the articles. This is also a small, specific and singular issue that has not been addressed before. - thewolfchild 22:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake.
However, Template talk:Infobox film is the place to suggest that. I suspect it very unlikely to be supported though, as despite their popularity, rottentomatoes is still a subjective resource, and infoboxes tend to (try to) avoid subjectivity [as a gross generalization]; RT is also a commercial entity, which adds complications. –Quiddity (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'll take it there. - thewolfchild 04:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

"Why Wikipedia Should Be Your New LinkedIn"

Not sure that this is the correct place, but editors may want to be aware of this article, written by User:Versability, in case there is an influx of self promoting editors. It may be appropriate to take sanctions against the editor in question also, since their only edits seem to be of a self-promotional nature, and the article goes against the whole ethos of Wikipedia. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Brian_Penny. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The Patriot Ledger, which should know better, should get some scathing e-mails from as many Wikipedians as possible, making it clear that they have been pwned, and misled their own readers, to the detriment of their reputation. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
We've found a witch. May we burn her?. In all seriousness I think a indefinite salting of the title, an indefinite block of the editor until such time that they post a follow up to correct the first post's misconceptions. Hasteur (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you think we should take it to WP:ANI? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
In reaction to his block, Brian has declared war on Wikipedia. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
@Rob Sinden, @Orange Mike, I think the ideal place to really focus our effort with issues like this is a new Wikipedia:VPI#Public_relations_noticeboard.3F. That way we can organize letter writing, etc. Biosthmors (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I suspect the WMF might not approve. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I would agree. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not pester critics. We have much better uses of our time here. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
@bd2412, I think you might be thinking in a more restricted fashion than I am. Did you happen to read my post at VPI? I don't think it would be a waste of time respond to the BMJ in print or to identify opporutnites for the WMF to issue blog posts to highlight English Wikipedia progress. The board could serve many many uses. It could stimulate creative responses to things online which could attract people to help build the encyclopedia. That's my hope. If this expands your vision of what I was proposing, what do you think now? Might it be potentially useful? Biosthmors (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
@Orange Mike, given Philippe's response here about another noticeboard, I doubt they would mind to a noticeboard being created. Also, even if they had reservations, wouldn't they be, at least to a degree, irrelevant, given that we're a volunteer community? Biosthmors (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The default message before one creates an article

The default message before one creates an article says, as the first out of five bullet points: "Before creating an article, please read Wikipedia:Your first article." WP:YFA is too long to ask people to do that, in my opinion. We should have a shorter intro, if we're really going to ask people to read it. Where's the MediaWiki page space that hosts this default message? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Newarticletext. Cheers. (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Visual impairment and vision loss

I'd like to talk with some editors who have different levels of vision impairment, to learn what system/browser settings they use, and what other software they frequently find helpful. Things like screen-magnification levels, specific fonts, copying text into alternate text-editors, custom style-sheets, and everything else. I've started a thread at WikiProject Accessibility#Visual impairment, listing what I can find, and would appreciate any comments, or assistance in finding the relevant editors (please nudge anyone you know of who might help). Thanks! –Quiddity (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

RFC regarding List of new religious movements

There is currently an RFC at List of new religious movements which was originally focused on a single entry, but the discussion has expanded into the general criteria for such a list. Given that the list of participants in the RFC pretty much consists of the same editors involved in the discussion that culminated in the request, and that the scope of the request is expanding somewhat to include additional "what if?" scenarios, additional opinions and commentary would be appreciated. Please note that the RfcBot was not functioning when the RFC was listed, so there was limited notification which may also explain the "closed group" participation. Thank you in advance for participating. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Copy pasting from other wikipedias using google translate

I noticed two pages today: [17] and [18]. This worries me a bit. Any ideas of how can we deal with it? Maybe a new filter? -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yet another one. This is plagiarism and I start blocking if I notice more cases. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I reverted one here at Battle of Voronezh (1943) by the same IP as the one who did Orsha offensives (1943). The copied text appeared to be a mixture of English and Romanian. EdJohnston (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

One more. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

What happened??

Look at Wikipedia:Gender identity. At Wikipedia talk:Manual of style, it looks like people who are against the current status quo are trying harder to reveal their thoughts than people who support it. Why?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

For me I got tired of the comments that seem transphobic and a general atmosphere that is simply unpleasant. I find the whole idea that a majority will vote on wether or not to respect a minority is distasteful. This is the same prejudice trans people face every day and it is draining. At some point you have to take care of yourself and leave others who are willing to defend common decency. The only upside is that we are helping those who may have "old-fashioned" viewpoints are revealing themselves. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I find it distasteful to see revisionist history in general encyclopedia articles, to the point where some advocate language such as "She fathered a child" and worse "She became a parent" implying a biological impossibility. I also doubt the one-size-fits-all assertions that every trans person considers themselves to have always been the gender they now identify themselves as. Or, for that matter, the assertion that every person who prefers homosexual relationships as an adult is both 100% homosexual and has been since conception. And I find it very disturbing that some are so quick to label everyone who disagrees with their extreme position as "transphobic". Anomie 04:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for illustrating my concerns so vividly. I think you've underscored my point better than I had hoped. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Pages with missing files

My talk page has the hidden category Pages with missing files. How do I find what is causing this hidden category?--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This happens when there is a link to a file that does not exist. For example; at User talk:Dthomsen8#Let's talk there is a link to File:Talk_talk.jpg, which is a non-existant file and so your talk page is added to that category. There may be other missing files, but your talk page is large (over 180K) so I didn't look through the whole thing. (talk) 03:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
The one you mentioned was the only missing on. Thank you for your help.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Deep User Inspector

This tool provides a very detailed analysis of a user's contributions, as well as information about pages edited. It is not a server-side PHP program like some other "edit counters", but rather a client-side script getting data from the API. Its source is available on Github. Credit: User:Ricordisamoa. πr2 (tc) 21:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

What's the purpose of linking it here? --Ricordisamoa 22:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the heads up, πr2. I've left a note at WT:SPI in case those folks would like to try the tool. (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Anyone want to help start the article "Money and politics in the United States"?

Money and politics in the United States should exist, in my opinion. A rough sketch of an outline is at User:Biosthmors/Money_and_politics_in_the_United_States. Feel free to join in or start the article yourself. Best regards. Biosthmors (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Has your recruting in Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Money and politics task force been fruitful? Jim.henderson (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Jim.henderson for pointing me in that direction. I wasn't aware it existed. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Always good to do a search including variations. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Translate problem

Hello. When I was writing the page w:nl:Henry Atkins at the Dutch Wikipedia, I found at this page that he was a candidate at the 1873 elections in Seattle for being a "marshall". I didn't know and I still don't know what sort of "marshall" is ment. At the page marshal are a lot of meanings and for me all those meanings look strange. Does anybody know what is ment with "marshall"? Supercarwaar (talk) 11:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is solved at the Dutch village pump, it's a sort of sheriff. - Supercarwaar (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Trimming cruft from Google Books URLs

There is plan to use a bot to trim cruft from Google Books URLs in citations. We need someone familiar with their format, to advise on which parameters can safely be trimmed, and which, if any, should be left. Can anyone advise, at Trimming cruft from Google Books URLs, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Mass moving pages with non-straight quotes in pagetitle

Bgwhite created a wonderful list (User:Bgwhite/Sandbox1) with pages that have non-straight quotes in pagetitle. Non-straight quotes are not allowed per WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS. I would like to start moving the pages in the correct place if there is not a problem with it. And yes, I would like help to do that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Its fairly trivial to do these mass moves via pywikipedia. Werieth (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Werieth, I'm assuming that you mean Sorry, I'm an old dog and python is a new trick. Bgwhite (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


Please add reference to my new articles Valentina Voilkova and Levan Gabriadze and connect them to the russian ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scymso (talkcontribs) 14:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Scymso. Maybe someone will! But you can as well very easily just see H:Cheatsheet. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Trans woman articles

The Bradley Manning article has a new message at the top that I can read when I click on edit source. It is a good message because compared with the HTML comment:

<!--Per Wikipedia:Manual of style, use she/her to refer to (trans woman's name) throughout her life.-->

which can be edited by altering the pronouns the same way the article in general can, the new message cannot. I think that this new message (see the box at the Bradley Manning article for what I mean) should be at all articles about trans women. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking for random user feedback: can you see "View Activity" in this link?

When you go here, can you see the "View Activity" tab? If so, can you see the recent activity as a result of the linked assignment from Jersey? I'm asking you if you don't have the special user rights of WP:Course coordinator, WP:Course campus volunteer, or WP:Course online volunteer (you can check here if you don't know). For what it's worth, education issues are typically discussed at WP:ENB, but perhaps we're insular over there and I'd like to see what this project space looks like for people without the specific user rights. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind! One can. Biosthmorstest (talk) 07:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


Please note the death of Saye Zerbo. Thank you--Scymso (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. But why didn't you do it yourself? -- Derek Ross | Talk 08:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Please participate in an RfC to determine if People magazine is a reliable source for BLPs

Graphs, diagrams, charts, etc

I think there is a lot of confusion about these terms in all Wikimedia projects, in particular en.wikipedia in the page Diagram says that charts and graphs are particular diagrams, while in commons diagrams are described as a subcategory of graphs. In particular the category of commons Category:Graphs and Category:Diagrams and their subcategories look like nobody as a clear knowledge of these two terms. In Italian the meanings of "Graphs" (grafici) and "Diagrams" (diagrammi) are a little different from the English, so I think the same confusion is in the other languages, so it is necessary to explain in a correct a clear way these meanings and to correct what is wrong. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Retrieve username given email

Is it possible to lookup a username given the user's email? I think I may have another old, forgotten account that was tied to my school email. Thanks — MusikAnimal talk 01:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

If you still have access to your school email, you can use Special:PasswordReset and see if you get the password reset email. Other than that, it's possible for someone with direct database access to look it up (#mediawiki connect would be a place to ask), but I don't know how you'd convince them that you are the former owner of that email address. Anomie 11:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a notice to inform English Wikipedia about the (re)start of a discussion which doesn't directly impact Wikipedia, but might be of interest to some. In short, myself and a few other Wikimedia editors decided to oppose the registration of the community logo as a trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation.

The history of the logo, the intents behind our action and our hopes for the future are described in detail at meta:Community Logo/Reclaim the Logo; to keep the discussion in one place, please leave your comments on the talk page on meta. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Bluerasberry and Jmh649, FYI, this a topic I think you have both mentioned. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes I support John's efforts. These logos belong to the movement. The WMF is part of the movement but not the only part. Control should be decided jointly not unilaterally. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
It's more complicated than that. If it's not registered and under some kind of control, then anybody in the world can use the logo for whatever they want. At the very most, the person abusing it would merely need to claim to be a part of "the movement" (and how would you ever prove that wrong?). Unless we want this to be a logo that can be used to promote spam, I think you should go read what the lawyers are saying. Carefully. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
In case you want to "unregister" the trademark, would "the movement" (instead of WMF) also pay any lawyers once the logo is misused? Or claimed as a trademark by someone else who is not related to Wikimedia at all and then asks "the movement" to stop using the logo by its lawyers? And in case you want to pass ownership of the trademark you would still need a legal entity as owner. That's all my private interpretation only though, as I am not a lawyer. --Malyacko (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if this would help, but WSFS is an unincorporated literary society which holds trademarks. It is a legal entity, but it's not a corporation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Public Domain

I believe that an image is in the public domain, but I cannot find a specific date or publisher. This website has it here, and it's stated here as early '1900s'. Can I use this image under public domain or another license, or not? Thanks.--ɱ (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, ɱ. :) What matters generally is date of publication, not the date the picture is taken. The best place to get feedback on that, though, would be WP:MCQ, where editors very experienced in analyzing media copyright issues hang out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you.--ɱ (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Why am I the only one?


I've been importing music from sites like audiotool to illustrate articles of music genres for two years (Techstep, Oldschool jungle, Hardstyle...). Why am I almost the only one to do that and why hasn't this work been done earlier? I find very difficult to figure out what a music is like when you don't hear a single sound so it sounds very important to me and most of our articles don't feature a track. There are lots of free-licensed tracks. I don't understand. Is there a valid reason not to feature an example? I don't see such a reason. It is hard to find a free-licensed track that is notable so the tracks I've imported are not notable but the notability criteria only applies on the article subject, not on the article content. Non notable content can be featured if it helps to understand the subject and it is the case. Ftiercel (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why you are seemingly the only one to be doing so, but I greatly appreciate the fact that when I looked up chord progressions a couple weeks ago that there were nice little snippets of sheet music and midi files of them to illustrate each and every one. If that's the sort of stuff you are doing, then godspeed to you, and I hope you find some companions soon. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 21:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that nobody seems to care about those examples, do not react and let the content disappear whereas I find an example the most useful information for the reader. For example, an example on Drum and bass has been removed because it is not notable (which is not a valid reason) and because the drumfunk is not a famous sub-genre enough and an example in Wonky (music) has been removed because the track was not perfect enough (is void more perfect by the way?). We are back to square one. Two fifths of my audiotool hard work has been annihilated in a few seconds by futile reasons. What about the rest? I can't keep spending hours and days on this work if it is not perpetuated so I need to understand first. Do you consider it useful or not? Has people thought about the benefit for the reader? Ftiercel (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
The articles in question possibly don't have that many editors watchlisting them vigilantly, hence removals might simply have gone unnoticed.
I suspect the majority of editors are grateful for the examples that you add. Multimedia is not used nearly as much as it could/should be (partially due to the complications of learning/understanding the license issues).
You might be interested in watchlisting the low activity Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Sound (and its parent page), and looking at the newly formed mw:Multimedia. –Quiddity (talk) 05:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit Summary Question

I have seen several times in edit summaries of Wikipedia history pages a "+" or "-" sign in front of a word/words. Are these symbols being used to replace the words "added" or "removed", or do they mean something else altogether? Thanks. (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, some editors use "+" for "added" and "-" for "removed". GoingBatty (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Note that "rm" is often used for "removed" as well. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 11:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Cruel and unusual punishment in default MediaWiki space message?

See MediaWiki_talk:Newarticletext#Cruel_and_unusual_punishment.3F. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

We need a single page to view default MediaWiki messages, does it exist?

Is there a single place to get a plain view of every default MediaWiki: space message, that also includes links to the talk page of each, if one wanted to propose revisions? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Special:AllMessages. Although I'm wary of this idea that you're going to want to be proposing a lot of changes; if you're looking at changes that would be generally applicable to MediaWiki everywhere it would be better to figure out how to get them merged into MediaWiki itself instead of making the change locally. Anomie 10:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I proposed a change at MediaWiki_talk:Newarticletext#Cruel_and_unusual_punishment.3F. I'm talking about generating discussion like that. I don't think you were thinking what I was thinking. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
The Special page you linked is also not what I was hoping to view. I'll try to explain myself more clearly. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
So if one views Your first article there's a default box there. I don't know where this one is in MediaWiki: space on the English Wikipedia. I'd like to see a page such as Wikipedia:MediaWiki messages to list all of them. Above each instance should be headers that give links to the (talk page?) of each one, like MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext. That way, there'd be a link to the discussion page and and a plain-visible display combo for every relevant and highly viewed default message on the English Wikipedia. If we can go over this space with fresh eyes, we might yield tangible results in terms of Editor retention. We lose people fast after they create an account. (Why can't I cross post this comment to relevant WikiProjects simultaneously, as a new thread? I'd like for it to appear at WP:Growth (team) and WP:WikiProject Editor Retention. That would be a fantastic feature that would boost productivity in my opinion. Is that part of WP:Flow?) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Interesting, there was a project devoted to it that is now historical (Wikipedia:MediaWiki messages). I thought I might generate a red link. That page needs a revamping in other words. It could actually be much more useful. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This link: will show you the names of the Mediawiki: items on the page (any page, if you adapt the URL). Just type Mediawiki: followed by the name of the item (which is in parentheses) to find the page that contains the items. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Preferences → Gadgets → Add a toolbox link to display the current page with MediaWiki message names replacing their text. --  Gadget850 talk 18:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I am posting this message as an advertisement for some images from the Science Museum, London. This organization with assistance from Wikipedian user:Mrjohncummings is sharing 50 historical images at Wikipedia:GLAM/NHMandSM/Science Museum images. I feel that this is a significant as it is the first case of which I am aware of a general-purpose science museum trying to share its media with the Wikipedia community. I find their donation to be aligned with Wikipedia community values and without any problematic restrictions, and I would like for this to set a precedent and model for all science museums to recognize that they should be adapting media related to their collections for reuse on Wikimedia projects.

I would like to ask that anyone who is interested in promoting science please check out the gallery and consider taking any of the images and integrating them into appropriate Wikipedia articles in any language. I hope that the day comes when all educational institutions also think of pooling their resources with Wikipedia. Thanks for your attention. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, there are a couple I can use for my lectures for the first-year bachelor students.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
These are fantastic. I especially like the picture of Dirac with Pauli. I whole-heartedly agree that more museums should be doing this. Seems like Science Museum, London is ahead of the curve! Jason Quinn (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


Somebody created the article Hindkowans but there are no such people in the world who call self that or any reliable source which mentions a group of people called that. The people who speak Hindko language call self Pathans and are referred by that name in Pakistan. Can someone help me fix this or direct me to where this should be addressed. Thanks.--Fareed30 (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You need to propose a move at the article's talk page. Talk:Hindkowans. What would be a better name? (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the article should be redirected to Pashtun people because Hindko-speaking people identify selves as "Pathans", which is alternative for Pashtuns, and that's the name they are known by. Just because some of them choose to speak Hindko language more often than Pashto doesn't mean they become a different ethnic group. "Hindowans" means Hindus from Hindustan (India) but the Hindko-speaking Pathans are not Hindus and not from Hindustan.--Fareed30 (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

FLC elections

  Thank you for participating in the 2013 FLC Elections. The new delegates have been selected.

Elected delegates: Crisco 1492 and SchroCat.

Everyone is invited to participate. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ21 00:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013

The yearly Arbitration Committee Election request for comments is now open. There remain some unresolved issues from last year to discuss, and editors have also expressed a desire to propose changes. All editors are invited to participate. The way the RFC is to be conducted has been modified from previous years by a recent RFC, the changes are summarized at the top of the RFC, reviewing them may be helpful. Monty845 00:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


Please move Bob Kurland in the deaths list to september 30. Thank you--Scymso (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

@Scymso: - If you mean Deaths in 2013, it's already been done for September 29. If you mean something else, please provide more information. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Help on dates

I'm sure I saw in the Manual of Style somewhere at some time the answer to this question, but try as I may I can't find it now. Which is the correct usage:

A: "The school opened February 12, 2004." "The album was released March 19, 2006."
B: "The school opened on February 12, 2004." "The album was released on March 19, 2006."

Or is there no MoS preference? Emeraude (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not a MoS expert, but my immediate impression that the difference probably depends most strongly on the variant of English the article is using. Chris857 (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
A is just wrong in British English, and informal journalese in American English; it would not make it into a academic book from one of the best US presses, nor I think The New Yorker. Since B is correct and unobjectionable everywhere, we should always try to use that. There is a bit of the MOS somewhere that gives that general principle (MOS:COMMONALITY); whether this particular issue is addressed anywhere in the date guidelines I don't know. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete all previous versions of my user page

I am trying to reduce my footprint online, and I would like all previous versions of my userpage to be deleted. Can an admin do that please? Bwmoll3 (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

  Done Hut 8.5 15:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest noticeboard

Several days-old queries await response at the conflict of interest noticeboard. If any experienced Wikipedians with a basic knowledge of the guideline and a little extra time on their hands would like to help out there, the rewards would tremendous (though completely intangible). Rivertorch (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent increase in vandalism

Just wanted to mention that vandalism seems to have taken a 30-40% leap on the articles I am watching. For the past several years, bots have been able to stop much of the vandalism. I don't know what has suddenly (last week or so) caused the uptick. Alert human editors are doing most of the reversion. Maybe random walk and just now hitting my list! I hope your watchlists are not similarly afflicted! If I had an idea to stop it, I would mention it, believe me! Student7 (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

User:ClueBot NG has been down for maintenance since 30 Sept. GB fan 00:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

en.Wikipedia nonprofit

Would it make sense for en.WP to have a nonprofit corporation with a bank account, CEO and staff dedicated to supporting its mission by providing legal advice, technical services, and supporting outreach, etc? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Which problem with the current setup (Wikimedia Foundation) do you try to solve, and why do you think of splitting en.WP from the other WPs? --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi AKlapper. It's more a matter of me looking for a structural social element that will give a better sense of coherence, potency and dignity to this community. (See my response to User:Bluerasberry.) The board of such a body would perform the function Erik is crying out for here where he's finding it impossible to "negotiate" with a crowd of 7,000. And it could take on the management and funding of much-needed micro-projects that are specific to en, and it's funds disbursement process would be closer to and so more in tune with and responsive to en's unique needs than the (inevitably) more remote WMF structure. If you think this might interest Erik or anyone else at WMF, would you please point them to this discussion? Input from your end would be appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I do not think this is the time for splitting into new projects when the Wikimedia Foundation is already operating under capacity for the resources it has due to lack of community demand for the support which anyone knows how to provide. On meta there is the new Idea Lab which is an attempt to trade some of the organization's budget surplus into funded projects which recruit additional participants. I do not think that anyone has the vision that the WMF should always oversee everything - it has made a lot of steps toward forking control to chapters in different countries and community managers for various projects, and whenever anyone has a need for more support if they step forward and propose an introductory project I think they would be fairly considered by both the community and the WMF. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm conscious of their focus on geographic representation, and the different project funding options (but I wasn't aware of that discussion at Idea Lab. Thank you. I'll take a look.) I've been thinking - not very deeply - about the situation with Wikimedia DE and de.Wikipedia. I get the sense the German language Wikipedia editing community is a lot more coherent and functional than this community, and I'm wondering if this is because they have Wikimedia DE as a de facto representative. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Anthonyhcole, AKlapper (WMF), User:Bluerasberry, has anyone ever tried to start a non-profit to support prolific and valued content creators with full-time jobs? What would the legal implications of that be for the non-profit? I susupect the WMF wouldn't want to fund such an organization, or would it? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Mmm. Not that I know of. I've vaguely thought it would be good to have a team of gun medical editors that we could team up with experts from the various professional societies. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I know the general WMF position is no direct funds for content creation. Would indirect WMF funds for content creation going through the administration of another non-profit be objectionable as well? Might it shield the WMF from any legal concerns? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't know whether it's legal or philosophical concerns that underpin their reluctance. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Prolific and valued content creators should be hired and funded by educational outreach organizations, not the WMF. If the WMF funds any part of this it should be the creation of resources which support organizations in hiring Wikipedians. Every organization is already completely convinced that they have to commit time and resources to having staff Facebook and Twitter professionals, and no one ever suggested that Facebook or Twitter fund people to manage those communication channels. In many cases, such as in the field of health, there are large numbers of non-profit educational organizations whose only mission is to support the public in each individual's search for the kind of information which is already on Wikipedia. It would not be unreasonable to say that health education and health information presentation accounts for 0.5-1% of global GDP. There is no way that the Wikimedia Foundation could ever fund complete support for such a massive endeavor nor should they try. I would like to see more Wikipedians and would-be-Wikipedians propose ways that the WMF can support proposals for individuals to become Wikimedia community partners in every field of media just like FB and Twitter have done, and I feel like the WMF is doing this to the extent that the community requests it.
Anthonyhcole, Erik's suggestion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#VisualEditor_now_opt-in_only_for_all_users_on_English_Wikipedia for more non-WMF central organization is just a proposal among many others and while this could be implemented if there were community demand to do so (and there is not right now), I think that neither this nor any other single action - could ever be clearly recognized as being a clear solution to community management difficulties. His idea is great but for it to work I would want it to happen by a community of stakeholders whose majority funding did not come from the WMF but who were greatly supported by the Wikipedia community. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Of course, to most of what you just said. As for the last sentence, I'm pointing to the effect that Wikimedia DE has on de.Wikipedia community coherence. Wikimedia DE derives the majority of its funding from the Foundation. You say you "want it to happen by a community of stakeholders whose majority funding did not come from the WMF but who were greatly supported by the Wikipedia community." OK. Why? Why not one funded by WMF? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikimedia Deutschland may or may not be getting funding from the WMF. Nominally it is true because the WMF processes the donations, but German people who donate to the WMF are often expecting that their money go to the stewardship of the German Wikipedia and might be upset if it came to pass that the German Wikipedia community said that German donations unduly went to support non-German interests. For this reason, I am not sure that I would say that Wikimedia DE derives the majority of its funding from the WMF or non-German charity, and I think I would rather say that they get most of their funding from the German people.
Wikimedia DE does enhance community coherence in Germany but I am not sure that the organization should take credit for community coherence. Germans like community organizations anyway, and German Wikipedians really like organization, and I think that Wikimedia DE is more of an outgrowth of the community rather than the community being an outgrowth of it. Any place with community needs like Germany's could have a comparable organization. Right now no other region or group comes close and I would like to see chapters and even casual meetups more empowered before starting to develop other structures. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Interesting. The implication here being that some wmf:chapters might not be outgrowths of the community. So to generalize, to what extent do existing chapters reflect community desires vs. just adopting a structure to gain funding? Perhaps some are just byproducts of WMF desires—they want the "in your own language" PR to be true, so they're willing to throw money at the problem—and local desires for jobs for nice people who have volunteered on Wikipedia before but are looking to "cash out", so to speak. (I'm currently being remunerated because of having a position that resulted from people observing my wiki-networking/Wikipedia editing, kind of like how a Wikipedian in Residence might start. But I didn't want that title because I thought the position might not bring many benefits to Wikimedia platforms, so I didn't want to dilute the brand-value.) Or is the WMF desire to throw money around internationally also some sort of quasi-geo-political play? I know Jimbo has an interest in international PR/diplomacy along the lines of brand management, and he's getting paid as a political advisor in the UK. For whatever reason, the WMF is focusing on Brazil and the Arab world. So $557,863 is a recently announced potential "investment", as mentioned recently in the Signpost. (Each one of those dollars is of course meaningful.) Or is it an investment? I'm heavily involved in the education program at the WP:ENB education noticeboard, trying to pick up the pieces of a WMF project that went of the rails, in my opinion. And to get back to chapters, how would one measure whether existing chapters are true outgrowths of community desires? The German example is persuasive to me. But we might have a problem on our hands. Do some chapters represent lifeless bureacracies that exist for bureaucracies sake? When does a chapter close, and when does a chapter have WMF or community input to change staff if the mission is not being executed with value? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Well I've learned a little about funding. You're right, Bluerasberry, Germany's funding all comes from donations to them. (Last year their fundraising entity's income, mostly from private donations, was about €9,000,000; and it allocated nearly €2,000,000 to WMDE, the association that delivers the services — I assume the remainder went to WMF. WMDE also received about one and a half million in direct donations, most of which was earmarked for development of Wikidata - a Germany-based initiative.[19]) I thought they were in the same boat as UK - but I haven't really given it much thought until now.
And I'm persuaded by your argument in favour of community development and bottom-up demand preceding formal structure, the lack of which seems to be behind the troubles at the chapters association and the disappointing outcomes from the WMF's third world efforts.
Regarding your earlier points, ways that the WMF can support proposals for individuals to become Wikimedia community partners in every field of media just like FB and Twitter have done and the creation of resources which support organizations in hiring Wikipedians, can you elaborate on that? Is there anything FB and Twitter are doing in terms of engagement with stakeholders that WMF or the community could learn from? What kind of WMF resources might help with placement of quality Wikimedians in stakeholder organisations? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I find the rosy picture of WMDE that you're painting really astonishing. I dare you to ask german Wikipedians what they think about WMDE and how WMDE contributed to the functionality of german Wikipedia. Let me warn you though, that german responses are often brutally direct ("Im Deutschen lügt man, wenn man höflich ist." Goethe, Faust). I suspect "bureaucratic waterhead" will be one of the least aggressive things you will hear. --Atlasowa (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Biosthmors, the statements you make are correct but you put a negative tone on things which I see in an entirely positive light. Yes, some Wikimedia chapters are not community outgrowths - they are an attempt to quickly grow a community by starting with a few volunteers and encouraging them to apply for funding to manage outreach projects. This can be a good thing. I personally have not heard any gossip about any chapter having volunteers who try to "cash out", or any accusations of this, but then I try to spend my time with people who are having successes and so anyone lackluster or there just for money would be unlikely to get my attention. Still, I just never hear about this kind of problem in Wikimedia and I am a bit sensitive to it as I know something about health volunteer activists - a much more funded volunteer sector - doing scammy things for funding, so it does happen. I am not going to comment here on global funding strategies for either target regions or target programs, but I will answer your question about how "how would one measure whether existing chapters are true outgrowths of community desires". I wrote a proposal called meta:peer review and another called meta:outreach review in which I suggest that everyone who gets funding has to solicit review from third parties and review other projects themselves. Right now, this does not happen. If for example every chapter looked at the funding and impact of two other chapters and reported on it (the current system is self-reporting with review from the WMF) then I think that there would be a lot more signals if ever there were problems and a lot more infrastructure preventing corruption before that ever could become a problem. User:Atlasowa is completely correct - people from other chapters should be talking to disgruntled German Wikipedians and sharing their concerns throughout the community network. Likewise, whatever bad things Germans might be doing they sure are more efficient than many other chapters and German oversight in accounting and reporting would reform a lot of chapters which do not have non-profit management and grant reporting experience.
User:Anthonyhcole, Facebook and Twitter are successes in part because they work. There was a recent problem with VisualEditor in which the community said that the software did not work. I think everyone is completely in support of a VisualEditor which works, and I think the WMF is doing the best thing by developing this software until it works like any word processing software, email software, or blogging software interface. That is not too much to demand and I am sure they will get it eventually. Besides that, I have another idea that the Wikimedia Foundation under-promotes itself. It is one of the "largest" media organizations in any sense of the word and the world's "largest" media organization in many senses of the word, but there is broad international perception that Wikipedia is a communication channel which can be ignored because of its insignificance. This perception is entirely unreasonable and contrary to evidence. For many information sectors, Facebook can be ignored and Twitter can be ignored, but those companies have all kinds of educators and non-profit information sharing organizations setting up friend and tweet networks when all they really should be doing is putting their content on Wikipedia. Meet me at WikiProject Medicine sometime and let me tell you why every health education organization in the world ought to devote a lot of its resources to perfecting the Wikipedia articles in its field of expertise. The traffic that Wikipedia gets and its impact on thought are no small thing - whatever failures the Wikipedia projects have had are manageable considering that they all have won the public access game and are very popular without advertising. Even if the entirety of all Wikipedia projects fail in a few years it would still be cost effective to promote free public health education through them now just for the relative cost savings and the impact which can be anticipated based on prior traffic. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, but you don't need to tell me why every health education organization in the world ought to devote a lot of its resources to perfecting the Wikipedia articles in its field of expertise, I've been very conscious of that since long before you ever edited here ... I think it was the first thing I said to you in our first phone call. I would like to hear, though, what kind of resources you think the WMF could make available to support organizations in hiring Wikipedians. You're one of the very few people with direct experience of that, and I'm hoping you have a concrete proposal, something fundable and doable, born out of that experience. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Traffic data. Most of the world disregards Wikipedia because they think that no one goes to Wikipedia to get information. Based on the premise that Wikipedia traffic is insignificant it makes no sense for organizations to hire Wikipedians. Every organization in the world which believes that its audience uses Wikipedia in significant numbers as compared to all other communication channels has hired a Wikipedian. Any organization which does not believe that Wikipedia is a significant communication channel does not do this.
I continually shock audiences by saying that some people use Wikipedia. The reaction from my audience is universally that every individual in the audience thinks that Wikipedia is their personal secret website and that no one else uses it. This is complete nonsense and it is a project PR problem. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Here you go, @Anthonyhcole:. Here is my concrete proposal of exactly what I want from the Wikimedia Foundation. meta:Wiki Project Med/traffic states it and I presented it to WikiProject Medicine at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Media_mention. Please comment, especially on the meta page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I support that 100%. I wrote the edit summary without noticing your section heading :). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
User:Bluerasberry, I'd classify it as "straight talk": Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-10-02/News and notes and not unduly negative. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)