Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 62

Wikimedia Commons files

Recently I've noticed an increase on the project of something odd (at least to my eyes). As an example If you go into this article City of Adelaide (1864) and open up the image in the infobox, you are taken to a Wikipedia page which holds the image. Inside that there is a link to the Commons file. The link proudly proclaims This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below. Previously you would go straight to the Commons page, giving the same information and more. Can someone tell me what purpose this interim step to Commons serves, and why it even exists? -Broichmore (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The current behavior has been that way for a long time (years, I think). The point is that something like [[File:Example.jpg]] specifies a file at this Wikipedia and if it existed, it would be shown. There is no local file in your example so Commons is checked and its image is displayed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Broichmore: You've the choice to activate the former behavior if you like. Directly access Preferences → Gadgets → Browsing →   Redirect image links to Commons for files hosted there and tick the option as appropriate. – Ammarpad (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah! I see what you mean. Yet there is an inconsistency here. This example goes straight to Commons you'll notice that the coding in the info boxes is identical. Something else is forcing this circuitous route. I still don't see how this interim page is of any value or use whatsoever. I may be unlucky, but I've noticed this phenomena increase dramatically recently. It seems the sensible thing to do is to miss this step. All files should be in Commons, except those that are uploaded as subject to copyright, degraded, and with a fair use rationale. There are loads of files in Wikipedia awaiting assessment for downloading into Commons, why create this extra work. Suspect someone has been tampering with the machine. -Broichmore (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Johnuniq is correct here. There has, as far as I am aware, always been an intermediary local page for files hosted on Commons. This is true even on projects where local image uploads are entirely disabled (see for example MetaWiki and the English Wikiquote). These transcluded intermediary pages are almost entirely useless, and can occasionally be a pain in the neck. For example, even on projects with local uploads disabled, file space is not disabled, and users can still edit this intermediary page, creating a local page which is transcluded into the intermediary page, and must be deleted rather than reverted, requiring an administrator. It can also be super annoying to be on a project with local files enabled (such as this one) if you deal with images a lot but are not a file mover on both that project and Commons, requiring twice the user rights for uninterrupted functionality.
Having said that, there are a number of reasons files are kept locally. Fair use obviously on projects that allow it (e.g., not the German Wikipedia). Also partially free images, such as those which are free in the US (for the English Wikipedia) or free under Swiss/German/Austrian law (for the German Wikipedia) but not free in their country of origin, and so not appropriate for Commons. It's also often helpful to keep high-visibility files locally because they can be attended to by local admins, rather than needing a Commons admin to do things like change the protection settings for the page. GMGtalk 12:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Broichmore " Yet there is an inconsistency here...". No, there's no inconsistency. In as much as you've not activated that gadget, the image in that page leads to local landing page. – Ammarpad (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
No, there is an inconsistency, before I activated the gadget if I went into City of Adelaide (1864) I would hit a landing page, and if I went into Her Majesty's Theatre, Melbourne I would not. - Broichmore (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't have the gadget activated and the only image in Her Majesty's Theatre, Melbourne correctly leads to the landing page. If you can reproduce otherwise, then you should file a bug report. Though I doubt that. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The behavior may differ based on other factors, too. For example, is MediaViewer on or off? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Should we host a local copy of File:Forms of government.svg?

The government of every country on earth, what could possibly be controversial about that?

This file is used in a number of en.wp articles, but as a free image is hosted at Commons. The issue is that, as it involves global politics, new versions are regularly uploaded that change it, sometimes for legitimate reasons, and sometimes for POV-pushing reasons. It sees far more new versions being added and reverted than most other files on Commons. Every time it is changed for the wrong reason, a dozen Wikipedia articles display it. I'm wondering if ti wouldn't be wiser to host a stable, local version that would only be updated when there is an actual change in a country's government, as opposed to people changing it because they don't like how some of the countries are defined there. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not super familiar with local vs. commons hosting — could you clarify how hosting a local copy would help prevent bad changes? - Sdkb (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, per the below comment it may be moot now, but the idea would be that the local copy could be directly controlled and protected from here, and locally protected if needed to keep it stable. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, the file on Commons has now been indefinitely full upload protected. GMGtalk 18:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Protection of article


An article I follow is the target of regular vandalism. I have asked the administrators to get a semi-protection on it. {{pp-pc|small=yes}} was afixed on the article on March 19th which ask for an administrator to revew before the change be visible to non-registered users but it is still visible to registred ones. However, since that time, the article has been vandalized more than 20 times by a large variety of IP and with no good edit. Shouldn't it be impossible to IP and new users to even register edits? How do I ask for better protection?

Pierre cb (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Pierre cb: If you want a page to be protected, you should request so at Wikipedia:Request for page protection. Only administrators can protect a page; adding {{pp-pc|small=yes}} does nothing with regard to protection of a page, it is only used to give visual cues about protection after the page is actually protected. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Note for others: the article in question is snowsquall, which was protected on March 19 by Oshwah. @Pierre cb: pending changes protection is designed as an alternative to semi-protection which gives good-faith editors a chance to contribute to a page while still keeping vandalism from public view. All edits by IPs and new users are not visible to the public until approved by a pending changes reviewer or admin, so in this case none of the subsequent vandalism was shown to readers. The subsequent edits to snowsquall have all been vandalism, so I think semi-protection would be preferable to avoid wasting reviewers' time. Oshwah might like to explain his reasoning here or perhaps modify the protection. – Teratix 06:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems the vandalism has died down but if it starts back up within 24 hours I would recommend requesting for an increase to semi-protection at WP:RFPP based on recent activity. Pending changes seems to be doing its job for now. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 07:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I was not clear: I ask for semi-protection and that vandalism is on going on average every two days, no need to wait 24 hours. Pierre cb (talk) 11:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
@Pierre cb: If you want to do so, make a request at WP:RFPP as already mentioned above, but the disruption is below the threshold for semi-protection. And I agree that pending-changes protection is working, as the disruptive edits do not go "live". To add another pair of eyes, I have watchlisted the article for good measure. Lectonar (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Quality ratings

In my experience, a lot of Quality Ratings are done in a very slipshod and haphazard way. Today I finished an article Alexander Culbertson, and within a minute it was rated. Can this be the result of a well-thought-out quality review?

Most of the ratings my articles have received do not in any way specify what is missing. If I have a full list of literature, and it's still rated as "Start", I would like to know why they are not good enough.

These are the basic criteria for "Start"-level:
Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use.

I would like the rater to specify what's missing. The aim of the quality review must be to assist in the improvement of the article.

Are these raters self-appointed; many don't seem to know very much about the articles they rate. Is it possible to appeal the rating? Creuzbourg (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Raters are self-selected and decentralized. So, you can ask the rater to re-assess, or if you want someone else to review, you can leave a note at the talk page of the WikiProject(s) to have it reassessed as well. I took a look at your article and I wasn't sure if there was a better WikiProject or two to list it under in addition to WPBIO. I think maybe {{WikiProject Montana}} (or the task force for WPUS).
Were I to rate it, I think I also would put it in Start or maybe C class. It is not a very in-depth biography, and as such sources likely exist that have further detail on the man. (You may be a specialist and can thusly say that I am wrong in that belief. :) --Izno (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
There are definitely better sources than the one I have used. They are listed under "Further readings" but have not been available to me. My major problem in this specific case was the time between publishing of the article, 18:30, and publishing of the rating, 18:32, which hardly give credence to any beliefs that this was a conscientious and measured assessment. In general, my problem is, with this and all other assessments, that a rating of "Start" or "C" does not give any clues to what should be improved. Since you have read the article, I would greatly appreciate if you would assess it according to: 1. Referencing and citation; 2. Coverage and accuracy; 3. Structure; 4. Grammar; 5. Supporting materials. It’s not about the level of the rating, but how I can improve the article, learn for the future what is required of an article with a higher rating, and learn to determine whether sufficient material exists for even starting a new article. Creuzbourg (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Ah, it would do me too much credit to say I read it. :) If you are looking for feedback, another mechanism you can use is a request at WP:Peer reviews, besides my earlier suggestions. Directly translating what I have already said, from among those 5 points, #2 is lacking (coverage).
Regardless, this isn't something to get worried about. What class your article is isn't particularly relevant in the grand scheme unless it's actually approaching GA/FA quality. You can review the GA criteria at WP:GACR as something to shoot for. --Izno (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Coverage; yes I can agree with that. Now I have a little better understanding. Thank you. Creuzbourg (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

"Corporate" accounts

A new account, which has been editing very usefully with a redlink user name, has now set up a user page describing themselves as an organization. In fact it seems clear only one person is using the account. I spent 10+ minutes hunting for the page that explains why corporate accounts are not allowed, without success. Can someone a) give me the link, and b) sprinkle links to it around the obvious pages on creating accounts, so it is findable by others! Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:CORPNAME comes to mind if the username is a problem. If the username isn't a problem and there is only one person operating the account despite the userpage implying otherwise, that simply means that the userpage is wrong. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Actually Wikipedia:Username_policy#Shared_accounts is the one I wanted, on the same page, so thanks. But there is an inherent legal problem with this (in terms of releasing editors' copyright on their contributions), so it needs changing. Wikipedia:Username policy does not explain this adequately, but it will have to do. Johnbod (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

East Asian family names templates

Whenever I come across an article for a Korean/Chinese/Japanese person, it almost always begins with Template:Korean name, Template:Chinese name, or Template:Japanese name (for example, see Xi Jinping). While the information is useful, I wonder whether it's really necessary to provide it in the form of a hatnote. For one thing, it's not really a disambiguation or something else that'd normally be presented as a hatnote. More importantly, as the first thing the reader encounters after the article title, it occupies very valuable space that I think might be better used by the article itself (in other words, it adds clutter). Do you all agree? And if so, how do you think this information should be conveyed if not as a hatnote? - Sdkb (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I've always wondered about this as well. According to WP:HAT, the purpose of all hatnotes is "to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for", and I wonder if these meet the criteria. For sure, hatnotes like this explain the naming convention, ie. why the article is located at Xi Jinping instead of Jinping Xi, but that information doesn't pertain to a different article they might be looking for.
I note that {{Correct title}} similarly explains a naming convention but does not directly assist in finding an article about a different topic. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 10:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Sdkb, there's one for Indian patronymics, too, like at Asha Rangappa that I believe is necessary to simply protect the article from overzealous editors who want to change all the references to 'Asha' to 'Rangappa', but even still I've reverted good-faith edits occasionally. I finally started putting hidden comments into the beginning of paragraphs. --valereee (talk) 10:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, hidden edits seem like the way to go there, since mainspace articles should be built for readers, not editors. Sdkb (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: wouldn't an edit notice for Indian names be the ideal solution? – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 10:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Finnusertop, oh, that's a great idea! I'll go put in a request, thanks! --valereee (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Sure, Valereee, but I also meant in general: if none of these hatnotes are there to disambiguate between articles but to inform editors about style conventions, shouldn't they be edit notices instead? – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 11:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Finnusertop, I think Sdkb makes a good point about 'valuable real estate' (which made me smile). You could also argue that explaining in a hatnote about 'Rangappa' being a patronymic rather than a surname tries to remove any distraction caused for readers who don't know that and are jarred by the constant use of her first name. I was thinking maybe try it and see whether it solves problems or creates them? --valereee (talk) 11:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Looking around, this seems to be an issue with naming templates generally, not just for East Asian names. Fixing it would be quite a major modification, and although I think there's a reasonable chance there'd be consensus for a change, I'm not sure where to go to gather enough input to build that sort of consensus. - Sdkb (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Page moving question

Why are users given move-rootuserpages? Without move, which is not given to new users, they can't move anything, and move-rootuserpages requires move to actually work (see mw:Manual:User rights)? --DannyS712 (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Why not? Anomie 11:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Deploying IABot on other Wikis

Hey! Could someone tell me how to deploy IABot on another language-version of Wikipedia or point me to a page where this process is explained? IABot would be really useful on --Hmxhmx 18:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the IABot user page or user talk page has an explanation. --Izno (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I already looked through its user page, talk page and FAQ, but there was no info. --Hmxhmx 08:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Did you ask on the operator's talk page? --Izno (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that was the next step I'd take. I just wanted to see if there is already a page where the whole process is explained so I don't bother the maintainer with questions that could possibly already have been answered somewhere. --Hmxhmx 16:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I also now see that one of the maintainers, User:Cyberpower678 is on an indefinite Wikibreak. I'll ask the other one, Kaldari. --Hmxhmx 16:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I just thought you should know

Used correctly, the tool can save valuable time for editors building out understaffed editions — but when it goes wrong, the results can be disastrous. One global administrator pointed to a particularly atrocious translation from English to Portuguese. What is “village pump” in the English version became “bomb the village” when put through machine translation into Portuguese. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, as the ancient Romans were fond of saying, "In Google Translate veritas." Dumuzid (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
So that's why there's no ancient Romans around anymore. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Vermont finally made the big time. GMGtalk 18:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    GreenMeansGo, haha. Vermont (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    Congrats. Vulphere 13:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I tried to stop myself giggling, I really really tried, but I couldn't. I'm going to have to go see if next month's SignPost has spotted this, maybe even offer to write something about it. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move: Chairman to Chairperson

In case anyone is interested, see Talk:Chairman#Requested move 8 May 2019. SarahSV (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Interpretation of policy re: navbar templates

I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask, but I'd appreciate some brief input into the discussion at Template talk:TRS-80 and Tandy computers. It's regarding the merits of the changes to the template with respect to its usability and the interpretation of our policies. Thanks.

Ubcule (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Disrespect to users working on a specific topic

Hi! Do you have any specific rule regarding the manifestation of disrespect to users working on a certain topic? I mean if a user openly scorns those working on, say, porno- or football-related articles, and disparagingly calls the whole Wikipedia a "pornopedia" or "footballpedia" respectively, without making their attacks any more specific so that they cannot be deemed personal, is that punishable? And if so, which policy or guideline could be applied here?--Piramidion 14:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Piramidion: - this probably makes a bit more sense to ask at WP:HELPDESK (better for non-specific queries than ANI), as VP is less designed for answering queries. That said, I'm happy to attempt to give it a go. Are the only insults those towards Wikipedia "pornopedia" etc? If so, then that's just undesired criticism, but not a breach of the rules. If there are other insults can you say what there are? I can imagine group-based attacks that would be against CIVIL, but more detail is needed. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Right here it's more like me being a representative of a bit smaller wiki trying to get some advice from representatives of the largest one. The 'group-based attacks' description seems more appropriate to me, since the users I'm talking about often make some cues as to who exactly they're talking about without actually naming those editors. Sometimes they also say things like "they're working on this topic, which makes them bad wikipedians", or "what would you expect from a person working on porn-related articles"? Or, to be more precise (regarding the actual issue I'm considering right now), "Wikipedia is a pornopedia, because there are a lot of articles about these filthy pornographic actors that don't belong here" (just because they're 'filthy'). I, personally, consider such an attitude inappropriate, because it discourages the users from working on such topics, and creates an unpleasant atmosphere in the project, not to mention that it defies the very nature of "the sum of all knowledge" that Wikipedia, ideally, should be.--Piramidion 19:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I wrote a relevant essay, Wikipedia:No attacks on Wikipedia, which could reasonably be expanded to include specific projects. bd2412 T 17:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll take a look.--Piramidion 19:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Piramidion, I would opine that no, an attack on Wikipedia can not be grounds for any punishment whatsoever. If they are not abiding by any Wikipedia policy or guideline, then, of course, that's a different thing altogether, but, just writing a tirade against Wikipedia shouldn't be an offence, much less a bannable one. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 18:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Announcing Wikipedia:WikiProject Men

Wikipedia:WikiProject Men was recently created and is looking for more participants. -- Netoholic @ 03:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Now at MfD. – Teratix 06:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Contributions of new accounts

On the "User contributions" page there is an option "Show contributions of new accounts only". Does anyone know how new an account has to be for its edits to appear there? I have frequently seen edits listed from accounts that have existed for quite a while, and done a significant number of edits, so they clearly don't have to be very new. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I believe its based on user_id being >= 99% of the highest (being in the top 1% of newest accounts) --DannyS712 (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
See Help:User contributions#Contributions by new users DannyS712 (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, DannyS712. Strangely, I looked at that page, and searched for "new users", but my browser indicated that it had not found the expression in the page, so I gave up looking there. Some sort of glitch. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move: Genderqueer → Non-binary


WanderingWanda (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Essay about using donations as leverage?

As we know, Wikipedia relies (in theory) on donations, usually having an annual fundraiser and a plea for donations from Jimbo Wales to help maintain the website and the Wikimedia Foundation. It's not uncommon, however, that I will occasionally see tendentious editors or vandals threaten Wikipedia or its admins with something along the lines of "I donated to Wikipedia for the past 1/10/100 years. Because you're all treating me so poorly, I will never donate to Wikipedia again!!!". In most cases, this is obvious sour grapes, but the fact that this occurs so frequently leaves me with the impression that people legitimately believe this is a way of inducing substantive change in Wikipedia's policies or their application of them -- sort of an extension of that tired maxim of "the customer is always right", where businesses will supposedly bend over backwards to appease irate customers even if it means firing their own staff.

Do we have an essay along the lines of "Wikipedia cannot be held for ransom", to essentially discourage people from using that as a threat or means of leverage? If not, I would like to create such an essay.--WaltCip (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't be high-maintenance. --Izno (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. That led me to Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia which essentially made the point I was considering, but more cogently stated.--WaltCip (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages consultation 2019 – phase 2

The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects.

Phase 2 of the consultation has now begun; as such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019/Phase 2. All users are invited to express their views. Individual WikiProjects, user groups and other communities may also consider creating their own requests for comment; instructions are at mw:Talk pages consultation 2019/Participant group sign-up. (To keep discussion in one place, please don't reply to this comment.) Jc86035 (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice: reorganization of the US State Department website

I found out today while expanding Freedom of religion by country that the US State Department has reorganized their website, and most (all?) of our citations to reports hosted on that site are now broken. I repaired a bunch of the links on articles that I actively edit, and while that wasn't too difficult my impression is that writing a bot script to take care of this may not be easy, as the regexes needed to both find old broken links and figure out where they should point to now would have to be quite complicated. signed, Rosguill talk 18:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi User:Rosguill , could you report this to WP:URLREQ with some example diffs? -- GreenC 18:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

RFC on Santa Claus's existence

I invite editors here to share their views at Talk:Santa Claus#About Santa Claus. The question is about the community's goals for overall tone of the introduction (i.e., no specific changes have been proposed).

An editor has raised concerns about the use of the word agnostic in its non-religious sense in the RFC question, so – on the belief that I can trust all of you experienced editors not to be biased by this phrasing – please note that the two main options mean something approximately like:

  • Yes, we should continue to support "the magic of Christmas" (without actually telling lies, of course, because that wouldn't conform to the content or sourcing policies), or
  • No, we should NOT go out of our way to hide the fact that Santa Claus isn't real and isn't making toys at the North Pole right now (without actually saying "Santa isn't real!!!!", of course, because that wouldn't be encyclopedic tone).

Remember, we want your actual, candid views, so please come tell us what you think! WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking through old AfDs

I have a user script that displays users who have been blocked with a strikethrough the username (should be default script for everyone IMO). Recently I have been revisiting old AfDs (5+ years ago), and am amazed at how many accounts that participated in the AfD have since been blocked, most of them for sock puppetry. Typically unrelated to the AfD itself but later on justice caught up with them. What it tells me is that in any given AfD with any sort of controversy, there is a very high chance of at least one sock puppet. Not always stacking the vote with multiple accounts but someone gaming the system somewhere somehow taking part in AfD is a regular occurrence. If nothing else it could be quantified and from that perhaps some trends discovered, like what kind of article topics attract puppets or whatever the data reveals. -- GreenC 15:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

    • Perhaps there could be a tool applied to AFD that lists the number of contributions in brackets of each participant after there signing as new users are the possible socks and are given less weight, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
GreenC, which script are you using for the strikethroughs? I'm asking because the new page patroller page curation suite includes a script which identifies articles created by blocked users. However, in my experience, it marks people as blocked if they have ever received a block, including temporary blocks that have expired, so I'm wondering if the struck users you're seeing are necessarily accurate. signed, Rosguill talk 20:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@Rosguill: Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, in the "Appearance" section - "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" DannyS712 (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
DannyS712, thanks, it seems that this script is not susceptible to the same bug as whatever determines whether people are blocked for the NPP tool, so the issue I raised is moot. signed, Rosguill talk 21:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
GreenC, I can think of two explanations. One is that there have been a small number of exceptionally prolific sockmasters, and at least one of those was trying to manipulate AFDs. The other is that people might be perfectly innocent at the time of participation, but years later decide to create a couple of socks. The result would be marking their accounts for every comment they ever made, including participation that was completely unrelated to the blocking reason. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Help needed for survey


I am not sure if this is the right spot to post my request. If not, please let me now where else to post it. I am doing a small survey for research purposes at the University of Cologne. It's about community guidelines in social media and collaborative projects, blogs, social networks, content communities, etc. The wiki projects and their communities are a particularly exciting aspect that we would like to investigate. I would be happy if you could find the time to take part in the survey.


1. there has been a recent survey as part of a master's thesis and now we just want to increase the size of the data. Nothing has changed about the survey itself.

2.Since the community guidelines for the different wikis are different, but the other wikis don't have a "bulletin board", I would be happy if you would also answer the questionnaires for other wikis, if you are also active there.

3. completely, completely big thanks in advance :)

Wikipedia-Survey on GoogleForms

WikiSource on GoogleForms

--UniKoln (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)UniKoln

Our longest article

Our longest article is currently Opinion polling for the 2019 Spanish local elections; today it stands at 628,368 bytes (by way of comparison, the next-longest is 495,195 bytes).

And the Spanish article is still growing; one month ago it was 476,332 bytes.

Attempts to split it into smaller parts have been reverted, and discussion about that on its talk page has stalled.

What is to be done? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Translation related issue

I have recently seen a template named Template:Infobox grapheme on English wiki. On looking at the French version of the file (from Wikidata) (link), it was found that its actually a module and not a template. My doubt is, can a module in one language be a template in other? Adithyak1997 (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no absolute parity between templates across Wikimedia wikis as they're just internal stuff and not content. Moreover not all templates exist on all the wikis and some do have different purposes on different wikis even if they have the same name. If you can read French and the equivalent template exists there you can link it to the most appropriate here, otherwise it is not something to worry about. – Ammarpad (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC on Julian Assange

I invite all editors to have their say on whether Assange should be described a journalist. This debate has been going on since 2010, so it would be good to get a decisive response.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Wanting to donate BAT because I use the Brave browser

Hello. I originally posted in the Tea House and it was suggested this belongs here. My situation is simple: I use the Brave browser and I receive Basic Attention Tokens (BAT) for viewing ads. The BAT is meant to be given to publishers and content creators to support their work. I would love to donate my BAT to the Wikimedia Project but it isn't registered with the donation program. Is there a plan to include BAT donations as a means of supporting Wikipedia? It would be great if you did. The Washington Post and VICE are just two of the many publishers already involved. I really think it's worth looking in to. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I looked into BAT real quick, and it looks to be some kind of cryptocurrency you get for viewing advertisements. If you can exchange your BAT for Bitcoin, you can donate those to the Wikimedia Foundation. Otherwise, you can ask the Foundation directly, at The donation process is handled completely by the Foundation, with very little input from the community. rchard2scout (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Request for funding

I am not against the request-for-funding banners - but why do they only appear on those computers where I am not signed in? WP-name-ians may well be more committed to supporting the institution than IP-ians. (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

It's probably because you've already x-ed out the popup logged in, and the software remembered that, but it has no account to link previous closeouts to when logged out. There's also the possibility that you disables the popups in preferences- I keep getting them, and I'm logged in. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 19:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

'As a suggestion' a 'sponsor-an-edit-a-thon' set up (including 'minor edits' or not options). (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Reclaiming my old login handle

After more than ten years away, I would like to reclaim my old login handle to do a little non-anonymous editing. The problem is that I have forgotten my password, and I cannot recover my password because my email address long ago changed from the one I used to use here. I don't know how you determine that I am genuine and not a troll trying to steal some old user's identity, but I would appreciate any assistance you can give. Thanks. (The system warns against leaving an email address, so I'm not sure how you contact me or I contact you, but I will watch this page. Thanks.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1D00:703:506B:D853:B9AE:1A4E (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's no recovery from that; you will have to register a new account. See Help:Logging in#What if I forget the password?. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ten Year Society

I am an editor on the Afrikaans Wikipedia and have reached the 10 year mark on 6 January 2019. How do I become a member of the Wikipedia:Ten Year Society? Regards! Oesjaar (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Scott: I think this question is for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks WhatamIdoing. @Oesjaar: It's literally as easy as writing it on your user page or using the template - totally informal. If you'd like to set up an Afrikaans version of the TYS, please do just copy the page and templates over to your Wikipedia as you like.  — Scott talk 11:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Baie geluk Oesjaar! I should really contribute more to af.wp, but I find the lack of "structure and systems" there a bit hard do cope with. If there are "most wanted" translations from English to Afrikaans I'd be happy to have a go at it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Deleted portals

With the current mass deletion of portals, I have noticed thet many navboxes have links to nonexistent portals. Template:Map projections (to Portal:Map projections) is just one example. I suspect that this issue is large-scale enough that it will require multiple users to carry out. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 04:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Apollo 11 anniversary and the Main Page

Please comment on the discussion at WT:TFA about the Main Page for 50th anniversary of Apollo 11. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Offensives usernames

Hello. I posted this suggestion to talk about the offensive usernames. I've recently seen that there are users with these usernames that are not blocked. The reason? Basically, they use these usernames that the administrators doesn't consider it offensive. If some of you search for name "Loli", there will be a lot of pornographic names. More than pornographic, these names are criminous, since they talk about pedophilia, because the word " Loli" means a young girl between 6 and 14 years old. I wish the administrators take more a look at these usernames, also the usernames that have the word "Lolicon" inserted in it. Thanks, 'anonymous user'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Admins don't usually block accounts that violate the username policy if said account is inactive. If you see an active account with an inappropriate username, report it to usernames for administrator attention. CoolSkittle (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Policy Survey

A few weeks ago, I called up a survey of English Wikipedia users about community guidelines.
The survey is part of my research at the University of Cologne. It's now time to relax, but unfortunately the participation in English Wikipeida users isn't as high as I had hoped.
So if one or the other would take 5 minutes to answer the questions, it would be a great help.
Community Policy Survey
Thank you --UniKoln (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC) UniKoln

Do we know anything about It seems to be a mirror of several major non-English Wikipedias (including French)... is it complying? Should we have an article on it here? There isn't one at fr.wikipedia as far as I can see. Andrewa (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

removing rfc template

Hello to you at gathered at the village pump. The request for comment I posted on the talk page of the New Albion elicited no responses. So I made certain changes to the article. As such, I do believe it is proper to remove the rfc template; however, the instructions are a little vague as to how this should be done. My inclination is to edit the talk page by deleting the template (which is encapsulated within brackets at the top of the page) and then note my actions with a comment. Is this correct? If not, what should I consider? Kind regards to all. Hu Nhu (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Hu Nhu: - I'm not sure of the answer, this may be more suited as a question at the WP:HELPDESK Nosebagbear (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@Nosebagbear: Thanks very much. I'll contact them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hu Nhu (talkcontribs) 03:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC on religion

There is an RfC in progress that has the potential to affect how religion is treated in the infoboxes of many country articles, I urge all to participate in the discussion which is at Talk:Australia#RfC dated 23 June 2019 - Should religion be removed from the infobox?. --AussieLegend () 21:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Notification for a Survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Research team is planning to run a follow-up survey of Wikipedia readers. You can read more about the first two parts of the study in the meta page linked below or in the following two papers: and We expect no disruptions in the workflow of editors during this study. The survey will ask readers about their motivation for reading as well as a few demographic questions (age, gender, education, place, native language). The survey aims to improve our understanding of the diversity of readers as well as how the needs and experience of Wikipedia readers varies across different populations. We plan to run the survey for a week starting on 2019-06-26. It will sample 1 out of every 100 readers worldwide and 1 out of every 2 readers from countries in Africa (to have a large enough sample in all regions). For questions, feel free to ping Isaac (WMF) or leave a comment on the meta page. Thank you! --Isaac (WMF) (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

If Enwiki Could Shut Down or do anything else to Support the Protest in Hong Kong?

Since "The Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill" in Hong Kong submitted to Legislative Council (LegCo) without listening to the views of the public, I am here asking if the community in Enwiki to do anything to support Hong Kong. It will be a great help and attractable for global media.

Since the unexpected asking, I would like to ask if Wikipedia could be shut down for an hour, or longer if could. If it is impossible, could enwiki have any method else to give Hong Kong people a supportive message?

For people who don't know what the Bill is, let me do a brief please:

This Bill was submitted through the Hong Kong citizen murder case happened in Taiwan (Republic of China, ROC), both of the character are Hong Kong people, and try to extradite the murderer to Taiwan. I used to be a great idea until the LegCo parliamentary found out that it also makes China (People's Republic of China, PRC, or mainland) extradition possible without any human right protection or mainland judicial independence. Any people against PRC government may be prosecuted and extradited, since LegCo was removed from the ordinance of extradition review, and Hong Kong's Court was announced they cannot protect the extradited person's human rights in the other countries.

Any Hong Kong Wikipedia Editors May Be Extradited If the Bill Adopted.

For the Statement made by Wikimedia Community User Group Hong Kong, please click here.

For more professional points of view, please read the following document made by Hong Kong Bar Association:

--だ*ぜ (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not think this wiki community will be receptive to your request. Where we have lobbied before, it was directly pertinent to values important to Wikipedia but only after great internal discussion. The protests in Hong Kong are not particularly pertinent. There are likely organizations who would be more receptive, but this is not one of them. --Izno (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I believe the Italian Wiipedia protested against a proposed law which didnt technically affect the site, but could have exposed the users in Italy to legal issues if they contributed. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
EN.WP is not IT.WP. Feel free to research how difficult it was for the wiki to get behind a blackout for SOPA. I'm fairly certain we've had no other community-initiated effort. --Izno (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
It is true that relatively few HK editors are primarily on EN, and few EN editors are from HK. On ITwiki the vast majority are from Italy, so ITwiki would be affected more severely. However I believe an unqualified xxwiki is not yywiki us not the greatest argument; each wiki should consider what happens on other wikis and learn from them. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No... one of our core policies is that we maintain a NEUTRAL point of view. We should not take ANY stand on outside political issues. Blueboar (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Indeed Wikipedia is to not advocate for a particular political philosophy or ideology; we should not endorse a particular political movement. At the same time the foundation itself criticized the block on English Wikipedia in the Mainland. Based on what the foundation itself has posted, NPOV doesnt mean that a project cannot advocate for its own survival in a given country or territory. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:NPOV applies to articles, not the site. We can be political when we choose too, but I don't see why we should get involved in local politics that don't affect Wikipedia. There's a million things worth protesting in the world. Child abuse. Racism. Genocide. But these are not related to our mission of building a free encyclopedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the best we can do is to provide an informative and well-documented article, currently featured on our Main Page. – Teratix 00:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The only reason we should shut down/blackout is to protest laws and bills which pose an existential threat to Wikipedia. The Hong Kong bill does not. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 00:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a platform for political campaigns. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • As Jéské says - our shutdowns (or whatever) exist to protect Wikipedia and our other projects. As well as breaking our Neutrality requirements if we acted otherwise, a more pragmatic approach would say we'd never be normal if we acted against every immoral law (which this is) - I do rely more on the first argument as "Perfection is the enemy of Good" applies. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    I understand that it wouldn't make sense to go after every immoral law. Instead the phrasing/focus could be specifically on access to Wikipedia and ability to contribute to it instead of on a political movement itself: "We don't want X law to be used to punish Wikipedians / prevent them from contributing" WhisperToMe (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • A shutdown is probably too much, the extradition bill is not in direct contradiction to wikipedia core values let alone existential threat. If we're going to shut down like that, soon enough we won't be opening. However, a shutdown specifically target for users access from HK should be ok. I'm not sure if it's technically possible though. Viztor (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    • It is possible to give site notices based on IP address. One factor is that most Hong Kongers use the Chinese Wikipedia more often. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No political advocacy without existential threat. Wikipedia should neither advocate against nor in favor of this bill. --Yair rand (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support a Cantonese or Mandarin Wikipedia blackout protest, but not an English Wikipedia blackout protest. --Agusbou2015 (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

xkcd #2168

Did you read latest xkcd comic? --Agusbou2015 (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I did (though for future note, the talk page of xkcd is a much better place to raise queries specifically about it (though on improving it) xkcd talk
Alas, it can't be included unless a news source considers it - tough as it is not to include all the wonderful ones about us (positive or otherwise!) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Trying to find a deleted article

Hi everyone! I've had a request to retrieve a deleted article so that an editor can look at the refs they remember seeing on it. However, I can't find the article! I've tried all the usual stuff, but nada. The article is either Abortion law in Mozambique or Abortion in Mozambique. Any help is appreciated! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

What's "all the usual stuff"? (In particular, fuzzy matching at Special:Undelete? Though I don't see anything obvious there.) How confident is this editor that the article was actually deleted, as opposed to redirected or just reverted/edited out? —Cryptic 00:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Interesting. I tried searching, but no joy there. Maybe have the user look at their watchlist and see if they can spot any redlinks? Or check the user's Deleted user contributions? Or, for that matter, search their browser history. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
@Cryptic and RoySmith: they were pretty confident it was deleted. There's no other articles about abortion and Mozambique that I could find so I don't think it was redirected. The Mozambique article itself doesn't even mention abortion. I suppose it may have been included on this page, but they were really sure there used to be such an article. I appreciate you trying to help me out. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl, Abortion in Cape Verde mentions Mozambique (but redlinks to "Abortion in Mozambique"). Schazjmd (Talk) 22:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
@Schazjmd: it's at least something. Thanks for looking! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl Could this be it? pt:Aborto em Moçambique ? Bovlb (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
@Bovlb: I think the editor was already aware of that page and was looking for the English equivalent which they remember existing before. But none of us can seem to find it. I really appreciate all the help on here, but I'm beginning to think it's a lost cause. And that's OK. Maybe I can dig up the reference the editor is looking for in another way. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikidata indicates that page never had a counterpart in another language. Bovlb (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl, if the article was on the editor's watchlist, then it will still be listed there. To see the complete list of pages on your watchlist, you have to go to Special:Watchlist and click the button (new interface) or link (old interface) to edit your watchlist. Everything on your watchlist, including articles that were deleted long ago or never existed, will be listed there. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@Whatamidoing (WMF): We'll be checking that, too. :) I need to get back in contact with them as soon as I finish up some copyediting. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 06:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
There was a page Draft:Abortion rights by country with this one liner "*Mozambique: to save a woman’s life, to preserve a woman’s physical health, to preserve a woman’s mental health." which did spend some time at Abortion Rights Around the World. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


Please note that Vijaya Nirmala died on 27 june according to sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks like someone updated the article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Local notices for US cities hosting Great American Wiknic

I have put in a request for local banner notices for US cities hosting the Great American Wiknic this summer at m:CentralNotice/Request/Strategy Wiknic US 2019.--Pharos (talk) 01:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Pointless and/or improper moves to Draft space

I wish people would stop moving hopeless articles to draft space to "incubate", as seems to have become increasingly common. It seems to reflect a lack of understanding of the purpose and value of Draft space and/or a lack of understanding that no amount of "incubating" is going to overcome a lack of notability. Not only is there no benefit to this, it gives false hope to the article's creator, giving the impression that the article's defects lie in its content, and that with due diligence they can fix it up to qualify for the main space. It is terribly unfair to mislead the creator into devoting time and effort to revising and expanding an article to no end.

The latest article of this type to come under my eyes was Findomeet. It was deleted as advertising under WP:CSD#G11 on June 23, then under both G11 and WP:CSD#A7 a couple of hours ago. Less than an hour later, the article apparently having been recreated, someone moved it to Draft:Findomeet with the comment "Undersourced, incubate in draftspace".

It's undersourced because no sources exist. A Google search shows that at most one human being (in contrast to computers relentlessly generating lists) on the entire planet has made even a reference to "findomeet" on any page indexed by Google. Given that finding, it's unlikely that it has achieved coverage anywhere that would qualify the article for inclusion under WP:N. Therefore, no purpose was served in sparing it speedy deletion under A7—and creation-protecting it. While A7 can be remedied through editing, a lack of notability cannot.

Conversely, I also see articles that are reasonably well written and are about topics that will probably meet WP:N being sent to Draft space for being "undersourced". Except for BLPs subject to WP:BLPPROD, needing more sources is not a justification for removing articles from the main space! That's what maintenance tagging is for.

I see this sort of thing happening over and over. Largoplazo (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Has syntax highlighting CSS just changed?

"Sir" before a name

The article Alexander Fleming begins with « Sir Alexander Fleming FRS FRSE FRCS », which seems incorrect to me: as far as I remember, in English usages, "sir" should be used only with the first name (« sir Richard ») but not with the full name. So Fleming is of course entitled to a « sir Richard », but has never been called « Sir Fleming » or worse « Sir Alexander Fleming ». How come the article begins that way, is it a local editorial rule ? Micheletb (talk) 07:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Either your memory is wrong or mine is. As far as I remember, he'd be "Sir Alexander" or "Sir Alexander Fleming". Nothing wrong with either, but only with "Sir Fleming". -- Hoary (talk) 07:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Coincidentally, Sir Alexander Fleming is exactly the example used in the "Sir" article, which agrees with Hoary. "The prefix is used with the holder's given name or full name, but never with the surname alone. For example, whilst Sir Alexander and Sir Alexander Fleming would be correct, Sir Fleming would not." the wub "?!" 13:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, your memory is badly wrong. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

My mistake, I was mixed up with the rule for orally addressing to a "sir". The written form is indeed correct. Micheletb (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit not showing on Watchlist

I recently edited an article (5G) and added it to my watch list. How-ever, none of my edits (the most recent one listed as current on my contributions page) is not listed on my watch list, nor are any other entries for that page other than an older entry on the 5G talk page. Why is that? Kdammers (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

There is an option either in your preferences or in the watchlist page to make it so that you do not see your own contributions. Double check to verify those are marked as expected. --Izno (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I DO see my own contributions, e.g.,
Talk:1992 Troy State vs. DeVry men's basketball game‎; Kdammers (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Kdammers, please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist and uncheck the box about hiding minor edits. That should make all those edits visible to you again. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

English Wikipedia's Copyright ?

Hello i have some questions

1- If an "Example Website" translates almost all articles in English Wikipedia and also almost (not quite) sources of each article at the end of the link, and even links the original article to Wikipedia, Has this "Example Website" infringed English Wikipedia's Copyright? Has something violated? Please provide a full explanation (copyright copy of your English Wikipedia as well as copyrights in general terms)

2. Can that "Example Website" use all of its translations from English Wikipedia to use it commercially (quite commercially)? Along with the precise mention of the resource, Or it is bound to not commercially use them at all?

3. If that "Example Website" that translated the entire or almost all articles in English Wikipedia , write in footer of website "All Rights Reserved, or No Website Has The Right to Use This Web Site Contents". Can its local wikipedia users copy or use "articles translated" into their own language without any permission or concern from the "Example Website" on their own Wikipedia( local wikipedia)? What if this happened, what could the That "Example Website"do for its rights?Kaataanaa (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license used on Wikipedia reuse and translation is allowed as is commercial use. However they have to acknowledge the original writers (usually a link back to Wikipedia). Translation creates a new translator copyright but does not eliminate the original copyright and still remains a derivative work that must also be released under the same license and must allow reuse and further adaptations. Rmhermen (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

So, can that website translate all articles and all pages (I emphasize all articles and all pages)?

Should all the translations be published under this licenseThis License?Kaataanaa (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Please check the name of category: the Netherlands?


Hi, I have created a category 'Category:Warehouses in Netherlands' recently, and soon I found there exists for example Category:Barracks in the Netherlands. As a non-native speaker I need a help:

should I have added the in front of 'Netherlands'?

--CiaPan (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@CiaPan: Yes, it should be Category:Warehouses in the Netherlands (compare Category:Warehouses in the United Kingdom and all the subcategories of Category:Netherlands). I have listed it at WP:CFDS. —Nizolan (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Nizolan: Thank you. I think it might be faster to re-create a category with a new name and re-assign its only member :) but renaming with a standard CFDS routine is OK to me, too. --CiaPan (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Nizolan: I can see the category has been renamed on July 13. Thank you again for making the request at appropriate, standard place. --CiaPan (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

When info is added to Wikipedia and it becomes referenced

What is it called again when Wikipedia is referenced as a source thus changing the nature or accuracy of information? What is the WP: page for this? ~ R.T.G 17:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:CITOGENESIS. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Excellent thank you. ~ R.T.G 17:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


Please write to the administrator and tell him that he / she will be restoring the vandalism editorial. As you can see,[1] the article has been kept under discussion, but the administrator who does not accept it removes the article without discussing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

First, you're asking for something to be done about az:Wikipedia. This is en:Wikipedia, which has no control over az:Wikipedia (just as az.Wikipedia has no control over en.Wikipedia). Secondly, while I don't claim to know anything about the rules at az:Wikipedia, if you were doing the reverse -- asking there for people to write to an administrator here -- then you'd be accused of "canvassing" and would be in additional trouble. -- Hoary (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Maiden flight vs. first flight

Should articles say someone had a maiden flight or a first flight? See WT:WikiProject Spaceflight#Maiden flight vs. first flight. Johnuniq (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  • I could be wrong... but I would use “maiden” when talking about the vehicle and “first” when talking about a person. I would write “John’s first trip across the Atlantic was on the QE2’s maiden voyage.” Blueboar (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Piers (etc.) in Seattle

(For context: I'm an admin here.) I'm working on a project and I could use others' thoughts on whether it is suitable for a list article on Wikipedia. If not, is there somewhere else within the WMF world that might be better for this, or do people think I should do it elsewhere?

Basically, there is now about a 150-year history of piers, wharves, terminals, etc. on Elliott Bay in Seattle. A portion of this is covered in prose in Central Waterfront, Seattle. During that time, some 200-300 significant structures have come and gone on the bay, with about 50 remaining; many have had more than one name in the course of their history. I've been gathering a ton of reference material attesting the existence of certain structures at certain dates; I'll eventually also be going to newspapers etc. to try to find references for construction and demolition dates, etc. for at least a good number of these.

I want to bring all of this information together in one place. I believe it will work better as ordered list list with footnotes, in an order that more or less matches a circumnavigation of the bay, than any other format. This seems like a much better fit for Wikipedia than (in particular) for Wikidata, because Wikidata is totally unsuited to order this in any sane way.

Do people think this is likely to be acceptable as a list article? It doesn't strike me as obviously either in or out of scope. I really don't want to put days of work into this just to have it deleted. - Jmabel | Talk 01:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I did find this List of piers in the United Kingdom Jmabel. It doesn't have one tenth of the research that you are doing. You can count me as one reader who would be interested in reading your list article. MarnetteD|Talk 01:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I definitely plan something about ten times more scholarly, but also a lot narrower in scope. - Jmabel | Talk 01:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Draft started at Draft:List of structures on Elliott Bay. As of this moment, I have solid drafts for five 19th-century piers, plus some notes to myself listing the next 20 or so I plan to do. If anyone wants to comment on the layout of what I'm doing for the first five, that could be quite useful. - Jmabel | Talk 06:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

These two articles appear to be duplicates: Dušan Stoiljković (investor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Dušan Stojanović (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for you post FieldMarine. Please forgive me as I changed your links slightly to make it easier for other editors to check on things. I did find that both articles were created by TeeGV (talk · contribs) on the same day and that has been the only two edits the editor ever made. MarnetteD|Talk 01:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I have nominated both for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dušan Stojanović. – Teratix 04:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I want to propose speedy deletion for Talk:List of snooker players by number of ranking titles/Archive 1 but what I have placed there is not working. The talk page has no article. Please help.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You did not do it correctly and "proposed deletion" is only meant for actual articles not talkpages. You should consider enabling WP:TWINKLE that will provide you with easy interface to request deletion. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Although I am a Master Editor IV, I am still learning Wikipedia details. I have long used "Tag" on articles to access TWINKLE, but I do not see "Tag" on any talkpages. Perhaps there is somewhere to set an option on TWINKLE for having talkpage "Tag", but I have not found it. Someone, please help me with that.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

List of Encyclopedia Britannica articles

Anyone know where online I can find the table of contents of Encyclopedia Britannica? I'm curious about how good our coverage is of those topics. – Anne drew 14:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Anne drew Andrew and Drew! See WP:HOT – not specifically about E.B. but possibly will be of use for you. :) CiaPan (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica will have you what you want. Rmhermen (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
CiaPan and Rmhermen, thanks to you both! – Anne drew 18:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@Anne drew Andrew and Drew: here's a list of articles of the modern online Britannica (although you will find that most are just "directory pages"; sort of like our redirects and disambs) that don't have Wikipedia equivalents. There are tons of false positives in other ways as well (mainly in science/chemistry/biology topics, where we and Britannica cover different levels of taxa for the same organism, for instance). The first real topic on my list we miss (or missed, until I created it) was ABANTU for Development, next Bernardo Bitti (which I also created), then Carlo Pietrangeli (currently workng on it). – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 14:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Interesting list, low hanging fruit. We are missing My First Summer in the Sierra by John Muir his first famous book that helped raise public awareness of Yosemite; Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan by John Lloyd Stephens which is basically the beginning of modern Maya research; Narrative of a Journey to the Shores of the Polar Sea by John Franklin in which he gained fame as "the man who ate his boots" and foreshadowed the later disaster. -- GreenC 14:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I really like how they incorporated all three of the Apollo 11 astronauts for the Main page, on July 21st


I religiously read Wikipedia's Main page every day and I have been looking forward to what would be posted for July 21st, 2019, the 50th anniversary of humankind first walking on the Moon.

I was not disappointed!

I want to compliment whoever designed this page because of how they managed to integrate all three of the Apollo 11 astronauts into it, including photos. This was very much a team effort and the page reflects that.

Good Job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It was certainly a group effort with myself, Kees08, Hawkeye7, Ravenpuff, Maile66, Yoninah, Amakuru, Balon Greyjoy, and many more people. We started planning this in August 2018. I am glad you enjoyed it. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The long lead time was necessary as it takes about three months to get an article through FAC, and we could only do one at time. There is still a lot of work to be done. If anyone is interested in helping out, I have NASA Astronaut Group 2 , NASA Astronaut Group 3, NASA Astronaut Group 5, NERVA and Project Rover at WP:GAN awaiting reviews, and Mercury Seven is at FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mercury Seven/archive1). Comments welcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, as one of the gnomes who helped out on this. I think the whole team did a good job. Personally, I just about over-dosed on Moon Landing documentaries on TV, and related other programs. I was around when it originally happened, and have just been fascinated with how today's technology can fine tune the old footage to the point where we feel we were right there at Kennedy Space Center for Liftoff. — Maile (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Fantastic effort. Well done to all. And look out for three more days of space-related POTDs until the splashdown is done and dusted on the 24th!  — Amakuru (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Completely agree, really well done! Thanks to everyone who contributed. CThomas3 (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Let's put this here for those who missed it: Wikipedia:Main Page history/2019 July 21 --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Promotional source inline template

The {{promotional source}} inline template contains no directions on its placement. Is it to be placed so that it's visible in the main article next to the ref tag number (e.g., [1][promotional source?]) or should it be placed within the <ref> tags so that it displays next to the source's listing in the references section, similar to how [dead link] is done. Thanks for any info!  Spintendo  09:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Source is a porn site now

Ticket:2019072110001027 informs us about that (usage) redirect to a porn site. What can we do? Bencemac (talk) 08:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a task for one of the archive bots to see if they can find appropriate archives of the original sources. Where the url is used in a cs1|2 template, the bots (or gnomes working this problem) should set |dead-url=unfit when adding an |archive-url= so that the original url is not linked from the rendered citation (cs1|2 templates that already have |archive-url= should also get |dead-url=unfit).
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Post request to WP:URLREQ -- GreenC 16:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Where to point academics?

I often review drafts which are obviously written by somebody in academia. They often suffer from a disconnect between how academics write and what we want in an encyclopedia article. They're highly technical, often carpet-bombed with references, and so on. They may in fact be notable topics, but they're written in a way that makes them unsuitable for us. Do we have a good help page I can point people to which explains how encyclopedia articles differ from research papers? Not so much a, "This is why we're rejecting your draft", but more of a, "Here's how to write a good encyclopedia article about your research interest". -- RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@RoySmith: perhaps point them to a Featured or Good Article in their field? – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 15:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Good question. I don't know, but I've wondered this myself sometimes. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
There's the WP:EXPERT essay but I'm not sure if it's ideal or enough. —PaleoNeonate – 08:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOTJOURNAL/WP:NOTPAPERS would often be a start, and to a lesser extend WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I actually find it curious that WP:NOTJOURNAL doesn't mention OR. It's stated just above in WP:NOTESSAY of course but original research is kind of the point of scientific journals so it might be worth a mention there. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 01:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Writing better articles is probably better than any of these for them, with WP:EXPERT. Wikipedia:Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia, a PLOS article by and for research scientists, is also very good. We could do with a specific essay on this, if we don't have one. There might be something one could build on on Wikimedia education if you can battle your way through their over-designed & under-informative website. Or not. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

These are all really good suggestions. Throwing in an additional one—if you are knowledgable in the area that has been over-described in the article, contact the writer via their user page and outline how you are going to revise the article to make it more encyclopedic. I've not done this myself (yet) but it seems like a type of mentoring which could have a positive impact. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Western approaches - Disputed content

I've stuck a "disputed content" tag on Western approaches, with comments on the talk page. Is there anywhere that I could highlight this to informed editors who might be familiar with further sources that might clarify what the article should say?
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

If the term is most commonly used in describing submarine warfare then maybe one of the people at WT:MILHIST could help. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 00:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Nizolan. I am hoping to get some "non-WW2 input" as the term seems to exist in several contexts - there is evidence that I have triggered some interest from geographers - I'll see what happens and keep looking for good sources. (And I'll put an alert on Talk:Battle of the Atlantic in due course; my comments on the Talk:Western Approaches explains why I have not gone first to military history, as I am looking for a less specialist definition - yes this does not follow Wikipedia protocols, but I feel is justified in this case.)ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

What to do when an editor refuses to abide by RfC closure?

An RfC[2] has been closed on Tulsi Gabbard by Red_Slash, yet one editor, SashiRolls, refuses to acknowledge the validity of the closure and edit-wars to remove content agreed-upon in the closure. What should be done?

If this is the wrong board for this, please point me to the correct one. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: - helpdesk is one place you could go. VPM is more to discuss change aspects that don't conveniently fit into the other areas. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
You could also note that the quality of the close was called into question / viewed as problematic by 3 commenters in the link you give and supported only by you, but that's just to avoid making false statements / casting aspersions (again).🌿 SashiRolls t · c
Ask for an admin to review the close, there is a place for that. -- GreenC 16:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure would be that page. Rmhermen (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion lasted only four days and apparently no consensus was reached, so I'm unclear what benefit was achieved by the closure. See WP:CLOSE. Praemonitus (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

A new (?) kind of vandalism

I hope I've never done this without realizing it in time, but in a few cases, when I typed text in an existing article, instead of the text to the right being pushed to the right, the text that was to the right of where I started typing disappeared, replaced by what I typed.

I guess others are aware this could happen, and it looks like vandalism, but it isn't intentional.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

This sounds like it is caused by having insert mode turned off, probably be accidental tapping of the insert key. Eman235/talk 01:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
How big a problem do you think it is on Wikipedia?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
It could be huge. There are millions of keyboards with insert keys. Levivich 00:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Though, interestingly, in my browser (Firefox), the insert key does nothing. Eman235/talk 09:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Please help

Please help improve the style of the article Dissolution of United States. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

UserBlind mode

Conduct enforcement is difficult. Certain recent discussions brought up the issue of dealing with user conduct issues from individual users who, due to reputation or status, might be difficult to judge fairly.

While it's often helpful to make judgements in the context of the individual user's history and reputation, it also may sometimes be useful to be able to view some of a user's actions in isolation, seeing only what was done without being influenced by who they are.

Over the past couple of weeks, I wrote a user script called User:Yair rand/UserBlind.js, which creates a "UserBlind mode", which allows users to view pages with all usernames hidden and replaced with tokens like "[USER #6]". You can enable the script by adding importScript( 'User:Yair_rand/UserBlind.js' ); to your common.js. Once enabled, you can enter UserBlind mode by going to "Special:UserBlind/" followed by the title of the page you want to view. For example, you can see ANI in userblind mode by going to Special:UserBlind/WP:ANI.

(The code is somewhat buggy, and I'm not sure it works on all browsers.)

--Yair rand (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for working on this, Yair rand. Could you explain in non-technical language what the script does and how it works? I don't want to add any scripts until I understand the nature of its actions. Risker (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
@Risker: It makes it so that when you navigate to a page like Special:UserBlind/WP:ANI, it displays the page ("WP:ANI" in this case) with all the usernames on the page replaced with tokens. For example, when I go to Special:UserBlind/WP:VPM with the script enabled, your comment looks like this:
Thank you for working on this, [USER #20]. Could you explain in non-technical language what the script does and how it works? I don't want to add any scripts until I understand the nature of its actions. [USER #21] 05:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
--Yair rand (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

New BAG nomination: Enterprisey

Hi! This is a notice that I have nominated myself for the Bot Approvals Group. I would appreciate your input. Thanks! Enterprisey (talk!) 06:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The White Man's Burden

Colleagues such a question, "The White Man's Burden" is a pure notion of Kipling, or was it a official slogan of the British colonialists? --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. – Teratix 12:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation project

Hello all,

I’m writing to let you know about a new project, IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation, that the Wikimedia Foundation is starting.

Because people in general are increasingly technically advanced and privacy conscious, our users are now more aware of the collection and use of their personal information, and how its misuse may lead to harassment or abuse. The Foundation is starting a project to re-evaluate and enhance protections for user privacy through technical improvement to the projects. As part of this work, we will also be looking at our existing anti-vandalism and anti-abuse tools and making sure our wikis have access to the same (or better) tools to protect themselves.

The project page is on Meta. This project is currently in very early phases of discussions and we don’t have a concrete plan for it yet. We’d like your input. And please share with other people who you think would be interested. SPoore (WMF), Strategist, Community health initiative (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikibooks referral, maybe?

I deleted an earlier version of User:Jolenep99/sandbox as WP:G11, but now the user is making a request that I'm not sure how to handle. I'm guessing refer them to wikibooks, but I don't want to send them on a wild goose chase if this isn't wikibooks material either. Could somebody who knows wikibooks policy take a look and respond to the user with advice? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I think Wikibooks would probably take a book on SysML, but I am not sure the user knows what he is doing from a licensing perspective, so I am not sure this is something he should (be allowed to) do. --Izno (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
    Taking a look at the document in question, I believe the front matter on pages ii-v make it quite clear that this cannot be published on any WMF website (some copyright commentary, some no-derivatives commentary, some non-commercial commentary). Nor do I see a particular reason to do so. The OMG is more than able to set up a wiki for themselves, if they were interested in doing so. --Izno (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Movement Strategy online surveys - opportunity to share your thoughts about reworking movement structures

Community conversations are an integral part of movement strategy “Wikimedia 2030”. They have been ongoing in multiple formats and in numerous languages over the last 2.5 years. Now it is possible to also contribute to the development of recommendations on structural change via an online survey. We are keeping the survey open for additional 2 weeks and post it to wikis to provide wider opportunities to participate for people interested in it.

The survey is available in 8 languages: Arabic, English, French, German, Hindi, Portuguese, Simplified Chinese, and Spanish. They contain designated questions about each of the nine thematic areas that the working groups are analyzing and drafting recommendations for. You can freely choose the thematic areas you want to contribute and respond to. The survey questions have been created and designed by the members of the working groups.

Here is the link to the survey.

Here you can find more information about the survey.

With any questions, please contact me on my meta user talk page.

Thank you for your kind attention! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 – Alsee (talk) 10:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Does the Wikimedia Foundation have any form of capital (see the new Russian internet control bill)?

Last Friday, July the 26th, a rank-and-file State Duma lawmaker of the ruling United Russia faction introduced a bill imposing certain restrictions on significant information resources, including one that the said resource's "technical means" be located in Russia, and that that foreign entities or citizens, or international organizations own no more than 20 shares in the resource owner's charter capital unless the owner obtains an increase of that limit by submitting a substantiated request; for details, see this story and the bill's page on the State Duma website containing a 16-page PDF file with copy-able Russian text.

So, does the WMF have any form of capital, or anything that Russian authorities could classify as a foreign analogue of charter capital? (If no, then Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects would likely be outside of the bill's formal scope). The current version of the bylaws seems to say nothing about this, but would like to have someone, preferably a Foundation employee or representative answer this question. I know that both houses of the Russian Federal Assembly are in summer recess until September, but I think this issue should be addressed as soon as possible. --Синкретик (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Well it sort of depends on how the "and"s work. We are a charity, so we don't have any shares to own. We are an informational resource and our technical means (which is a very broad term, but probably means servers or creators) are not in Russia (other than a few of our editors). Nosebagbear (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I believe what OP is asking is if there is some sort of "WMF HQ" . A physical building. If there is one, I believe it may be in San Francisco? Squeeps10 00:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
No, the bill says nothing about the significant information resource owners' headquarters. I asked if the WMF has any form of capital, or anything that Russian authorities could classify as a foreign analogue of charter capital. --Синкретик (talk) 11:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Notification of upcoming editor survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Research and Product teams are planning to run a survey of Wikipedia editors. The survey aims to provide the Foundation and communities with better data about the balance of gender within the editor population and how on-going efforts are affecting this balance. Logged-in users who are randomly sampled will see a small box while reading articles that asks them a single question about their gender. They will have the option to dismiss the survey or answer (including the option to self-identify with their preferred terminology). No information about which specific users see or respond to the survey will be collected.

We are hoping that the simplicity of this survey and low barrier to response will result in a more representative sample than past research efforts (see links on the meta page) or from statistics based on the user-preference, which is not widely used in some languages, and help us understand biases in these complementary efforts.

We plan to run the survey for two weeks starting on 31-July-2019. It will sample 1 out of every 10 logged-in users. For questions, feel free to ping Isaac or leave a comment on the meta page. Thank you! --Isaac (WMF) (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that there is also a "prefer not to say" option - I was surprised by its absence in the above but it's given on the meta page. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
It's best to treat all editors as gender-neutral, as this is a cyber world. Doesn't do any good to divide us into groups. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation of model numbers

EXIF info of Wikimedia Commons files produce links to wikipedias (enwp when UI language is English; other wp and enwp at the same time when UI is another language). When I wanna know what camera/phone it actually is, I click. File:Mysore 1 26.jpg this file's EXIF links to A1601, which is a model number of Oppo F1s. However, iPad Mini 3 uses the same number. Is DAB suitable for this purpose?--Roy17 (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

categorytree tags

After I cleaned up regular articles, only three articles are still using <categorytree> tags, all outlines: Outline of German language, Outline of Esperanto, and Outline of Korean language. Normally I would expect outlines to have their own content independent from categories. Klarst, who has edited all three articles, has objected on Talk:Outline of Esperanto, saying that they are useful, but it's unclear to me why or whether these particular outlines are special. How do other editors feel about this? (This tag causes the listing of pages from the category to be transcluded into the outline.) -- Beland (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


This is on labeling certain models as "supermodel" in their lead paragraphs. I personally think they shouldn't be labeled as such even though their supermodel status are rock solid like Bundchen and Schiffer. Being a supermodel is not a job per se, you don't label someone a "superstar" or a "sex symbol" as form of identification in the lead paragraph. It will also lead to other models-of-the-moment to be labeled as "supermodel" based on random articles here and there. Thoughts? Maxen Embry (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. This would turn Wikipedia into a whole different encyclopedia. People could be labelled "rock god", "uber geek", or "poster child".--Jack Upland (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Not really, supermodel (universally recognised role), rock god (doesn't exist), uber geek (slang), poster child (perfectly apt in the right context). The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 13:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
We... uh... do label both Marylin Monroe and Brigitte Bardot as sex symbols in the lead paragraph, actually. I suspect if someone is universally described in reliable sources as a supermodel to the extent that Marylin Monroe is as a sex symbol (Claudia Schiffer or Naomi Campbell?), we absolutely should mention it in the lead paragraph. As MOS:INTRO puts it, The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead. (And on the subject of Jack Upland's example of poster child, the featured article Ryan White describes White as a poster child (in the metaphorical sense) in the lead...)
If someone isn't widely described as a supermodel, then we shouldn't describe them as such in the lead because it would be undue weight or even simply not verifiable, but if they are then we shouldn't not do so. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
How can you say "rock gods" don't exist? I don't understand.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Article doesn't exist. You're comparing unencyclopedic or slang terms to common place terms. Apples and oranges. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
So the standard to be used in Wikipedia is Wikipedia?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
No, it was simply to demonstrate that some of the examples given were absurd. Comparing pure slang with commonly used terminology is nonsense. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 12:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose as per Smith

When there is a discussion, editors often say "Oppose as per Smith". However, the guidelines state these discussion are not a "vote", and the numbers do not by themselves determine the outcome. Also, we are told to avoid WP:IDON'TLIKEIT responses. However, someone who says "Oppose as per Smith" is merely seconding Smith, giving his opinion a vote. And the post, given that it has no reasoning, could be called a "I don't like it" comment. So why do editors do it and is it a valid response?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes people say this because their rationales are similar or identical to those of Smith and don't want to write out an essentially similar argument. Speaking for myself, when I close an AFD I consider "per X" as signaling that X's opinion is shared by other people and thus needs particular consideration. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
So saying "I don't like it" has no weight, but if you latch on to Smith, then that means Smith's opinion has weight?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I suppose the difference is that Smith's argument is (one hopes) policy based. Consensus is not a vote insofar as fewer policy-based arguments can overwhelm a greater number of not policy-based arguments, but if both sides have policy-based arguments then the weight of numbers is significant in determining which position has consensus. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
So, practically speaking, if I want to say "NO", I should express myself as supporting Smith because it sounds like his argument is policy based, even if I've just skimmed it, and don't understand the relevant policies.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Of course, this is no different from latching onto the coattails of any argument. This is what people claim happened in Brexit, "IDONTLIKEIT" (and by implication "IDOLIKEIT") was phrased as specific rationale.
However if you want your "per Smith" !vote to have weight you will at least need to consider whether Smith's !vote is likely to carry weight.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC).
Yes, but Wikipedia (which is what I was talking about) condemns people who just say "yes" or "no", but gives value people who simply hitch a ride on someone else's argument. I don't understand that rationale.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Simply saying "yes" or "no" is of little help in evaluating what the arguments for a position is and whether they are compelling. Agreeing with a particular argument someone else is made is of rather greater help. I don't see the contradiction in treating the two differently. Yes, concievably one could try to game the system by arguing for a position "per Smith" when the real reason is "per IDONTLIKEIT". Is this actually a problem that really happens, though? Enough to materially change the outcome of discussions? Enough to justify throwing the baby out with the bathwater in ignoring "per Smith" !votes entirely? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I have experience closing, and here's how I handle it. I consider "Oppose as per Smith" to represent a copy-paste of whatever Smith said. If Smith gave a solid policy-based rationale, fine, you're agreeing-with-and-repeating a solid policy-based rationale. However if Smith gave a junk vote, then "Oppose as per Smith" is a copy-paste of a junk vote. Two junk votes aren't worth much more than one junk vote. As for votes with no explanation at all, most of the time it doesn't matter but it's a bad idea and you're taking a bit of a risk by doing it. It's a very fragile !vote. A closer has a lot of freedom to devalue bare votes if they have any concerns. I generally consider a bare vote to be a vague reflection of the other !votes on the same side. If that side is presenting solid arguments and validly citing policy, I'll generally accept the bare-vote as implicitly reflecting those same arguments. If a side is making junk arguments, then the bare vote is (at best) reflecting those junk arguments. If a side has nothing but bare votes, then there's nothing to reflect. If it's a trivial issue, if the proposal presented a clear rational, then the bare votes may be simple and obvious enough to accept. But if there's a genuine issue to debate, if the other side makes reasonable arguments, then a side with nothing but bare votes is at jeopardy of counting for ZERO for failing to present any argument at all. I don't frivolously throw away !votes, but my job is to serve the community and try to give the community-as-a-whole the result that it wants, in light of policy. If I have concerns that there's a problem with the RFC, a problem with the voting, a problem with the rationales, then you want to make sure that you gave a solid rationale. I once issued a strong consensus in favor of a 10 minority vs 20, because the 10 gave rationales in line with policy and the 20 were almost all canvassed SPAs with arguments that were worthless-under-Policy. Alsee (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


Do we have a policy of users crowdfunding for their work on Wiki? Let say I see a user who works on X topic articles, x topics for some reason have been neglected, and this user has a crowdfunding account so that people may donate to their work on X topics. Let me clarify, I have not and have no intentions of having interactions with this user. I could not find a policy on this issue. Do we have a policy? If yes, what is it and if not, should we? Thanks.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

In the sense that people crowdfunding someone to work in a category of articles probably don't all want them covered in a negative (that's neutral, but negative) fashion, you'd imagine there's some enforced bias, even if it wasn't as insidious as what PAIDCOI is actually targeted at. The Employer definition in PAIDCOI does say " is compensating the user without a contract, or is compensating the user through the user's employment by another organization.". However, the bias is clearly muted in this setup - and if someone said they were crowdfunding to go do research on the topics to let him write wikipedia articles about it, we'd consider that fine. Tl'dr - it probably does fall under PAIDCOI. It is a fairly minimal case, and depending on specifics, could be viewed as a de minimis case. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
If you are being paid, even through crowdfunding, then yes, the paid-contribution disclosure section in the Wikimedia foundation's terms of use applies. The English Wikipedia conflict of interest guideline is also relevant. isaacl (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
No money, but contests often have a prize of books or some other form of information. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Any form of compensation for editing falls under the scope of the paid-contribution disclosure section in the terms of use. isaacl (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Beethoven's variations

Hi, I am looking for Beethoven's variations for the piano related to the second movement of his Piano Sonata No. 24 in F♯ major, Op. 78, nicknamed à Thérèse. Sir András Schiff talks about the variations and performs some notes of the work here in a lecture-recital (11:10 to 11:40). May somebody help me find the "Variations"? — Hamid Hassani (talk) 09:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Hamid Hassani: It's not really within the scope of this page; try WP:RD/E. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Alright. Thank you. :) — Hamid Hassani (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Novel-Specific Literature Group

Hello, I'm new to editing on Wikipedia - been at it for a few weeks now. My primary interest (for now, at least) is to contribute to existing pages or create new pages for novels and authors that have been neglected thus far. But my question is if there is a group that I have yet to discover where Fiction-focused editors talk about ideas for pages and general contributions. I know about the Novel category Talk page, and other similar variations, however these all seem to be rather formal. I'm more interested in a less formal group for discussing page and contribution ideas. I know this might be a bit too niche, but thought I'd at least ask since I feel like the community sections of Wikipedia are extremely intricate and I've only discovered a small portion of it thus far. Honestly, I'm just looking for some editing camaraderie. Feel like I'm editing in a bubble outside a couple of users I've run into in passing. ANDROMITUS (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi ANDROMITUS, you might try WikiProject for Novels. Schazjmd (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Strategy Diversity Working Group: the end of freely licensed Wikipedia?

See User talk:Jimbo Wales#Diversity Working Group calls for the end of Wikipedia's availability as freely and openly licensed. BethNaught (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Related and Wikipedia:RELATED

Not sure where else to post this, so move it as necessary. There's a shortcut to our hatnote policy at Wikipedia:RELATED, but very confusingly there is a page Wikipedia:Related which has been marked historical since 2010 and seems to have never gained much traction. Since people keep linking to WP:Related when they mean WP:RELATED I think it's better that we turn the historical page into a redirect. Is there some pressing need to retain the page that I'm unaware of? Wug·a·po·des​ 22:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd have boldly redirected the page. There's nothing useful to retain as it was never useful. It was edited by few people including one who suggested the page be userfied apparently because it's not serving any purpose in project space. – Ammarpad (talk) 10:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I've redirected it then. Wug·a·po·des​ 20:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

New article from IP users

Good day everyone! I have a question about creating an article in Wikipedia English for a public user who does not create a Wikipedia account. Can they freely publish articles like any other Wikipedia language? Or there are:

  1. any policies and settings cause their written articles to be delayed from being published before being supervised by the administrator?
  2. are they blocked from creating new articles but allowed to make edits on Wikipedia?

Hoping for your responses! CyberTroopers (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Unregistered editors cannot create new articles. They can edit all other pages except those that are protected from editing, among other restrictions (see WP:IP). – Teratix 05:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Teratix: Are they automatically prohibited from creating it? Like there's a system prohibits them from creating it that only allows them to edit existing articles? Is there any explanation page (Wikipedia page) that can make me clear about it? CyberTroopers (talk) 08:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Unregistered editors don't have the 'createpagemainns' right, so yes, the software prevents them from creating new articles. If they do wish to write articles they may request for another editor to create one at Requested articles or submit a draft through the Article wizard, where it is reviewed by articles for creation volunteers.
As for an explanation page, it depends on what you want to know. If you just want to know what unregistered editors can and cannot do, WP:IP offers a summary. There is also a comprehensive table outlining which user groups have which rights. If you want to know more about the reasons behind the prohibition, see Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident (covering a hoax article created by an unregistered editor, and the subject's widely publicised reaction, which was the impetus for the page creation prohibition). Also see this article from the community newsletter The Signpost and this follow-up. – Teratix 10:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Teratix: Finally, the answer that I'm looking for. Thank you for the explanations!CyberTroopers (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

List of new users?

Is there a way to list the new users made after a certain date?

Say, I wanted to list the new editors on en.wp after, say, 6 October, 2018; is there any way to do that?

There is a list for "new article pages" (which, incidentally, would be much more useful if we could also search from a certain date), but I find nothing similar for new users.

Huldra (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Huldra: You could fiddle with Special:ListUsers with sort options such as this. However, that won't be useful for old dates. Try asking at WP:VPT because a WP:QUARRY or other query might get what you want. Be as specific as possible: you want a list of users created from 6 October 2018 to what date? I suspect the list from then to now would be very large. Johnuniq (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Johnuniq: thanks, will do. Actually, I need a function which list new users from any day I choose, something equal to the listing of someones contributions from/to. Huldra (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
If a Quarry query were useful, they are reasonably easy to modify so you could do it. I don't know of a convenient method but VPT would be the place to find out. Johnuniq (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
You can also go to Special:Log/newusers and search for all users created on a date and after. If you enter, say, 6 October 18 (that date format grates on me as an American English speaker!), then click "oldest", you can work forward from there. Whether that's useful depends on what you're trying to do. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Ah, thank you, User:The Blade of the Northern Lights; that is pretty much exactly what I am looking for (Hmm, more new ones than I though...I guess that (partly) comes from SUL accounts), Huldra (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Excessive indefinite blocks?

Maybe this is a perennial discussion. If it is, I'll be happy to just get some pointers to previous discussions. Are not indefinite blocks excessive sometimes? Over time I've seen some indefinite blocks for users who did some kind of mild WP:NPA violation and in the recent heat of the block, they didn't really stay calm, which made their initial indef block appeal fail or turn a temp block into an indef one. I'm not sure if I'm just seeing anecdotical evidence here, but it seems that unblock requests are unlikely to be granted even if requested after a few years (without socking in the meantime, of course). Isn't that excessive? I see the point for indefinite blocks with recurrent sockmasters, harassers, etc, but for a lot of other cases, shouldn't we give a chance after some time? --MarioGom (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

As far as the blocks I've seen, it is unusual for mild personal attacks—absent evidence of sockpuppetry (as you raised), vandalism, or clear signs that the editor is not willing to further the goals of Wikipedia—to result in an indefinite block. It is of course possible that these types of blocks aren't ones that would garner greater attention. Do you have any examples that can be shared? Regarding editors blocked indefinitely for other reasons: it comes down to whether or not the editor can make a convincing statement that they will not repeat the behaviour in question, and thereby re-establish trust with the blocking authority, or the community. isaacl (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Indefinite blocks of IP addresses are often excessive as most IP addresses are not static, and many are not for the exclusive use of the blocked person. But we do indef block open proxies, and formerly open proxies can be unblocked if they can be identified. As for logged in editors, most blocks are for vandalism and of course they should be indefinite. Goodfaith editors such as edit warrers can be given short blocks and will hopefully resume as good editors after their block, but why give a vandalism only account a fixed term block? We only want them to resume editing in the unlikely event that they ask for a second chance and promise to stop vandalising, so vandalism only accounts should always get an indef block, as should all "badfaith" accounts. ϢereSpielChequers 18:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Gender survey

How do I make the gender survey go away? I answered it previously, and that did it, but now it is back. I don't want to bias the results by answering every time it thinks it needs to ask me again (because I'm on a different ip, maybe?) If I am having this issue, surely others are as well, and likely some of them are responding multiple times to the survey, making the results suspect at best. Finally, there must be a better place to be discussing all this, but I don't see it on CENT or know an easy way to find where the survey discussion is happening. LadyofShalott 03:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

#Notification_of_upcoming_editor_survey. --Yair rand (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I've noted this at phab:T227793. Jc86035 (talk) 10:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
@LadyofShalott: Thanks for letting me know and participating. Apologies that the survey is recurring despite you already answering it. Whether the survey is shown or not depends on a browser cookie, which is good for privacy reasons (we do not store any information about who is taking the survey) but also makes it harder for me to help you with this issue. There are a few possible explanations I can think of: if you switch browsers or clear the cookies in your browser (for example, private browsing mode), then the survey will potentially reappear. If that is not the case and you are still seeing the survey, then this could be an issue with the technology, which we will look into though that will not help you right now. There are two other ways to dismiss a survey, and I apologize that they are not immediately straightforward, but hopefully they help more immediately: 1) turn on Do Not Track in that browser, or, 2) go to your javascript console (in Mozilla, this is under the hamburger menu, then Web Developer, and then Web Console) and enter the following:'ext-quicksurvey-editor-gender-1-en', '~'). If others are having this issue and it is not related to switching browsers or deleting browser cookies, don't hesitate to let me know as well so I might get a sense of how pervasive this is. --Isaac (WMF) (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I edit from more than one location. Given your answer, it may be that I answered while logged in from my work computer; it does not show again there. It shows when I am logged in at home. (I don't remember for certain where I was when I answered it, just that I did.) I'll try one of the other dismissal methods later, although it would be useful to have it as a button on survey box. LadyofShalott 18:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm... if people can answer this survey more than once, then the data is flawed. We can’t draw any valid conclusions from flawed data. Fix the bug and start over. Blueboar (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, having an easier method of dismissing the survey is certainly something we are looking to add. In the meantime, just selecting "Prefer not to say" is perfectly reasonable too. We will interpret those responses both as "I do not want to provide this information." and "I do not want this survey to appear any longer." Regarding your thought @Blueboar: while multiple responses is a possibility, at this point it still appears to be an isolated problem. If it is more pervasive, we will reconsider. Any survey has challenges such as this that add to the error and we just do our best to capture that and reflect it in the results. Thanks --Isaac (WMF) (talk) 10:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
@Isaac (WMF): Another thing you can do: add a note on possible reappearing of the message along with a request to not respond twice ...and hope people will follow it.   CiaPan (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
@CiaPan: yes, it is a good point. Too late to change it for this survey but we will consider for any future surveys to lessen confusion. Plan right now is to undeploy these surveys by Tuesday August 13th (earliest we can do it). Thanks all! --Isaac (WMF) (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The survey itself serves no purpose, other then to divide editors. Now, one can't get rid of it, even if one has already answered it. Quite frustrating. GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Regarding, if people can answer this survey more than once, then the data is flawed, I don't see why that's the case. Presumably people of all genders are being shown duplicates at the same rate. So, while seeing the survey more than once may be annoying, I don't see how it skews the results. Well, unless there's some systemic bias in who gets shows duplicates? Maybe people of one gender are more likely to have cookies disabled? Or be using public access terminals so they don't get tracked across sessions? Of course, there's other things that could bias this as well; people of one gender might be more predisposed to answer surveys, or to lie in their responses. But, that's all speculation, and my guess is all those would be very small effects. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
    The first skew is going to be towards multi device editors. Some editors will only ever edit on one device, others on a PC at work, another at home, and maybe a tablet on the train. Or on a different machine each time they visit the internet cafe. By going for a very large sample of editors you are skewing towards this group, on a smaller subset such as 1 in a 100 you would have annoyed fewer people in total and greatly reduced the skew towards multi device editors. The second skew would be towards editors who frequently delete cookies, assuming you left a cookie on the machine of the responders? ϢereSpielChequers 14:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
    Cookies are automatically deleted every time I close my browser. I've seen the survey multiple times. Station1 (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The survey has finished, according to phab:T227793. --Yair rand (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I wrote an essay on the dangers of the supervolunteer

I wrote an essay on the dangers of the supervolunteer, User:Geo Swan/The supervolunteer. I've written a bunch of userspace essays, some of which other people have linked to. But I was wondering whether this one merited being placed in the wikipedia namespace - once other people had had their say about it.

If other people looked at this, and there was some general agreement with it, could it just be moved to the wikipedia namespace? Is there a formal procedure for moving a essay to wikipedia space/

What is a supervolunteer? Short version: because they do more than their share they feel an extra sense of entitlement, entitled to blow off some rules...

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that while the dangers are accurate, the advice for supervolunteers to do less is misplaced. I'm one of those supervolunteers, during my 10+ years here I came up with stuff like WP:RECOG, WP:AALERTS, WP:JCW, WP:CITEWATCH, and many many other things. I don't plan on doing any less anytime soon. I'm good at what I do, and while it would be great to have 432 others that could replace me, the reality is that we have very few supervolunteers, and if they left, chances are all the work they do would not get done, or get done much less efficiently. Would others have come up with these ideas? Maybe. Maybe not. But you won't find anyone arguing that Wikipedia is better without WP:AALERTS.
There is no shortage of work on Wikipedia. If the 3 people that are good at dealing with copyvio stuff become 2 people that are good at copyvio stuff, that won't suddenly create a boost of interest in copyvio stuff. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
The dangers, including burnout are real, but we might also remember that the graveyards are full of indispensable men. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Jim.henderson, clarification please, are you saying the essay is unnecessary because (1) burnout is the only problem you recognize with supervolunteers; so (2) supervolunteers, aren't a problem, because if they burnout, they'll leave, and new people will replace them.
  • I see supervolunteers as a problem because burnout is not the problem that really concerns me. Supervolunteers, whose extraordinary efforts trigger them to feel extraordinary privilege, so they don't have to comply with all our policies, are very damaging to the project, in general. Geo Swan (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Greetings Headbomb! Congratulations on your accomplishments! If you are not a supervolunteer who acts like your extraordinary efforts justify you taking extraordinary liberties - like not bothering to be civil - then keep on with your extraordinary efforts.
  • Supervolunteers who have the opportunity may sometimes rationalize embezzling resources. Ordinary administrators wouldn't have this kind of opportunity. Essjay may have been a supervolunteer.
  • Some of our supervolunteers feel so confident in their judgment they think they no longer have an obligation to comply with WP:BEFORE. I don't like it when they do this. Geo Swan (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It's been estimated that 77 percent of Wikipedia articles were written by 1 percent of editors. [3] Editors like Headbomb have been crucial to its success. But like Jim.henderson says, our graveyard is full of indispensable editors. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Headbomb, Jim.henderson and Hawkeye7 weighed in. Thanks.

      It must be my fault that the three of you understood my key point. It seems you all think I am concerned for the well-being of volunteers who do so much they exhaust themselves. That is not my point. My point is that some volunteers, who see themselves doing more than their share, end up really damaging the project, because they rationalize doing more than their share entitles them to stop complying with some of our rules.

      Can't you think of prolific contributors, who end up being bullying other contributors?

      FWIW, I too would be part of the 1 percent of contributors who adds new content.

      So, should I changed the title from "supervolunteers" to "extreme volunteers" or "toxic volunteers", or something like that? Geo Swan (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

      • Then I would massively disagree with that. People aren't toxic simply because they do a lot. There isn't a quota of participation after which your contributions become undesired. If someone wants to go balls to the wall and create one feature article per day, that is GREAT. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Clarification please Headbomb - have you really never noticed any regular contributors or administrators acting as if our normal policies and conventions on civility and collegiallity don't apply to them, because they have spent a long time carrying far more than their share of the load?

          Please take a minute to think about this? Never?


          You are lucky then.

          No one is claiming here that every person who does more than their share starts acting like their extra efforts justify them acting as if the rules don't apply to them. But, trust me, if you really can't think of anyone whose sense of entitlement makes them an overall negative factor for the wikipedia, these individuals do exist. And, in my opinion, it would really be a good idea if we had an essay that helped people recognize the supervolunteers who push, bend, or massively breach our policies, out of a misplaced sense of entitlement.

        • Contributors can have essays that disagree with the opinions of other good faith contributors. The hatnote the {{essay}} template places explicitly warns readers that the essay may be the view of just a few contributors. If I were to create WP:Dangers of Supervolunteers you could create WP:Supervolunteers Welcome. However, another option would be to help me draft something we could both agree to. A start would be for you to see if we can figure out why you think I said merely doing a lot made people a toxic influence on the wikipedia. There is no way I would ever say that. I've started almost 3200 articles, so far, so I too am a contributor who does a lot. I said those who do a lot, and then somehow justify breaking our rules because doing a lot left them with a feeling of entitlement, can be a very toxic influence on the wikipedia. Geo Swan (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
      • @Geo Swan: As I asked above, if that's your intention then what is the difference between your essay and Wikipedia:No vested contributors or Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable? Anomie 11:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Sorry Anomie, I didn't see your question when I drafted the comment where I pinged those other guys. I started a long reply to you last night, but it got too late to save, without a more wide-awake review. The short version is: thanks for drawing those essays to my attention. I'd never read them. They don't really address my main concern. In particular: WP:You are not irreplaceable's intended readers seem to be those feeling stress from overwork, not those who have been the targets of supervolunteers who feel a counterpolicy sense of entitlement. Geo Swan (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
          • @Geo Swan: Your essay seems to suffer from both a lack of focus on your thesis (witness the number of people who seem to think you're talking about something else) and a lack of applicability to your audience. It seems to me that Wikipedia:Equality already exists for "targets of supervolunteers" as an audience. Anyway, while you're welcome to have your essay in your userspace, I see no place for it in projectspace when we already have those other essays that more directly address the problem you're trying to point at. Anomie 11:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
            • Anomie, thanks for pointing me at EQUALITY. I read it and, while it does assure targets of supervolunteers that they should be able to count on being treated fairly, honestly, civilly, I don't see how it is of any practical use to those targets.

              Neither Wikipedia:No vested contributors or Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable has any advice for those targetted by a super-entitled supervolunteer either.

              You are an administrator, so you are protected from bullying from supervolunteers who feel empowered by a toxic sense of super-entitlment. Please bear in mind the difficulties of those who are not administrators. Geo Swan (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

              • @Geo Swan: Err, your essay doesn't give any advice for users targeted by "supervolunteers" either. It doesn't address them at all, despite your claim that they are your target audience. Anomie 13:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
                • Essays are often neither proscriptive or prescriptive, rather descriptive as in this case. -- GreenC 13:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Geo Swan: I for one like the essay and the concept it introduces, it is memorable and imparts learned wisdom not merely resummarizing rules. Another related essay is WP:UNBLOCKABLES which arises because of Supervolunteerism. You may also be interested in some links on my user page, in particular the Iron Law of Oligarchy. -- GreenC 12:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
    • User:Hawkeye7, it happens that I was looking at the same source about "77 percent" ...and I have my doubts about it. I would like to get further clarification, but it appears to me that under their system, the very best content creator is User:ClueBot NG, because ClueBot reverts more page-blanking vandalism than anyone else. (That is, for that particular calculation, I think they're using those little + and - numbers to decide how much was contributed, rather than actually parsing who wrote which words on a page. They discuss a different formula in Appendix A.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

A reminder not to WP:BITE the newbies

@Justlettersandnumbers and RHaworth: I'm sure neither of you meant any harm, and please pardon me for using you as an example. It's not my intent to beat you up in public, but I'm going to take this opportunity to remind people to be nice to our newest editors. We recently had User:FNH200Team8 create an account and write a draft as part of a school project. The draft wasn't in line with our guidelines, and neither was their username. But, both of these were totally innocent mistakes. Instead of getting help and support, what they got was their draft speedied and their account blocked.

I've been seeing a lot of school projects happening here on wikipedia lately. This is A Good Thing. Far from being Eternal September, the quality of work is often exceptional. Even when it's not, it's almost always a huge step above the everyday deluge of spam we see. We really should be putting more effort into encouraging these school projects, which means going out of our way to show them how things work and navigate our byzantine collection of rules and policies. That doesn't mean we accept everything they do. Indeed, that would be a poor outcome for both the encyclopedia and for their education. But, more teaching and less biting would be nice. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

RoySmith, it would seem to me that the educator and students should have had more support before beginning their project, to understand how to edit in order to prevent that from happening. I don't think blaming people for doing what they were supposed to do is helpful. Rather, why don't we make sure that students on these projects know how to avoid mistakes like that before they make their first edit? Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay, and now that I look at it, I have no idea who worked with them (or if anyone did), but someone needs to. All those userspace drafts need to be deleted under G5; they're using Wikipedia to host school projects rather than making improvements to articles. That is not acceptable. If students want to do projects here, that's fine, but those projects need to be reasonably oriented toward improving the encyclopedia, not writing stuff in userspace that we already have articles on. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
When you say "school" do you mean school, or college? If you have examples of articles where the quality of work is "exceptional", please share. People may be interested in a discussion on this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#A_lot_of_student_editing_coming_our_way. Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I wish I had a better way to find these, but Architecture of Saudi Arabia, Architecture of Cuba, and Lung cancer in Australia are all examples that I've accepted. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
The last two aren't bad, I'll grant, especially Architecture of Cuba, which we seem to have had nothing on before. The Saudi one isn't great. Johnbod (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Johnbod, the question isn't whether their very first edits are "great". Almost nobody's first edits are great. The ultimate question is whether they're good enough to be better than nothing, and the immediate question is whether they're better than is typical for that experience level. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I was asking for examples for "the quality of work is often exceptional" per RoySmith above, and commenting in that context. Johnbod (talk) 12:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Fair enough, RoySmith. I was aware that was a school team, so took a small amount of extra time to explain exactly what what the problem was with the username. How would you have handled it with less 'bite'?
Judging from this page, the course supervisor is Wmengle. I agree with Seraphimblade – in this case as in all others, the students should have been made properly aware of the basic rules of editing here before they started. That would be an educative experience, but unfortunately it very often doesn't happen. Perhaps we should have some sort of threshold of experience for course supervisors, who often themselves do not have a good understanding of our basic policies and practices – 1000 mainspace edits, say? Are education projects still supposed to receive prior approval, as I believe they once were? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
The thing that originally got me off on this was I wanted to leave a note at User talk:FNH200Team8/sandbox explaining to them how to do things better. But, then I noticed the user was blocked, so they'd probably never see my message. Maybe instead of immediately blocking, put a note on their talk page explaining what the issue is? I also noticed that the sandbox was WP:CSD'd with, "Subject already exist in Mainspace". That's not a valid CSD. I agree that this student didn't get good guidance and/or supervision. But, that's something to bring up with the person running the class. Blocks are designed to prevent ongoing damage. I don't see what damage there would have been if instead of an immediate block, they got a talk page warning and a window of time in which to pick a new username without getting stomped on. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Seraphimblade: I'm not sure which pages you're referring to by All those userspace drafts need to be deleted under G5. Can you be more specific? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
    RoySmith, I'm talking about the ones at the school project you cited. Those all duplicate content in the encyclopedia, and don't appear to be any kind of attempt to improve it, but rather to do one's homework in userspace. Many of them have stuff added that would be inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
    (Also, I apologize, I meant U5, not G5. To my knowledge, none of them are banned editors.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
    You mean like User:Jcookie98/sandbox? That looks like a perfectly reasonable way to start collecting thoughts for future improvements to an existing article. Kind of like what I do myself. How is that U5 material? You say that, Many of them have stuff added that would be inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Well, that's true of the vast amount of crap that people write, especially in draft space.

    I'm guessing you're more concerned about things like User:Rose08080/sandbox which do indeed duplicate existing articles. But, people work on new ideas for existing articles in their user sandboxes all the time. Most of them probably go nowhere. Some evolve into new improved versions that can replace the one in mainspace to the benefit of the encyclopedia. I'm actually impressed with the process here. I'm always telling people to start by researching sources and then write the article from the sources. And that looks like exactly what this author did. If they got that part right but messed up on every other one of our processes, I'd say they're off to a good start.

    I just don't see the problem, and can't see how this comes anywhere near to a Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host. If you want to push the boundaries of blocking policy and WP:CSD, There's tons of WP:UPE, WP:PROMO, WP:POV and otherwise WP:NOTHERE in draft space that would benefit from some over-eager blocking and deleting. A bunch of students stumbling around trying to learn how to write encyclopedia articles is the wrong place to be swinging the banhammer wildly. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @Lapablo: with respect to the above thread, I'm curious about this edit of yours. You tagged the draft for speedy deletion with the explanation, "Subject already exist in Mainspace". That's not a WP:CSD. In cases like that, just reject the draft. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
RoySmith I completely understand however the draft was due for a G13 (Abandoned draft) and also existed in Mainspace. I actually made an edit adding in edit summary "G13 Eligible" but it wasn't saved. It won't happen again. Lapablo (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
How could it have been due for G13? It was first created last week and actively worked on every day since then. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Pardon me, two of the articles i went through yesterday had the same issue and mistakened one for another. However i will be more careful in placing tags on pages especially while reviewing pages created by newbies. Best regards, Lapablo (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Like I said at the top, I'm sure nobody involved here meant any harm, but the confluence of events added up to a sub-optimum experience for our student editors. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikimania Live Stream

Hey Everyone,

I wanted to leave a heads up that there will be banners running for a few hours tomorrow relating to a livestream of the Wikimania Keynote. Apologies for the short notice. This banner will be low impact in design, showing every other impression and limited to 1 page view globally. This will be at a high rate in Nordic countries but limited to 5 impressions. This will be for an hour or so in the morning and the same in the afternoon. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 02:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

For those who missed it, the opening session and keynote can be watched on YouTube or on Commons (skip to about 3:10). Links to other sessions can be found at wikimania:2019:Video. Thanks to all the people involved in doing such a great job streaming and recording! the wub "?!" 22:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Saved Articles (Reading/Editing List) For Desktop

Think I know the answer to this question, but am going to ask anyway. Is there a way to save articles for later editing and/or reading on the site's desktop version like there is for the mobile app? ANDROMITUS (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe this is phab:T194441. Lots of work to go there it looks like. --Izno (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Have you tried using your browser's bookmark feature? Some browsers can even sync these across devices. Anomie 12:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Izno (talk) Oh my god, that looks beautiful. I really hope they make it work. Anomie That was my intended compromise if there wasn't a function within the site. Was clinging to a hope that I had just missed it. ANDROMITUS (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding "Yearbook" to school infobox template

Hi! I'm requesting that the field "Yearbook" be permanently added to the school specific infobox template! Many have legacy names and I'd like to be able to update without creating a new and unlinked field each time. DogLuna (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

6,000,000 articles celebration

I remember 2,000,000 articles celebration at a covention. Is a 6,000,000 articles celebration planned?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

A Wikipedia app banner experiment is coming up

Hello all! On 29 and 30 August, the Wikimedia Foundation will be conducting two experimental and short one-hour banners. These will be shown only to non-logged-in readers on the mobile web version of Wikipedia, and will help us determine which readers on mobile devices would prefer the Wikipedia app as an extension of their experience on the site. I'll be monitoring this page for any questions and/or feedback. Thank you! Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

More information on the overall project behind this is on Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


I found a sentence I paraphrase as "She is a distinguished alumni from university XYZ." But alumni is plural. Is this an attempt to avoid using alumna? Should it be changed to singular? Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Possibly just someone who didn't know the proper singular. If someone wants to avoid the female-specific "alumna", they could use "alumnus". Anomie 18:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
If I saw "alumnus" used to refer to a woman, I would assume it was an error, just as I would seeing "alumni" used to refer to a single person. If we want to avoid a gendered word, the English phrase "X studied at Y, where she obtained her PhD in Foo" is perfectly adequate – and probably more understandable to the average reader. Depending on context, I would either correct misuse of "alumnus"/"alumni" to the grammatically correct form, or rewrite so we don't have to use it (see e.g. Claude Cahun: "Cahun attended..."). (The neuter singular form of alumnus/alumna would be *alumnum, but as far as I know this form does not exist; just avoid!) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
You may want to contribute to Wiktionary, specifically wikt:alumnus. I'm going to stay out of gender politics versus language prescriptivism debates. Anomie 11:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Cooperation/Paid editor help is inactive?

{{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=Chaud321|U1-employer=Hot Tomato Marketing|U1-client=Booster Fuels|U1-otherlinks=}} Hi! Hope you can help me. On Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid editor help it says, "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference." Is this true? I am a PR representative (paid) who currently uses this page. Just wanted to check! Chaud321 (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Fundraising in India

Hey all,

As I announced on the wikimediaindia-l back in June, we are planning to return to fundraising in India in 2020. Next week, in addition to our weekly Wednesday tests, we will be running some small and brief pre-tests in India to test out our payment infrastructure and to gauge response to our localized messaging.

  • If you need to report a bug or technical issue, please create a phabricator ticket.
  • If you see a donor on a talk page, OTRS or social media having difficulties in donating, please refer them to
  • If you have specific ideas to share, please feel invited to add them to our fundraising ideas page.

For our India campaign, we have gathered feedback from CIS, focus groups, and community members but you can also send feedback regarding the fundraising campaign directly on my talk page. Your feedback might not make it into the banners for the 2 hour tests, but we will definitely factor it into our campaign for next year. Many Thanks Seddon (WMF) (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Seddon (WMF),
As you probably know, I'm not in India, but I'm curious about all things localization.
So I wanted to ask:
  1. Is this campaign shown in sites other than the English Wikipedia?
  2. Are the banners themselves translated to any language?
Thanks! --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@Amire80: - right now we kept the India test limited to the English Wikipedia and next years main campaign will likely be English only and only on given it's the first campaign there. We'll consider other languages in the future most likely. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Academic Research about Creative Commons-Peer Production-P2P


I am a Doctorate student studying the effect of the newly formed peer production setting and its effect on lowering unethical behavior in Economics.

My aim is to interview people who volunteer their time in open source/PP projects (Wikipedia, Git hub, bitcoin or any other open source projects using volunteers/collaborators).

I will generally ask questions related to the nature of the job/project as a volunteer compared to a contracted employee who for example is working in a similar project using normal company market settings. For example working in a 3D printing company vs. collaborating with an open source 3D design platform.

Questions will tackle: size of task, size of job description, time and resources allocated, incentives and other aspects.

The interviews will be focused on capturing your point of view, my role is a 3rd person trying to objectively capture your experience as much as possible.

Finally, I will be very grateful for any collaboration, the data from your experiences and interviews will be greatly valuable.

Hopefully, we will be able to prove that working in a peer production/open source setting reduces unethical behavior in the work environment.

MD — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayssamD (talkcontribs) 20:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, MayssamD. I recommend that you read the archives at WP:COIN. This will provide you with valuable background information about how people respond to incentives, and the results (because they have already happened) cannot be biased by the interviewee's belief that you want to prove that they are more ethical than average. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 125#Franklin Road Academy appears to be the first report from last year. You could start there and go through the archives until you have read a year's worth of discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Webcitation redux

There was a proposal, in July 2019, to deprecate webcitation. WP:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_159#RfC:_Deprecate_webcitation.org_aka_WebCite.

The major justifications for this proposal were, it had gone done, for an extended period of time, and, when the site became available, it was only serving already archived pages, and not accepting new pages.

If I am reading that archived proposal correctly, it was not passed.

If I am not mistaken, while most non-profits, for instance whoever runs, are cash-poor, struggle to get enough donations, the WMF is cash proud. Some years ago, when webcitation had some funding problems, I wondered whether the WMF would consider disbursing some of its funds, to make sure the archive links we counted on from continued to work.

In the July discussion some respondents asserted the loss of webcitation wasn't significant, because it was less frequently used than, the so-called wayback machine. Personally, while is my first choice of archiver, there are webpages that won't archive, that webcitation will archive. I don't know why this is. I've wondered about it, wondered whether complies more strictly to no-robots.

For years webcitation was the only archive service I knew about, and the only one I used. So, there may be thousands of references I created which rely on webcitation. While a robot could go searching for references to webcitation archives, and try to replace them with archives...

  1. what if the original page is now 404?
  2. what if can archive the current content of the page in question, but the current content is markedly different than the content when first archived at webcitation?

Presumably the WMF could be running its own archive server, so the wikipedias never had to rely on any third party archive servers. I am guessing this must have been considered, at some point, and there was a strong reason not to do so. Maybe it was so the WMF had plausible deniability if the original copyright holders complained an archive violated their copyright.

Does anyone know how common it is for copyright holders to complain archives at webcitation or violate their copyright?

Has had more outages, since the July discussion? Geo Swan (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Content hidden from most people

  You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:OnlyOffline#Uses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Introducing advanced mode for editors on mobile!

Screenshots showing the new, advanced features on the Wikipedia mobile site

Over the past year, the Readers web team at the Wikimedia Foundation has been working on an advanced mode for editors on mobile.

This mode adds more editing and contribution functionality to the mobile website. Prior to these changes, this functionality was only available on the desktop site.

This new mode is now available on your wiki. To try it, go to your Mobile Options page and select “Advanced mode” (picture).

Advanced mode contains the following features:

  • Article and discussion page links at the top of the page.
  • History button at the top of the page.
  • Full-details in History and Recent Changes pages.
  • Access to all Special pages from mobile.
  • A new Main Menu with useful links to Recent changes, Community portal, and more.
  • A new Page Menu when viewing an article, which contains links to the subject in Wikidata, PDF download, Page information, and more.
  • A new User Menu with links to the user’s User page, User talk page, Contributions, and Sandbox.

We encourage you to try out Advanced mode and give feedback on the project page.

Yours, CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Yay! This is a HUGE improvement! Thank you so much! There are some things that could be tweaked still, but it's a TON better. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks ONUnicorn. If you do come across anything you'd like to leave feedback on, please do. The team is watching the talk page and listening. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll try to pay attention over the next little while to when and why I'm switching from mobile view to desktop view on my mobile device and leave notes on the talk page about what is making me switch to desktop view. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
That's great! @CKoerner (WMF): (or others) is there a way to add custom options to the ⋮ menu? Perhaps via CSS/skins? Will definitively give feedback. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much! This is an amazing & helpful addition.  Nixinova T  C  20:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Mobile mode is obsolete, phone browsers these days can edit in "desktop" mode, I've been doing it for years, ever since Android versions of the mainstream browsers (Chrome, Firefox, etc.) became available. There is no need at all for a mobile mode or app to even exist anymore, improving it is a waste of WMF resources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Search optimization

The Wikipedia search function doesn't seem to be quite optimal. When I search on this pattern:

Catalogue of two dimentional spectral types for the HD stars 2

I get no results. However, if I search on this:

Catalogue of two dimensional spectral types for the HD stars 2

I get 539 matches. The only difference is one letter: the 't' in dimentional. Praemonitus (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

That is because the occurrences are mostly 'two-dimensional', which is two characters difference from why you typed in the first query. I believe it is setup to only handle one character of difference by default. If you add a tilde ~ at the end of dimentional, increasing the fuzzy factor by 1 more character (see help), then it can find the results. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 07:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be matching up on the other words though? A one-word miss shouldn't be enough to completed ignore a result. Praemonitus (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

When to use the main template

I have an unusual situation and can't figure out where to ask.

I asked what to do about World oil market chronology from 2003‎ getting too long. It appears the recommended action is to take most of the details out and put them in smaller articles covering shorter time periods. Each smaller article would have to refer back to the parent article, which would seem to be a use for the main template. At the same time, the brief summaries of each group of years would seem to need a link to the longer detailed information, which seems also to be a use for the main template.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Vchimpanzee, have you considered take some details out, but without putting them anywhere? In a couple of those longer years, I found myself wondering whether this was more like a blow-by-blow description of nearly everything that happened, than like an encyclopedic summary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing could you take this to the discussion of the article itself?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


I just WP:G11'd User:Kdashtipour/sandbox. The author went so far as to create a wikidata entry for himself, which is likewise spam. I'm not up on wikidata process, but I assume they've also got some G11-ish process to fight spam? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I've put in a deletion request. Haven't found the WD version of Speedy yet. - X201 (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. For my future reference, how does one request deletion on wikidata? I assume the entry doesn't get truly deleted, since they need to reserve the Q number somehow? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Wikidata:Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikidata will delete spam entries without fuss in most cases. You can use the RequestDeletion gadget in the future. --Izno (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Advice for new wiki project for literature, not affiliated with Wikipedia


I spent the last year developing a new web app called (backend MariaDB, Python/Flask) for annotation wikis on public domain literature. I emailed Wikimedia ten days ago about it and they pointed me here for help/advice.

The app works. It's definitely got bugs, because, well, software. But I have no idea where to go next to start attracting users to build up annotations. I posted to Reddit (r/shakespeare) last weekend and generated all of 13ish upvotes and some complimentary comments, but my user base has gone nowhere. I understand that this will be hard, and that it might take a long time, but I don't know where to go next. Building it was hard (I learned Python on the job), but at least I knew what I had to do from one step to the next.

My first thought is to start emailing literature professors around the country with an interest in classical literature (there are some I've seen with an interest in "humanities computing" which seems perfect). But this doesn't seem likely to be received well.

My second thought is Hacker News but this seems dumb to me. It is very possible that I could blow up to the front page but the HN Hug of Death would mean bringing my one dyno down with hits but probably yield very very few users.

I'm entirely self-funded, have no way of getting donations yet (the patreon account is still sitting dormant with no donations page) and don't make a lot of money. A sustained advertising campaign is likely very outside my personal financial abilities, though I could swing a $100 campaign if I had to. Right now I'm at $26 a month for hosting with Heroku.

Any advice or help would literally be a godsend. Malan88 (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


I made a page in the namespace 8 of en.Wikipedia in a regular fashion for a pretty routine task. A powerful functionary deleted it citing WP:CSD#G3. What can I do to undelete the page—importantly, including both history and Special:Log/delete record—to have a publicly viewable piece? Preferably the page should be immediately userfied. May a (very bold) volunteer having the sysop flag do the job expecting some reward from the transparency knights? I was largely out-of-touch with the site for years and may miss important caveats for cases where bosses have some stake. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the page Incnis Mrsi refers to is Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Duodecimal/Archive 1. As it was deleted as G3, I believe it is ineligible for a request for undeletion. Someone who is more familiar with the deletion policy can feel free to correct me, but I believe your first move should be to contact the deleting admin on their talk page if you believe that the page was incorrectly deleted or should be userfied. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
@Caeciliusinhorto-public: won’t work due to history of relations. Moreover, how could a boss be interested in evidence implicating the boss in abusive deletion? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I see no deleted contributions for you in namespace 8, which is the MediaWiki namespace. If Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Duodecimal/Archive 1 (namespace 4) is what you're referring to, let me give you a warning about edit warring and personal attacks, and recommend you drop the stick. Sure, Bbb23's use of G3 seems incorrect, but it does not seem any constructive purpose would be served by undeleting that page now. Anomie 12:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing to an error, but random opinions where who was “correct“ or “incorrect“ are of little interest for me. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
As for edit warring by me… it’s true that I edit warred which is (in principle) disruptive, but if an attempt to make a manifestly controversial deletion via G6 nearly succeeded, then should I be admonished? You en.Wikipedian establishment are primarily at fault for ineffective enforcement of policies, not Incnis_Mrsi who is practically nobody here. Users who blatantly violate policy should be persecuted before ones who defend themselves. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Incnis Mrsi, please read and digest WP:POINT. Other of your contributions are valuable; do please keep up the good work. If on the other hand you find that your work on Wikipedia annoys you (as it does most contributors from time to time), then take a break from it and return when in the mood. -- Hoary (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Why a sysop makes comments about my person here? Go to WP:Editor_review/Incnis_Mrsi, Hoary, and post whatever you think about me. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Just giving you a little advice, Incnis Mrsi. If you don't like it, don't take it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

"Notable People" (within articles on places)

The recent history of the article "Ranaghat" shows a lot of additions to the lists of "Notable People", radical pruning by me of one list, and effective (although not necessarily deliberate) reversion of this pruning.

I pruned because in my experience lists of non-linked or red-linked people can easily include the very dubiously notable ("ex-bassist of [a bluelinked but obscure rock group]"), worthy but non-notable citizens ... and shading off into mere boosterism, with contributors' employers, uncles, etc. I was sure there was a guideline about this, somewhere.

When reverted, I thought: Time to find and cite that guideline! But I couldn't find it. Had I just hallucinated its existence?

Here's my own idea of a list of people: List of street photographers. Unless somebody has been fiddling with this list of mine, every person is bluelinked, and every inclusion is backed up with a reference. A list, or lists, of "Notable People" within some other article might have different standards, but I can't immediately imagine how they could be beneficial. On the other hand I appreciate that I can't simply mandate my own preferences across Wikipedia: WP:OWN, collegiality, and all that.

So, what are the (unwritten?) rules or guidelines? (Or aren't there any?) And if there aren't, should redlinked/nonlinked people be listed? -- Hoary (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

That is the issue indeed - it appears that there are no rules, or people try to dodge those rules continuously (excuses: 'the list is what needs to be notable, not the items in the list itself - look, see my <blog/social network/whatever>, I am <whatever>, I belong in this list of <whatever>'). AFAIK we only have Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (excuse: 'but this is not a stand-alone list, it is an embedded list'), and that one does not go further than (Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Content_policies): "Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines.' (excuse: 'but the list is notable, it does not say that the items in the list need to be notable. The items need to be verifyable, here, I am a carpenter, it is on my LinkedIn, done, you verified it!').
My criterion has always been (not on people, but that does not matter) that either the item in the list is in itself notable (i.e., the item has an own article, it would result in a blue link), or that an independent, reliable source (so, that is, independent AND reliable, a logical AND) shows that that subject belongs in said list. It is my rather strong opinion that this has to be a defining part of what is in a list. Anything else will immediately result in a spamhole. That should be in Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Content_policies, and that guideline should make clear it is also applicable to embedded lists. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Note, for e.g. WP:LISTCOMPANY that is reasonably defined correctly: A company or organization may be included in a list of companies or organizations whether or not it meets the Wikipedia notability requirement, unless a given list specifically requires this. If the company or organization does not have an existing article in Wikipedia, a citation to an independent, reliable source should be provided to establish its membership in the list's group (similarly in WP:LISTPEOPLE). Excuse is then often 'but this is not a company, this is a product', and that people do not understand the concept 'independent, reliable source': 'Look, I published it in Nature, Nature is an independent source, and it is reliable'. There is way too much wriggle space, I would strongly advocate to make that more general requirements so we can enforce what goes in a list, any list. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Hoary - with regard to places, I suspect you may have been thinking of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/Settlements:_Article_structure#Notable_people; which states
Names of notable people born or residing in the locality. Include only people with a Wikipedia article, see also WP:NLIST.
Although, technically this only covers "settlements" I have seen it extrapolated out to cover Districts, Regions and States, as, if someone isn't notable enough to be included in their own town, they are certainly not notable enough to be included in a larger area. However, I can't find that discussion - Arjayay (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:SOURCELIST is relevant, and is part of the MOS. I found it by way of looking at the question of "notable alumni" lists in school articles, not that different from "notable residents". PamD 13:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • We don't have firm rules about this. This is perhaps partly due to the wide variety of places. In a very small town, a person could be important to a town's history (e.g., the first known resident, or someone in List of longest-serving mayors in the United States) without really being a suitable subject for a full biography article. Such people could be written into the actual history sections, but some editors like making lists, and sometimes the lists are a practical stepping stone to an expanded prose section. In these lists, you follow WP:LSC, which means you decide what your standards are, and ideally document them somewhere on the talk page. In practice, we use ever-stricter standards as the number of potential candidates for inclusion in the list increases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you all for your thoughtful responses so far. (Keep them coming!) It's clear to me that a requirement that every item in any embedded list requires an article would be absurd. As a very humdrum example, the article Basil Hall Chamberlain contains a list of "Works by Chamberlain", i.e. books by him; each of these books merits shelf-space in a good library, a number merit a paragraph or more of critical discussion, two or three merit an article, but AFAIK none has so far got an article -- and yet I'm sure that the list is appropriate. (I hope it is: I've contributed to it.) And of course it could and would be said that an actual human is of far more importance than some old book that virtually nobody reads any more. All in all, an effort to regulate embedded lists in general would be formidably difficult to pull off. ¶ By contrast, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/Settlements:_Article_structure#Notable_people is palatable and promising. But it has its own oddities. First, it announces itself as a supplement to specific guidelines on writing about U.K. cities and towns, U.S. cities, Canadian cities, Philippine cities and municipalities, and Indian cities: why not Polish cities, Indian towns, French communes, etc etc? Secondly, for over five years it has also said of lists of putatively notable people that: Leading world centres with possibly thousands of notable individuals including royalty and top class artists and heroes usually do not include such a list. I agree with the gist of that, but its details strike me as very ropey. The fact that this sentence seems to have survived untouched for five whole years suggests to me that this is a seldom-cited and mostly forgotten page; people could reasonably object to being told that edits must conform to it. ¶ WhatamIdoing, I think that the name of the first known resident of what later grew into a town or city is normally mere trivia and should not appear in a list, though if it could be artfully worked into the text I'd have no objection to it. By contrast, Abingdon-on-Thames#Abingdonians (a list I don't believe I've ever edited) is rightly limited to those with a plausible claim to notability outside of mere place of birth/residence/work (but is very problematic in other ways). -- Hoary (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
My notion of "very small town" is smaller than Abingdon-on-Thames, with much less competition for space in any list of residents.
I think the reason that odd line about "leading world centres" persists is because those lists are normally handled as separate lists, or even lists of lists, e.g., Lists of people from London. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
If Abingdon is too big, WhatamIdoing, then how about Goring-on-Thames or Purton? Every notable listed there is blue-linked. Moving west to Withington, Gloucestershire and Salperton, there is no list of notables, and I suspect that this is no loss. ¶ As for that sentence, I'd been wondering about non-leading "world centres", about the prominence of "royalty" (entirely absent from the great majority of nations), about "top class artists", and about "top class [or other] heroes": none of this language looks polished, which is no big problem in itself but does suggest to me that, however worthy, this minor constituent of a Project sub-page hasn't undergone the (pathologically?) obsessive examination and argufication to which most guidelines are subjected. -- Hoary (talk) 04:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
That's not a guideline. It's a WikiProject advice page. These are often helpful, but they're rather like essays: Any group can write their advice, and it is not reviewed or vetted by anyone else. Take whatever advice helps you improve Wikipedia, and ignore the rest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes. I'm starting to wonder about writing an essay myself. Who knows, it might develop well and become a guideline. Though analogous efforts suggest otherwise (Wikipedia is a bit of a graveyard for essays that went nowhere). If my opuscule has little chance of eventually winning approval and recognition, I don't want to waste any time on it; so I'm considering my options. -- Hoary (talk) 09:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Good Article Backlog drive

For the first time in 3 years there is a drive underway to try and help and reduce the backlog of Good Article nominees. Please consider joining us. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

University of Cambridge Project

The University of Cambridge Project is now inactive. How could this Project, or indeed any Project become active again.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dthomsen8: - Have a read of this older Signpost article. I don't know if anyone is still on it or has access details, but the mailing list at their society page might encourage a few people. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Yazidi or Yazidis

I'm puzzled by the plural title of Yazidis but don't want to reinvent the wheel. The article was moved to the plural

19:31, 28 August 2014‎ DrKay talk contribs block‎  37 bytes +37‎  DrKiernan moved page Yazidi to Yazidis: requested move

but I cannot find the RM in question, I have looked but maybe best not to say exactly where in case I'm missing it.

A second pair of eyes would be appreciated. TIA Andrewa (talk) 06:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Andrewa: Talk:Yazidis/Archive 2#Name change proposal DannyS712 (talk) 06:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Awesome, I was looking for the heading! Thanks. Andrewa (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Finnish PD Gov file

Hey all. File:Squadron2020 rendering.jpg is currently used as a free use file. However, as I see it, it would fall under Template:PD-FinlandGov, as it is a part of a statement of a public body. What do you guys think, could it be moved to Commons? There's some talk around PD-FinlandGov on Commons, but I couldn't find anything relevant. (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kissa21782: In general, when these types of laws reference things like "decisions or statements" they're usually talking about things like court decisions and statements by executive or legislative bodies. The status of photographs is usually covered in laws regarding works of art, or in laws specifically pertaining to still images (as opposed to things like audio recordings or motion pictures).
Without further information, it's probably too much to assume that this is covered under "decisions or statements". GMGtalk 13:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Right. But see this Commons talk page, it's not quite that black and white. Lots of similar cases kept. Kissa21782 (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Gee fizz is that a confusing discussion. I guess the question then is, does a website count as a "decision or statement" in the sense that any media contained therein would qualify as PD by virtue of being published in a qualifying "document". GMGtalk 15:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the whole topic is very confusing and mostly annoying legal semantics. I just don't know what would be the right place for me to start this discussion again, to maybe try and get a community consensus of some sort, I just picked this Pump subsection because the file is in en-wiki. Somewhere in Commons discussions probably... Kissa21782 (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kissa21782 and GreenMeansGo: I took a look at a law book in the library today and here's what it said: "decisions or statements" means both texts and images. "Government" means those institutions covered by Julkisuuslaki [fi]. "Independent work" means whether the photo was originally made to be an annex to the official document or something else. Source: Harenko, Kristiina (2016). Tekijänoikeus (2nd ed.). Talentum Pro. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 16:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Ah ha. A wild Finish speak appears. Thanks for looking into it Finnusertop. That's quite odd indeed. I've never seen proxy public domain for government works, where photographs taken by a government employee would not be public domain in-and-of-themselves, unless they are "pulled" into the public domain by appearing in an official document. GMGtalk 12:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

First images from the UNESCO archives now on Commons

Dear all

C:Category:Media files produced by UNESCO: 2019-09

I’m very pleased to say that the first batch of 100 very high resolution photos (plus descriptions) from the UNESCO archives has been uploaded to Commons by our friends at Wikimedia Sweden. There are some amazing photos in this first batch including Italian National Archives material being washed and dried in a train station after a flood, and the installation of a Henry Moore sculpture. We would really appreciate it if you could take 5 minutes to add some to Wikipedia articles, Wikidata items etc so that UNESCO will be encouraged to make more images available.

C:Category:Media files produced by UNESCO: 2019-09

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Nice. I look forward to seeing some of these at WP:FPC. MER-C 12:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Huzzah, very nice! KillerChihuahua 13:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


I'm curious. Why are Category:Queen's Counsel and subcat names not plural? They are sets of people.--Roy17 (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Roy17: When used in this sense, "Counsel" is its own plural. See wikt:counsel. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I searched sels within the article and that confused me. Looks like people commonly use the other plural form without knowing this.--Roy17 (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Am thinking of running a contest again....

Okay - I have run contests over the past 7 years: the Core Contest (which I coordinated for seven runs—twice in 2012, once each in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017), the Stub Contest (in December 2013, September 2014 and August 2015) and Take the lead! (January 2016). I get a grant of $250 and folks have a chance of winning some $25 Amazon vouchers. Thought it was time to run one again but couldn't figure out which...I keep yo-yoing so I thought I'd just throw it out there...

See User_talk:Casliber#Running_a_contest_(talk_page_watchers_welcome) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Financial Times unpaywalled

For the next ~24 hours the Financial Times has dropped its paywall. A great opportunity for Wikimedians needing to check sources (or submit them to the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine)! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Now paywalled again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Second iteration of draft recommendations published

Hey there. The second (September) iteration of draft recommendations (m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Recommendations) are published at Meta-wiki. What we reviewed and discussed in the past month was the first (August) iteration. Now is your time to review the current (second) iteration of the recommendations. --George Ho (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC on including content about illegal fetal tissue dealers

I'd love some comments on this. Maybe I misunderstand the Wikipedia policies, but at least some of the content seems relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natemup (talkcontribs) 16:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Natemup: - your link is that of actually posting something - it doesn't take clickers to a specific place so it's hard to tell what you want us to look at. Could you take a look at your link? Nosebagbear (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I assume you are talking about this thread. It doesn't really benefit from being advertised here - WP:RSN can help consider sources, but unless these sources are being heavily disputed by the article's editors, starting an RfC is a bit OTT - just general discussion is a good place to start. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up reader survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Research team is planning to run a follow-up survey of Wikipedia readers. We ran the first iteration of this survey in June (see description on meta) and it was determined that the survey should be run for a longer period of time (but at a much lower sampling rate) to more uniformly reach infrequent readers.

We expect no disruptions in the workflow of editors during this study. The survey will ask readers about their motivation for reading as well as a few demographic questions (age, gender, education, place, native language). The survey aims to improve our understanding of the diversity of readers as well as how the needs and experience of Wikipedia readers varies across different populations. We plan to run the survey for one month starting on 2019-09-26. It will sample 1 out of every 1200 readers. For questions, feel free to ping Isaac (WMF) or leave a comment on the meta page. Thank you! --Isaac (WMF) (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Monkbot Task 16 in watchlist

Is there some way to filter just Monkbot's Task 16 busy-work out of my watchlist? It's getting in the way! Largoplazo (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The bot uses bot flag, so you can hide the edits by hiding bot edits at Preferences → Watchlist. It also uses AWB tag, so you can alternately hide it with the instructions at WP:HIDEAWB. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't want to hide all bot edits. It saves me time if I see that the likes of ClueBot has reverted a real person's edit so I don't have to take time to check it myself. But I can probably safely operate without seeing AWB edits. Largoplazo (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, actually, confident Javascript programmer that I am, I'll just repurpose that script in my own space to hide Monkbot specifically. Even genericize it so a user can import my version and supply a list of one or more strings such that a watchlist entry will be hidden if it matches any of them. With due credit to Evad37, of course. Largoplazo (talk) 10:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

French President Chirac article not fit for mainpage/Recent deaths

The Chirac (died Thursday, Sept 26) article is deemed not fit for "Recent deaths (mainpage) linking (see WP:In_the_news discussion). Seems to do with reference issues, though not well specified. If you can improve the article references, please help. Chirac not on the mainpage is a serious omission. -DePiep (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

English WIKI local IPBE

I am an editor located in mainland China where Wikipedia is blocked. I need to use proxy IP to edit English Wiki. Through the help from another editor, I got the English Wiki local IPBE 6 months ago. It is going to expire soon. The editor who helped me out sonehow is no longer active. Could anyone can tell me how to renew my English Wiki local IPBE ? Thanks! 钉钉 (talk) 05:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Please follow the process at WP:IPECPROXY. — JJMC89(T·C) 06:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. 钉钉 (talk) 12:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


Please move the content from draft about Alexandru Darie to a wikipedia article. He is notable enough because he was one of the most important theatre directors from Romania. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The consultation on partial and temporary Foundation bans just started

-- Kbrown (WMF) 17:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

PSP SA=yes

The talk page template {{WikiProject South Africa |class=Stub |importance=Mid |PSP SA=yes|PSP SA-priority=mid}} results in Stub-Class South Africa articles, Mid-importance South Africa articles, Stub-Class PSP SA articles, and Unknown-importance PSP SA articles as categories at the top of the talk page, but Unknown-importance PSP SA articles is the result, regardless of the final parameter |PSP SA-importance=mid or |PSP SA-priority=mid. Should Unknown-importance PSP SA articles not appear, or maybe there a correct parameter to produce an importance? Perhaps this is actualy a bug, or perhaps there is a correct parameter that I cannot guess. What can other editors tell me about this situation?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

There are 165 pages in category "Unknown-importance PSP SA articles" as a result of this situation.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Alfred Wegener's place of death

I believe it was either a prank or a test first added by (talk): special:diff/286460068. It has polluted other websites. special:redirect/page/22645740 should be deleted. Any geologists/historians have reliable books on Wegener to confirm?--Roy17 (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

It is mentioned at Alfred Wegener § Death too... A quick Google search showed no information pertaining to this place in Greenland. The talk page also revealed a quick debate in 2009 whether the place was real too. comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Tell me, Mr. Louis, why ...

I just noticed that quite a few dab pages of saint names are in Category:Disambiguation pages with surname-holder lists (what a convoluted cat name); for example, Saint Louis and St. Jacques. While there are people whose surname is Louis, I don't think this applies to Saint Louis. It is not like, “Tell me Mr. Louis, why did your parents call you 'Saint'?"; if anything, his surname was Capet.

Is this something that ought to be fixed? If so, is Category:Disambiguation pages with given-name-holder lists the appropriate cat?  --Lambiam 23:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The page exists so that when people type in "Saint Louis" in search they can find their way to the one they are looking for. Removing the actual St. Louis from the page would be unhelpful. Rmhermen (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


While I have never to my knowledge consumed had one of these comestibles, I have read the articles both here and es:Empanadas - there seems to be a lot of content relating to the legality of empanadas in the Spanish Wikipedia that we don't have. Moreover it seems there is an Internet meme "I only came to say I am selling empanadas" which does not seem documented on either Wiki, though it is used as vandalism  .

Any volunteers to improve one or both articles? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC).

Section in the Spanish article seems to be about the legality of unlicensed sales of street food. Rmhermen (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
It looks like the situation has been resolved.[4] They passed a law in June saying that the cops needed to leave the street vendors alone. The Spanish Wikipedia article probably needs to be updated, and ours probably needs a short paragraph about the "The Great Empanada Revolt of 2019". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

BBC Click (TV programme) segment on state interference on WP - Chinese especially

I don't know if this is the right place to post this, but the current edition of Click (TV programme) has an interesting segment on this - 5 mins or so, at the top. I expect available wherever their news channel is, & maybe online. link on UK site. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia on TV and radio. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Here is the BBC News link. It is indeed very worrisome that a state entity makes a concerted and organized effort to control WP. This will undermine WP's independence and credibility. What is the community and Wikimedia doing about this? -- P 1 9 9   17:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Apple Network Server is #1 article?

The iOS version of the Wiki mobile app has a section displaying the most read articles. According to that, the Apple Network Server is currently #1, and was #2 yesterday.

Bug in mobile version? Or is something going on on the 'net I can't find?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The article has received a significant spike in traffic over the past week, but it's not clear to me why. Sam Walton (talk) 13:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
The spike corresponds to the iOS 13.1 release, but I can't think of any reason why this would happen; Apple already have their own captive portal checker, and some captive portals let through Wikipedia anyway. Sceptre (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

At the end of Wikipedia is a black mountain

When all article titles (~ 5.9 million) are sorted alphabetically the last one in the list is 黑山 -- GreenC 03:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

And when they're sorted by how confusing the titles are, this one (ok, it's a redirect) takes the cake. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I mean, okay ~ Amory (utc) 10:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Missing infobox parameters

The folks that work on Amazon Alexa (which relies heavily on Wikipedia) have sent us some data on missing infobox parameters. Specifically, which prominent parameters are missing from high traffic articles. I've posted the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes/Missing parameters. Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ryan. I looked at this, and saw the name of a BLP I have on my watchlist. Turns out they were looking for 7 different fields on that list. The requests are for Brian May, and list him as 'scientist'; it's pretty odd, because he is not a notable scientist and wouldn't qualify for a Wikipedia article if he wasn't notable for something else. Nonetheless, most of the "desired" information is present, as follows:
  • "Nationality" requested - birth location is included in the infobox
  • "Known for" requested - there is a long list of his Occupation(s) in the infobox
  • "Fields" requested - his scientific field (astrophysics) is included in Occupation(s)
  • "Death date" requested - it may come as a surprise to some people, but Brian May is not dead
  • "Workplaces" requested - I don't think there is a way to answer this that would be helpful. Stadiums around the world? Recording studios around the globe?
  • "Field" requested - uncertain how this is different from the request for "Fields" already described, but again it is included in Occupation(s). Interestingly, it is not a parameter in the "Infobox scientist" list of parameters.
  • "Death place" requested - Brian May is still not dead.
Bottom line, even if May *was* a notable scientist, some of the "missing" data are already included under slightly different headings, others of them are just plain wrong (and I have no idea why Alexa thinks May is dead), and the list includes a parameter that isn't in the infobox template. Nothing is actually missing here; perhaps the problem is that using more than one infobox type confuses Alexa. I can't help wondering if the solution is to just remove the "infobox scientist" name and leave the parameters in place, except trying to do that would screw something or other up. Risker (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
It is also perhaps worth noting that all of the folks missing "occupation" use {{infobox writer}}, which suggests something about their careers. Likewise, a lot of "media_type"s are missing for pages with {{infobox book}}. At any rate, it looks like most of the missing death dates and death places are for living people, so there's ~50 that, as Kaldari notes, don't need much. ~ Amory (utc) 11:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Actually, a question Kaldari: some scientists with "field" are noted as missing "fields" and some with "fields" are noted as missing "field". Is there anything to do there aside from tell the folks at Amazon to write a better algorithm? ~ Amory (utc) 11:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@Amorymeltzer: Yeah, there's a similar issue with nationality and citizenship and birth_name and name. I'll convey the feedback to Amazon. Kaldari (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
FWIW a spot check of a half-dozen pages noted as missing a caption all have a caption in the lead infobox. ~ Amory (utc) 20:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
"media_type" is actually a valid parameter for infobox book. It's used to specify whether a book is a print book or digital book. However, I don't know of any non-print ebooks notable enough to have a Wikipedia article! Kaldari (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@Risker and Amorymeltzer: From your feedback, it looks like most of the entries in the list are false positives. I'm going to archive the current list and ask Amazon for a better one. Kaldari (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for following up with them, Kaldari. Risker (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Same. I think this is a nice thing to get from the amazons/googles/apples/bings/etc. Not that we should cater to them per se, but they might be good resources for finding gaps and such. ~ Amory (utc) 17:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Grants:Project/National Film Registry

I have applied for a grant from WMF to subsidize a personal project to request digitization and upload films in the Library of Congress collection to Commons. I would appreciate your feedback and support.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Behaviour of an anonymous user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm not shure where to report this, but this page seems to be ok. For about a month IP user is adding a word then deleting the word, then adding the same word again, and then deleting it, ... (in another article it can be a group of words). All articles are from members of the Thai Royal Family. --FredTC (talk) 06:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  • This is common practice for some Wikipedia editors. In order to gain editor prestige or different ranks, such as to gain the ability to edit extended protected articles, some Wikipedia users add and remove words to get more edits in. This can be referred to as "edit xp grinding", as I can confirm because I know some users who have reached Veteran status just by removing and re-adding words for multiple months in a row. Kugihot ❯❯❯ Vanguard 16:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category of saint name pages

(Repost). Quite a few dab pages of saint names are in Category:Disambiguation pages with surname-holder lists, for example, Saint Louis and St. Jacques. While there are people whose surname is Louis, I don't think this applies to Saint Louis. I am pretty sure "Louis" was a given name; if anything, his family name was Capet. Is this something that ought to be fixed? If so, is Category:Disambiguation pages with given-name-holder lists the appropriate cat?  --Lambiam 23:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point here. It is not that some people have the surname "Louis" or "Jacques", but they have the surname "St. Louis" or "St. Jacques". Phil Bridger (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
You're right; I simply had not noticed that. Thanks.  --Lambiam 12:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Feedback wanted on Desktop Improvements project

07:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Pokémon rom hack except it’s made by Wikipedia

We could have new Pokémon based on templates and an evil team of vandals who are out to harm the integrity of the site. I call it Pokémon: Wiki! Cause if 4chan gets one, why can’t we? Derpdart56 (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Derpdart56: Because this is an encyclopedia, and not a social site or a place for games. There is plenty of vandalism to fight, if you are really interested in that: WP:VANDALISM has tips on how to get started on that. RudolfRed (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
@Derpdart56: This isn't a place for original research. Wikipedia isn't a fan site. However, you may make your own wiki unrelated to Wikimedia if you please. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 01:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

okay, this was a bad idea Derpdart56 (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Wikimedia community for award

I think we should have more eyes on a discussion at WT:WikiProject Climate change#Nomination of_Wikimedia community for award. This is about "nominating the Wikimedia community for the 2019 "Climate Change Public Outreach Award" from Climate Outreach." ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

IP user likely sockpuppeting as multiple other IPs and have had no prior history of editing on Wikipedia, but both have come onto Template:Arianespace launches attempting to reinstate edits made by which I had problems with, and reverted as part of the bold, revert, discuss cycle. It's extremely unlikely that two different real editors have come onto the scene out of the blue within such a short timespan on a relatively low-traffic page with the same exact, identical agenda. Thus, I'm almost certain that is sock puppeting as and I'm inexperienced in dealing with sock puppets, so I've come to ask, what should my next actions be in this situation? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:IPHOPPER. The basic fact is that everyone's IP address changes, almost all the time (which also explains a visibly apparent lack of previous edits on each single address). This is obviously the case for the 46.211.* addresses. Whether is the same user or not is a matter of judgment - they are in the same country, and probably near each other, so I'd say they are probably related. This is not particularly sockpuppeting as such; you should just assume that it's obviously the same user. You seem to have both provided explanations in the edit summaries - the next step if the reverting persists, and you can't get a timely message to the user on their talk page, then you may want to start a discussion on the template's talk page. So in short, treat it as a minor content dispute with one user, and not a sockpuppet issue. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
@Zzuuzz: Thanks for the information. I just hope this doesn't ugly in some way or another. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 08:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I've seen a fair number of disuptive IPs in my time, and I don't think this will be a major problem. People who provide reasonable edit summaries (even if you disagree with them) are generally open to reason and consensus. As with all disputes, if there's a problem, then get some discussion going. As a final resort if it does get 'ugly', if an IP becomes tendentious or uncommunicative, you can probably apply for semi-protection. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Publicising RfC for whether we should use Internet or internet

Here's the fascinating discussion at this RfC, Apparently theoretically the internet is not a proper name, but the world kinda considered that it might be for a while. What do you think? --[E.3][chat2][me] 13:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Stonewall UK NPOV issue


Apologies if this is the wrong way to raise this.

The Stonewall (Charity) wikipedia page has been substantially rewritten over the last few days. From the edits it seems clear that there's a significant POV issue regarding the recent controversy over Trans rights in the UK, with the article being rewritten to favour the anti-Trans activists' POV. This includes a section on Stonewall's supposed "split", alleging that Anti-Transgender group LGB Alliance splintered off from Stonewall. This is clearly inaccurate

Thanks-- (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss your concerns on the article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

What do you think about capitalization of cocktail names?

Normally, we don't capitalize the names of drinks. E.g., "strawberry milkshake" or "lemonade" aren't capitalized. Nor are some cocktail names like the margarita, gin and tonic or vodka soda.

So why would the rules be different for, say, Long Island Iced Tea? Why would it be considered a proper noun rather than being Long Island iced tea? It's true that with some branded products, like Coke, we might say, "I grabbed a Coke," but we wouldn't say, "I grabbed a Cola" because it's not a proper noun when it's generic like that.

Anyway, the {{IBA Official Cocktails}} uses proper noun capitalization for most mixed drinks, but even there, there are exceptions, like the champagne cocktail or Irish coffee. I can understand, though, that for some cocktails like Sex on the Beach, a disambiguation purpose could be served by capitalization, so that people know what you're referring to when you say, "The Sex on the Beach I had yesterday was amazing." On the other hand, if you capitalize Irish Coffee, then people might think you're referring to Irish Coffee (band) or Irish Coffee (TV series) when you say, "I enjoy Irish Coffee."

Any thoughts on what the standard should be? Thanks, Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we should try to establish a standard beyond following how each individual drink is named in reliable sources. The examples listed above demonstrate that there are disparate linguistic pressures on different cocktail names that lead people to establish conventions tailored to the specifics of each drink's name. Attempting to standardize this further doesn't have a clear benefit IMO. signed, Rosguill talk 21:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I would recommend down capsing the lot unless some part of the name is proper i.e. Long Island iced tea and Irish coffee but rather sex on the beach (unless that's about sex on a beach, in which case sex on the beach (drink) seems preferable). We've firmly rejected using capitals for disambiguation purposes in the similar WP:BIRDCON case. --Izno (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, we use a (cocktail) disambiguator for a lot of drinks, like azalea (cocktail), batanga (cocktail), blinker (cocktail), etc. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Lowercase except where proper name status is supported by sources. As for "a disambiguation purpose could be served by capitalization", that is inconsistent with our style as spelled out at MOS:CAPS. As for evidence of what's a proper name, one really does have to look for "consistent" capitalization in sources. Many cocktail names make it to "majority" capitalization in sources just because there are so many sources (such as this mixology guide) that have a style of capping all cocktail names (including "Brandy and Soda"), and therefore juke the stats but provide no evidence of which ones are considered to be proper names. Dicklyon (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree; the List of IBA official cocktails sources are the same way. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
See below. The sources linked there have the names of the cocktails in ALL CAPS. Not really useful to solving our problem, n'est ce pas? --Jayron32 15:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Lowercase. There is absolutely no reason for cocktails to be seen as proper names or exceptions to our usual naming conventions. This seems to be some sort of conceit of cocktail fans, just as military fans and police fans (in particular) support the conceit that all military and police terms should be capitalised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I think it just makes people feel more important to say, "I drank a Tequila Sunrise" so that they're at least on par with those who can say, "I drank a Budweiser" (which is capitalized because it's a brand name). Now, in the case of the Hand Grenade, it would actually make sense to capitalize it because it's someone's intellectual property. The more advanced cocktail aficionados must feel terrible that these elaborate concoctions of theirs would be lowercase while the most stigmatized, low-effort two-ingredient cocktail, the Jack and Coke, is capitalized. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Jack and Coke are proper names, even if they do make a common crappy drink. Our capitalization guidelines don't say to consider the feelings of people who may have an interest in the promotion of their concoctions. Let's stick to arguments related to guidelines and sources, OK? Notice that tequila is not a proper name, and plenty of books use lowercase "tequila sunrise". Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Normal English rules of capitalization apply. Thus, if the name contains elements that would otherwise be capitalized, we capitalize those. If the name contains elements that would otherwise be lowercase, we lowercase those. For example, in "Long Island iced tea", the correct capitalization is to capitalize "Long Island" (because that is a place with a proper name that gets capitalization under normal English rules) but not "iced tea" (because iced tea is not a proper name, and so gets lowercase under normal English rules). Other variations such as "Long Island Iced Tea" or "long island iced tea", or "LoNg IsLAnD ICd teA" should not be used. --Jayron32 14:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Title case It's a proper noun. First, it's not iced tea, so it is not a style of tea. Second, let's follow {{IBA Official Cocktails}}. --evrik (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
That's not really useful here, since the IBA source, Here uses ALL CAPS. Are you seriously recommending we use LONG ISLAND ICED TEA because that's how the IBA does it? --Jayron32 14:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
How is it a proper noun? It's generic. It's not proprietary; anyone can make one and call it and sell it as a Long Island iced tea. It's used everywhere. It is not in any way a proper name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Case-by-case: per MOS:CAPS, WP:NCCAPS, Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. This is the substantive criertia for determining the question, as arrived at by a broad community consensus. In the case of Long Island Iced Tea, by this n-gram, it does not meet the threshold to be capped in full. Others may. An arguement to follow IBA style falls to WP:SPECIALSTYLE and is even more inappropriate if that style uses all-caps. Arguements to MOS:TM have merit, where the name is a brand/trademark etc in full or part. Parts of a phrase which are themself a proper noun, tradename or like will be capitalised but it does not confer capitalisation on the whole name phrase. There is an often perceived but false equivalence between proper names and capitalisation - the former being a matter of grammar and the other, a matter of orthography. There are lots of things that might be capitalised that are not proper names. Proper names are not descriptive. Any arguement to capitalise brandy and soda (or similar) is just BS, where the name is descriptive of the ingredients. It would also be very debatable, where the name is metaphorically descriptive - ie "tequila sunrise". There is some merit in the arguement that names like Sex on the Beach are titles for the recipes and should be written in title case, where such names are not descriptive. It is quite another matter to assert that because title case is used, a title is a proper name. However, the proof whether a name is actually a title lies in usage and the guidelines - MOS:CAPS, WP:NCCAPS. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Case-by-case per Cinderella157. Some cocktails have names that should be fully lowercase (gin and tonic), others have names that should be in title case (Harvey Wallbanger). In some cases it's not going to be obvious which one and discussion will be needed - and Long Island Iced Tea is a good example (but per Jayron32 "Long Island" should be capitalised regardless). Thryduulf (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)