TheresNoTime (talk | contribs) Undid revision 836613523 by DePiep (talk) restore my comment, you can re-add yours Tag: Undo |
→enwiki has lost the WP:Palestine community: Auschwitz. Enjoy. |
||
Line 237: | Line 237: | ||
::::Done! Now will you reply hiddenname {{U|There'sNoTime}}? Why support a name IPA:'Auschwitz'? What do you care about, at all? - [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) |
::::Done! Now will you reply hiddenname {{U|There'sNoTime}}? Why support a name IPA:'Auschwitz'? What do you care about, at all? - [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) |
||
:::::Thank you. I'm entirely confident Icewhiz's username is acceptable, but that's not the topic of this thread. I've reinserted their comment, please do not remove it again - [[User:There'sNoTime|TNT]]<sup>[[User talk:There'sNoTime|❤]]</sup> 21:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC) |
:::::Thank you. I'm entirely confident Icewhiz's username is acceptable, but that's not the topic of this thread. I've reinserted their comment, please do not remove it again - [[User:There'sNoTime|TNT]]<sup>[[User talk:There'sNoTime|❤]]</sup> 21:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC) |
||
* (ec) Your friend has chosen their name to be: IPA:Auschwitz. Enjoy. - [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 21:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:15, 15 April 2018
Policy | Technical | Proposals | Idea lab | WMF | Miscellaneous |
- Table of contents
- First discussion
- End of page
- New post
Page Previews
Hello,
Page Previews is a software feature that allows readers to read an excerpt of a linked article’s lead section without leaving the page they’re currently on, by hovering their mouse over the link. It has been activated by default for logged-out users on all Wikipedias except German and English since August 2017, and numerous further bug fixes and technical improvements have been implemented since. A few weeks ago we announced some updates to Page Previews, published the results of our latest round of A/B testing, and asked for your feedback. These updates resolved all of the issues identified in the discussion held at the English Wikipedia last year. In our A/B tests we found – as expected – that when the feature is enabled, readers will open pages in their browser slightly less often (a decrease of around 3–5% in regular pageviews). But on the other hand, they interact with a lot more different pages when one counts both the seen page previews and the regular pageviews (an increase of around 20–22% in the number of distinct pages interacted with via either method). In addition, the option to deactivate the feature was used very rarely (disable rates were around 0.01%). This leads us to believe that Page Previews is a welcomed feature that is helping readers learn more during their visits.
Based on these results and on feedback we’ve heard so far, we plan on continuing with the next step of rollout here on the English Wikipedia, which is turning the feature on by default for logged-out users. This will mean no changes for logged-in users. The feature will be off by default for logged-in editors, unless currently enabled. If you would like to enable it, it is available in your Preferences under “Appearance”. If you have the feature enabled already, it will stay on. We plan on implementing these changes within the next couple of weeks.
In terms of future changes for logged-in users, we have a few options we’d like to request some feedback on:
- Keep the feature off by default for logged-in users.
- Turn the feature on by default for new accounts only. Currently, when users move from being readers to contributors and create an account, the feature will seem to vanish, and that would be confusing. As a further step in the feature rollout, we plan to change this configuration and enable the feature for all new accounts.
- Turn the feature on by default for existing logged-in users (Even if it were enabled for everyone, it would still be automatically suppressed for anyone who uses NAVPOPS.)
What do you think the next step should be in terms of behavior for existing logged-in users?
Yours, OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC) (Product manager, Readers web team, Wikimedia Foundation)
- Fantastic, glad to hear it! 20% is huge, that's really great to see, readers must love. In fact, just the other day my wife (who doesn't edit but sees me) said she wanted it turned on for readers; she'll be thrilled. Regarding the next step, I think option 2 is the way to go, it should provide a seamless transition for everybody. I don't use them because I like the advanced features of the Navigation Popups gadget, which is our most popular gadget
; as such, given the conflict with popups, option 3 isn't really an option.but I imagine there are people with neither on who like it that way. And, I know from when I'm not editing, having these tools is the #1 reason to stay logged in, so I think keeping it off for all logged-in users will, as you say, be jarring and surprising for them, and in the end, counterproductive. Thanks again for all the work! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC) - Thank you for a very good product! Sounds like you guys really want to roll this out for all new accounts (option 2). Go for it! I find no fault with option 3 either, but I think it's wise to hear what the community thinks. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Option 2 seems best. It will be nice to finally see it launched. Hope that soon we can add reference popups into it, so we can get rid of the other gadgets that do that. Might be wise to give the documentation page another look over, and make sure that people can find how to change the content of the popups, how to turn it off etc. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- There's currently a consensus against enabling previews by default. Of course consensus can change, so a new proposal on Pump Proposals would be needed. It should contain prominent link to the previous RFC, and of course it should not exclude the status-quo consensus from the list of options. Previews are a very love-it-or-hate-it feature, and for logged-out users it's infuriatingly-hopeless to even attempt to opt out. You know the default is just going keep coming back until up give up anyway. Alsee (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- It looks as though the OP is aware of that discussion, since they obliquely cite it above, but I agree that any new feature needs community input before enacting. There is the possibility that the community would be against any default enabling (even for logged-out or new users) of this new tool. I'm not sure where I stand as yet, but I do agree that it is not the sort of thing that should be just dropped in, without asking for community input on how it is enabled. --Jayron32 15:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Jayron32: we're open to getting as much feedback here as possible. We cross-posted to VPT yesterday, but would welcome a wider audience as well. Could I suggest that this discussion be added to the centralized discussion template to get more participation? OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Alsee: you say, "There's currently a consensus against". It is my understanding that the result of that conversation from 2016 was "no consensus". A large number of the users voting oppose stated that they were voting oppose explicitly for the behavior for logged-in users. This is why we're here asking on what the preferred behavior for editors would be, as we understand that this needs further input towards consensus. You also say, "for logged-out users it's infuriatingly-hopeless to even attempt to opt out.". The results of the linked research show that folks can find the opt-out feature without difficulty and that the opt-out rates are remarkably low. See above where I mentioned, "disable rates were around 0.01%". That being said, we’re happy to have more discussion about the feature, in any format that people think is appropriate. OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- All I'm saying is that any large change to the operation of en.wikipedia, such as this, should be subject to community consensus. I understand you feel that the objections of the April discussion have been largely ammeliorated, but the only way to know if they have been ammeliorated is to actually seek community input and hold another discussion. Your expectation that those who had voted "oppose" last time have been satisfied could only be determined by actually asking them. --Jayron32 16:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @Jayron32: I agree with you, that's why we're talking about it here. Do you have a suggestion for what else we can do? As I mentioned previously, we cross-posted to VPT yesterday. Our suggestion from here would be to add this discussion to the centralized discussion template so that we can reach a wider audience OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- No, no, you're fine. I just wanted clarification that this was a request for input and not an announcement of a pending feature. There's often some confusion between the two; I wanted to make sure you were asking for comments, and not just telling us this was coming down the pike regardless. I'm good. --Jayron32 16:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Jayron if you check the text here carefully, or check the post at mediawiki.org,[1] the WMF position is (or was) that this feature is being rolled out as a new default. They were only asking for input on who should be included in that default.
- OVasileva (WMF) I see two possible disconnects in the conversation. One possible issue is that we're viewing the last RFC as a standing result. Laws, executive orders, and RFC results, are all generally expected to stand as valid until they are actually superseded by a new one. If you think the last RFC result is obsolete, sure, we can have a new proposal which may reach a positive result. If we make it a new proposal and it passes, great, we build a track record of WMF-Community engagement reaching success on a product. There is important value in WMF-Community engagement even if such a proposal were to fail... there is huge value in collaboratively-preempting the same result manifesting from a hostile contra-proposal.
- The other possible disconnect may be a lack of clarity on how we view Pump pages and processes? Pump(technical) is for tech-announcements and immediate tech-problems. Pump(miscellaneous) is for random crap, chuckle. Pump(proposals) is for serious decision making. Also the post here essentially declared that the rollout was happening, and your post excluded the status-quo result from the list of options. So it's not on the proposals page, it doesn't look like a proposal, and we're not viewing it as a proposal.
- You asked for suggestion for what else we can do. If you're agreeable that this is a proposed-rollout rather than an announced-rollout, I'd be happy to try drafting it more like a proposal. If you like the result then you/I/we can post it to the Pump Proposals page with an RFC|proposal template. Alsee (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hey @Alsee: thanks for your concerns. I went ahead and posted a link to this discussion at VPP as well. We’d like to avoid duplicating conversation and forking the existing comments from here. We do want to get as many eyes on this as possible - this is why we posted on VPT asking for feedback yesterday as well as a couple of weeks ago. This is the same sort of conversation we had back in 2016 where we listened to the feedback and acted on it to remove any identified concerns (including the ability to turn the feature off easily which you were asking about earlier). We’d like to highlight that none of our plans are set in stone. We appreciate the enthusiasm for the feature we’ve seen so far, but if major concerns arise in this conversation, we’ll pause and make sure we address them. OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- No, no, you're fine. I just wanted clarification that this was a request for input and not an announcement of a pending feature. There's often some confusion between the two; I wanted to make sure you were asking for comments, and not just telling us this was coming down the pike regardless. I'm good. --Jayron32 16:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @Jayron32: I agree with you, that's why we're talking about it here. Do you have a suggestion for what else we can do? As I mentioned previously, we cross-posted to VPT yesterday. Our suggestion from here would be to add this discussion to the centralized discussion template so that we can reach a wider audience OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- All I'm saying is that any large change to the operation of en.wikipedia, such as this, should be subject to community consensus. I understand you feel that the objections of the April discussion have been largely ammeliorated, but the only way to know if they have been ammeliorated is to actually seek community input and hold another discussion. Your expectation that those who had voted "oppose" last time have been satisfied could only be determined by actually asking them. --Jayron32 16:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Option three--John Cline (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Next Steps
Thank you for your feedback! It seems the preferred way forward is to deploy Page Previews as on by default for logged-out users and new accounts and off for current editors (the feature can be enabled via user preferences). As a result, we plan on making the following changes:
- Deploy as on for logged-out users (off for all logged-in users) now
- Deploy as on for new accounts in May, 2018
Since we haven’t had any comments over the past few days, we’re planning for making the first change next week. Let us know if you would like more time for discussion. OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- I am late to this discussion, but a point to consider: opt-in for logged in users is least likely to ignite an explosion, but how much feedback do you actually have from the people who will be most affected - the logged out users? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Pbsouthwood: - thank you for asking! This is actually something that we’ve put a lot of focus on over the development of the feature. We have quite a large amount of feedback from readers - all positive. As it’s difficult to find ways to communicate with logged-out users on-wiki, we’ve been gathering alternatives in gauging their feelings towards the feature. First, we did a series of qualitative tests in which almost all participants reported very positive experiences with Page previews. We also tested whether previews were a nuisance or annoying (they were not), and whether readers could turn the feature on and off with ease (they could). We also performed a thorough quantitative test on English Wikipedia. The results of this test showed that logged-out readers used the feature at fairly high frequencies which resulted in them interacting with significantly more pages over the course of their session (we saw an increase of more than 20% of distinct pages interacted with despite a drop in classical pageviews). Also, we looked at disable rates - a high disable rate would indicate people didn't like the feature. These rates were actually negligibly low (less than 0.01%). In addition, we’ve been monitoring mentions of the Page previews on social media and other platforms where we have received overwhelmingly positive reception - it seems a lot of people are excited for this release. OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- As long as your methods are robust: I suspect that a large number of readers do not know that it is possible to set preferences, but have no idea what proportion of them. That group would just have to tolerate anything that was thrust upon them, but most readers are probably used to internet sites arbitrarily changing features all the time anyway. If it is what I think it is I use it all the time, and have been opted in since I first found out it was an option. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yup - we tested exactly for this case actually. Since the disable rates were so low, we were worried that this was due to people not being able to find the disable option. To verify, we tested this ability qualitatively. Users were asked “can you show how you would disable the feature that you see appearing when you place your mouse over links”. All but one of the tested users were able to disable the feature immediately from the settings cog. The other user was actually logged-in and disabled the feature via their beta preferences. OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- As long as your methods are robust: I suspect that a large number of readers do not know that it is possible to set preferences, but have no idea what proportion of them. That group would just have to tolerate anything that was thrust upon them, but most readers are probably used to internet sites arbitrarily changing features all the time anyway. If it is what I think it is I use it all the time, and have been opted in since I first found out it was an option. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Pbsouthwood: - thank you for asking! This is actually something that we’ve put a lot of focus on over the development of the feature. We have quite a large amount of feedback from readers - all positive. As it’s difficult to find ways to communicate with logged-out users on-wiki, we’ve been gathering alternatives in gauging their feelings towards the feature. First, we did a series of qualitative tests in which almost all participants reported very positive experiences with Page previews. We also tested whether previews were a nuisance or annoying (they were not), and whether readers could turn the feature on and off with ease (they could). We also performed a thorough quantitative test on English Wikipedia. The results of this test showed that logged-out readers used the feature at fairly high frequencies which resulted in them interacting with significantly more pages over the course of their session (we saw an increase of more than 20% of distinct pages interacted with despite a drop in classical pageviews). Also, we looked at disable rates - a high disable rate would indicate people didn't like the feature. These rates were actually negligibly low (less than 0.01%). In addition, we’ve been monitoring mentions of the Page previews on social media and other platforms where we have received overwhelmingly positive reception - it seems a lot of people are excited for this release. OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Your conclusion is incorrect. There is no consensus for deploying Page Previews as on by default for logged-out users. Frankly, the above lack of response doesn't show consensus in favor of turning it on for new accounts either. (Even if this thread wasn't started with an announcement of intention to ignore relevant consensus, three users isn't sufficient for this kind of decision.) You can't just announce a change opposed by prior consensus and expect there to be reasonable discussion about what kind of violations should occur. If you want there to be an actual discussion of whether and how it should be deployed, many contributors here (myself included) would be glad to start a proper RfC on it, assuming the result will be respected. --Yair rand (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- To be clear: The community considered this feature, and rejected it. A future RfC may yield different results, but present consensus is to reject this feature. --Yair rand (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Yair - thanks for writing -- we haven’t seen as much discussion here as we expected, so it’s good to hear more views.
- I don’t believe that we have been ignoring community consensus here. The conversation of April 2016 was closed with no consensus, with a recommendation to open the discussion again later, with more data: “I'm sure this issue will resurface, and when it does, we'll have more data to look at, so it might be easier to deal with next time.” Over the last two years of development, we’ve made a lot of changes to the feature based on the comments in that discussion. We’ve also run a number of tests to evaluate the impact of the feature.
- We’ve come back to the Village Pump a couple times in order to share the new data and feature progress and to request new feedback. We’re here now to have further discussion on next steps. We posted links to this conversation in VPT and VPP to make sure that we can let as many people know the conversation was taking place as possible.
- So far, all of the feedback that directly referenced the feature has been positive; we haven’t heard from anyone who thinks that turning the feature on for logged-out users is a bad idea. The folks who have posted here with concerns, like you, have been concerned about process, rather than the feature itself. In terms of process, we think we have been transparent about this conversation taking place in as many forums as we could possibly think of. We are confident that the editors that care about this feature have already seen this discussion and have had ample time to comment.
- We suggested wrapping up the discussion now because it’s been a while since we’ve received any feedback. That being said, we’re happy to have more discussion about the feature, in any forum that folks feel is appropriate. This conversation we’re having right now is a request for comments, just with a small r and c. What do you think would be different, in a conversation with a capital RfC? OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- @OVasileva (WMF): Thank you for allowing more time for discussion. I'm confident that if we have a more open-ended discussion there will be much more participation. This is the kind of topic that tends to generates lots of interest; the last discussion on it had about fifty participants. However, presenting the outcome as a fait-accompli makes it very difficult to have a serious broad discussion on what steps to take. --Yair rand (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply! It seems we’re on the same page. We want this discussion to be as open-ended as possible. We framed the beginning of the conversation based on feedback we received in the past (from the previous conversation as well as from readers). I would just like to confirm that “none of the above options sound like a good idea because X” is also a valid response here. If anybody reading along feels this way - let us know! OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- @OVasileva (WMF): Thank you for allowing more time for discussion. I'm confident that if we have a more open-ended discussion there will be much more participation. This is the kind of topic that tends to generates lots of interest; the last discussion on it had about fifty participants. However, presenting the outcome as a fait-accompli makes it very difficult to have a serious broad discussion on what steps to take. --Yair rand (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Institut Nova Història is a foundation subsidized and awarded by the Catalan government, supported by Catalan historians, intellectuals, writers, Important politicians of the main parties of Catalonia, members are parlamentaries of Catalan assembly and they often do conferences in the assembly, according to all there are enough people that considers that as the true history of Catalonia, i though this article should be in the 'See Also' section of the article on the history of Catalonia and related articles of the Catalan independence movement. --ILoveCaracas (talk) 07:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- ILoveCaracas added a link to this article (Institut Nova Història) in the "See also" section not just to articles relating to Catalonia, but also to Christopher Columbus, Crown of Castile, Erasmus, El Cid, Hernán Cortés, Don Quixote, William Shakespeare, and many others, including Leonardo da Vinci. I undid all of them and asked him to propose it here to reach a consensus. I don't believe it is appropriate to give any credence to these fringe theories. Maragm (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Oriol Junqueras (second leader of Catalan independence movement, Artur Mas (strong main figure of Catalan movement and many many of catalan important people openly supported these theories (also they give credencies), Institut Nova Història received an award from a Catalan important gala, why this cant be named in this related articles, since are strong convictions of the Catalan people over their history? (read the article)--ILoveCaracas (talk) 07:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I am only talking about the history of Catalonia and Catalan independentism's articles that are related to this article, if I add it in cervantes, shakespeare, ect. I will not do it again. I am debating over the articles that I talk--ILoveCaracas (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
The institution give conferences on these theories in the Catalan national assembly since several years ago, you can read it in the article--ILoveCaracas (talk) 07:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
The members of the institution lead the 2014 National Day of Catalonia named Via Catalana or V, in the two main avenues - the Gran Vía and the Diagonal - forming a V of 11 kilometers long with the vertex in the Plaza de Las Glorias, with the aim of claiming the "right of self-determination" of the Catalan people, Its founder created the anthem for the independentist referendum. He made these researchers!--ILoveCaracas (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Other main member, Codinas, the president of the Institute, graduate in Contemporary History, vice president of the Fundació Catalunya Estat, secretary of the Associació Catalunya 2014, voicer of the executive board of the Catalan Association of Leisure, Sports and Culture Companies, co-founder of the Platform for the Right to Decide and former voicer of the executive board of the Catalan Business Circle.
Other important member, Cucurull, president of the Fundació Societat i Cultura, member of the national secretariat of the Catalan National Assembly he is very known for the video of his June 2013 conference in Navàs, which has been commented by many newspapers.--ILoveCaracas (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Theses belief is openly supported by Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya (a decisive and very main independentist party and the main sponsor of the independence movement from France and Spain), Jordi Pujol was president of Catalonia from 1980 to 2003, Isabel-Clara Simó, Josep Rull, Alfons López Tena, Carles Campuzano, Antoni Strubell, Jaume Manel Oronich (all deputies and parlamentaries of the Catalan assembly), Ramon Tremosa, Josep Maria Terricabras (members of the European parliament), Núria Cadenas (president of a electoral coalition (the second largest independentist political force in Catalonia), Assumpcio Maresma (politician and journalist), Joan Rabasseda (mayor of Arenys de Munt), Josep-Lluís Carod-Rovira (a leader of Catalan movement and ex-vice President of Catalonia, Muriel Casals i Couturier she died and she was an economist.--ILoveCaracas (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- If you want to believe that this institution which claims that Shakespeare, Saint Teresa of Avila, Cervantes, etc. were all catalans and that there has been a centuries' old conspiracy by Castilians that's ok with me. Many of the people you mention above are nationalist politicians, not reputable historians. Let other members of the community decide. Maragm (talk) 08:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
The criticisms that appear in the article are from politicians who support Spain, do not mention any Catalan politician or historian denying these theories, and this page was translated from Catalan and Spanish wikipedia, and I translated it completely. and I check the sources--ILoveCaracas (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- If you accept the theories proposed by the "historians" in this entity, then go ahead and add a paragraph to the article on William Shakespeare proposing that he was actually Catalan. Let's see what happens. Maragm (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC) ps...and by mentioning all of the Catalan politicians and parties that support these fringe theories, you are only underscoring the fact that this is a politically-driven issue, nothing to do with serious scholarship. Maragm (talk) 08:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Not only propossed by these historians but also propossed by the Centre d'Estudis Colombins, that is an association dedicated to the historical studies not related to Institut Nova Història, this other founded in 1989 that since its foundation until today is totally organized by Òmnium Cultural. See:Centre d'Estudis Colombins (Catalan) and Institut_Nova_Història#Theses_defended_by_the_Institute (Center for Colombian Studies)--ILoveCaracas (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Not only politicians and historians but also Catalan businessmen organizations (unions for entrepreneurs) strongly support these theories and the institute, I mentioned it above--ILoveCaracas (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not going to make a paragraph in William Shakespeare or Da Vinci, but I'm going to add the link to several of the organizations and people who publicly support this theories and institute and in the article of the history of Catalonia primarily, all in the sections of see also --ILoveCaracas (talk) 08:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- Then, if you're going to go ahead and add it, this thread is a total waste of time. I thought the idea was to discuss and reach consensus. I was wrong. And if you truly believe these theories, not just cherry-picking, then I don't see why you don't add these great historical discoveries to the articles on Shakespeare, Da Vinci, etc. Maragm (talk) 08:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
You know that I do not believe in these theories, but a huge number of Catalans actually believe it, these conclusions are supported practically by all those who represent them politically, businessly and research, and the Catalan government finances it, I think it is coherent that adds more information and what happens today related completely to the articles that I say--ILoveCaracas (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
These researchers have often had talks on TV3 (the primary television channel and of Catalan public broadcaster) also on Catalunya Ràdio (owned by the Generalitat de Catalunya and is the major Catalan-language network today), and El Punt Avui TV, etc.'s programs. See: Institut_Nova_Història#References.--ILoveCaracas (talk) 09:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I know that. They have disseminated these fringe theories in all of their channels to brainwash the population...doing that for many years now. If you want to contribute to spreading these falsehoods by linking this article to Shakespeare and the American flag, you're most welcome. Maragm (talk) 10:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
No, but in the articles of politicians from Catalonia that support them and in the article of the history of catalonia I think that it should be add, so people know about it.--ILoveCaracas (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- My two cents, after a quick look at the edit history... I don’t think the ”See also” links were appropriate, and support the removals. I am trying to assume good faith, but given the extremely tenuous (fringe) connection between the institute and the articles where the links were placed, this comes too close to spam linking for my taste. Blueboar (talk) 11:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
and in history of Catalonia It should not be appropriate? knowing that this is an alternating history of Catalonia supported by the main figures of Catalonia today and a lot of Catalan people--ILoveCaracas (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that mentioning Institut Nova Història in articles about people supporting it seems reasonable, as well as in general articles about the history and politics of Catalonia, including History of Catalonia. ILoveCaracas has agreed several times not to re-add the institute to historical figures. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
thanks--ILoveCaracas (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- The reasoning given for inclusion is a little hard to follow but I think I am with Blueboar on this. It is unclear that this is a noteworthy See Also for politicians, just because they happen to support views championed by this 'Institut'. It seems like an attempt to publicize an organization producing nationalistic POV, fringe, and in some cases nonsense, by using the See Also sections of articles with links that are tenuous at best. Agricolae (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- Seconding that, with the addition that the See also sections might be misleading to the casual reader and should generally be avoided. An appropriate inclusion in the main text is the right way – if at all. These theories and the instituitions advocating them should only be linked from person or institution articles where the subject very clearly and prominently associates himself with these theories. --Zac67 (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
lol it seems to give propaganda to nationalism, or the opposite as I see it, people when see this know more about the society in which the Catalans live, the ideas that they intend to give to the people, and in a way put some them in the head, I do not want to politicize, I want to say with this that information is included that nobody knows, information that is part of contemporary history, and the reality that the Catalans live, under reliable sources, the truth is shown, that is the wikipedia Let people know the truth and do not try to hide the most relevant and important things of a topic, hiding that important article in a corner that has to be spoiled enough to get it, this article is as important as the rest of the information that comes out In the partial "history of Catalonia" that is shown, as you add more truth, the article becomes more complete--ILoveCaracas (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I have nominated this article for deletion: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institut Nova Història. --Scolaire (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- Deleting them is not the answer. There needs to remain some reference as to who spreads which theories. I'd call it notable fringe, since they attract a sizeable part of the population. In Belgium, we have a bit the same issue with the Flemish. The lesson I learned is that censorship gives them the "victim" label that they crave. It's probably better to engage them and to honestly discuss their points in the clear daylight. Wakari07 (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I am going to tell you an experience, I knew and I am involved by twitter in Spanish politics since 2 months ago, since I am Venezuelan, I live in Venezuela and i cared about Venezuela, however I almost do not twit, I only retwits things, I do not even look for twits of independent Catalans, but of Unionist Catalans since the start, and despite that on February 2, 2018 attacked me a typical Catalan independentist trying to convince a Venezuelan guy like me of these theories that he believes faithfully, with a lot of messages, and giving me that information and other pages that are not from the institute but others (He gave me two pages giving validity and propagating these things: 'Fundació d'Estudis Històrics de Catalunya' and 'Cercle Català d'Història'). Here are the tweets Obviously I did not convince myself but it made me understand how many Catalans think and about what was the famous Institute Nova History and the Cucurull of which many people speak. In Catalonia, it is quite common that they talk about the subject they have mentioned since i know of Catalan politics--ILoveCaracas (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
"I ask you to take pictures of these tweets" as they erase things at once when something fails--ILoveCaracas (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I know that this opinion does not go with wikipedia and sorry for that but only for them to see that you have to take evidence of these things, but I personally know that they are experts in manipulating public opinion, they always go from supporters of malcom x, anti-fascists, etc. in favor of everything that loves most of the world, then they send really explosive messages, leaders and university professors, for example, comparing Spaniards descendents of Catalonia with the Maghrebies of France, for example, which they are " followers of violence and hatred in the host country", or of people doing bad things in the street, then that is bad sight and immediately they try to leave no trace of it. I only say that it does that things like this one do not know and other things that they like them yes. I know that I have already gone politically with this last message but my intention is not this )--ILoveCaracas (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC).
- Hello ILoveCaracas, any source is a problem, if and only the reliabilityof a source or notability of the subject of an article is in question. What I have read above raises the possibility that the neutrality and reliability of subjects sourced from the institute alone, could cause problems. So care should be taken when dealing with such articles. --Wikishagnik (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
ok but I ask you to read this page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institut Nova Història and see the sources that are here. I also ask you to review the article Institut Nova Història and that sources posted there. They have good sources, although i think the mass media apparently could have reserved rights to the programs on their channels interviewing these people and at this moment of "internationalization of the process" as they call it, and they took care of deleting many things and I can prove that if someone wants, but in return I left youtube videos and Spanish newspapers showing photos as good proofs of these programs given on tv3 and radio catalunya, the rest of the article gives a lot of Spanish newspapers and a lot of pro-Indepndentist newspapers and pro-independentist sources, I am available and want to help to find more and better sources online--ILoveCaracas (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
How to change my Wikipedia screen font display size?
(I use Firefox.) My Wikipedia screen size has suddenly jumped to a bigger size. Please, how can I quickly change my Wikipedia screen type size or type width? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- If you are referring to the font size, try pressing Ctrl-0 (control + zero). It's Ctrl-Plus and Ctrl-Minus to increase/decrease, where the Plus and Minus are on the numeric keypad. There are other ways of zooming which can easily be done accidentally. Johnuniq (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq: Thanks. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Librarians, archivists, and information junkies
The reason it seems I use Wikipedia a lot and that you have in fact had my help this Tuesday, is that I'm one of the librarians, archivists, and information junkies and most working days I do my bit for Wikipedia. I'm perfectly willing to donate the price I pay for my coffee (an undrinkable beverage that is too costly to consider getting used to) or tea (provided for free by my employer) and one could indeed consider the time I spend contributing as that donation.
Now, can you stop asking for donations I can ill afford, especially since your request doesn't scale well to my high screen, making it far more in my face than a "humble" request should be. Mysha (talk)
And to that I can add that:
And in my side as well
If everyone reading that would spend two hours each week editing Wikimedia we'd explode. Mysha (talk)
- Mysha You may like to go to your Special:Preferences page and select Gadgets | Browsing | Suppress display of fundraising banners: Noyster (talk), 09:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you. The point, of course, is not that I get these messages when signed in; it's that multiple un-asked-for messages referencing a situation that isn't really my own, drive me away rather than motivate me. Mysha (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, Mysha for your concern. However, it is important to note that there are people in the world who can afford to donate, and the messages reach them too. The banner, as noted, can be turned off any time you want to, if it distracts you. --Jayron32 10:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- I never quite understood the argument of "I was planning to donate to Wikipedia, but now because of the banner, I don't think I will". That to me shows a rather hollow sense of charity, where one's donation is not predicated on the value that an organization can provide, but rather on the momentary (and, as pointed out above, optional) aesthetic nuisance of a banner. That's rather like stiffing the waiter a tip because they have a tattoo.--WaltCip (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, Mysha for your concern. However, it is important to note that there are people in the world who can afford to donate, and the messages reach them too. The banner, as noted, can be turned off any time you want to, if it distracts you. --Jayron32 10:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you. The point, of course, is not that I get these messages when signed in; it's that multiple un-asked-for messages referencing a situation that isn't really my own, drive me away rather than motivate me. Mysha (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Creative Commons: EU copyright plan – potential problem?
Suggestion in this Techdirt article that EU could restrict people's rights to use CC. Is this a potential problem for Wikipedia?--A bit iffy (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- @A bit iffy: This law sounds like an all-around disaster, so for now, the best plan of action is probably to just wait and hope that common sense prevails before it becomes law. But even if it did get passed, this wouldn't be terribly disastrous. This limits the ability of a website to give away its content with a free license, but based on the Techdirt blog post, it has no impact on the ability for users of a website to upload content with a free license.
- So we would still be able to accept contributions from EU users; it's just that EU users would be technically unable to reuse Wikipedia content in other places—i.e. it's not our problem. Even though the law would say that reusing Wikipedia content is a copyright violation, in reality, we know Wikimedia Foundation is not going to sue people for reusing their content. So it'd just be another one of the many silly things that are technically illegal but no one cares; unfortunate, but what can you do? –IagoQnsi (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Finding what external pages link to a particular Wikipedia article?
@In ictu oculi: I have been asked: "How can I find (including their names) which external website pages link to a particular Wikipedia article?". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- WP doesn't track that but in various search engines you can search for the article URL and then filter out which source pages you don't want:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous) -site:en.wikipedia.org
- --Zac67 (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- I would exclude the protocol and search the standard url form
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)
. You can also trylink:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)
in Google. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- I would exclude the protocol and search the standard url form
- @PrimeHunter, Zac67, and In ictu oculi: I tried Google searching for
link:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent
- but I got "about 49,100,000 results" that were pages that happened to contain anywhere the word "permanent" or the word "wiki" or etc. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- So it doesn't really work? It doesn't find actual links? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- It gave varying results in the past. Maybe Google has finally disabled it completely.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- In my experience Google search is getting worse and worse, especially in terms of more sophisticated capabilities like this. I think what has happened is that they are focusing increasingly on the lowest common denominator. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Script for viewing diff of all consecutive edits by same user?
I have an idea for something that I really wish I had a user script for, and I'm wondering if one already exists (couldn't easily find one in WP:User scripts/List). When I'm patrolling for vandalism, and I'm looking at a revision (whether in a page's history list or on Special:RecentChanges), the most useful button for me is definitely the "diff"/"prev" button, to show what changed in that one revision. But that's not always quite what I want. If a user has made several edits in a row, then I also like to see a diff of all their consecutive revisions—that is, all the revisions they've made since the last revision by someone else. (If that explanation is unclear, then here's a random example: If I were patrolling 55Sassafras55's edits, instead of just looking at Special:Diff/836020105, I might also want to see Special:Diff/836020105/836016588.)
This diff is possible to access, but it requires: going to the history page, finding + clicking two radio buttons, and clicking "Compare selected revisions" (which is a button rather than a link, so I can't open it in a new tab). Vandalism patrolling is all about efficiency, so this is too tedious for something I do so often. Does anyone know of a script that adds an easy one-click option for getting the diff I want (or do I need to write it myself)? Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- @IagoQnsi: The preference doesn't work great on Recent Changes because it moves so fast, but what you're looking for is (mostly) the "Group changes by page in recent changes and watchlist" preference in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rc. I think you also need to check the "Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent" preference in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist. --Izno (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Izno: Thanks for that link. This sort of does what I want, but it's a bit limited. On RecentChanges, it only includes revisions that are on the page—RC only shows like the last minute or so most of the time, so this is not very useful. I think I'm gonna end up writing my own script here. :P –IagoQnsi (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- WP:NAVPOPS is your friend. Mouse over Special:Contributions/IagoQnsi, then mouse over each diff. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Izno: Thanks for that link. This sort of does what I want, but it's a bit limited. On RecentChanges, it only includes revisions that are on the page—RC only shows like the last minute or so most of the time, so this is not very useful. I think I'm gonna end up writing my own script here. :P –IagoQnsi (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Policy / technical / other questions regarding links to the project namespace from articles and citation templates
I have a few questions regarding Wikipedia:Adding open license text to Wikipedia and Template:Free-content attribution.
I first came across these pages in literacy#Sources because there were three {{free-content attribution}} templates that took up almost an entire screen. I spoke with John Cummings about this since he did most of the recent work for both pages. You can see my initial conversations with him on his talk page.
I've since trimmed the template to bring it in line with other attribution templates, but John and I are still discussing whether it is appropriate to include the additional links about the project.
Is there a general policy or guideline with regard to linking to the project namespace permanently in an article as part of an attribution template? As originally designed, Wikipedia:Adding open license text to Wikipedia and the terms of use will be listed with each transclusion of {{free-content attribution}}. In articles where this template is used multiple times (as it was in literacy), this seems excessive, but I can see an argument to be made for even one link. The content does not relate to the source or the subject of the article and only serve as a way to promote the editing of Wikipedia and adding free content. To be clear, I do support both of those activities and want to make it easier for others to contribute to the project, but not at the expense of article quality. Has anyone seen similar disputes in the past? It wouldn't surprise me if I'm missing something obvious here... Thanks. - PaulT/C 17:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- WP:SELF would seem to provide at least some guidance here, to wit "Self-references are sometimes found in the templates and the categories. Some of these are necessary or intrinsic to the purpose..." of the template in question. If, for example, a template in an article is necessary to direct the reader to some bit of Wikipedia policy, then a link to the project page explaining that policy is absolutely needed. What should never be done is "easter-egg-type" bluelinks which pipe policy pages to what looks like a normal article link in regular text, but linking to Wikipedia policy in a template is sometimes a Good Thing. It really is a matter of separating content from policy; sometimes the reader needs to have a link to explain why we might be doing something, and project links are OK there, but in the "regular prose" of an article narrative, I would not expect it. --Jayron32 17:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- That makes sense to me. The disputed text is as follows:
To learn how to add open-license text to Wikipedia articles, please see Wikipedia:Adding open license text to Wikipedia. For information on reusing text from Wikipedia, please see the terms of use.
, which I don't think is "necessary or intrinsic to the purpose..." of the template", but I certainly could be wrong about that. Additionally, I recently added {{essay}} to Wikipedia:Adding open license text to Wikipedia, but is this something that should be reviewed to be an actual project guideline or policy? - PaulT/C 17:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- That makes sense to me. The disputed text is as follows:
- That page would seem to be a How-to and information page, not an essay. Rmhermen (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed it is. I just changed it to use {{Wikipedia how-to}} instead. To be clear, John Cummings is the principal author of the page, I just added the template at the top. - PaulT/C 02:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
WP:ITN priorities
WP:ITN are the news items on the main page. I'm only passingly familiar with this aspect of the project, but I have noticed that roughly 50% of the items are what I'd call routine reporting of very limited or local interest, such as aircraft crashes, minor natural disasters or sports results. I don't think that as an encyclopedia we should be in the business of reporting such matters. Has there ever been a broader community discussion about the ITN priorities or am I just wasting my time complaining? Sandstein 16:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- The point of ITN is that it is not supposed to be a news ticker, but to reflect quality WP content that is in the news. Articles on disasters (natural or manmade) tend to be examples of articles that quickly come together or some reasonable quality and a representation of how fast WP can react to these types of events. Sports events also tend to have high quality updates in the events leading to the end. But we also try to keep it avoiding focus in any one topic or geographic area, that we are a global encyclopedia. Mind you, I do think the visibility of ITN also leads to too much coverage of current events per NOT#NEWS, but again, things like disasters and sporting events are generally notable in the long term. --Masem (t) 17:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
enwiki has lost the WP:Palestine community
About 2018 Palestinian Land Claim protests and Israel shooting unarmed protestors.
It also says that Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine did not even bother to put a {{WikiProject Palestine}} on it s talkpage. It has come this far: enwiki has lost the WP:Palestine WikiProject. - DePiep (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- DePiep, I'm sure you're not calling another editor a "dickhead", right? - TNT❤ 20:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- Glad you got the issue! - DePiep (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- @DePiep: I'll rephrase - could you not? I appreciate its a heated topic, but name calling isn't going to help move this discussion forward. Please remove it - TNT❤ 20:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- What exactly did I do wrong here? DePiep added a duplicate WP Palestine (without the quality assessment), and I removed the duplicate (leaving it on top where they placed it). Am I missing something?Icewhiz (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- Done! Now will you reply hiddenname There'sNoTime? Why support a name IPA:'Auschwitz'? What do you care about, at all? - DePiep (talk)
- @DePiep: I'll rephrase - could you not? I appreciate its a heated topic, but name calling isn't going to help move this discussion forward. Please remove it - TNT❤ 20:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)