→Welcome message for new editors editing ARBPIA topics: copy edit to clarify |
AndrewPeterT (talk | contribs) →RfC of interest: new section Tag: New topic |
||
Line 110: | Line 110: | ||
Interested editors are invited to participate in a discussion at {{slink|MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages#Revised watchlist details options}}. After a suitable time, it would be helpful for a disinterested admin to summarize the discussion and implement any change reached by consensus. [[User:YBG|YBG]] ([[User talk:YBG|talk]]) 06:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC) |
Interested editors are invited to participate in a discussion at {{slink|MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages#Revised watchlist details options}}. After a suitable time, it would be helpful for a disinterested admin to summarize the discussion and implement any change reached by consensus. [[User:YBG|YBG]] ([[User talk:YBG|talk]]) 06:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC) |
||
: There has been some slight changes to the options, so I’ve repointed the link above; the previous discussion is just above the new link target. [[User:YBG|YBG]] ([[User talk:YBG|talk]]) 15:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC) |
: There has been some slight changes to the options, so I’ve repointed the link above; the previous discussion is just above the new link target. [[User:YBG|YBG]] ([[User talk:YBG|talk]]) 15:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC) |
||
== RfC of interest == |
|||
<small>(non-automated message)</small> Greetings to all followers of WP:VPM! I have opened an RfC on [[WT:ROYALTY]] that may be of interest to followers of this page! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility#RfC: How should articles on sovereigns of current European monarchies be (re)titled?|here]]! |
|||
(Note that this is my first time posting a message to WP:VPM, so I apologize if I have done anything improperly.) '''''[[User:AndrewPeterT|Hurricane]] [[User talk:AndrewPeterT|Andrew]] ([[Special:Contributions/AndrewPeterT|444]])''''' 17:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:22, 24 November 2023
Policy | Technical | Proposals | Idea lab | WMF | Miscellaneous |
- Table of contents
- First discussion
- End of page
- New post
Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for a week.
Cricket World Cup request
ICC MENS CRICKET WORLD CUP matches are going on in India, but no news is appearing in Wikipedia. Please do the necessary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.136.28 (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- WP:NOTNEWS. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- From the opening words of that policy section: "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
ACE2023 nominations are open
Eligible users are invited to submit a nomination statement for the Arbitration Committee elections at the elections page. Thank you, — Frostly (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Advice wanted: when should pageant articles be created
I noticed today that Miss International 2024 has been created, but it doesn't exist yet on the sponsor's website [1], and there's nothing in the article indicating even a possible date or venue. Seems premature to me, is there any consensus on this? ☆ Bri (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- Just the usual, @Bri: all events that interest "me" should be created immediately, and all events that "I" think are unimportant should be created at the last minute.
- I believe the official rule is that you need to know, with reasonable certainty, that the event will happen. Since the article is the next event, it's not unreasonable for it to exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
It might be OBE; the article is currently pending WP:G5 speedy deletion. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Spammer that may have removed valid sources
Washington Independent is currently complete and utter garbage. There was a completely different site on that domain in the past (at least in 2009), but today it's trash. So I'm removing references to the current site, while being careful not to remove links to archived articles from the site that used to be there. Slight hiccup.
- Special:Contributions/Josephstanlourlo52aRk
- Special:Contributions/JeremyRFLO
- Special:Contributions/186.14.45.73
- Special:Contributions/StanLouisTx54
And there are likely more. They replace existing references with their own garbage. I can remove some of their garbage (given enough time, all of it), add some {{cn}} tags here and there, but I can't realistically dig through the history of everything to figure out who screwed up the article. Even with wikiblame it's just too much.
If anyone feels like sock hunting to recover the original references, please, be my guest. Edit: it's worse than I thought. These links really need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis as the current garbage site copied content from the original site while changes the name of the author and altering the date. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- I probably got all the spam. Probably, hopefully Wikipedia:Bot requests#Archiving washingtonindependent.com is possible. Anything that wasn't archived before 2016 or so should be removed regardless of whether or not the link was ever legit. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- We have 300+ articles remaining that have these links.
- The best way to stop more getting added is to blacklist the domain. It then becomes impossible to add the link anywhere. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 06:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Links also appear on other Wikipedias. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 06:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- A. B., most if not all links here on enwiki that are left in mainspace seem legitimate links to the site as it was before 2015. It's already in the queue: Wikipedia:Link rot/URL change requests#washingtonindependent.com. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Blacklisting would prevent adding legitimate links to the pre-2015 site. XLinkBot may be able to do better. Certes (talk) 11:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Links also appear on other Wikipedias. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 06:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Lecture on Prestigious journals struggle to reach even average reliability
Relevant for all those who care about WP:RS. There's now a lecture by Björn Brembs explaining the results of the study Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability. See https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1018170/files/Lecture.mp4 . Nemo 14:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Reliability is contextual. In the end, the community decides what is reliable. The cited paper, along with other factors, such as the replication crisis, should be considered in the overall process of determining criteria for reliability, but should not be a major factor in community discusions about the reliability of a particular source. Donald Albury 15:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- The lecture focuses on the sciences rather than the humanities, which is reasonable because journal articles are used very differently in those different fields. We are already told to use secondary sources rather than primary studies, most obviously in WP:MEDRS, so I don't think that this is such a major issue for Wikipedia as it is for the prestigious journals. No source is absolutely reliable for everything. Even after taking those criticisms on board academic journals are certainly more reliable for science than newspapers. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes but we just didn't come up with a good way to measure such things in humanities; there's no evidence suggesting the basic mechanisms would be different for humanities journals. Journals with high JIF are like tabloids, they sell more because they have the most sensational content. This is not necessarily a problem but it's good for people to keep in mind. Nemo 17:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Well... in the sciences, there are often specific answers, which means your paper could be factually wrong. In fact, with p=0.05, even if you do everything perfectly, you've got a 5% chance of getting the wrong result. In the humanities, that's not always, or even usually, the case. "This artwork [music, painting, book – it doesn't matter] displays some elements of this culture" or "Free speech is more important than kindness" is not really a statement you can disprove; it can't really be factually wrong, even if others don't share your viewpoint. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes but we just didn't come up with a good way to measure such things in humanities; there's no evidence suggesting the basic mechanisms would be different for humanities journals. Journals with high JIF are like tabloids, they sell more because they have the most sensational content. This is not necessarily a problem but it's good for people to keep in mind. Nemo 17:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Welcome message for new editors editing ARBPIA topics
I threw together Template:Welcome-arbpia so we can hopefully have an easy way to inform all of the new editors trying to take part in discussions about the conflict of the sanctions as a welcome rather than a warning. I'd like to get it to the point where it can be included in the twinkle welcome templates. Any feedback would be appreciated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think that's an excellent idea rather than going straight to warnings. Knitsey (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Something to think about is how the template would co-exist with {{Contentious topics/alert/first}}. The template you created is good for letting new editors know about existing imposed editing restrictions. However the contentious topic alert template also has to be placed on editor talk pages to let them know about the potential restrictions that might get imposed. It's somewhat confusing that there are the already-imposed special rules (as described in your template) and the "special set of rules" as described in the alert template, which are different. Perhaps your template can use another term. isaacl (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- I actually went with "strict rules." I'm thinking about how best to also include alert/first without causing banner blindness and introducing a bunch of stuff a new editor wouldn't have any idea about, e.g.
the Arbitration Committee... the purposes of Wikipedia... Wikipedia’s norms and policies... applicable policies and guidelines... editorial and behavioural best practice
. - It's really to welcome a new editor and explain why their talk page message or article edit was reverted in plain language and to lay out the most important thing for them to know about editing ARBPIA topics, that they can't do it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, must have read that too quickly. Perhaps something like "rigorous restrictions" would be better, as it would emphasize that editors are currently restricted from certain actions, versus there just being a different set of rules that admins use to decide upon restrictions to impose.
- With the rigid procedure on having an initial alert, I'm not sure how you're planning to put in on a user's talk page without introducing the text in the template. Are you suggesting to revise the text of the alert template? I've previously made proposals that would shorten it, but ultimately the arbitrators have to be convinced. So far they have seemed intent on signaling that the contentious topic procedures originate from the arbitration committee. isaacl (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Currently my thought is that it wouldn't cover the alert, and an alert would still need to be given if their editing continues. Could also just throw a
The specifics of the contentious topic procedures are below.
at the end, and then throw the alert there. My concern with that is we'll dump too much text, it'll be less likely that they'll read any, and it will push away potential editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Currently my thought is that it wouldn't cover the alert, and an alert would still need to be given if their editing continues. Could also just throw a
- I actually went with "strict rules." I'm thinking about how best to also include alert/first without causing banner blindness and introducing a bunch of stuff a new editor wouldn't have any idea about, e.g.
- I think this is awesome. My thought would be to make it crystal clear that certain areas (RfCs, AfDs, RMs, etc.) are off-limits. The "you may request a specific change..." sentence does cover this off, but I get the sense that there's some lingering confusion about this point. That said, I'm also aware of tl;dr... I wonder if maybe a bulleted/tabled "Dos and Don't's" list could be helpful? (e.g., "DO: be civil, use specific language in edit requests; DON'T: make vague/open-ended suggestions, participate in !votes). Just some ideas. WillowCity(talk) 23:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think this is a good idea. I was making a similar warning a while ago and you are welcome to borrow any aspect of this if it's useful, User:Andrevan/Rus-Ukr_warning. I think it would need to be ratified as part of the contentious topics procedure though. Andre🚐 23:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- The contentious topic procedure doesn't dictate a specific way to let an individual editor know about enacted page restrictions. (The page itself must have an edit notice, and the talk page should have a notice.) isaacl (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- That may have changed with the move from the previous discretionary sanctions regime to the current contentious topics system, but I was under the impression that the notification templates were part of the procedure. I shopped around the above template (here) and it was mentioned that such template may not constitute "notification" or "awareness" of the sanctions, so I don't use it because what's the point of having a shorter template that is more explanatory and to the point, if it doesn't actually "count" for a notification of contentious topics awareness. Andre🚐 23:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- As I mentioned, there is a specific template mandated by the contentious topic procedure that has to be placed on a user's talk page to let them know about a topic that has been designated as a contentious topic, when they haven't been notified about any contentious topic previously. (Under the old system, there was a template to let a user know that the topic is one for which administrators have been authorized to enact special sanctions at their discretion.) However either under the current or previous system, there isn't a mandated method to tell an individual editor that an enacted page restriction is in place. The edit notice and talk page notice serve as notification to all editors who edit the page. isaacl (talk) 06:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- That may have changed with the move from the previous discretionary sanctions regime to the current contentious topics system, but I was under the impression that the notification templates were part of the procedure. I shopped around the above template (here) and it was mentioned that such template may not constitute "notification" or "awareness" of the sanctions, so I don't use it because what's the point of having a shorter template that is more explanatory and to the point, if it doesn't actually "count" for a notification of contentious topics awareness. Andre🚐 23:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- The contentious topic procedure doesn't dictate a specific way to let an individual editor know about enacted page restrictions. (The page itself must have an edit notice, and the talk page should have a notice.) isaacl (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Paolo Petrocelli Article
Hello,
This request is regarding Paolo Petrocelli’s Wikipedia article. I tried creating an entry on him last week, but it was deleted shortly after. Wikipedia says that there’s a pre-existing article titled ‘Paolo Petrocelli,’ but whenever I click on it, it redirects us to his company’s Wikipedia article, EMMA For Peace. Please note that he is notable; he has articles about him published in Financial Times, The Times, Forbes, Huffington Post, United Nations official website, and UNESCO, so there is no issue on that front. Additionally, I would like to update the article with new relevant information. Moreover, he has Wikipedia entries in other languages, including Arabic, Spanish, and French. I also intend on removing the biography section in his EMMA For Peace, his company, Wikipedia entry. In short, I would like clarification on why I am unable to successfully publish his biography, and I would highly appreciate any advice regarding how I could do so. Shahdmurshed (talk) 12:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Shahdmurshed Your starting point should probably be Draft:Paolo Petrocelli. You can develop an article there talking about him independently of his company; make sure the reliable sources you cite are focused on him. There was an article about Petrocelli, but i was deleted in 2017. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paolo Petrocelli for the community's discussion where they reached consensus on deleting the article, based on his lack of independent notability at that time. —C.Fred (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
ACE2023 questions phase open
Interested editors are invited to ask the candidates questions. — Frostly (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Proposed change to watchlist details
Interested editors are invited to participate in a discussion at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages § Revised watchlist details options. After a suitable time, it would be helpful for a disinterested admin to summarize the discussion and implement any change reached by consensus. YBG (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- There has been some slight changes to the options, so I’ve repointed the link above; the previous discussion is just above the new link target. YBG (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
RfC of interest
(non-automated message) Greetings to all followers of WP:VPM! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to followers of this page! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here!
(Note that this is my first time posting a message to WP:VPM, so I apologize if I have done anything improperly.) Hurricane Andrew (444) 17:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)