Policy | Technical | Proposals | Idea lab | Miscellaneous |
The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals pages, or – for assistance – at the help desk, rather than here, if at all appropriate. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk. |
« Older discussions, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 |
Centralized discussion | |||
---|---|---|---|
![]() |
|||
Proposals: policy | other | Discussions | Ideas |
Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
|
|||
Contents
- 1 Incest in movie
- 2 Wikipedia as a battleground for academics
- 3 What is truth
- 4 Request for comment: Lead sentence for train or railway stations
- 5 Wikipedia:List of Monuments in Nepal
- 6 Sources in lead
- 7 Thank you very much to somebody!
- 8 Temporary undeletion of Template:Strloc prefix
- 9 How best to avoid argumentative editors/make the discussion more productive
- 10 Importing en.wiki revisions into de.wiki?
- 11 Wikimania 2016: call for posters, discussions and trainings
- 12 Ferdinand Marcos
- 13 Help me out on wikilinks & italics & possessives
- 14 Hello
- 15 Edit requests related to election in two weeks
- 16 Pages about airlines' destinations
- 17 Neutrality issue
- 18 Inspire Campaign: Making our content more meaningful
- 19 Women's History Month, India-2016
- 20 Professor Carl Hewitt
- 21 Is the infobox at Planet Nine a disinfobox?
- 22 Row headers in tables
- 23 RfC
- 24 Stats
- 25 RFC - Jack Ruby's constitutional presumption of innocence
- 26 Donation of 760 historical bookbindings (National Library of the Netherlands)
- 27 Removing Persondata
- 28 Persondata Verifiability
- 29 Help in fixing invalid ISSN codes
- 30 The Catalan WP
- 31 Identification
- 32 Awaken the Dragon Edit-a-thon/Contest
- 33 750,000 edit milestone
- 34 Open call for Individual Engagement Grants
- 35 Remained lang links at local-wikis
- 36 Crowdfunding campaign for Rehman (update)
- 37 New Wikipedia Library Accounts Available Now (March 2016)
- 38 Vandalism of the Sandbox
- 39 Abdellah el-Ayachi and Abu Salim al-Ayyashi
- 40 Happy Nowruz!
- 41 A random (probably silly) question that just came to my mind
- 42 Very quiet here
- 43 RfC: Safety section lede at Ford Pinto
- 44 Media attention for edit conflicts at 3D printer project
- 45 Only count mainspace edits for autoconfirmation
- 46 Missing links in citations
- 47 Horrendous article.
- 48 phishing scam involving wikipedia
- 49 Using the wiki am on cell phone
- 50 Tymshare Super BASIC
- 51 RFC: Related Pages extension
- 52 correcting the birth date of a living person
- 53 Wikimedia DC Book Grants
- 54 Galaxy World of Alisa possible wiki-hoax, cleanup needed?
- 55 You will not be able to edit temporarily on 19 and 21 April 2016
Incest in movie
At the entrance of the movie "Terms of Endearment" omitted mention the incestuous relationship of the protagonists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.116.64 (talk) 08:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- If you have a suggestion for improving Wikipedia's article about Terms of Endearment, please post it at Talk:Terms of Endearment. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia as a battleground for academics
There are now web services that track the number of times papers are cited in Wikipedia. They use this as a way to estimate the impact factor of a paper. Authors can get updates in near-real time on who added (or removed) their paper from a particular article; and apparently this technology is largely being facilitated by the WMF [1]. Am I wrong in thinking that this is a terrible idea, and one that actively encourages COI editing? Can we somehow encourage the WMF to quit encouraging people to see Wikipedia cites and links as a commodity? Add a few more things to WP:NOT? Geogene (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Outside services seeing how often sources are used, be they scholarly or not, can be useful. Academics may want to analyse the use of sources across articles and languages to look for trends and biases, for example. This analysis of sources relies on URLs, DOIs, or citation templates and there is no way to block that, nor should we want to. We already have WP:REFSPAM in place to discourage COI citations. Fences&Windows 01:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- This tool is not for looking for trends and biases, but to rank different papers (in part) by the number of times they are cited in Wikipedia, to keep the authors aware of how Wikipedia uses their papers and in which articles, and to notify them if their source is removed. What is the likely outcome of this? Geogene (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- We can't control how outside tools use our site; and we can't change our policies to deal with them, when our primary purpose is to create an encyclopedia.
- If some academic wants to be sure that his/her article will gain popularity, it would certainly make sense for him/her to publish it in a journal which one of the top web sites uses as a source; whether or not this will actually gain him/her any popularity is unknown to him/her.
- I believe that many academics may want to have some idea of which issues we tend to refer to and which ones we tend not to; amd to see that his/her wrk isn't misunderstood or abused.
- עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- This tool is not for looking for trends and biases, but to rank different papers (in part) by the number of times they are cited in Wikipedia, to keep the authors aware of how Wikipedia uses their papers and in which articles, and to notify them if their source is removed. What is the likely outcome of this? Geogene (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Dear Geogene, Wikipedia is i=mmensely popular and already prone to conflict of interests.
"Can we somehow encourage the WMF to quit encouraging people to see Wikipedia cites and links as a commodity?" I'm afraid we can't make academics to think how to perceive Wikipedia. --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
What is truth
Hello friends. i am a Wikipedia Writer in Persian Wikipedia and my English is not good do you think for article of Persian-speaking peoples, is name truth in English paragraph because Peoples is more peoples or just should be people? be people is multiplication. do you think what name is more correct to use?
- Persian Speakers People
- People of Persian Speaker
- Persian Speakers
- __ Thanks. Qian Nivan Talking 20:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- @Qian.Nivan:
- First, if you have questions on correct use of the English language I suggest you might want to try asking at English Language Learners StackExchange. That website is not part of Wikipedia but they are much better at answering questions about using English.
- Second, English Wikipedia has many rules. I do not speak Farsi, but by using Google Translate I see that Persian Wikipedia has many of the same rules. We think those rules are very important. In all honesty the article you are trying to create does not meet many of those rules, and much of what you are trying to say is already said in the Persian language article. It is only a matter of time before someone will tag your article for deletion because of those rules. I suggest you read the rules carefully and then try and make the Persian language article better instead of trying to start a new one on the same topic. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 09:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Koala Tea Of Mercy: What? Qian isn't creating any article, he's just asking about the grammatical intricacies of a title of an existing one (which is admittedly pretty shitty but has lasted since 2007 as a quasi-disambig page). As far as the title of the article, it's gramatically correct - "peoples" here is the plural of "people", which indicates a singular group of individuals with a similar characteristic (speaking a Persian language) - hence it is a group of groups of people. ansh666 04:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Qian.Nivan: Dear Qian, you could ask this question in the Persian Wikipedia, on the page گوناگون; where so many Wikipedians whose English is almost perfect and some of them can read and speak the language near native
. I agree with the suggestion by Ansh666. As Ansh declared above, Quian is not trying to create any articles, and he just asked about an English grammatical fact on people and its probable plural form. Again, as Ansh expressed, peoples could be plural form of the word. Accordingly, the plural form people is correct and there is no grammatical problem with it. Anyway, thank you. Hamid Hassani (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Qian.Nivan: Dear Qian, you could ask this question in the Persian Wikipedia, on the page گوناگون; where so many Wikipedians whose English is almost perfect and some of them can read and speak the language near native
- @Koala Tea Of Mercy: What? Qian isn't creating any article, he's just asking about the grammatical intricacies of a title of an existing one (which is admittedly pretty shitty but has lasted since 2007 as a quasi-disambig page). As far as the title of the article, it's gramatically correct - "peoples" here is the plural of "people", which indicates a singular group of individuals with a similar characteristic (speaking a Persian language) - hence it is a group of groups of people. ansh666 04:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
-
It is also of interest to note that the English idiomatic usage when dealing with multiple nations or groups speaking a common language is borne out by the notable A History of the English-Speaking Peoples by Sir Winston S. Churchill. Collect (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Request for comment: Lead sentence for train or railway stations
In what way should the lead sentence of articles dealing with railway stations or train stations be fashioned? See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment: Identification of train or railway stations in the lead. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:List of Monuments in Nepal
What's the policy on non-AfC article-like pages in the Wikipedia: namespace? The page linked in the section header and its subpages (e.g. Wikipedia:List of Monuments in Mechi Zone, [[]]) were created in WP: space, there don't seem to be articles with the same title/topic in mainspace, and they come complete with their own template. However, they seem to be a walled garden (other than the main page) with probably negligible views. They're also completely unsourced - they wouldn't survive in article space. What should we do with them? ansh666 04:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- You might be able to apply WP:G6 directly, as "deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace"; if not, I would move it to Draft: space, and if there are no inward links to the old name, mark the new redir with
{{db-error}}
--Redrose64 (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC) - This is indeed strange. There are too many related pages out there and they have not been filed as subpages. Prima facie, it doesn't look like they were written for the mainspace. These appear to be lists created to facilitate creation of articles on the monuments. It's okay to keep them in projectspace, but they must be stored as subpages. It's worth noting that three of these pages, List of monuments in Rapti Zone, List of Monuments in Sagarmatha Zone, List of Monuments in Seti Zone were erroneously moved into the mainspace by User:DexDor. 103.6.159.75 (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- And then we have Draft:List of Monuments in Mahottari, Nepal - erroneously moved to the draftspace by User:Tokyogirl79.103.6.159.75 (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- I moved that article to the draftspace because it wasn't finished. When I came across the article it looked like this and was clearly unfinished. The deletion rationale wasn't really accurate, but then the article really wasn't finished and they could've gone back with another template or taken it to one of the more formal deletion outlets. Since the article creator (बिप्लब आनन्द) was fairly new I chalked it up to a newbie mistake and moved it to the draftspace so they could continue working on it, and then left a message about this on their talk page. I could've gone into a bit more depth, but I just figured that this was a case of them trying to make a draft or a live article and making a mistake - something that happens quite a lot with new users, especially if they speak English as a second language. I really think that these were meant to be articles and the user just misunderstood the article creation process and some of the standards for articles. I just moved it as a sign of good faith that he'd improve the articles and submit it to the proper places. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Um, I'd say no. See Special:PrefixIndex/WP:List of Monuments in to see the full list of pages. They are clearly intended as project pages created to facilitate creation of articles on the individual monuments. @Tokyogirl79: Could you please revert those moves - the one by you and three by DexDor, as the lists are clearly unsuitable for mainspace? (The list entries themselves are lists, that too in Wikipedia space, as such blatantly failing inclusion guidelines for lists in mainspace.) 103.6.159.92 (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'll move them, however I will say in my defense that I had no prior knowledge of this list and had only seen that a new user had created an article. His argument against deletion also gave off the strong impression that he was creating an article in the userspace per his comment here, nor was I given a reason to suspect otherwise until today. My point is that workspace articles really, really need to be marked with tags like {{Workpage}} to clearly designate them as a work page otherwise stuff like this can easily happen - articles can be erroneously moved, deleted, or seen as random information. Admins see a lot and I stress a lot of incomplete articles in the wrong areas, so it's easy to see where myself and others could assume that the articles were misplaced article creations or articles in progress. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- The pages I "erroneously" moved from Wikipedia (admin) namespace to Article namespace (e.g. the page that is currently at Wikipedia:List of Monuments in Seti Zone) do not appear to be admin pages (admin pages usually use words such as "pages", "editors" and "WikiProject") and do appear to be more like (list) articles (e.g. like List of monuments in Prizren) - in particular, they were (and still are) categorized as articles. Note: Many list articles are light on referencing as they contain links to articles where references can/should be found. In other words, these lists are not "clearly intended as project pages". For info: it's not uncommon to find pages intended for mainspace that have inadvertently been placed in Wikipedia namespace (e.g. incorrectly moved from Draft namespace). If these pages are intended as project (administration) pages then that should be made clear and they should be removed from articles category. DexDor (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's not admin namespace. If you don't like calling it Wikipedia namespace, you can call it Project namespace, e.g. Project:List of Monuments in Nepal. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Sources in lead
Recently I, by myself, wrote my first GA and got it promoted. It's always been my understanding that unless an article is about a very controversial topic, it shouldn't have sources in the lead; the information in the lead should simply be a summary of the rest of the article, and the information should be sourced in the body, not the lead. This article is about a noncontroversial subject who has been dead for 15 years. Today there was a post on the talk page of the article questioning why there are no sources in the lead. I thought maybe it was a new user, but then I looked at their contribs I saw that their account is a over a year old and they are reviewing GAs. I pinged them at the article talk and sent them to the WP:Lead page. I'm just sort of wondering how people who don't seem to understand policy can be reviewing GAs, and if anybody else has seen this. I'm confused... 😕 White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 00:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- You've been trolled, WAF, everything in the lead is sourced in the article, I checked that carefully. See WP:LEAD. That reviewer just had two of their GA reviews pulled from the wikicup too... they are after points and at the moment they have zero...why they are trolling an article that has already passed GAN is beyond me, but they are on their way to a block at the rate they are going... Montanabw(talk) 06:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe they were trying to get nitpicky in the idea that it made them look better and more serious about reviewing. Or maybe they thought they could get it delisted so I or somebody else WOULDN'T get points (I'm not in the Wikicup anyway). White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 22:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know how you got "unless an article is about a very controversial topic, it shouldn't have sources in the lead" from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section guideline. In particular, that is definitely not the lesson that the WP:LEADCITE subsection wants you to learn. It makes me wonder if you have read the lead guideline. I haven't looked at the particular article that brought you here but WP:LEADCITE says, "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus" so there is nothing inherently wrong with the editor initiating a discussion on the talk page "questioning why there are no sources in the lead". The argument above that you are using is a clear misinterpretation of the lead guideline and the action of the other editor (as you've presented it) is not against the guideline. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- In this case, sources weren't needed in the lead because the subject is dead and is not going to do anything else. What made me post here is that the editor who raised the question was reviewing GAs for Wikicup points and clearly had no understanding of the criteria. They reviewed two articles before somebody noticed how off-the-wall some of their comments were, and both of those articles are now having to be rereviewed by others. That is a major pain for those two nominators, and is probably upsetting as well.
- Also, in the horse articles we have a LOT of COI and SPA accounts, and it makes me wonder when somebody shows up and begins questioning things out of nowhere. Especially when an article has just been promoted. There are plenty of stubs out there.
- I have read the whole guideline on sources in lead. I was the sole editor of the article I'm referring to, beyond minor copy edits made by a couple of others. The subject is dead and was not controversial during their lifetime. All text in the lead is simply a summary of the sourced content in the rest of the article. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- The guideline does not imply "sources [aren't] needed in the lead because the subject is dead" or anything like it. You are phrasing your sentences poorly, probably to fit some preconceived notion of how you think the lead should be. It may very well be that the particular editor was not being helpful and had nefarious intentions. Right now I just want to help you calibrate your interpretation of the lead guideline (and make sure that anybody reading this doesn't walk away with the wrong notion of that guideline). You are correct that if the things cited in the lead were sourced later in the article, then there may be no need to cite them in the lead (unless they are controversial, in which case they must be sourced). The guideline suggests to "balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers". The guideline does not forbid sources in the lead, even redundant ones and if there's dispute, consensus should be sought. This is all clearly stated in the guideline so by writing things like "there aren't supposed to be sources in the top section" as you've done at the article's talk page clearly shows you are have an incorrect understanding of the lead guideline. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
-
Thank you very much to somebody!
I see a new feature on the article editor - when a section edit is previewed, a preview of references is automatically included!
This eliminates the need to insert a reflist tag for testing; on at least five occasions I've done that and forgotten to remove it before saving the edit.
Never again! Yay!
Many thanks to whichever developer did this.
(NOTE - I do most of my editing in Firefox 2.0.0.20 under Mac OS X 10.3.9. Really. It may seem hard to believe, but it works fine. A few features are missing, but it is entirely usable. I applaud the Wiki developer team for maintaining backwards compatibility, and not cluttering Wiki with clever-dick new "features". Some day there may be a wholly new editing system, and I expect to be left behind, but for the moment I can still be useful. When that day comes, I will upgrade if I can, but I'll probably stick with what I've got till then.)
Rich Rostrom (Talk) 19:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- That would be User talk:PiRSquared17 with some help from a couple others. You can leave your comment at his talk page. --Izno (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Temporary undeletion of Template:Strloc prefix
Can someone undelete that template for a while? I can't import it on The Multilingual Encyclopedia because I can't view them. --stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 06:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe best to ask on WP:AN, if you don't get an answer here. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Done Processed at AN. — xaosflux Talk 02:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
How best to avoid argumentative editors/make the discussion more productive
Hello everyone,
I'm pretty new around here (as an editor at least!). I've had a bit of a crash course on Wikipedia guidelines regarding things like COI due to mistakenly editing a page for which I had a COI (now disclosed). Anyway this lead to me suggested another user discloses their COI and this spiralled into a massive argument that's lead to the user threatening to report me for harassment (I don't want to name names here I've already requested a Third opinion to help resolve the problem). I would like to apologise to the user for the perceived harassment but I'm worried that doing so will (in his eyes) count as harassment, so in this case what should I do? I don't want to be rude, or allow the guy to call me rude when it wasn't my intention. (apologies if this isn't the right place - I'm more looking for general guidance on Wikipedia conduct than anything else)
Cheers,
FraserJamesRobinson (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- If we knew the answer to your question, then we'd all be happier. It's hard. There are some pages in Category:Wikipedia essays that might be useful to you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- After editing a long time, I've decided that trying to stay unemotional yourself is the best course of action. Look up policy and guidelines and quote them as necessary to support your actions. If the issue is not an emergency, a day or two of reflection can also help ones insight. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Importing en.wiki revisions into de.wiki?
Not really sure what the appropriate venue for this question is, but: Does anybody know why history from English Wikipedia articles seem to be imported into German Wikipedia articles? For example, this de.wiki revision seems to show that history from en.wiki's article on Georgia Groome has been imported there, as do some of the preceding edits (example edit from de.wiki and corresponding en.wiki edit). I just don't see the point in doing something like that. CabbagePotato (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well, actually, it could be the right action. If you plan to translate all article, and you want to "show" source, then you put all revisions from original Wikipedia. That was short answer. Correct answer can be given by some user from (or familiar with) dewiki. But yes, when I first encountered this, I was a little bit surprised, why my colleagues are editing dewiki :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 10:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's considered a URV (copyright infringement) not to attribute all authors of the article in it. So the history has to be imported to get this right and make sure all authors of the article are properly mentioned in the history. The CC-license, that is used for the projects here, demands naming of the authors, so how could this be solved in anotrher way? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 11:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- They've been doing it for years. Most of my 400+ contribs at German Wikipedia are imports. My last two genuine contributions were 00:05, 16 July 2015 and 20:11, 15 July 2015 - you need to go back more than 100 edits from those, to 22:25, 27 February 2013, before you find the one before those, and I don't think that I've made more than about a dozen genuine edits altogether. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- I just realized that enwiki also imports revisions from other Wikipedias (after arriving at Wikipedia:Requests for page importation from Wikipedia:Translation). I think I understand why revisions are imported like that now. Thanks everyone for your help! CabbagePotato (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- They've been doing it for years. Most of my 400+ contribs at German Wikipedia are imports. My last two genuine contributions were 00:05, 16 July 2015 and 20:11, 15 July 2015 - you need to go back more than 100 edits from those, to 22:25, 27 February 2013, before you find the one before those, and I don't think that I've made more than about a dozen genuine edits altogether. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's considered a URV (copyright infringement) not to attribute all authors of the article in it. So the history has to be imported to get this right and make sure all authors of the article are properly mentioned in the history. The CC-license, that is used for the projects here, demands naming of the authors, so how could this be solved in anotrher way? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 11:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikimania 2016: call for posters, discussions and trainings
Hi people,
the calls for posters, discussions and trainings for Wikimania 2016 are officially opened, you can find all the relevant links on the conference wiki:
https://wikimania2016.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions
The calls will be closed on March 20.
Posters will be reviewed just to make sure that there aren't things which are too much out of scope. Since we have a whole village we will surely find places to attach them, even if we they will be a lot!
Discussions will be managed by a guiding committee who will work on the wiki to meld all the proposals and suggestions.
Trainings will be reviewed by the programme committee. Please note that we request that each training has at least 3-5 interested attendees in order to be put in the programme.
By the beginning of April we will have a first list of all the accepted proposals.
If you have questions we suggest you to ask them on the discussion pages on wiki, so that everyone will be able to see them (and their answers, of course).
We are looking forward to read your ideas! --Yiyi (Dimmi!) 13:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Ferdinand Marcos
Our article on ex-Philippines president Ferdinand Marcos had been relatively stable before 19:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC) but one prolific new editor has now made very many edits that other editors have characterised as 'whitewashing' Marcos' record.
Since this is a presidential election year in the Philippines and the only son of Ferdinand is currently a candidate for high office, it might be considered important that this article not become too unbalanced... BushelCandle (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Help me out on wikilinks & italics & possessives
I've had a wee skim through the MoS, but found no answers ... what's our position on wikilinking where there's a possessive apostrophe involved. Foobar's, or Foobar's?
Reason I ask is I came across this: The Huffington Post's in the article Leavin' (album), which looks particularly typographically crappy, but I guess this is as much to do with the decision to italicise the wikilink but not the possessive. Again, what should we be doing here? Extending the italics to cover the 's? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- This is regularly debated and consensus is never secured, Tagishsimon. Personally I prefer Foobar's per WP:LINKCLARITY (Wendy's is not the same thing as Wendy's, and it's good that the wikilink makes that distinction). I see no reason to extend the italics either. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding linking of the possessive 's, the most recent discussion about that at WT:Manual of Style/Linking is archived at WT:Manual of Style/Linking/Archive 18#Saxon genitive and piping. (That discussion was after a mass change by bot, so it was partly about whether the mass change should be reverted.) Personally, I prefer the possessive s to be linked just like the plural s, but (as I think is common) not italicised: The Huffington Post's. --Pipetricker (talk) 12:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello
Note that Ranginui Walker died on 29 february accordind to Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 06:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Looks like someone changed the date to the 29th, and then someone else reverted it to the 28th. I've started a talk page section to sort it out. Cheers, IagoQnsi (talk) 17:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I've made a couple of edit requests related to the Democratic primary for the 2016 U.S. Senate election in Ohio; specifically, I've made a very small request for the article on the election itself, and two slightly more substantial requests for candidates Ted Strickland and P.G. Sittenfeld. Given that the primary election is just fifteen days away, I think it is fairly important that the articles updated quickly, so that potential voters can get accurate information should they turn to Wikipedia. If someone could review those edit requests, I would really appreciate it. Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 17:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- @IagoQnsi: Wikipedia is not a noticeboard for political campaigns. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: I'm not trying to use Wikipedia as a noticeboard for political campaigns. I'm simply trying to add relevant information to some political articles. I did my best to write neutral content, and I adhered to the standard of making an edit request since I have a conflict of interest. I'm simply asking if someone could review my requests sooner rather than later, since the edit request backlog tends to get cleared somewhat slowly, and my contributions are time-sensitive. Cheers, IagoQnsi (talk) 21:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Pages about airlines' destinations
Why do people here create separate pages just for the destinations of an airline? Why don't they just list them under the "Destinations" section on the main page of the airline? The way I see it, these pages serve only one purpose: spiking the page count. Cédric wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery. 18:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Cedric tsan cantonais: Have you tried asking at WT:AVIATION? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Cedric tsan cantonais:They recommend creating a standalone article if there are more than 10 destinations. (Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Airlines). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Neutrality issue
I also posted on Wikipedia:Help desk. Hello everyone, I have no idea on how to deal with it, but the article Waldorf education poses a severe issue of neutrality, particularly with the section Reception, where you would expect some hindsight if any is needed, and which is a laudatory. I can see no trace on criticism of these schools, there is absolutely no mention of sectarism. A nice job has been done by POV-pushers so far. Please take care of it, I can deal with French-speakers, but I can't do much here. There is an overall problem with anthroposophy, with well-coordinated "cleaners". For the peculiar article I cited, I can provide you this secondary source which offers a good starting point. Be brave, English-speakers! Totodu74 (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Could someone take a close lok to what User:Hgilbert is doing on this kind of articles? He is one of the cleaner I mentionned, as you can see here, for example. I hope there is some motivated contributors here, or projects that care about this kind of issues. Thanks, Totodu74 (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- The source you cite above (Jelinek) is already referred to in the article, but-- in line with WP standards on preferring reviews to primary studies-- by citing a review article that summarizes it. This hopefully gives an objective picture of its most important contents. The entirety of the following quote from the article refers to exactly that study.
One study of the science curriculum compared a group of American Waldorf school students to American public school students on three different test variables.[1] Two tests measured verbal and non-verbal logical reasoning and the third was an international TIMMS test. The TIMMS test covered scientific understanding of magnetism. The researchers found that Waldorf school students scored higher than both the public school students and the national average on the TIMMS test while scoring the same as the public school students on the logical reasoning tests.[1] However when the logical reasoning tests measured students' understanding of part-to-whole relations, the Waldorf students also outperformed the public school students.[1] The authors of the study noted the Waldorf students' enthusiasm for science, but viewed the science curriculum as “somewhat old-fashioned and out of date, as well as including some doubtful scientific material.”[1] Educational researchers Phillip and Glenys Woods, who reviewed this study, criticized the authors' implication of an “unresolved conflict”: that it is possible for supposedly inaccurate science to lead to demonstrably better scientific understanding.[2]
References
- ^ a b c d Østergaard, Edvin; Dahlin, Bo; Hugo, Aksel (1 September 2008). "Doing phenomenology in science education: a research review". Studies in Science Education 44 (2): 93–121. doi:10.1080/03057260802264081.
- ^ Woods, Philip A.; Glenys J. Woods (2008). Alternative Education for the 21st Century Philosophies, Approaches, Visions. Palgrave. p. 219. ISBN 978-0-230-60276-2.
There are unresolved conflicts here, principally between a science education based on “inaccurate science” that leads to better scientific understanding.
-
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgilbert (talk • contribs) 16:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- You are not answering on the absence of any criticism section. This "education" was suspected of sectarism, proselytism, the lack of qualification of the teachers was pointed out, so were the "close" relationships of some teachers with students. The Reception section is presenting this "education" as the perfect one. I am not expecting any answer from you. You cleaned the article just as you did before; you have aready removed the sentences on vaccination previously (and I am not their writer). AGF, kiss my ass :) Totodu74 (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- From WP:Criticism: "separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article". Critiques are woven into the various sections and/or included in a general "Reception" section. Numerous times, editors have demanded more criticism without providing reliable sources not already represented in the article. Find these and add the relevant discussion! Blogs and other web commentary by people with no relevant credentials are not helpful, however. HGilbert (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- As far as the diff above: most of the information you had just added was simply a repetition of the information already included in the article (see above quote) and I merged this into the section that already covered this. I unfortunately did not notice that the new section which you added also included text about vaccination that had previously been in another section. It was not at all my intention to remove this, I have already apologized to you for doing so accidentally on my talk page, and emphasize again that this, being well-cited and well-founded critique, deserves its place in the article. Note that before your edit, that text had already been there for a long time with my approval. HGilbert (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- You are not answering on the absence of any criticism section. This "education" was suspected of sectarism, proselytism, the lack of qualification of the teachers was pointed out, so were the "close" relationships of some teachers with students. The Reception section is presenting this "education" as the perfect one. I am not expecting any answer from you. You cleaned the article just as you did before; you have aready removed the sentences on vaccination previously (and I am not their writer). AGF, kiss my ass :) Totodu74 (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgilbert (talk • contribs) 16:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I am not trying to debate on the article here, I just want to let the community know about the Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing ongoing here. Does anyone care? :) Totodu74 (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- The topic of Waldorf education is covered by discretionary sanctions under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education. User:Totodu74, if you think you see actual misbehavior you can ask any administrator how to follow up. But practically speaking, you are unlikely to get changes made to the article unless you can persuade others on the talk page that your new text belongs in the article. If you find yourself having nobody but User:Hgilbert to comment on your changes you can open a WP:Request for comment, use WP:DRN or read the other ideas in WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- This is a non-issue. Long-standing text was accidentally lost in the course of merging two sections on the same theme. It was an honest mistake and was quickly corrected by Totodu74. I apologized for the mistaken deletion immediately. There is no text under dispute and never was one. It never even required discussion on the talk page and there was absolutely no edit warring or any other reason to cast aspersions. HGilbert (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Inspire Campaign: Making our content more meaningful
The second Inspire Campaign has launched to encourage and support new ideas focusing on content review and curation in Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia volunteers collaboratively manage vast repositories of knowledge in our projects. What ideas do you have to manage that knowledge to make it more meaningful and accessible? We invite all Wikimedians to participate and submit ideas, so please get involved today! The campaign runs until March 28th.
All proposals are welcome - research projects, technical solutions, community organizing and outreach initiatives, or something completely new! Funding is available from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects that need financial support. Constructive, positive feedback on ideas is appreciated, and collaboration is encouraged - your skills and experience may help bring someone else’s project to life. Join us at the Inspire Campaign and help your project better represent the world’s knowledge! I JethroBT (WMF) 19:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Women's History Month, India-2016
Following the tradition(?) of the last two years that I had seen on Wikimedia, I created a page this year for Women's History Month 2016. However, I don't know where to take it from here, after creating the page. Any advice or suggestion? I posted this question on WikiWomen's Collaborative and they suggested me to ask this here. Ankitashukla (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Professor Carl Hewitt
Professor Carl Hewitt has posted a letter that he sent via registered US mail to the Wikimedia Foundation here.
A member of the Wikimedia Foundation suggested that I post a notice here when I discussed the matter with them after they presented a seminar at Stanford Law yesterday.171.66.208.134 (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- It appears to have been discussed on the talk page of his article - Talk:Carl_Hewitt/Archive_2. There seems to be something of a disagreement / feud between Hewitt and one Arthur Rubin, a wikipedia editor. Lord know what the rights & wrongs of it all are :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- Students became frustrated by censorship. So they asked Professor Hewitt to write a letter to Wikimedia Foundation. 45.33.51.219 (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- "Censorship", eh? Students probably need to read WP:COI, even if they think they have right on their side. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Since the students are in the Law School, they care more about process and procedure than whether Professor Hewitt is right. 4.15.127.211 (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- We live in hope that they read and follow WP:COI, whether their interest is process, proedure, or truth. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Possibly relevant: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 17:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- It's a lot easier to start a war on Wikipedia than to finish one :-( 50.247.81.99 (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- Professor Hewitt is a highly respected academic. For example, Professor JJ Meyer wrote an extremely favorable review of the book Hewitt co-edited Inconsistency Robustness. 45.33.51.219 (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- It looks like a couple of admins really have it in for Hewitt. Anybody know what's up? 50.0.72.133 (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Opinions vary. Some appear to think that Hewitt & supporters are seeking to promote the importance of his work beyond its merits. Others appear to think that "a couple of admins" et al are seeking to denigrate Hewitt and his work. At least two of the IPs who have engaged in this thread appear to have a singular interest in the Hewitt issue (which is to say, probably very little interest in Wikipedia beyond its use as a venue for Hewitt promotion and/or denigration.) I'm happy, 50.0.72.133, to assume in good faith that you don't know "what's up". I don't think we're going to clear up a sore that has festered for more than eight years on wikipedia in this thread. Still. Nice evening. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Instead of going around saying how awful Arthur Rubin is how about actually doing what is required in Wikipedia which is to provide secondary sources supporting what you are saying? There is a reason for the cartoon Wikipedian protestor. Dmcq (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- What is the Wikipedia policy on deleting Arthur Rubin's personally insulting comments about me?
- BTW, I completely agree with you about the need for editors to provide secondary sources. Carl (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Be aware of WP:Legal threats; using legal terminology can be a negative for you. If you believe the comments (instead) to have violated WP:NPA, then you can do one of the following (and you should start with the first item and work your way up): 1) Discuss the problem on his talk page; 2) see if he would go to dispute resolution; 3) broach the subject at WP:ANI; 4) for egregious issues, WP:ARBCOM is also appropriate. --Izno (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks! I have improved the wording above.
- The links that you provided are very helpful. It looks like the recommended course of action in this case is to just ignore the personal insults, e.g, the insinuation by User:Arthur Rubin that I am "Bozo the Clown". Carl (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Be aware of WP:Legal threats; using legal terminology can be a negative for you. If you believe the comments (instead) to have violated WP:NPA, then you can do one of the following (and you should start with the first item and work your way up): 1) Discuss the problem on his talk page; 2) see if he would go to dispute resolution; 3) broach the subject at WP:ANI; 4) for egregious issues, WP:ARBCOM is also appropriate. --Izno (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Instead of going around saying how awful Arthur Rubin is how about actually doing what is required in Wikipedia which is to provide secondary sources supporting what you are saying? There is a reason for the cartoon Wikipedian protestor. Dmcq (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- What I don't understand is why are the admins working so hard to keep a link to his homepage out the article on Hewitt. 50.242.100.195 (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Including an article subject's homepage can veer quite close to promotion, and as a primary source, is disfavored as opposed to secondary sources. So there's that. Dumuzid (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- I thought that there is a Wikipedia rule that the subject's homepage can be included as a link. 50.0.72.133 (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- You're right that there is WP:ELOFFICIAL, but like so much, it is subject to context. I don't know whether the link in question meets the two-prong test or was removed for some other reason. Dumuzid (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- In Actor model, the same admins have removed references to the most important published articles on the subject that are in the book Inconsistency Robustness. 50.0.72.133 (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- A lot depends on whether the links in dispute are being used as sources in the article (ie to support something stated in the actual text of the article), or merely being placed in an "External Links" section. Context matters, and the rules on what is, and is not, appropriate are different depending on context. Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- The standard reference for Actor model is in the book Inconsistency Robustness and is titled "Actor Model of Computation for Scalable Robust Information Systems." 45.33.51.219 (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- I just had a quick look at the history of all this and some people are just not able to drop a stick. If the article was just left alone it would be developed like any other. Anyway is [2] his personal page because all it says is that the site is undergoing scheduled maintenance. People are allowed to hang themselves as far as I'm concerned and that seems to be the purpose of most homepages for people who are as concerned about their biography or pet project or whatever as this, I see no particular reason not to stick a reference to his home page in the infobox. Dmcq (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- It says that his homepage is here, which is currently being maintained by him. I see no evidence that Professor Hewitt is now connected with http://carlhewitt.info/. Maybe http://carlhewitt.info/ is now a different Carl Hewitt? 4.15.127.211 (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- That seems okay to me, but what is the 'it' in 'It says that his homepage...'? thanks Dmcq (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Um just noticed the StandardIOT at the end of that page name so it seems to be a subject page for one thing he is working on rather than the official page of Carl Hewitt. I've found [3] which looks more like an official page but points to that page with the maintenance warning. Dmcq (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- The file that you linked to above does not seem to exist. Someone else seems to have the CarlHewitt URL on Google; so Professor Hewitt had to add a suffice to his URL. 45.33.34.186 (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
-
I encourage Dr. Hewitt to file a request with the Arbitration Committee to modify the sanctions that currently affect his ability to speak on his own behalf on Wikipedia. I believe that the committee might well be amendable to amending the previous arbitration case, which was originally decided in 2006 and, in my opinion, has outlived its usefulness. The page for filing requests is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment. Because the account User:CarlHewitt has been blocked, it may be necessary to obtain an unblock for the purposes of filing an appeal. Because I have not been an admin since January 2015, I am not able to block or unblock users. The arbitration committee may be contacted directly at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org to facilitate the appeal. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion Carl. I have created a new account in which I will only edit talk pages on articles in which I have a personal involvement. Further suggestions are greatly appreciated. Carl (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for the very welcome gesture. I think the new account will make communication much more straightforward. One of the fundamental challenges with IP addresses is the impossibility of determining who makes each edit, and whether it is the same person who made a previous edit. I strongly recommend using the new account to file an arbitration appeal before doing anything else. I am not an arbitrator, but I am confident the arbitrators will take an appeal very seriously, and will give it a full and good-faith consideration. Once that matter is put to rest, it should be possible to discuss actual article content without the shadow of the now-ancient arbitration remedy. I think that will open up a path for more productive discussions about article content. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Not really, thanks. The fact that someone - let us presume it is the Prof - has registered an account in that name is not of great moment so far as the article on the Prof is concerned. Suggestions for changes backed by pointers to reliable sources & left on the talk page of an article may result in some action. I'm fascinated: why does the Prof come with a cohort of IP outriders? Singular, and somewhat odd. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- It can be edited by autoconfirmed editors, the requirements are pretty light see WP:Protection policy#semi for details. Dmcq (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
Looks like they can't edit until it is unlocked. 107.1.187.90 (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Is the infobox at Planet Nine a disinfobox?
I've recently been asking other editors whether the infobox image at Planet Nine should be removed, and there is an ongoing discussion to that effect. Today I've been exploring the labyrinth looking for appropriate guidelines, and I've just been reading Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes. Basically, I'm starting to see the whole infobox as a sort of spoof. Though I'm certain that the editors have acted in good faith, what they have essentially done is create an infobox for a planet for an article about a hypothesis, if you catch my drift. Opinions are fairly polarized over there at the moment, so I'm loathed to add insult to injury by posting further criticism there. If anyone fancies casting an eye over it, please do. Regards, nagualdesign 15:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree with you and see no problem with the image. I feel there has been a bit of a Thomas Gradgrind movement about representations recently which wasn't the case in the past and I think the lead image at least should be given a little latitude. Following the argument that images always need to be informative is destructive as no user produced image should say anything more than is said in the text and therefore cannot be informative. Dmcq (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Row headers in tables
I first asked this question at the Teahouse but this may be a better place. Can anyone tell me if it's OK technically to use row headers in the right hand column of a table instead of the left, by using a "!" at the beginning of the cell which is to appear in the right hand column. In fact is it OK to put "!" to make any cell bold, or should we always use the 3 apostrophes Jodosma (talk) 08:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- For what logical purpose would you have or need a row header on the right? --Izno (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's the bolding I'm interested in. A lot of musical articles, for example Zhou Bichang have tables with a Track listing column on the right, where the heading, "Track listing", is bolded by using the apostrophes thus: |style="font-size: 85%;"|{{hidden|'''Track listing'''| but the same effect could be achieved by using !style="font-size: 85%;"|{{hidden|Track listing| instead, with a saving of 6 bytes for each occurance. Jodosma (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- It should be bold if its a header cell, e.g.
! scope="row" | Row header
. See Help:Table#Color; scope of parameters. — Dispenser 17:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC) - Header cell markup should not be used merely to boldface the content of a cell, it should only be used if the cell really is a header for the row. The correct semantic markup should be used, for accessibility if nothing else. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
RfC
See Talk:Bipolar disorder#RfC: Is the happy/sad mask in the infobox section appropriate? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Stats
Hello
I am looking for two informations;
- Most frequently updated pages: I am not looking for the most edited ever page. But at least one of the most edited. How much would that be ? Where can I find this info ?
- Page with the highest number of contributors ?
Thanks for any pointer. Anthere (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages with the most revisions (sort namespace=0 for articles only).
- Nothing pregenerated, but you need SQL query like (>1 hour to run:
SELECT page_title, COUNT(DISTINCT rev_user_text) AS "Users" FROM revision JOIN page ON page_id=rev_page WHERE page_namespace=0 GROUP BY rev_page ORDER BY Users DESC LIMIT 10;
- — Dispenser 17:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Forgot to thank you sorry Dispenser. I used the first link (very useful). The second option scared me :) Thanks Anthere (talk)
RFC - Jack Ruby's constitutional presumption of innocence
There is an RfC about Jack Ruby and his legal status at the time of his death. To observe or participate, please follow the link: Talk:Jack Ruby#RFC - Jack Ruby's constitutional presumption of innocence .
Richard27182 (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Donation of 760 historical bookbindings (National Library of the Netherlands)
If you're into nicely decorated books , this one might be for you:
Last month the National Library of the Netherlands (KB) donated a selection of 760 historical bookbindings (period 1100-1875, public domain) from its collection of 12.000 bookbindings to Wikimedia Commons.
The bindings range from sober ones in leather and parchment to richly decorated in textile, silver or tortoise shell. They give a small insight into how historical binding techniques were used and how successive decorative styles developed over time. In the details one can recognize the requests of patrons, the craftsmanship of the binders and the preferences of collectors.
The upload was facilitated by the GLAMWiki toolset for bulk uploads. --OlafJanssen (talk) 11:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
A small preview ('please put your cursor on an image to view the caption (in Dutch))
-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by OlafJanssen (talk • contribs) 11:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Great upload. But what should users of devices which do not use a cursor do? ;-) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Removing Persondata
I've seen multiple IP editors (not sure if the same or different people) reverting removal of Persondata (by other people, and now one time by me) because "KasparBot will handle it". Does it actually cause any issue for the bot if it's removed? I'm not doing mass removals, just stumbled upon an article with one, and I verified to make sure it had nothing that's not already in Wikidata. There's nothing on WP:PDT that says we shouldn't remove them manually. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Nyuszika7H: it is not a problem at all to remove Persondata manually. The whole dataset was copied already in November to the migration tool. I'm going to add something to WP:PDT. -- T.seppelt (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- What if the bot removes it, and then Joe Random replaces it. Will the bot notice, and try again? I hope 3RR doesn't become a problem. David Brooks (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Persondata Verifiability
Out of curiosity, T.seppelt, if the data was copied off of WP more than 3 months ago what happens if the data (especially the sources for that data) were updated after that date? For example if a person dies or marries and changes names? In fact, is there any provision at all in Wikidata/Persondata for verifiability? Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 18:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- As I have repeatedly pointed out, the Wikidata community decided against the import of the remaining material from Persondata, for this an other reasons of quality and reliability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- As you have, multiple times, failed to point out, they decided against an automatic import. Our own community also agreed that there was some material worth salvaging--I can point you to the RFCs that say exactly that. --Izno (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- AIUI, the current suggestion is that facts which were in persondata are to be manually checked against sources, and whatever the source says is added to Wikidata. If that is done, then it is not an "import from persondata". If, however, they are manually copied, unchecked, then it is the kind of import which was decided against by the Wikidata community. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- As you have, multiple times, failed to point out, they decided against an automatic import. Our own community also agreed that there was some material worth salvaging--I can point you to the RFCs that say exactly that. --Izno (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
-
@Koala Tea Of Mercy: Yes, Wikidata has the concept of sources and verifiability; see d:Help:Sources. Kaspar (the tool) doesn't know anything about sources though--should it? It can't know what the sources are for most statements because most of the Persondata did not have "inline" sources in the context of the parameters. --Izno (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for that information Izno. I think my concern is with the integrity of the database. Perhaps not now but in time it seems to me that there will need to be some cleanup projects that retroactively analyze all BLP articles that were updated after the bulk copy (with "living" being applied as of the date of the copy, even/especially if no longer true). In the meantime it might be prudent to establish policies requiring sources for all modifications of the data after the semi-auto import is completed. Just some thoughts. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 03:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Help in fixing invalid ISSN codes
Recently a bot searched for invalid ISSN codes. There were several and listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia/ISSN errors. Please help in fixing them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- What should be done about Where (magazine) where there are multiple ISSN's? Infobox's issn field only seems to allow one number. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 13:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Brightgalrs I just removed the fields. They do not apply in this case. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Makes sense, thanks. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 13:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Brightgalrs I just removed the fields. They do not apply in this case. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The Catalan WP
The Catalan Wikipedia's articles amount reached 500,000. Congratulations to all its contributors for both its high quantity and quality! And now, the Persian WP is going ahead just behind Catalan, as the 18th WP from the articles number point of view, with +485,000 articles. :) Hamid Hassani (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Identification
There is a case of mistaken identity here: two copies of the same photograph, File:Arthur Godley in later life.jpg and File:Thomas Spring Rice, 2nd Baron Monteagle of Brandon.jpg, were uploaded as if they were portraits of two different people. Is it possible to find who is the actual sitter?--The Traditionalist (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- The images are sourced from oxforddnb.com and npg.org.uk. Would you be up for contacting them? They can probably sort out which one is wrong, and getting it fixed here&there is better than just fixing it here. Alsee (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Alsee: I will do this.--The Traditionalist (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Awaken the Dragon Edit-a-thon/Contest
Hi, can I interest anybody in contributing to a national edit-a-thon/contest for Wales in April, Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon. You can win up to £200 worth of Amazon vouchers and books of your choice for entering the contest. The idea is that Amazon vouchers and books can then be used by people to buy/have discount off more books and produce more articles for wikipedia. The scoreboard will be kept here. However, if contests and prize aren't your cup of tea you're very welcome to participate in the edit-athon throughout the month. Everything will count and be added to a list at the bottom. We have a number of missing listed buildings identified and a core list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon/Core articles. Already we have about 30 people interested but it would be great to see more get involved and producing content and really show what can be achieved in a month.The point of it is getting some of the core articles up to decent status and an overall improvement in quality. So if you generally work on military history or trains or whatever and you spot something which might interest you please consider working on it within the next six weeks! There is also a physical edit-athon at the National Library of Wales on April 22, see this for details.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
750,000 edit milestone
I've just recently passed 750,000 edits (on English Wikipedia, of course). The party will be at User:BD2412/Edit milestones. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Open call for Individual Engagement Grants
Hey folks! The Individual Engagement Grants (IEG) program is accepting proposals from March 14th to April 12th to fund new tools, research, outreach efforts, and other experiments that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Whether you need a small or large amount of funds (up to $30,000 USD), IEGs can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.
- Submit a grant request or draft your proposal in IdeaLab
- Get help with your proposal in an upcoming Hangout session
- Learn from examples of completed Individual Engagement Grants
Also accepting candidates to join the IEG Committee through March 25th.
With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 23:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Remained lang links at local-wikis
Hi, there are many lang-links (interwikis) at local wikis which aren't removed. for finding them you should type insource:/\[\[xxx:/
(xxx is langlink like en,fr, de, fa,...) at local wiki search box like below:
- At en.wikipedia
- remained itwiki links 5,794 Pages
- remained frwiki links 9,654 Pages
- remained dewiki links 11,868 Pages
...
- At fr.wikipedia
- remained enwiki links 10,265 Pages
- remained itwiki links 1,786 Pages
- remained dewiki links 3,716 Pages
most of these local pages have interwiki-conflict and should be solved by human.
- for bot
if you have bot at local wiki, you can run this code to remove interwikis of without-conflict pages (you should bot-permission at wikidata and localwiki):
#This command will check and remove interwikis from en.wikipedia's pages which have fr: links
python pywikibot/pwb.py interwikidata -clean -langs:en -lang:en "-search:insource:/\[\[fr:/"
#Only categories
python pywikibot/pwb.py interwikidata -clean -langs:en -lang:en "-search:category:insource:/\[\[fr:/"
Yamaha5 (talk) 06:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Crowdfunding campaign for Rehman (update)
Hi everyone. I would like to update you with regards to this campaign (direct link) for one of our contributors, photographers, and administrators, User:Rehman. Since the campaign's launch about a month ago, we managed to raise $222; $1,378 short of the goal. At the current average of $27, the goal can be achieved if we're able to reach out to another 50 contributors. But our small contact circles are pretty much exhausted. Hence I think it is important, for the sake of the campaign's success, to ask for your support by sharing it with your contacts (on social media, mailing lists, talkpages, wherever). Thank you, Azeeztalk 15:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- In case it wasn't clear, they're trying to collect money to buy a better camera and computer for a long-time editor, who has uploaded hundreds of images to Commons, including diagrams like this one and photographs like this one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Isn't that what #Open call for Individual Engagement Grants is for? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Andy. It doesn't seem like it: "Projects should foster conditions that encourage editing by volunteers (e.g. editor recruitment campaigns), not replace volunteer action by funding someone to edit articles, upload photos, etc". Azeeztalk 13:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Your quotation seems to support, not refute, my hypothesis. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Andy. It doesn't seem like it: "Projects should foster conditions that encourage editing by volunteers (e.g. editor recruitment campaigns), not replace volunteer action by funding someone to edit articles, upload photos, etc". Azeeztalk 13:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
New Wikipedia Library Accounts Available Now (March 2016)
Hello Wikimedians!
The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for access to research materials from:
- Cambridge University Press - a major publisher of academic journals and e-books in a variety of subject areas. Access includes both Cambridge Journals Online and Cambridge Books. 25 accounts.
- Alexander Street Academic Video Online - a large academic video collection good for a wide range of subjects, including news programs (such as PBS and BBC), music and theatre, lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. 25 accounts.
- Baylor University Press - a publisher of academic e-books primarily in religious studies and the humanities. 50 accounts.
- Future Science Group - a publisher of medical, biotechnological and scientific research. 30 accounts.
- Annual Reviews - a publisher of review articles in the biomedical sciences. 100 accounts.
- Miramar Ship Index - an index to ships and their histories since the early 19th century. 30 accounts.
Non-English
- Noormags - Farsi-language aggregator of academic and professional journals and magazines. 30 accounts.
- Kotobna - Arabic-language ebook publishing platform. 20 accounts.
Expansions
- Gale - aggregator of newspapers, magazines and journals. 50 accounts.
- Elsevier ScienceDirect - an academic publishing company that publishes medical and scientific literature. 100 accounts.
Many other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page, including Project MUSE, De Gruyter, EBSCO, Newspapers.com and British Newspaper Archive. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 20:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
- This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.
Vandalism of the Sandbox
There is currently a lot of vandalism of the global sandbox. I think this is putting off a lot of new users when they stumble across the dick pics etc., any thoughts how to prevent it?--Laber□T 21:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Per discussions at WP:ANI, this is currently being sorted. It won't be possible to prevent all vandalism forever, but this spate is being sorted. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Just curious, would it be possible/reasonable to suppress all images added to the sandbox so that they don't display? -- The Voidwalker Discuss 21:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- We can use the edit filter to prevent the addition of images, particularly targeted at certain pages and certain classes of user. However new and unregistered users should be using the sandbox to test images, so if broadly applied it would not be without collateral. Built into the software, as this suggestion would have to be, it would not be ideal. However admins have all the tools available to deal with this stuff - just give them a poke. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Many new users copy and paste articles in there to look how they would display before actually saving them in the mainspace, if there are any images in the articles that would confuse them a lot...--Laber□T 08:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- One thing which can be done: Any image added to the sandbox inappropriately can be listed at MediaWiki:Bad image list - this would prevent anyone from adding the image to any unauthorized page, including the sandbox. I do see that several images were added recently. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Just curious, would it be possible/reasonable to suppress all images added to the sandbox so that they don't display? -- The Voidwalker Discuss 21:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Why do we need global sandboxes? Each user has a sandbox subpage. --NaBUru38 (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- They can be used by unregistered editors, and save on creating a mess everywhere. Also I like to think they can get people used to the principle of editing and having their stuff edited mercilessly. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Abdellah el-Ayachi and Abu Salim al-Ayyashi
Hello, I'm french and I need some help. I found two articles about the same travel writer : Abdellah el-Ayachi and Abu Salim al-Ayyashi . Can you fix it ? Thanks. HB (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- I redirected the small stub to the big stub (see Talk:Abu Salim al-Ayyashi). --Pipetricker (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Happy Nowruz!
Happy Nowruz ([nouˈɾuːz]), the Iranian New Year, to everyone who cares. :) Hamid Hassani (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
A random (probably silly) question that just came to my mind
I am just wondering what if, on one day some boring group of vandals, say, of significant numbers, collectively came to attack the website for whatever reason, blanking all the pages and replacing them with nonsense? This is of course very unlikely but it is not to say its definitely never going to happen. If it really does happen, is there anything we can do about--is there another means other than by one-by-one reverting the edits of 5.1 million articles?
Wishds (talk) 10:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- There have been large groups of vandals, but none of them have been able to cause a mess over 5.1 million articles. We have a few different anti-vandal bots, as well as some admins who actually have bots tracking some of the sites that are most likely to organize mass attacks. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Very quiet here
Activity on my watchlist has dropped off dramatically the last couple of weeks. Is it just random, or is there a more general reason? Spring break? Are there that many students here? — Gorthian (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Same on my watchlist. I was under the impression that it was a general downward trend for active editors. Rehman 14:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Perhaps we've finally got all of it right.
Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps we've finally got all of it right.
-
-
-
- Go get them, tiger! OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 20:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
If your watchlist seems unusually quiet, you may want to check your preferences to see whether pages that were mostly recently (NB: not "only") edited by a bot are being hidden. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
RfC: Safety section lede at Ford Pinto
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ford_Pinto#RfC: section lede of Safety section. The inclusion of content drawn from three commentators, including a long direct quote, in the lede of section Fuel system fires, recalls, and litigation of article Ford Pinto, is disputed. Please comment. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Dear Hugh, when inviting people to a request for discussion, please invite the respective WikiProjects, for example WikiProject Automobiles. Good luck! --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your suggestion. WikiProject Automobiles was notified on their project page via subscription at RfC launch, and at project talk the next day 12 March 2016, though the latter omits a link to the RfC or to the article talk page. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Media attention for edit conflicts at 3D printer project
See RepRap project
- Kiberd, Roisin (March 23, 2016). "The Brutal Edit War Over a 3D Printer's Wikipedia Page". Vice. Retrieved 23 March 2016.
- Grunewald, Scott J (Mar 17, 2016). "What The Heck is Happening Over on the RepRap Project’s Wikipedia Page?". 3DPrint.com. Retrieved 23 March 2016.
One perspective of the situation might be that Wikipedia editors delete content which is not backed by reliable sources. Another perspective could be that Wikipedia's editorial process is a matter of individual opinion with no clear rule set. Other participation would be useful as this situation is getting external media attention. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Only count mainspace edits for autoconfirmation
Would it be technically possible and culturally acceptable to only count edits in mainspace for autoconfirmation? A set of articles on my watchlist are constantly vandalized by a longterm vandal who regularly creates new accounts that make just enough edits in sandbox pages to bypass the semi-protection on his or her target articles. I know that it would be a bad idea to make such a significant change to address one editor especially when this is such an obviously flawed and partial attempt to address the problem but I'm curious if this change is feasible and desirable. ElKevbo (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- If it were possible, I'm not sure it would be helpful. Someone who is going through that much deliberate length to game the system would not find it hard to go through the extra step of making 10 quick trivial changes to an obscure main space article to get confirmation. That is, once some knows they have to get autoconfirmed to continue trolling, and they're already willing to do so, your additional barrier does not present any additional hindrance to discourage them. --Jayron32 16:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- It would probably do no harm to exclude little-watched pages, like sandboxes, from being counted - but mainspace-only should not be required; templete editing may be very helpful, for instance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Missing links in citations
During the course of my work here, I often come across citations where the author has an article on Wikipedia, but with no link to that article. Is there any work going on, to address this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well when an article comes up for a featured article review, I would request that such links be made. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks; I was thinking of something more systematic, for the other 99.999% of Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Horrendous article.
I have been reviewing the article on "Olga Bondareva" and I told encuenta this horribly, and contain a deep anti-Soviet bias. In addition, the article is deeply poor and skimp on glorious achievements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.100.10 (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- So fix it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't have obligation to contribute to your encyclopedia. To you get paid for it and is the work they chose, I do not force them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.115.170 (talk) 01:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps you might like to read the page I linked to, before you dismiss it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
phishing scam involving wikipedia
I have just received the following e-mail:
[copy of email removed]
-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petebutt (talk • contribs) 10:32, 26 March 2016
This mentions a Wikipedia article but is otherwise unconnected. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Using the wiki am on cell phone
A wiki pop off appeared when I tried to use wiki could not figure out how to remove or close so I remove wiki app from my phone thanks Craig — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B020:67F6:8592:DA94:16E9:AC90 (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Can somoene cleanup the talk page talk:Tymshare Super BASIC ? It doesn't seem to be meeting proper Wikipedia decorum. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
RFC: Related Pages extension
Moved to Wikipedia:Related Pages extension/RfC, with discussion on its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
correcting the birth date of a living person
I don't know how to correct the birth date of an actual living person. Louis Ferreira is listed on Wikipedia as having been born on February 20, 1967; however, an interview (posted both as audio and transcript) with the actor on his personal website at [1] reveals that he celebrated his 50th birthday this year, which would place his birth date on February 20, 1966. Since this goes into the "persondata" field I assume it's a little more complicated than just making the change and providing a reference. Could someone please point me in the right direction on how to correct this mistake? Thanks!! BczogallaBczogalla (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Persondata is deprecated, and should be removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't understand what that means. Where should I ask this question so someone can explain to me how to fix the problem?Bczogalla (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- The Help Desk would be the usual place, but since you're here... The 'Persondata' has been removed from the article.[4]. I wouldn't worry about it, unless you want to also change wikidata:Q714479. What needs to be changed is the Infobox data at the top of the article, and the date in the early life section. You'll need to add the reference to the date in the early life section. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- OK, so if I understand you correctly I just go ahead and make the correction the same way I would for any other factual error in an article? As in: make the change, add the reference, and save. Please holler if I've got that wrong. I'll go ahead and make the correction now. Thank you so much! Bczogalla (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- For future reference, articles have, at the side, a section of "interwiki" - whicj basically means links to the article on other Wikipedias. At the bottom, there's a label marked "Edit links"; follow that link to reach the relevant WikiData page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Sorry, I don't understand what that means. Where should I ask this question so someone can explain to me how to fix the problem?Bczogalla (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikimedia DC Book Grants
Hello all! I’m pleased to announce the second round of Wikimedia DC Book Grants, a pilot program in which we help provide editors with resources they need to improve Wikimedia projects. If you live in the United States and actively edit Wikimedia projects, you are eligible; you do not have to be a member of WMDC or edit English projects.
Applications are open for one week, from today through Monday, April 4. We expect to let people know by April 10 whether or not their grant request has been funded.
More information is available on the Wikimedia DC website.
Apply for a grant here!
Keilana (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Galaxy World of Alisa possible wiki-hoax, cleanup needed?
I'm not sure this is the best place to put this, but I collapsed this edit at RfC-talk as being off topic for that venue, but after some examination it does appear that the poster, while at the wrong venue, may have a point. There have been references to an alleged animated series from Russia, Galaxy World of Alisa, added by IP editors to over 200 articles, an effort which goes back months and has continued as late as this month. See this search. Google searches cannot find any direct references to the series and the references which can be found appear to be the same kind as added here, references slipped into pages about allegedly related subject matter. There do appear to be other genuine animated series about the same character Alisa Selezneva, but it may be significant that the Wikipedia-ru version of that character's page (via Google translate here) does not mention the Galaxy World series at all. Unless this is a truly obscure series, which would be hard to believe since the references put into the articles here refer to multi-country and multi-language versions (American English, British English, Hindi, Italian, Australian, and others), this smells like an Internet-wide spam or, more likely, hoax. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- I copy a section from Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 February 29:
Hello. Recently, while looking at Voice Over profiles, I keep seeing this thing called "Galaxy World of Alisa" on most pages. I don't know if I should believe you guys or not. When I looked it up, the only thing to exist is a video with the name "Alisa" on it, but it's totally unrelated! There's not even a page on here either!
I'm so frustrated over this! I want to know if it's just clickbait because I can't take this "Real or Fake" thing anymore! Any admin active right now, please respond as soon as you can so I can know all about this, thank you.
-From Anonymous Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:C800:E3F2:9965:DB7B:3DAA:9023 (talk) 18:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC) P.S, I'M THE SAME PERSON AS ANONYMOUS CONTRIBUTOR 73.194.46.93 WHO SENT THIS MESSAGE
Special:WhatLinksHere/Galaxy World of Alisa shows that it's linked by six articles. Google says that there are over three thousand pages containing the string <"Galaxy World of Alisa">, but when you search for <"Galaxy World of Alisa" -wikipedia> to remove Wikipedia hits, there are about two pages of results, all autogenerated, social media, or unattributed copies of Wikipedia articles. Some of the twenty-odd hits mention it as a current TV series — but how many current English-language TV series would get so few appearances online? I too question the reality of this subject. Nyttend (talk) 18:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
You will not be able to edit temporarily on 19 and 21 April 2016
The Wikimedia Foundation will be running a major test of its newest data center in Dallas in mid-April. This will make sure Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. They will switch all traffic to the new data center on Tuesday, 19 April. On Thursday, 21 April, they will switch back to the primary data center.
Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, you will be able to read, but you will not be able to edit at any wiki for a short period of time on those days. They apologize for this disruption, and they are working to minimize it in the future.
- You will not be able to edit for approximately 15 to 30 minutes on Tuesday, 19 April and Thursday, 21 April, starting at 14:00 UTC. (14:00 UTC is 16:00 CEST in Central Europe, 10:00 a.m. EDT, 07:00 a.m. PDT for the West Coast of Canada, Mexico, and the US.)
- If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.
You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. They will post any further changes on that schedule.
I have two requests:
- There will be more notifications about this. For example, the announcement at m:Tech/Server switch 2016 is being translated and will be posted to the 600+ pages in m:Distribution list/Global message delivery. During a recent test, we ran m:CentralNotice/Generic maintenance notice as a site banner on all wikis. But many editors won't see these. What is the best way to let an editor like you know about a planned service outage this?
- Would you please share this information? If you are active in another language, another project, a WikiProject, or another place that lets you get in touch with other editors easily, would you please let your colleagues know about this? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)