Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 63

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Village pump (miscellaneous) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80

Advice needed

I am not certain what to do. There have been several AFD nominations at List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters ending in no consensus, and I have serious concerns about whether the article in question isn't actually violating copyright law. I started a conversation at Talk:List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters#Is this list a copyright violation?. However, the AFDs and this conversation seem to be flooded with comments by editors who edit in this area and may be biased because they are fans. I am wanting to just get some neutral people over to this discussion to provide input or better yet experienced editors dealing with copyright concerns. I would feel a lot better knowing if I knew I was getting input from neutral people even if they disagree with me. How do I go about doing this?4meter4 (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I think perhaps going through WP:CP is a better way to deal with copyright concerns than WP:AFD, copyright experts work in the former area. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Maybe... I just don't want to be accused of forum shopping. It would be so much better if we just had some more neutral participants at that discussion.4meter4 (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
This is the forum shopping. You've been told by every other editor that the list is not a copyright violation. Why can you not accept that? oknazevad (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Dictators — what is going on???

First, I noticed Snooganssnoogans campaigning for "dictators" to be described as such. Then, I noticed a campaign for Mao Zedong to be labelled as a mass murderer. The proposed text links "mass killing of landlords" to the under-developed Chinese Land Reform page, where there has been an incredible amount of activity lately. Clearly, Wikipedia needs to detail the bad sides of historical figures, but it also needs to be encyclopedic and neutral. I also think there seems to be evidence of a concerted campaign, which is a bit concerning.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

If the consensus among RS is such, go with it. See, for example, the discussion about labeling Alex Jones as a conspiracy theorist, which was accepted as consensus due to the number of sources that describe him as such. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 02:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Asian Month 2019

Please help translate to other languages.

Wikipedia Asian Month is back! We wish you all the best of luck for the contest. The basic guidelines of the contest can be found on your local page of Wikipedia Asian Month. For more information, refer to our Meta page for organizers.

Looking forward to meet the next ambassadors for Wikipedia Asian Month 2019!

For additional support for organizing offline event, contact our international team on wiki or on email. We would appreciate the translation of this message in the local language by volunteer translators. Thank you!

Wikipedia Asian Month International Team.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The line between WP:ANIME and WP:TV

Recently there has been an upsurge of conflicts between WP:ANIME and WP:TV on how to handle Anime television series. Here is the history 1, 2and 3. The common subjects are presented below.

  • Is WP:ANIME a sub-project of WP:TVSHOW or is it its own project.
  • Should WP:MOSTV dictate WP:ANIME 100% of the time.
  • Should Episode list articles be converted into TV series articles just because there isn't an article dedicated to the anime.

The editors of WP:ANIME have agreed to open this discussion in WP:VILLAGE as the best place to find a solution.

ANIME's comments
  • Blue Pumpkin Pie: In my humble opinion, WP:MOSTV is a good foundation to start with and WP:ANIME follows the guideline 90% of the time, but I disagree that it should be followed with exact precision and deviation requires context. WP:TVSHOW sees anime as an independent piece of media that falls within their scope, however the editors of WP:ANIME views these two mediums synonymous and co-dependent for the majority of the time. The common reader who searches for One-Punch Man would most likely be searching for both the anime and the manga. This also helps WP:ANIME makes stronger articles and for that reason we do not split the anime away from the manga unless it's guaranteed to be a quality article. For this reason, I don't consider WP:ANIME a sub-project of WP:TVSHOW, because the anime can't always be divorced from the original manga and vice versa. Especially light novels as well.
In my humble opinion, i think WP:TVSHOW is too broad in scope to not allow exceptions or to look for room for change. It covers children's entertainment, young adult entertainment, adult entertainment, series broadcasted over Television and in streaming sites such as Netflix and Hulu. Each one has different audiences, coverage, and standards. In my humble opinion, to try to tackle all of these mediums the exact same way is counter-intuitive and unprofitable for a lack of a better word. WP:ANIME already follows 90% of WP:TV anyways. The rules dont change just because. They are altered for anime and manga for a good reason.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 06:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Knowledgekid87: I am in agreement that WP:MOSTV is very useful and should be followed, but not to the letter when it comes to anime. We allow for all media to be represented in an article with split off articles for things such as episodes. We have many FL listed episode lists that have a brief summary on the main page but are limited to lists of episodes due to excess information portrayed on the main page. My stance is that if it does not help the encyclopedia (Animewise) then it shouldn't be followed strictly by the broad book. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
AngusWOOF: (I'll also note that I'm involved in both WP:ANIME and WP:TVSHOW projects) I'll add that WP:ANIME also spans multiple media Wikiprojects such as Comics, Books, Films and video games. Assuming these are adaptations and not the originating series, those projects usually do not require a combined (book series) or (comics series) or (video game series) before spinning off a List of works, example: List of Star Wars books, List of Star Wars video games.
This is not to say that we shouldn't have (TV series), but blanket renaming of the lists to (TV series) is not going to be helpful when the list of episodes are going to be spun off after the (TV series) article is fully developed.
Bleach (TV series) was developed into a separate TV series article in 2013 despite having merge discussions with Bleach (manga). Even back then, the List of Bleach episodes stayed completely separate from that article. While the TV series article had a Series overview box, the list of individual episodes stayed on the List of episodes page.
One Piece (TV series) article was created and spun off since July 2019 without requiring List of One Piece episodes be renamed. That's a major series with 900+ episodes.
Naruto and Naruto Shippuden have enough on the TV series side to create their own standalone article, and you'll have to spin off the List of Naruto episodes after it's been developed afterwards so as not to spam/content fork the list of episode names in the TV series article. One-Punch Man is in a similar situation, now that it's got more than 2 seasons under its belt for TV, but there the TV series can incorporate the list of episodes with names.
Now suppose you have a TV series where there aren't that many episodes or had a "television special" got released directly to video (OVA). Those List of Episode articles should still be merged into the main article under the #Anime or #Television series section.
Bottom line is, that (TV series) articles can be created and populated without requiring merges or renames of List of Episodes. Some can be renamed, others should be redirected or merged. The resulting articles and redirects would satisfy both WikiProjects' MOS standards. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
TV's comments

The prominent members involved in the dispute are IJBall, Gonnym, Amaury, and AussieLegend. At this time of posting, they have not acknowledged this discussion and continue to respond here Talk:List of Toriko episodes#Requested move 26 October 2019. This statement will be revised once the respected members participate in this discussion.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

  • This discussion was started because of a requested move at Talk:List of Toriko episodes#Requested move 26 October 2019, which is the talk page of an episode list for a television program. Those who have commented above are members of WP:ANIME and believe that MOS:ANIME supercedes MOS:TV in all articles related to ANIME. This is clearly not the case. It is a situation where both parts of the MOS have to work together, MOS:ANIME for the anime aspects of the article and MOS:TV for the television aspects, just as the article also has to work with WP:V, WP:OR, MOS:ACCESS etc. The arguments by the above editors have been constantly WP:IDONTLIKEIT based and some of the editing has been disruptive. For example, one editor sectioned the article appropriately to demonstrate that it is already a main series article and so should be moved,[1] but today, Knowledgekid87 stripped a lot of content from the article.[2] When I removed a file that clearly should not be there per WP:NFLIST and which fails WP:NFCC#8,[3] Knowledgekid87 restored the image,[4] which is now at FFD (discussion). All of this seems to have been done to protect "their" article and stop it being moved to Toriko (TV series) per MOS:TV/WP:NCTV. I believe that this discussion is simply forum-shopping. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • How is this forum shopping when the central focus is the disputed WP:TVSHOW guideline as mentioned above? The only ones to bring up the move discussion so far are you and Pumpkin Pie (Pumpkin pie in passing and you in detail), and I really don't take kindly to you assuming bad faith. This was brought here before the community in response to a larger issue that has been ongoing with article renaming and how the guideline should apply. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:TVSHOW isn't really relevant to the discussion. Nobody has seriously discussed the notability of the article. It was mentioned in response to suggestions by anime editors that the TV series wasn't notable enough for a standalone article. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's much chance of that based on your rejection of every policy and guideline based argument at the RM discussion along with the persistent attempts to create problems where there are none. I'd actually prefer to concentrate on the RM, which is why I hadn't posted here earlier. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • So you are refusing to even address the concerns of other editors here? This is a place to gather a community consensus from outside groups, a local consensus would be a side chat on a talk-page. No... the only thing so far I have seen is complaints about the process here, and a refusal to address the arguments presented. How does status quo improve the encyclopedia? Can you get into content without going after the Anime Wikiproject? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I will just add myself to AussieLegend's and Gonnym's comments – they said everything that needed to be said, and I fully endorse their comments. This is clearly a case where a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS has developed, that is contrary to current guidelines, and there is no substantive reason that the existing guidelines can't just be easily followed in this case. This may result in needing to move a few anime articles from LoE titles to "(TV series)" disambiguated titles, but this hardly represents any kind of calamity. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
There's nearly 900 pages in the "Lists of anime episodes" category, and my quick inspection indicates that nearly all of them follow the practice of the manga/franchise page being the primary page for the anime adaptation. I don't mean to take a side with this comment, just noting the current state of affairs and the magnitude of the proposed change. — Goszei (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Any anime series that runs more than one or two seasons should have a dedicated LoE article – but in those cases there should be a "TV series" article as well, quite aside from the franchise page. For single-season TV series like Toriko, there should only be a "TV series" page (that includes the LoE table), and no separate LoE page. So my guess is that most of those 900 articles are actually for multi-season anime series, and that most of those probably already have separate "TV series" articles – those that don't need to have one created, as the proper procedure/format is: franchise → TV series → LoE article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
And just so we're clear, the last comment doesn't just apply to WP:TV, as has been implied here – it's also how MOS:FILM works. E.G. Star Wars (multimedia franchise) → List of Star Wars films & List of Star Wars television series → individual film & individual TV series articles → LoE articles (e.g. List of Star Wars: The Clone Wars episodes). This is the exact same format that WP:ANIME should be following with it's articles: franchise → manga & anime TV series articles → LoE articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@Goszei: - 900 you say? At this time the only proposed change is to move one page so that it conforms with MOS:TV, joining the other 47,000+ TV articles. Even if the proposal were to extend beyond one page, it's not something that needs to be done straight away. There's no need for anyone to make a mountain out of a molehill. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 1st fallacy: WP:ANIME is just local consensus.
  • Currently the editors involved in this discussion know how to create quality articles, and at least have experience in contributing articles to the point of I'm mostly from video games, and AngusWoof also contributes to WP:TV. WP:ANIME has their guidelines and they are just applying the guidelines that are provided. This is more of LOCAL PHILOSOPHY if it exists. Because the editors on WP:TV's side are opting for more articles regardless of quality, and WP:ANIME isn't OK with it (Not unless you hold yourself accountable for its quality)
  • 2nd Fallacy: WP:ANIME just wants to go against WP:TV's rules because WP:IDONTLIKEIT
  • There is no rule or guideline in WP:TV or WP:MOSTV or even in WP:MOSFILM that says our process is different. WP:TVSPLIT does not say that a list of episodes cannot be created unless the main article is a standalone TV series. It just says main article. Even though you are providing guidelines and some policies, you haven't proven how WP:ANIME is breaking them. They're just interpreted differently. This is a true example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But i do believe that WP:ANIME should have the freedom to make necessary adjustments to its own MOS and WP:TV should comply.
  • Misunderstanding: WP:ANIME creates franchise articles first before making the respected list.
  • I explained this in Gonnym's talk page in detail on how anime is part of a larger, and more interconnected industry as opposed to other forms of media. I want to clarify WP:ANIME does not create a franchise page first. The process is creating an article for the Original Japanese media as the primary topic and we expand the adaptations in the page until proven notable on their own. Production, Broadcast, and Reception is vital for WP:ANIME to split an article. IF we follow the principles of WP:CFORK, it shouldn't be an issue. Not even for WP:TV. This is my personal theory as why WP:ANIME isn't just anime, but manga, and light novels, and sometimes video games too.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Wow, so many incorrect statements from an experienced editor.
    • Because the editors on WP:TV's side are opting for more articles regardless of quality - Not TV editors, but en.wiki's own guidelines support WP:STUB. Feel free to to start an RfC on that and change it.
    • WP:ANIME isn't OK with it - since when was WP:ANIME exempt from WP:OWN? Please provide me a link to that discussion which resulted in a consensus to disregard an en.wiki policy.
    • There is no rule or guideline in WP:TV or WP:MOSTV or even in WP:MOSFILM that says our process is different. WP:TVSPLIT does not say that a list of episodes cannot be created unless the main article is a standalone TV series. It just says main article. - That is correct, if by that, you mean you choose to ignore the whole MoS which TVSPLIT is a small section from. Please re-read the MoS, especially WP:MOSTV#Parent, season, and episode article structure, which explains the article structure. Notice that the "parent article" should have all the sections listed.
    • But i do believe that WP:ANIME should have the freedom to make necessary adjustments to its own MOS and WP:TV should comply - to ignore a MoS guideline you need community consensus and not local consensus.
    • and we expand the adaptations in the page until proven notable on their own - just like the first point, ANIME is making up rules that contradict en.wiki. See WP:TVSHOW which clearly states Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television station. See again WP:OWN why you don't decide what has notability.
--Gonnym (talk) 07:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Because the editors on WP:TV's side are opting for more articles regardless of quality, and WP:ANIME isn't OK with it (Not unless you hold yourself accountable for its quality) - This is certainly not good faith and doesn't make sense. As explained at the RM discussion, moving the article doesn't change its quality. In fact the changes that IJBall made and which were later reverted improved the quality. There is a strange belief amongst the anime editors involved that moving an article somehow turns it into a stub. This has been addressed at length at the RM discussion.
  • There is no rule or guideline in WP:TV or WP:MOSTV or even in WP:MOSFILM that says our process is different. WP:TVSPLIT does not say that a list of episodes cannot be created unless the main article is a standalone TV series. - The anime project sees a franchise article as being the parent article for all elements of a franchise. Neither the TV or FILM projects do this. As explained at the RM discussion, in a reply to you,[5] I wrote WP:TVSPLIT, which is part of MOS:TV, says "When making the decision to split article content from the main page to a List of Episodes page, a season page, or an individual episode page, Wikipedia's guideline for splitting content should be taken into account." It doesn't suggest splitting from an LoE page to a main page, and doesn't have to because the practice followed is the same used for every other article (5 million+ IIRC) on Wikipedia. Initially a main article is created and then, when the article starts getting large, sub-articles like the LoE page and charcters articles are split out to new articles. It's not done the other way around as you seem to prefer.
  • WP:ANIME creates franchise articles first before making the respected list. - Nobody has said that. What has been repeatedly said by ANIME editors is that franchise articles are the parent articles to LoE pages, for example, that Toriko (a francise article) is the parent of List of Toriko episodes. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
@Gonnym: I recommend you read WP:STUB. WP:STUB is a guideline to help define what a stub is, it doesn't endorse their creation. In the first sentence of the guide, it says "A stub is an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. They are tolerated because they're an inevitability, i'm sure there are thousands of editors creating articles in good faith, but doesn't mean that stub articles should be created at the expense of lowering their quality. It really depends on the community whether they should be tolerated or endorsed. There are Wikiprojects that don't care about stubs, and there are Wikiprojects that make campaigns to remove stubs or reduce the numbers. Not every Wikiproject has the same philosophy but that doesn't mean they are against "en.wiki" or their guidelines. See meta:Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies for examples.
I've re-read WP:MOSTV#Parent, season, and episode article structure and i repeat that it does not explicitly state that it is required to have a standalone TV series article before having an episode list. The objective of the MOS section you provided is a guide to to help organize the content. Is it uncommon from anything outside anime and manga? Yes. I agree on that. But this is where context is everything.
We generally don't split the information from the manga because most readers search for both content at the same time. The industry and sources cover both of them and considers them synonymous.
@AussieLegend: "moving" is not the correct term for what you want. You want to re-purpose List of Toriko episodes into Toriko (TV series) because you believe that is what WP:MOS demands. A list is not the same as an article. They have different standards, assessments, and quality scale. So to say nothing changes is absolutely not true. The content doesn't change, the standards and assessment will. No MOS explicitly states what WP:ANIME is doing is incorrect or wrong.
The Japanese entertainment industry is far different from any "western" industry out there. Manga, anime, light novels, and sometimes video games are all supported by the same industry and are often co-dependent. Sources and secondary sources often cover both at the same time. There is a reason there aren't separate WikiProjects for manga and light novels. WP:ANIME has found it far more beneficial to create a single good-quality article first and have all lists link to it until there is enough content to split the article into its own quality article. For example, Resident Evil and Resident Evil (film series) are for the same franchise, but they are supported by two completely different industries and the sources covering each one are from different industries. This example is more common in western Films and TV series. For Anime/Manga/Light novels the majority of the secondary sources cover all of them and compare them. Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:STUB is a guideline to help define what a stub is, it doesn't endorse their creation. - Your responses are becoming sillier. The fact that WP:STUB talks about how to manage stubs is an endorsement of their existence. We have hundreds (thousands?) of stub templates. There is even an entire stub sorting project. Your attitude seems to be that if something is not explicitly stated then it's not true and that's not the case at all. Much of what we do on Wikipedia is not explicitly stated. There are policies and guidelines that guide how things are done. Use a bit of common sense. Anyway, this discussion about stubs is irrelevant and seems to have come about because you believe that if something is moved, its quality changes. This is also something that is not true.
I've re-read MOSTV#Parent, season, and episode article structure - I bet you haven't. Throughout the two discussions you keep getting terminology wrong. You've even called the TV project WP:TVSHOW, which it is not.
i repeat that it does not explicitly state that it is required to have a standalone TV series article before having an episode list. - Again, use a bit of common sense. Look at every TV series and see how the article heirachy exists. It's always main TV series article first and then sub-articles are split out from there. That's why WP:TVSPLIT says what it does, which I've already explained both here and at the RM discussion. MOS:TV assumes that editors can use some common sense when editing and not obstinately oppose everything that they don't agree with.
"moving" is not the correct term for what you want. You want to re-purpose - Moving is most definitely the correct term. That's why the discussion is titled "Requested move", not "Repurpose proposal". The heading was placed there by the template, not the RM proposer. When articles are moved it's called a move, whether you like it or not. Wikipedia doesn't have a "repurposing thing".
A list is not the same as an article. - True, and this version of the article is clearly not a list. Even as it stands now it's not a list, which is why the move has been proposed. The lede, for example, doesn't comply with MOS:LEAD.
So to say nothing changes is absolutely not true. - That's absolutely incorrect, as has already been explained at length every time you or the other anime editors have put forth some strange misconception.
No MOS explicitly states what WP:ANIME is doing is incorrect or wrong. - MOS:ANIME is not a law unto itself and cannot ignore other pats of the MOS. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and all projects have to work together.
The Japanese entertainment industry - This is not about the Japanese entertainment industry, it's about one requested move discussion that has gotten the noses of a small group of editors out of joint.
In all discussion to date, MOS:TV has been quoted numerous times. I have not seen the the same from MOS:ANIME. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
@Blue Pumpkin Pie: Please do not insert your reply into the middle of another editor's post as you did here. It is inappropriate as it confuses readers and misrepresents the comments by another editor, which is contrary to talk page guidelines. By all means restore the content, but do not edit my post to do so. Reply after this post and quote the text that you are replying to if necessary. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Aussie: Your responses are becoming sillier. The fact that WP:STUB talks about how to manage stubs is an endorsement of their existence. We have hundreds (thousands?) of stub templates. There is even an entire stub sorting project. Your attitude seems to be that if something is not explicitly stated then it's not true and that's not the case at all. Much of what we do on Wikipedia is not explicitly stated. There are policies and guidelines that guide how things are done. Use a bit of common sense. Anyway, this discussion about stubs is irrelevant and seems to have come about because you believe that if something is moved, its quality changes. This is also something that is not true.
Blue: Please remain civil. If you believe it is objectively incorrect, you may say so in a civilized manner. Stubs are by definition provided Un-encyclopedic. And Wikipedia is defined as a multilingual online encyclopedia. Thousands of new and old editors create thousands of stub articles every day. They can't be avoided. Wikipedia's efforts to track and organize stubs is not endorsement to create more stubs. Its to help manage them. The reason i brought this up is because i'm trying to convey to you and IJBall that WP:ANIME isn't violating any MOS or policies. What is actually happening is that a group of editors have a shared philosophy and it goes against another group of editors. Wikipedia doesn't condone or endorse either philosophy (yet).
Aussie: I bet you haven't. Throughout the two discussions you keep getting terminology wrong. You've even called the TV project WP:TVSHOW, which it is not.
Blue Your point has nothing to do with the discussion. Please set a better example by actually being civil.
Aussie: Again, use a bit of common sense. Look at every TV series and see how the article heirachy exists. It's always main TV series article first and then sub-articles are split out from there. That's why WP:TVSPLIT says what it does, which I've already explained both here and at the RM discussion. MOS:TV assumes that editors can use some common sense when editing and not obstinately oppose everything that they don't agree with.
Blue This is the first time you're advocating for common sense. To WP:ANIME, its sensible and practical for why there is a list of episodes but not an individual TV series article,it can be because the TV series isn't notable on its own, or the original media isn't notable on its own or the information is too redundant if split. Common sense requires context.
Aussie: Moving is most definitely the correct term. That's why the discussion is titled "Requested move", not "Repurpose proposal". The heading was placed there by the template, not the RM proposer. When articles are moved it's called a move, whether you like it or not. Wikipedia doesn't have a "repurposing thing".
Blue that's because moving is a simple name change. But not every name change creates the same outcome. You want a list to become an article. Thats the point i'm trying to say. WP:ANIME wants to avoid tampering with list articles and instead prefer creating the TV series article separately when theres substantial information.
Aussie That's absolutely incorrect, as has already been explained at length every time you or the other anime editors have put forth some strange misconception.
Blue May I remind you that "strange misconceptions" can be seen uncivilized too. List articles have different standards and different assessments. There is no such thing as a stub, start, C, or B-class for lists. Only list and featured list. Changing a list into an article will require it to be re-assessed and use different standards. So i dont understand why you claim this is "absolutely" incorrect.
Aussie MOS:ANIME is not a law unto itself and cannot ignore other pats of the MOS. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and all projects have to work together.
Blue your current statement has nothing to do with what you were responding to. No one has ever said WP:MOSANIME is law. No one is against the fact that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. All i'm saying is that WP:ANIME hasn't ignored any MOS guidelines. WP:ANIME has admitted they use the other MOS as a foundation. If you're going to quote me, make sure your reply correlates to what i'm saying.
Aussie The anime project sees a franchise article as being the parent article for all elements of a franchise. Neither the TV or FILM projects do this.
Blue I disagree with that statement. But even if this was true, there is a reason for it. And we're following with MOS, and we're getting better articles because of it. Why is it an issue?
Example text
Blue Yes i see the quote but i dont see the correlation or how it can be seen as a counterpoint. WP:ANIME follows the quote pressented. It just chose to make the main page the franchise page for good reasons.
Aussie It doesn't suggest splitting from an LoE page to a main page, and doesn't have to because the practice followed is the same used for every other article (5 million+ IIRC) on Wikipedia.
Blue We already established that WP:ANIME follows the MOS.
Aussie Initially a main article is created and then, when the article starts getting large, sub-articles like the LoE page and charcters articles are split out to new articles. It's not done the other way around as you seem to prefer.
Blue WP:ANIME follows the process.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Please remain civil. If you believe it is objectively incorrect, you may say so in a civilized manner - I have debunked a number of your arguments, even when you've said the same thing twice. As this has happened your responses have become less and less sensible. Stating that your responses are sillier is a statement of fact.
Stubs are by definition provided Un-encyclopedic. - That doesn't mean that stubs are not acceptable. This is an example of something that you've said more than once and which has been debunked more than once. as I said earlier, you have a strange misconception that moving a list article that is not a stub to a different name will turn it into a stub. That is sa silly belief.
Your point has nothing to do with the discussion - It's entirely relevant when you keep linking to the wrong thing. You clearly haven't read what you are linking to.
This is the first time you're advocating for common sense - And???? There's been a distinct lack of it demonstrated, especially what constitutes a main article. You believe that because something isn't explicitly stated then it's not a rule. To prove that this is incorrect I challenged you to find a single LoE page in the TV project that did not have a TV series article as the main/parent. You refused to do so, which doesn't bode well for your opinion. You'd rather keep your misconception alive than prove that you are wrong.
that's because moving is a simple name change. - That's an example of the above.
not every name change creates the same outcome - That's not at all relevant to your claim that a move is not a move but a repurposing, even when Wikipedia doesn't have repuposing "thing".
May I remind you that "strange misconceptions" can be seen uncivilized too. - From your latest post it seems that you intent raising the uncivilised card every time you can't rebut a particular point. That's a very poor tactic.
There is no such thing as a stub, start, C, or B-class for lists. - This repeated argument is completely irrelevant. Your claim is that moving a list will turn it into a stub and it clearly will not.
Changing a list into an article will require it to be re-assessed and use different standards. So i dont understand why you claim this is "absolutely" incorrect. - It's absolutely incorrect to claim that moving List of Toriko episodes to Toriko (TV series) will turn it into a stub. As has been explained to you multiple times, it will be at least "start" class based on the assessment criteria.
your current statement has nothing to do with what you were responding to - actually it does. MOS:ANIME seems to think it can structure articles whichever way it wants without regard for an established process that is even linked to at MOS:AM#Scope just because MOS:TV doesn't go into intricate detail about how articles should be created. Again, I chellenged you to find this for yourself and you refused to look for articles or to read the MOS.
All i'm saying is that WP:ANIME hasn't ignored any MOS guidelines. - WP:ANIME has ignored the way that articles are normally created on Wikipedia, not just by the TV project but by every project.
I disagree with that statement. - Disagree all you want but anime editors have repeatedly said that the franchise article is the parent for the Toriko LoE page.
Yes i see the quote but i dont see the correlation or how it can be seen as a counterpoint. WP:ANIME follows the quote pressented. - without following the way that all TV articles are created, where the parent article is the main series article. You clearly haven't read the MOS, only the parts of it that suit your point of view.
WP:ANIME follows the MOS. - You claim to follow the MOS but you do not, as the Toriko LoE page demonstrates.
As I said at WT:TV, I really don't think this discussion is going anywhere and your post, restating what has been countered multiple times, convinces me that is true. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Help requested on drive page

Hello, I have created the NHLtoGA Drive which focuses on bringing all current NHL teams to Good Article status. Any tips on how I can improve the page, promote the drive, and be successful? Any tools I could use? Also, should I move it to WikiProject/Wikipedia space when I finish the page? Thank you. AmericanAir88(talk) 19:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Introductions too long for mobile users

Hello
I came across this edit recently (I've discussed it with the OP already): It raises an interesting point, ie. whether the length of the introduction in some articles are too long for mobile phone users. If so, it is going to be a problem across the project. Has this issue been raised and discussed already somewhere? ( I couldn't see anything in the archive, but that doesn't mean much...)I know we have a size rule, which was possibly more relevant when computers had less capacity; is it time to re-visit that principle? Any thoughts? Xyl 54 (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Helping readers is one thing, but helping people who don't want to actually read anything is not our problem. Google already provides a condensed version. WP:LEAD is the relevant guideline. Johnuniq (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Agreed - in fact many more leads are too short than too long. Editors should realize that the majority of readers never get beyond the lead, and don't finish long ones. Far too many seem to think readers dutifully read every word they write - they don't. Johnbod (talk) 22:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you (both) for replying. I'm not sure what you mean: The edit in question just split the introduction into a lead sentence and an outline section (which could be an elegant solution). I'm raising the issue because it does conflict with MOS:LEAD. And I'm asking if there's anyone already looking at problems mobile users may have; is there? Also, what is the condensed version you mentioned; I'm not familiar with it. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
It isn't elegant at at all - it reduced the lead to a single sentence, which isn't enough. If you just want that, stay on google. Johnbod (talk) 06:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
@Johnuniq:: So, what is this condensed version provided by google you've mentioned? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't think we should overly cater to mobile at the expense of desktop. WP:LEDE has pretty good explanations of what the size of the lede should be relative to the article, and I would think that on mobile, the lede should sufficiently summarize the article without having to expand any sections. The lede is NOT the same as a brief definition or explanation, which is what that change looks like. --Masem (t) 22:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

That's not to say that there aren't leads that are too long, there certainly are. Any article tagged with {{lead too long}} will be included at Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup. Helping out there may be the the best way to address the OP's concern. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Publications query

Please look at my query about two Australian arts publications with similar names, and make suggestions on how they should be handled in Wikipedia. Bjenks (talk) 09:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

British only or wider definition for Built-up area (Highway Code)?

Built-up area has two very different meanings: one road related, and another one for things not related to the road.

The road related legal concept of Built-up area exists in countries members of the Vienna convention, including the United Kingdom. The road related concept of Built-up area also exists in non member countries, such as Ireland, South Africa, and Australia.

The Vienna convention provides a standard definition of road related concept of Built-up area but allows member nations to implement alternative definitions of it. UK (member), and Australia and Ireland (non members) use alternative definitions.

It looks like nowadays, within Built-up area (also named within urban area) is used for speed limit (for instance in Speed limits by country (column within town (wikipedia dialect for within Built-up area))), when previously (1968 convention) Built-up area was more focused on lightings.

Thus, I was wondering if Built-up area (Highway Code) should exclude non British countries, or deal with that concept only for United-Kingdom?

Please, talk it on Talk:Built-up_area_(Highway_Code)#British_Built-up_area_(Highway_Code)_vs_European_Built-up_area_(Highway_Code) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.208.32 (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment - 1 November 2019 - Is WP:ANIME subordinate to other projects?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Interconnected, not subordinate It's WP:SNOWing, the only dissent comes from three editors affiliated with WP:TV. I'd encourage the editors on both sides to review WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Anomie⚔ 15:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Is WP:ANIME subordinate to WP:TV, WP:FILM and WP:COMICS, and therefore should comply with the guidelines of the parent projects? --AussieLegend (✉) 14:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

IJBall, the naming conventions issue was already settled. Are you asking to bring that up again for RFC? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
No, I'm saying I want WP:ANIME to actually follow the proper naming conventions. The WP:RM that spawned this RfC, and One Piece (anime), are two prime examples where WP:ANIME is still not following that RfC result. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
That's a non-issue. I'm sure a bold move to One Piece (TV series) wont cause any problems with any editor.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Not subordinate - interconnected. That said, interconnected guidelines should not conflict... and if one gets out of sync with the others, it needs to be amended to bring it back in sync. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. WP:ANIME is a valid group, but it is more of a multi-project task force than a high-level WikiProject. Their MoS, while created in good-faith, is sadly an example of WP:CFORK. Almost (if not all) of their content is already covered by one of the 3 top-level WikiProjects AussieLegend has mentioned in the RfC question - TV, Film and Comics. Anything else is probably found in other related guidelines, and anything missing should be added to those guidelines. Forking those guidelines to create an Anime one has caused a lot of issues. When discussing guidelines and WikiProjects, one should remember that a more specific topic should not contradict the more general one. For example, WP:TVSHOW should supplement WP:NOTABILITY and not contradict it. This however has not been the case with the WP:ANIME project, as they have argued that they an anime TV series has different standards of notability. The same has happened with article structure (which don't follow MOS:TV), and naming conventions (while their MoS does follow, common practice does not; see also this, and this). Hopefully this RfC will help integrate Anime into the wider editorial community. --Gonnym (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The Question in the RfC presented is misleading. WP:ANIME doesn't break any of the MOS rules of WP:TV and WP:FILM or even WP:COMIC. The reason why this RfC is happening is because WP:ANIME structures their articles hierarchy differently (but still within WP:MOSTV and WP:MOSFILM guidelines).
WP:ANIME's process is to create article for the original media as the primary topic and continue to add information such as adaptations and supplementary media. To prevent making redundant, and low-quality articles, instead of spinning out an entire subject for a single media, WP:ANIME just spins out the lists portions and keep the original article as the main topic for size reasons. For example: Rising of the Shield Hero original media is the light novel with manga and anime adaptation. it has List of volumes and List of The Rising of the Shield Hero episodes. Making a Rising of the Shield Hero (anime)^ or Rising of the Shield Hero (manga)^ will make lower quality articles, and redundant information. WP:ANIME decides to keep them together until substantial information is found and they can be split. WP:ANIME isn't against TV series articles altogether. Here are example of anime adaptations that were spunned out from the original media: Fullmetal Alchemist (TV series), Sailor Moon (TV series), Bleach (TV series), and Dragon Ball (TV series) and Dragon Ball Z.
What AussieLegend, IJBall and Gonnym want to achieve by this RfC is to do a mass campaign to re-purpose List of Episodes into TV series articles for those that don't have a TV series article and only a "franchise" article. And they want to achieve this regardless of how low quality and redundant it is to the original main article it was attached to. The reason why i'm voting No is because WP:ANIME is more than just a different type of comic, TV series, and movie. All three are part of a unified industry in Japan. The primary, secondary, and tertiary sources all recognize this industry with manga and anime at the top of the pyramid. English Television, Films, and Comics although make adaptations they're not unified like Anime/Manga's industry. I also believe this will do more harm than good.
These three editors believe if the RfC goes in their favor, then that means these editors now have the consensus they need to make the changes they desire. Nothing in the RfC suggest anything substantial or specific of what they actually want to achieve. Just because i voted No doesn't mean these editors can't tackle this issue directly or be more specific with the RfC. It doesn't change the fact that WP:ANIME is still following MOS guidelines of their respected Wikiprojects too.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
WP:ANIME doesn't break any of the MOS rules of WP:TV and WP:FILM or even WP:COMIC - Your continuing insistence on repeating your false claims (and I'm saying this very gently) is really annoying. You've been shown numerous guidelines, talk discussions and actual links to specific instances where ANIME's practice goes against both MoS and naming conventions. Saying otherwise does not make it true.
Making a Rising of the Shield Hero (anime)^ or Rising of the Shield Hero (manga)^ will make lower quality articles, and redundant information. - Even in your examples you are oblivious to correct naming conventions. "(anime)" should not be used as disambiguation. I've even linked to the RfC one comment above yours.
WP:ANIME decides to keep them together until substantial information is found and they can be split - Wow. Again with your WP:OWNERSHIP claims.
And they want to achieve this regardless of how low quality and redundant it is to the original main article it was attached to - You are again ignorant to the actual facts. The current and bad examples of the List of episodes articles are in essence the TV series article, whether you admit it or not. They are also, in their current state, not high quality or good articles. Some also have redirects from the base name. Changing their name via WP:RM does not change that fact. Ni ether does re-purposing those articles as the actual main TV series article create bad articles. On the contrary, now instead of a incorrectly named, disorganized TV series article, you have the an actual TV series article. --Gonnym (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Your continuing insistence on repeating your false claims (and I'm saying this very gently) is really annoying. You've been shown numerous guidelines, talk discussions and actual links to specific instances where ANIME's practice goes against both MoS and naming conventions. Saying otherwise does not make it true. All you have to do is quote an actual MOS that explicitly states "Episode lists can only be spun out from standalone TV series articles and not any other type of article". As of now, WP:MOSTV only clarifies it an be done from the main article. There is no MOS that says the franchise article can cover the TV series either.
Even in your examples you are oblivious to correct naming conventions. "(anime)" should not be used as disambiguation. I've even linked to the RfC one comment above yours. Comment disregarded due to incivility. moving onto next statement.
You are again ignorant to the actual facts. The current and bad examples of the List of episodes articles are in essence the TV series article, whether you admit it or not. No. i'm not ignorant to Facts. I'm only seeing personal opinions and personal interpretations from you. But WP:ANIME objectively did not go against any MOS. Even then, i rather use Common sense argument than Policy is law.
On the contrary, now instead of a incorrectly named, disorganized TV series article, you have the an actual TV series article. First time i hear you make this claim. But i think this is up to personal interpretation and opinion. If you say its a bad list and needs to be formatted to be a better list. Then i can understand. But trying to say a list is a incorrectly named, disorganized TV series article? I'm sorry, but you haven't given me enough time to accept an idea. To me, this is a stretch of an idea.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I forgot about WP:BIO as well, of course. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Interconnected, not subordinate. Quite frankly, this whole thing is mountain made out of a mole hill. Calidum 17:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Not subordinate - interconnected - Just because they cover similar ground does not automatically make one subordinate. WikiProjects shouldn’t be subordinate to one another unless created that way by design. If there is any debate when you even have to ask the question, then the answer is no. (Full disclosure - I was notified of this discussion, but the person did not notify me of their stance prior, and I formulated this response before reading their stance.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Not subordinate - interconnected: seconding off AngusWOOF's reasoning. Spinning off longer series into their own article is nice but it risks creating lower quality articles for short-running series. lullabying (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Interconnected, not subordinate per AngusWOOF and Sergecross73. I would be interested in what prompted AussieLegend to make this RfC (links to previous discussions, etc.). In some ways, WP:ANIME has a far broader scope than WP:TV, WP:FILM, or WP:COMICS, covering content even beyond those three. If anything, it's subordinate to WP:JAPAN since everything within its scope would also fall under WP:JAPAN, and it already works well with WP:JAPAN. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Interconnected, not subordinate. per above arguments raised by AngusWOOF, Sergecross73, and Nihonjoe. I would further argue that WP:ANIME's very existence reflects the fact that anime/manga topics often reflect a distinct union of the above-mentioned media categories, demanding a different treatment of hierarchy and structure than outlined by those overlapping WP's. — Goszei (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Except that you are using viewpoint this as a license to ignore all of the other WP's MOS's, which is not what the other editors are saying. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
No MOS is being ignored. All MOS are being considered. At the moment the way WP:ANIME operates, it does not systematically go against WP:MOSTV. Its just a small faction of WP:TV who have their own personal philosophy on how an article should look like and desperately trying to attach it to an MOS. Please stop using MOS unless you find definitive proof that WP:ANIME breaking the MOS systematically.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
off-topic
Please stop attacking WP:TV editors. All of the editors you are attacking have had a lot more experience editing TV articles and articles in general than you've had in your time at Wikipedia. We all have extensive experience in creating and maintaining TV articles than you have in your time here. Your persistent attacks are disrespectful and bordering on being personal attacks. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
If my comment is a personal attack, then IJBall, Gonnym, and yourself are guilty of it for far longer. You don't get to push another editor around and use WP:CIVIL when you've pushed them too far and lost patience with you. it doesn't matter how long you've been here, i wont allow that again. If you want to give me that warning you better give it to IJBall aswell.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk)
Sorry for butting in, but what do you mean by "personal attacks"? He seems to just be disagreeing with you and other editors and disliking the route that this RFC is heading, but none of his comments seem to come anywhere near WP:NPA levels. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 18:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
No need to apologise, your participation in the discussion is more than welcome. At the RM discussion, in the discussion above this RfC and in the RfC itself he is constantly attacking TV editors and making the discussion a WP:ANIME vs WP:TV thing, when it is definitely not. While individual attacks may not strictly be personal attacks, the constant attacks are, at the very best, gross incivility to the point where they've crossed the line. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
The pot calling the kettle black @AussieLegend:. editors from WP:TV have done the same thing and were the first to be hostile, you can see in user talk:Gonnym. I also provided an olive branch afterwards. So bringing up the RM now is pointless.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 06:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Yet another uncivil comment. I don't know, nor do I care, what allegedly happened on someone's talk page. Looking at the RM discussion, which was my first involvement, the incivility started with your post which said "What you WP:TVSHOW editors fail to understand".[6] Regardless, someone being hostile to you is not an excuse to be hostile yourself. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Interconnected, not subordinate - As per Angus the scope of Anime and Manga goes beyond just WP:TV. I agree with Joe when he says if anything that the subordinate project would be WP:JAPAN. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Interconnected, not subordinate - As per above. Also, having read through most of the discussions all over the place in regards to this User:AussieLegend and the others appear to be set in stone on their opinion that WP:ANIME should be subordinate to the others and seem to be unable to accept that Anime, Manga, and Light Novels operate differently to western media and so need to be treated differently. There was also a discussion a few weeks ago in regards to the infobox used for TV Series vs the one used for anime series, which as far as I know ended without a consensus of any kind. During all of these discussions, it seemed like some users were unwilling to accept that people had different interpretations of the Manual of Style and other guidlines and that most of these can and do coexist.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 16:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Mu Project guidelines are quite weak per WP:BURO and WP:OWN. Each case should therefore be judged on its merits and our global policies are what matters. Anything less than a firm policy is too loosey-goosey to require formal treaties and borders between projects. Andrew D. (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Not subordinate - interconnected - I was requested to comment on this. To my understanding, the rationale is that WP:ANIME is interconnected with WP:JAPAN, WP:BOOKS, can also be interconnected with WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, and WP:VG. Netherzone (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The question asked in this RFC is unfortunate. Let's put together what's wrong with it: Is WP:ANIME subordinate to WP:TV, WP:FILM and WP:COMICS This question is irrelevant to the problem. The project is clearly distinct from the others and moreover has its own participating editors. should comply with the guidelines of the parent projects? This question is also irrelevant. Those guidelines are none of TV's, FILM's, ANIME's, COMIC's, or any other WikiProjects's. They presently live in the manual of style, which means they are Wikipedia's. If there is a display of ownership here, that's one of them. WikiProjects don't get to own guidelines. If we are actually interested in the question of the guidelines in play, the correct answer is generally "the more general guideline takes precedence". Now, however, the disputes in question seem to have been localized to certain !rules, and from that aspect I think this RFC is asking the wrong question. So all-around, close this RFC and start ones to clear the !rules up that are causing pain and misery. --Izno (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
    The question was specifically chosen after discussion at WT:TV and the RM that is languishing in limbo. It is entirely relevant to that discussion since it has been a factor in the discussion. Nobody is talking about ownership here, it's to do with which parts of the MOS should be followed since WP:ANIME editors seem to have their own interpretations of both MOS:ANIME and MOS:TV and where experienced editors have tried to explain how TV articles are created (per MOS:TV and general practice) these explanations have been outright rejected by WP:ANIME editors. For example, one editor claimed that because the MOS doesn't explicitly say that a TV series article is the main article for a TV series, then that doesn't have to be the case. I challenged the editor to find even one List of Episodes page out of 47,000+ where the main article was not a TV series article and he outright refused. WP:ANIME editors have even argued that MOS:TV should be rewritten to "improve it" (i.e. comply with what anime editors believe is right), ignoring the fact that MOS:TV, which is generally consistent with MOS:FILM, has to cater for many more articles than MOS:ANIME. The figures are about 47,000 TV, 134,000 film and 900 anime.
    the more general guideline takes precedence - I don't disagree with that at all. The problem is that anime editors don't seem to agree with you. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
    If you believe that the two guidelines do not line up or are contradictory, you need to fix the guidelines, not ask an irrelevant question. You asserting it is relevant does not make it so (and I've already told you why the question is irrelevant).
    Those editors are just as experienced as you. You do not need to comment on their persons. Period. The whole endeavor, WP:TV's involvement especially, whiffs of WP:BATTLEGROUND. It's "us versus them". Knock it off. If you are as experienced as you proclaim, you would have moved on to fixing the problematic guidelines, not duking it out.
    As I said, this RFC should be closed either in favor of the now-obvious consensus or closed because the question asked doesn't lead to a meaningful answer to the problem you are actually dealing with. --Izno (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
    If you believe that the two guidelines do not line up or are contradictory, you need to fix the guidelines - Again, this is not the issue. Despite what MOS:AM#Scope says, the anime editors don't seem to want to collaborate at all. MOS:TV has been updated in recent years after long discussions with many editors. While there may be some minor points that need fixing, specifically changing it to "mandate" that a TV series article and not a franchise article is the main article would likely be seen as instruction creep.
    Those editors are just as experienced as you. You do not need to comment on their persons. - Please read what I wrote: where experienced editors have tried to explain how TV articles are created (per MOS:TV and general practice) I was specifically talking about how editors experienced in TV articles, vs editors more experienced in anime aspects and less experienced in TV article aspects while talking about TV articles. This was not a criticism of their overall experience as you seem to think.
    you would have moved on to fixing the problematic guidelines - I don't think the guidelines are the problem though. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
    That's because no MOS tries to have that much control on the hierarchy of the articles. They're just a guideline to help write better articles.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
    I agree, however it's also because there is an assumption that editors will use common sense. When you look at the MOS and it doesn't say that a TV series article is the main article, common sense dictates that you either ask at the MOS' talk page or at the talk page of the associated project, or you look through several TV articles (up to 47,000+) to determine the convention and follow that, not say "be blowed with how everyone else does it, I'm going to do it this way!" --AussieLegend (✉) 16:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree that is an example of common sense. When you compare Anime articles to 47000+ other TV articles, it opens up the argument of what the differences are and why they're relevant. The crux of the matter is that there are group of editors have different shared philosophies. Some editors like you, IJBall, and Gonnym are more concerned about having more TV series despite the quality. Other editors dont want to make unnecessary splits and creating more low-quality articles to work on. I personally think WP:ANIME's philosophy creates more consistently better articles than WP:COMICS and WP:TV. They have more high-quality articles, but they don't have a consistent method to create GA more often.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
what the differences are and why they're relevant - As has been demonstrated to you several times, there is no difference in the examples we looked at in the RM.
Some editors like you, IJBall, and Gonnym are more concerned about having more TV series despite the quality. -That's completely disrespectful and it's complete garbage. Our intent is to ensure that all television articles to be consistent with each other. That's the main reason for having project MOSes.
Other editors dont want to make unnecessary splits and creating more low-quality articles to work on. - This is completely irrelevant. There were no splits necessary, that was the idea of some of the anime editors who suggested creating a separate TV series article when it wasn't at all necessary. As has also been explained to you repetedly, moving an article doesn't cause it to be of lower quality. In fact the article that IJBall demonstrated was of a higher quality LoE page. The number of times that it has been necessary to rebut the same silly claims is quite ridiculous. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not going to quote every sentence like before. I wasn't disrespectful, i said the truth. WP:ANIME does follow the MOS in question. The MOS doesn't control how the heirarchy and doesn't attempt to. The MOS is there to asssist editors on how the articles look like. When WP:ANIME does create dedicated TV series articles, it does follow the MOS. And if we want to use common sense debate in this discussion we have to acknowledge all of the points brought up. Several editors in this discussion already acknowledge Anime is a different medium that deserves to be treated different than the average English TV series. Multiple editors have also expressed that they don't want to create TV series articles if it means they are low-quality. What their standards are you have yet to ask. For me, if its not a B or GA class, there's no point. Some of you from WP:TV are satisfied with stubs and start class and openly defended them.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Aussie, you keep saying the move from a list of episodes page to a TV series page doesn't change the quality, and while you are right, it does change the criteria. A List could be good as a list that seperates the episodes when there become too many for the main franchise page to neatly hold, but as a TV series page, it is then classified as a stub and has far stricter criteria and would simply lead to duplication of infomation across the franchise and TV series page. Or worse, it would lead to the franchise page lessening in quality because a load of its content is removed to another page where it isn't nessisary, thus creating two articles of far lower quality. And why do we need soooo much consistancy between pages when it comes as a determent to other aritcles? Or Should all biography pages have all of the bio detials split into ten year segments even when it doesn't fit?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 22:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
while you are right, it does change the criteria - why does this even matter? Page moves occur all the time and nobody talks about the assessment process when it happens. It was demonstrated here that List of Toriko episodes is actually a TV series article mislabelled as a List of Episodes page.
as a TV series page, it is then classified as a stub - The anime editors keep saying this but that's not the case at all. As I've had to say far too many times, it would be at least start class based on the assessment criteria.
Or worse, it would lead to the franchise page lessening in quality because a load of its content is removed to another page - There is actually very little in the franchise page for that series anyway. Moving the article would not affect the franchise article.
why do we need soooo much consistancy between pages - Quite frankly, that's a silly question. Consistency is generally acknowledged to be a good thing. That's why we have the MOS, to guide editors in producing articles that are consistent.
Or Should all biography pages have all of the bio detials split into ten year segments even when it doesn't fit? - Nowhere does the MOS say that should happen. Consistency does not mean articles have to be identical. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The crux of the matter

  • If a question like this even comes up, it sounds like the guidelines used by projects are overly prescriptive (and of course the answer must then be "no"). WikiProjects are not hierarchical, and there is not the One True Way to do everything. Try to write good articles instead of enforcing more "consistency" than is appropriate. —Kusma (t·c) 22:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Actually, part of the problem here is that the guidelines aren't prescriptive enough. Because MOS:TV does not explicitly say that the main article for a television series should be a TV series article, WP:ANIME has decided that franchise articles are main articles. However, this is not the case for any of the 46,000+ TV programs that Wikipedia covers. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • This is not part of the problem, this is the core problem that you, Gonnym, and IJBall have. Its a conflict of philosophies, not guidelines. Despite this, i still recommend to use common sense. And in order to use common sense, we need context. What are the fundamental differences between Anime TV series and 46000+ TV programs you claim? I doubt that the 46000+ TV programs you mention are all part of multimedia franchises. Maybe 1000-1500 articles, but that is being generous. Here are other fundamental differences:
1) The average reader is looking for both anime and manga series.
2) The Japanese entertainment industry is co-dependent of each other and are created systematically. When the success of the original media rises, the industry demands an adaptation that is either a manga, anime, or light novel. 90% of the time Japanese franchises are made up of all three. Light novels have been trending this decade, but before it was mostly anime and manga. Unlike western franchises where it is not nearly a guarantee.
3) 90% of TV anime are adaptations are co-dependent to the manga or light novel.
4) 90% of the original media its adapting from is not notable on its own. This may be due to lack of reliable sources talking about it, or coverage.
5) If the original media is notable and can be a good-quality article on its own, the anime TV series may not be able to stand on its own as a good-quality article and is more beneficial to be left merged with the original media's page.
For all these reasons, it should be acceptable without question why WP:ANIME follows the current process.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 08:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
this is the core problem that you, Gonnym, and IJBall have - More incivility.
46000+ TV programs you claim - Actually, the number of TV series articles using {{Infobox television}} is 47,682 right now.[7] There may be some TV programs that don't use that infobox.
I doubt that the 46000+ TV programs you mention are all part of multimedia franchises. - They aren't, but that's not at all relevant. Whether or not they are part of a franchise, the TV series article is always the main article for a TV series, as already explained to you multiple times. Franchise articles are usually created later. For example, NCIS originally started with a single series. After other series were started, a franchise article was created to tie the franchise elements together but the individual series articles remain the main articles for each series. This is how it has always been done.
Maybe 1000-1500 articles - Where did you get that number from?
The Japanese entertainment industry - As has been explained to you previously, we're not talking about the Japanese entertainment industry.
For all these reasons, it should be acceptable without question why WP:ANIME follows the current process. - And yet it's not. Nothing you've written justifies stepping away from the article hierarchy that is standard for all TV programs. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't feel the need to respond anymore because i don't consider any of your points valid. I'm opting for common sense and common sense requires context. If you want to dismiss that context, its up to you and you are welcomed to do so. I presented my points and i trust other editors know the correct choice to make.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't feel the need to respond anymore because i don't consider any of your points valid. -- And therein lies the real problem. You constantly put forward unsupportable claims and irrelevancies and when they are debunked you either attack the other editor or ignore them while presenting no valid justification yourself. Case closed. --AussieLegend (✉)
Actually if you look above my comment, this is what you're doing. I've responded respectively and in detail in the past. you call it irrelevant, but other editors pointed out similar statements.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
"No, it wasn't me it was you" - That's essentially your argument. If you look at the RM, the discussion that immediately preceded this RfC and this RfC, your claim is not supportable. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes. that is my argument.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I feel like this should be shut now

The consensus here is that the projects are interconnected but not subordinate, and this has become more of just a shouting match between AussieLegend and Blue Pumpkin Pie which ultimately isn't going to lead anywhere as both users are set in there ways. So I think its time to close the Request for Comment. What does everyone else think?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 22:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I second this, a move discussion also closed recently with no consensus based on MOS:TV guidelines. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
It's not a case of being a shouting match. It's a case of having to rebut the same, often silly, claims (like moving an article will turn it into a stub) over and over because a couple of editors just don't get it. @Knowledgekid87: That's not how the RM closed. It was merely closed as no consensus. Neither MOS:ANIME or MOS:TV were mentioned in the closing comments. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
AussieLegend, you're blatantly forum shopping. If you notified WP:TV editors in the past for this discussion, why do you believe notifying them for WT:MOSTV#Article Heirarchy clarification? The majority of the editors disagree with treating the series the same. Why can't you just improve these articles yourself until there's enough information to create a good-quality article? Why do you believe your method is better?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Sigh. Suggesting changes to the MOS to improve guidance for editors is NOT forum shopping. You yourself argued that MOS:TV doesn't explicitly say that a TV series article is the main article for a TV series, even though that should be common sense since 47,000+ articles do exactly that. Obviously, if editors misunderstand the MOS and simple conventions then we need to look at helping them to avoid any confusion. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Actually I agree with Ditto51 on this that it needs to be shut down. However I will say that this has gotten way out of hand on both sides. We as editors should keep in mind why we edit and it isn't for ourselves it should be for our readers of Wikipedia. The whole RM and this discussion to me is pretty much about WP:TV vs WP:ANIME which it should not be. I advise everyone to take a step back and before proposing something like an RM first look at it through the eyes of a first time Wikipedia reader and see if it makes any common sense at all.
For example let's say a reader heard about Toriko from a group of friends that like anime and manga. This reader has no idea about anime and manga and is interested by what their friends have told him. This reader then takes to Google and searches for Toriko and sees our article in the #1 spot and clicks on it. Now this reader sees the links List of Toriko characters, List of Toriko chapters and List of Toriko episodes and decides not to click on them as the reader is afraid of potential spoilers. They read through the whole franchise article and feels they have a decent understanding of the franchise and feels its not for them.
Now let's rewind this example but first let's say the RM passed and List of Toriko episodes was renamed to Toriko (TV series). Begin example, first time reader searches for Toriko finds our franchise article at the #1 spot on Google clicks on it, avoids any list articles and sees List of Toriko characters and List of Toriko chapters however they see the link to Toriko (TV series). Now at this point our fresh, virgin Wikipedia reader will naturally (and using common sense) think this is an actual article and click on the link. However the reader will be upset to find that this is actually a full fledged list with the lead summarizing what he just read in the franchise article. The reader is upset and mad at Wikipedia and thinks the title was clickbait.
This is why I personally think in situations like this we shouldn't go renaming lists like List of Toriko episodes or List of Tokyo Ghoul episodes to Toriko (TV series) and Tokyo Ghoul (TV series) respectively. It should be common sense that the title reflect what the article is to avoid being perceived by casual and first time readers as misleading or clickbait names. If most of the article is a list then it should have list in the name. Unless someone is going to take the time and effort to reformat pages like List of Toriko chapters and List of Tokyo Ghoul episodes to match the style and formatting of articles like The Addams Family (1973 TV series) which is an article with an embedded list then they should keep their current names. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 05:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
The whole RM and this discussion to me is pretty much about WP:TV vs WP:ANIME which it should not be. - I completely agree and it was never meant that way. I won't go into too many specifics about what happened but the RM discussion was only ever meant to correct a problem with one article. The original discussion on this page was started by an editor who did not like the idea of moving the article and this RfC was started because no progress was being made. That the consensus is obviously that MOS:ANIME and MOS:TV are interconnected is fine with me. It demonstrates what has been said all along, i.e. that we have to collaborate. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Collaborate doesn't mean do things the same way though – it means work together to make the best pages possible, if that means doing a particular form of media differently, then that should be fine so long as the eventual articles are the best that they can be. Alucard 16 example pretty much sums up why people don't want to move the list of episode pages to TV series pages. And you call Blue's arguements silly and that you are sick of countering them. But I'm pretty sure Blue feels the same way about your Aussie. You are both just stating your points and refusing to budge so stop acting like you are above Blue because you are both doing the same thing, anyone who looks at this discussion can see that.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 21:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say or even suggest that collaborate means doing things the same way. Since the beginning the anime editors have refused attempts to collaborate. There was some discussion and apparently some animosity well before I ever got involved, which was this edit, yet I have been accused by those editors of being part of the earlier animosity even though I had no involvement. From my point of view, not being aware of the earlier issues, the first I saw was when Blue Pumpkin Pie's first response to me was What you WP:TVSHOW editors fail to understand. That's fairly aggressive and not at all conducive to collaboration but BPP has maintained that attitude from the beginning.
I'm pretty sure Blue feels the same way about your Aussie. - Maybe he does. The difference is that my responses have all been based on current practices and the MOS. BPP keeps restating silly things like moving an article will turn it into a stub when anyone can see that is not the case at all. He's done very little to actually help in this issue other than attempt to confuse the matter and he's even been called out in the past 24 hours for it at Talk:List of Toriko episodes. I can't say the same for the other anime editors. At least they now seem willing to collaborate. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Having looked at the Toriko page, I can see why you'd want to move that to a main TV series page because there is a lot of content on there that isn't indictive of a list (I haven't ever actually commented on this example spefically before, only in general based on my knowledge of anime pages I've seen, which didn't include the Toriko page). However, what you are arguing for at this point is an over arching change that would change some pages that are just a list of episodes where the main page is the franchise page, and in those cases it isn't benifical to seperate the pages, that is why people are so resistant to the blanket propsols to change the MOS to be overly controlling.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 09:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should The Signpost be mentioned at Template:Newsletters

There's a discussion going on at Template talk:Newsletters, please opine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

What's happening to the mobile app on Thursday?

I've started seeing the following message on the mobile site:

Get the Wikipedia app this Thursday for the quickest way to check a fact, get answers to your questions and information on places nearby. Downloading is easy on your phone and only takes a minute. It’s free and ad-free.

What's happening with the app on Thursday? Wouldn't that be helpful to say, or is this one of those clickbait things and it always gives a day a few days away? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 01:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ahecht: "it always gives a day a few days away?" - nothing quite that clever, it should have just said "Monday". Will be fixed for future test. Thanks! Seddon (WMF) (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Thursday... Monday... whatever... the question is: is something NEW being rolled out? What is the announcement referring to? Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like A/B testing, but I'll be sure to download on Thursday just in case... Mark Schierbecker (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Discrepancy in naming of Category:Sports team seasons categories and articles

I'm posting this here instead of at CfD / AfD because it is not (yet) a proposal to rename hundreds or thousands of categories or articles, but an inquiry as to whether this is a problem or not. Normally, we strive for consistency in category and article naming, but for sports team seasons, we seem to have two competing systems: "Year" "Team name" TEAM and "Year" "Team name" SEASON. But the parent category is always named "Team name seasons", and not "team name teams", which is confusing. Examples:

In Category:American football team seasons

but

All college football seasons (many, many articles) have "team" articles, not "season" articles.

In Category:Association football seasons by club (again, thousands of articles), everything seems to be in the format 2015–16 FC Banants season or 2019 Lansing Ignite FC season. The same goes for Category:Basketball seasons by club. Ice hockey college teams use the "season" format, but for most other college sports we get the "team" version, like 2016 Florida Gators women's gymnastics team.

Is there a need to make this consistent, or is there a good reason why some use "team" and some use "season", even if the parent categories always use "season" and never "team"? Fram (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

If I were trying to be most useful, I would create two master categories "Seasons by team" and "Seasons by year" and include both of them. That way someone doing research could find an easy list of both "all of the teams in this season" and "all of the seasons this team played" which are both valid and useful. --Jayron32 13:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop

Is there any better and/or more prominent way to highlight how neglected this page is to try and attract editors to help deal with the backlog of requests listed and archived? There are requests that are over a month old and have not been addressed. Bots seem to be regularly archiving unaddressed issues, which are then going unchanged and being missed entirely. The page does have a template indicating it has a backlog but for how neglected the page is this seems inefficient. Images and maps are important topics that need maintenance at a consistent rate. Helper201 (talk) 12:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Notification of RfC discussion on self-sourcing and WP:BLP at Talk:Sharyl Attkisson#RfC on self-sourcing

In order to bring in a fuller perspective, any Wikipedia editor or administrator is cordially invited to the RfC discussion proposed by administrator JzG on self-sourcing with respect to including the author's rebuttal, by way of his or her blog post, in response to negative information in a section of their article. Arguments for and against have made, including WP:BLP.

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 15:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Extra commas

Hi. Can someone please take a look at what is causing Category:Articles with unsourced statements from October 2,019 and Category:Articles with unsourced statements from November 2,019? I figured out that this edit by @Starship.paint caused one of the october issues, and this edit by @WisDom-UK caused the other, but for the life of me I cannot tell why, nor can I fix it. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Various numeric fields in infoboxes use the formatnum magic word on their value to insert commas in the numbers for display. When someone includes a maintenance tag in the field, though, it also inserts commas into the year in the category title. The usual solution is to put the {{citation needed}} into the field normally used to supply a reference for the data, rather than in the data field itself. I don't know what's the convention for {{Infobox airport}}, putting it in |stat1-header= or in |footnotes= somehow. You might see also Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 66#Strange categories due to {{fact}} tags. Anomie⚔ 12:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

IPA requests

Do we have a page, like Wikipedia:Graphics Lab, for requesting IPA transcriptions? There's nothing mentioned on Help:IPA. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe somewhere like Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics or a descendent project of it? --Jayron32 14:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Resolved ia Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. There's also {{Pronunciation needed}}, which categorizes the article under Category:Articles needing pronunciation - the latter has a backlog of almost 1,000 pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Resolved
 – Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Saya usulkan ini

Apakah halaman Manda mempunyai referensi terpercaya? Saya perhatikan tulisannya penuh ngaco dan ngasal. Saya minta halaman Manda dihapus karena isinya mengandung iklan dan penyesatan serta informasinya tidak sepenuhnya akurat Terima kasih. --Untuk Indonesia (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

If you are talking about Manda, which is a disambiguation page, I cannot see any nonsense or advertising there. @Untuk Indonesia: are you sure you have the right Wikipedia or page? Please give us a link to the problem page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Mergers and deletions

I had suggested a merge of the article Radagast in August. However, before there was any resolution of that, the article was sent to AfD which has been closed as "Keep". Does that mean it is impossible to start a new merger discussion?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

A new merge discussion is allowed. Blueboar (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Jack Upland, Yes, remember "merge" is just a variant on "keep." Also, remember consensus can change. Merger discussions are usually better outside of AfD anyway. Doug Mehus T·C 13:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice!--Jack Upland (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Voting!

{{User:JzG/I Voted ACE19}} puts a badge on your user or talk page, Please feel free to use and improve! Guy (help!) 18:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

JzG, Do you want us to substitute or transclude it? Doug Mehus T·C 19:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Happy whichever. Subst, transclude, copy, mashup. Just spread the word: voting is good. Guy (help!) 19:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Now also available as a topicon! rchard2scout (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

By coincidence, I have created {{Voted}} (which yields  I have voted), for the more mundane look. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

module move broke pages

module:HS listed building was today moved to Module:HS listed building row by User:Cwmhiraeth (non-admin close).

This has broken a vast number of pages, such as eg List of listed buildings in Gairloch, Highland -- essentially every page listing listed buildings in Scotland that are targeted by the Wiki Loves Monuments campaign.

Is there a quick fix for this? Will it eventually fix itself automatically? Or is some intervention needed? Jheald (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Never mind. I've fixed the template that was calling the module, so that should have fixed the main cases. Just seeing whether there's anything else that links to the old name. Jheald (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Resolved
 – Jheald (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Please move the article of Nicolae Botgros from draft to the main space as he is notable enough because he is one of the most important conductors from Moldova. He has articles on other wikipedias, including french. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 07:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Extension of Wikipedia Asian Month contest

In consideration of a week-long internet block in Iran, Wikipedia Asian Month 2019 contest has been extended for a week past November. The articles submitted till 7th December 2019, 23:59 UTC will be accepted by the fountain tools of the participating wikis.

Please help us translate and spread this message in your local language.

Wikipedia Asian Month International Team

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Giannis Vardinogiannis—Yannis Vardinoyannis

Hi! Here it seems we have two articles on the very same person. Please excuse if this note is wrongly placed. --2.67.226.202 (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

First edit to Wikipedia from space

Please join me in giving a very warm welcome and congratulations to User:Astro Christina (Christina Koch) for making the very first edit to Wikipedia[citation needed] from outer space! [8][9] Thank you also to Darenwelsh for his role in this helping us achieve this milestone. I think I can speak for everyone that we are very proud, and look forward to the first edit from the Moon, Mars, and beyond! — MusikAnimal talk 21:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I also invite you all to read Daren's story, in particular the 5-year Wikiversary NASA report. It's amazing how much MediaWiki has improved information sharing at NASA, with a growth pattern that mirrors Wikipedia. It's stories like this, and Christina's edit, that make me so proud to be a part of the movement. You should be, too. ♥ — MusikAnimal talk 21:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Do we need to update the edit activity by country map to include a new category? Though personally I feel Christina missed a golden opportunity to have a "Hello, World" v2.0! (but it's still awesome!) Nosebagbear (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
This is insanely cool! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Sad to say, Koch has a clear WP:COI with the article she edited and so in the future, she'll need to kibitz on the talk page rather than edit that article directly... FROM SPACE! Elizium23 (talk) 04:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, right. Masum Reza📞 07:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
How fun! I'm drooling at the thought of outer space vandals that can't be geolocated- SPACE PIRATES! Jip Orlando (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
better go tag that diff with {{citation needed}} then... :) --Masem (t) 21:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Sold to Google Google Code-In

Unbelievable. I was notified that Wikipedia is engaging Google [10]. My replies were annihilated [11]. #NoToGoogle. -DePiep (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

BTW, it is named "Google Code-In" mw:Google Code-in/2019. -DePiep (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
And it's been happening for a few years now. Students learn a lot and make lots of improvements to MW. It looks like your commentary was reverted because it was placed on the project page instead its discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
"Code-in" it says, but hey that's not tech. Anyway, main question is: why does Wikipedia accept stuff/money/support from commercial Google? -DePiep (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I fail to see your point. Why does Google being "commercial" suddenly make accepting donations or support objectionable? This happens all the time. Your comments seem to be way over the top, as evidenced by your blatant personal attack on Jimbotalk. – Teratix ₵ 00:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Simple, first: paying WP is one, having a project named "Google" is two. (IOW: why, you think, would Google ever think of paying? To make Wikipedia independent?). -DePiep (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Code-in is not a WMF project that Google has bought the naming rights to, it's an external project, run by Google, that the WMF happened to sign up to. So the page is called "Google Code-in" because that is the name of the competition, not because Google bought the WMF as you seem to be insinuating. – Teratix ₵ 00:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's a problem that Google decided to start a project to recruit student programmers to volunteer for Wikimedia, or that the WMF and volunteer Mediawiki developers engage with these students recruited by Google. --Yair rand (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
For the record, Google Code-in started in 2007–08 (2010 with the current name and system). Wikimedia has participated since 2013 and has always been one of many participants, 29 in 2019. And Wikimedia has participated in Google Summer of Code since 2006: mw:Google Summer of Code. I don't see anything nefarious in this. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I've revised the section title to be more representative of the content here. I do think that DePiep is over-reacting, but there are plenty of people out there that react viscerally whenever Google is mentioned, could even call it GDS for Google Derangement Syndrome as it bears similarity to Trump Derangement Syndrome. Folks on the far side of reaction take Google's former "Do no Evil" as a diversion underwhich they aimed from the beginning to do exactly the opposite. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Weird redirection

Gore (film) redirects to Kevin_Spacey#Sexual_misconduct_allegations -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Basile Morin: Due to the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gore_(film) RudolfRed (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, RudolfRed. I wondered if it could be vandalism -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I wonder if that shouldn't redirect to Splatter film. --Izno (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
A bit confusing, but Gore film currently redirects to Splatter film. According to Gore (disambiguation), Gore (film) [is] a cancelled biographical film about Gore Vidal -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Please note that Mariss Jansons died on 1 december 2019 according to russian wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I see that sourced information about his death (which was actually late yesterday, but reported today) has been added to our article. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Waiting time

Hi to all Wikipedians! :) Why do we need so much time for new articles (Drafts) to be published? If you read them once, you can tell if there is something to be changed and what it is or is it already fit to be published. Alekszizovic (talk) 10:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a volunteer-run project, so drafts are only reviewed when a volunteer takes the time to do so. I know it's frustrating for the people who have written articles that are waiting, but, in the big scheme of things, does it really matter if an article is published a few weeks or months later? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for looking impatient. I edited Serbian Wikipedia a few years ago and we had no such a rule, so this was new to me. Also, I saw A LOT of articles on waiting so I was curious about it. Didn't mean to offend anyone, though.--Aleksandar (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Draftspace doesn't matter once you're autoconfirmed. Ntsimp (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
That is true, but unhelpful in this particular case, because any mainspace article would very likely be speedily deleted as a copyright violation of de:Gesetz zum Schutz von Geschäftsgeheimnissen. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I have replied about what appears to be the specific draft in question at User talk:Alekszizovic#Draft:The Law on the Protection of Trade Secrets. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I added the sources, and replied on the comment. I hope it is ok now.--Aleksandar (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

WMF Fundraising on en.wiki

Hey All

Later today we will be launching our upcoming annual fundraising campaigns in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the USA, and the United Kingdom. This campaigns sees us raise approximately half of the annual funds for the Wikimedia movement. The banners form just one component and since October, our E-mail fundraising programme has already been running in these countries.

There are a number of ways you can help support the fundraiser:

  • If you see a donor on a talk page, OTRS, or social media with questions about donating or having difficulties in the donation process, please refer them to: donate @ wikimedia.org.

As always, can I thank the community for all your help and patience over the coming weeks. It's hugely appreciated. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Seddon (WMF): On the Help Desk WP:HD there seems to be a lot more questions this year about fundraising than I recall in years past. You might want to pop over there and take a look. RudolfRed (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Is there a way we can help people who are asking all these questions? There should probably be a section somewhere that answers them.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Xian_MA600

Hi guys! I have left a message on the talk page of the above article. Can somebody please assist me? Regards. Oesjaar (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Terem (Russia)

This article is about social institute in Muscovite Russia. The problem is that such social institute wasn't exist in Russia, or, at least, it doesn't have name "terem". As you can see in interwiki articles on Slavic languages, ru:Терем, uk:Терем, pl:Terem and even fr:Terem (architecture), терем is just an upper floor of old Russian buildings. As a Russian, I can confirm this. Women could live in this upper floor, and they could be limited in communicating with strangers, but this social practice definitely not called "terem". Since this enwiki article created by an one-page account and no one source in references mentions a word "terem" in title, could this article be some sort of hoax? It can describe existing practice, but under name that definitely not connected to it. MBH (talk) 05:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a hoax based on a gipsy song:

Отрада Старинная таборная песня в обр. М. Шишкина

  • Живет моя отрада
  • В высоком терему,
  • А в терем тот высокий
  • Нет ходу никому.
  • .
  • Я знаю, у красотки
  • Есть сторож у крыльца,
  • Но он не загородит
  • Дороги молодца.

46.188.23.100 (talk) 07:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terem (Russia)
 – MBH (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

On reporting on foreign countries: Read past the headlines to know who did what

I read a Kaiser Kuo article about China and its perceptions in the West. He said:

  • " I see this especially in headline writing where “China Prosecutes So-and-So” turns out to be about one small city’s judiciary or mayor’s office prosecuting so-and-so; think how silly it would be if, say, a story about Harlan County, Kentucky banning the teaching of evolution were headlined “US Bans Teaching of Evolution.”"

I noticed this very phenomenon with reporting on Russia, where a "Russia does this" turns out to be a municipal government. Please read past the headlines of the sources quoted and be exact with who did what.

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Ha! Read past the headlines should be a mantra for the current world. Britmax (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Fundraiser. 98% of users "look away" and I deliberately ignore Wikipedia funding requests.

The fundraising process is always worth further discussion, I am closing this though as the English statement is going into WP:DENY (See this user's edit history: [12]). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Yes. I use Wikipedia regularly as a quick look-up for some kinds of information and a starting point for further research into other interests.

No. I won't contribute. So long as Wikipedia claims to be written in English when it is in American-English. So long as it gives American-English preference and priority over English and gives further insult by calling English, British English.

English, as written and spoken in England has primacy. It is the original form. It is the most widely used by number of sovereign nations that use and/or recognise English. By numbers of people who use English it is the dominant form (this includes speakers in India).

I will continue to use Wikipedia but I will not support it. It is fundamentally racist, exclusive and hostile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenniethedog (talk • contribs) 17:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Lenniethedog: So what do you want to change and how do you want it to be done? Not for the sake of funding, but just to see if its something that can feasible to fix.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 17:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@Lenniethedog: Wikipedia uses both American and British English, depending on the article. See WP:ENGVAR. The encyclopedia is run by consensus. If you want to propose a change to how articles are written, you can post your idea at WP:VPI and see if other editors are supportive of your idea. RudolfRed (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: The first time I saw a Philippine English tag I had to drown myself in tea, lest I be contaminated by yet more alternate ways of doing things. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@Nosebagbear: As a citizen of the country most modernly accused of imperialism, it's good to see some good old fashioned tea-drinking, "god save the queen", "if the colonies are speaking our language differently then they're speaking it wrong", Churchillian imperialism. What's the difference between the US and the UK? We both invaded Afghanistan and one of us hasn't given up yet. What's the similarity between the US and the UK? We both invaded Afghanistan and we both lost. GMGtalk 00:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Legendary" causes lack of clarity

The more that is written on Wikipedia about mythical, fictional characters from ancient sagas & tales, more and more due to TV shows where they are portrayed as real people of history, and many excited TV viewers think they were (and want them to be), the more confusion the word "legendary" is causing. Legendary, as we know, is also often used about famous stars in many fields in our own time, actual persons who have existed. Does anyone think there might be a need for a guideline recommendation to avoid the word when describing people from old Viking stories etc. Ragnar Lothbroc was a man of legend, yes, but I think many people misunderstand it if we say about him and such persons that they are "legendary". It is then safe to assume thet he was (1) a real person and (2) greatly renowned and thus called "legendary". Mae West is a legendary movie star, but not a Viking princess. Thoughts? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

This should probably be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. I would support a preference for "mythical" over "legendary". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Trying there too. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Local notices for US cities hosting Wikipedia Day

I have put in a request for local banner notices for cities in the United States (and possibly elsewhere in North America) hosting Wikipedia Day events this January and February at m:CentralNotice/Request/Wikipedia Day US + North America 2020.--Pharos (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Batman (2021) RfC

There is currently an RfC on the article discussion page for DC Extended Universe regarding the inclusion of the as-yet unmade Batman movie; to whit, is there notable, reliable sourcing that the film is within the subset of the DC Universe called the DC Extended Universe? More eyes and voices are always welcome. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Email Spoofing From Wikipedia.org

Hi there,

Foreword: I am very new to Wikipedia, not very active and not very literate in online activities. I had joined because I like the cause and because, after years of only using Wikipedia as a convenient source, I realized that I could provide pieces of knowledge to make Wikipedia better. But I am only embarking on this endeavor. So please forgive if I violate rules or place this contribution wrong: just educate me gently ;-).

Now here's the issue: an email in my inbox, date stamped 'Dec 11' and seemingly coming from 'Wikipedia.org'. (It seems, though, that I cannot upload the png-file I created to show this line item; thus I describe it):

- "jimmy@wikipedia.org" is identified as the sender;

- "Nothing beats a warm welcome" is the subject line; and

- "Karin S, something only you know" is shown as the beginning of the text body on a Gmail account.

Two thing threw me off immediately (and if I don't trust an email, I don't open it): (1) When I signed up with Wikipedia, I provided nothing to address me as "Karin S"! And minor, but adding (2): the 'beginning of the text body' doesn't fill the whole line which Gmail provides in the inbox -- as if there would be no more text. (Thinking of it again: Plus, there is this touchy-feely subject line months after I had signed up; and the enticing "only you know".)

I tried to find something on Wikipedia which addresses a possible spoofing, phishing, or otherwise malignant email purportedly coming from Wikipedia.org. But I did not find anything. Then I tried to find out where such an issue might be addressed in 'back pages' like 'talk', 'help' or such... And thus I ended up here:

Is this kind of email spoofing from Wikipedia.org new? Or am I paranoid, and this is a regular enterprise of proactive member contact or such?? And: shouldn't something like this be addressed somewhere on Wikipedia's many pages??? (Or am I too stupid to find that one needle in a haystack?)

Thank you for considering my issue kindly!

--Katheska (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Scammers use many tricks to entice people to visit malware websites and any email address can be used as the apparent sender. See WP:PHISHING for some brief notes on something different but related. I have an email address registered with Wikipedia and when I visit the talk page of an editor who has also registered an email address, I see "Email this user" as a link in the left-hand sidebar. On your talk page, there is no such link. That means you have not registered an email address with the Katheska account, and that means no one at Wikipedia can send you an email. Extreme skepticism should be used when looking at any email or other message. The email you received did not come from Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 04:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • This sort of e-mail spoofing can be done by anyone faking any domain. For the most basic explanation: you can put anything you want in the From field. Gmail may not let you send that email, but a less scrupulous ISP, or a server you yourself operate will, and servers relaying the message never care. There are countermeasures (see e-mail spoofing) but Gmail has a very patchy manner of enforcing them which is why you get these e-mails. Daß Wölf 18:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Conditional RfCs

Are conditional RfCs binding? What I mean is something like, if X happens, then this edit should happen. This question was inspired by the Trump impeachment, but is not related to any actual proposal. I just wanted to know for future reference. My personal opinion is no.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  • I would generally say yes. Consensus is the primary driver - I could see this being done in order to find acceptable forms of things before the event happens in order to prevent delay & disruption at this point. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I saw no delay and disruption at the Impeachment of Donald Trump even though there was no pre-existing agreement. I think an RfC would tie editors' hands when faced with unfolding events. It would be disruptive if there was an influx of new editors who didn't realise that the event they were writing about was subject to an existing RfC.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Brief input into disambiguation dispute

Hi there,

I'd like some neutral input from a few moderately experienced (or better) editors regarding a dispute regarding what does and doesn't belong at a disambiguation page, specifically Holmes and Watson (disambiguation).

The dispute is essentially between this version and this one. Those involved are myself (Ubcule (talk · contribs)) and ThaddeusSholto (talk · contribs).

The discussion is currently at User_talk:ThaddeusSholto#Changes_to_Holmes_and_Watson_(disambiguation), although it might be better moved to the talk page for reasons of neutrality.

(Apologies if the Village Pump isn't the best place to ask, but I'd rather have more input than just the single person that "thirdparty" normally gets.) Ubcule (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

This is not the correct place for this. WP:3O or even WP:RFD pertain to this subject. In any case, I created a second disambiguation page to alleviate any confusion as I already explained to you. You seem to have a personal issue with correcting confusion that nobody except for you would ever have (examples [14] and [[15].) Holmes and Watson refers to two articles and Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson to two different articles. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
ThaddeusSholto (talk · contribs) With respect, as the other party in this dispute I hope you'll understand that I'm not going to agree with everything you say.
I already explained why I didn't post at 3O.
The intent was not to conduct the discussion here, but to solicit unbiased input via a request I tried to keep as neutral as possible (which is why I want to keep the request and discussion separate).
I've already addressed your alleged criticisms at your talk page.
If you don't want to conduct the discussion there, please choose another appropriate, neutral venue, such as Talk:Holmes and Watson (disambiguation). Thank you. Ubcule (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
The top of the page makes it clear that this is not the proper venue. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals sections when appropriate. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Note that Daniel Selvaraj died on 21 december 2019 according to Google. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Not according to my Google, which states Daniel Selvaraj died 20 December. In any case, the date of death will need a proper source. —Kusma (t·c) 08:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

This template doesn’t work. Did they remove link support?

E Super Maker (😲 shout) 01:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@E Super Maker: the documentation for {{UL}} is here: Template:User link/doc. Are you trying to do something that is documented, but it isn't working? — xaosflux Talk 01:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
{{ul}} is a redirect to {{user link}} and they both work. For example, {{ul|Example}} generates [[User:Example|Example]]. You created Template:ul but it was changed to a redirect because it was redundant. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia controversial topics

Looking through this section, there are articles that haven't seen Talk Page comments in years and/or article doesn't exist anymore. Is there any reason NOT to remove the controversial tag from stale articles? Slywriter (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, if the article doesn't exist anymore, of course the talk page can go; that's G8. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 01:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Legacy researchers

The following users are members of the researchers user group which provides limited access to deleted information. These users have been contacted to see if they still require this access for whichever special project they were working on, but have not responded. As a routine cleanup, I propose we remove this flag from these accounts at this time, barring any specific objection. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 02:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments
 Removed. RadiX∞ 18:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

False password request

I just received an e-mail saying that "someone, probably [me]" had requested a reset of my password. It wasn't me. Of course the e-mail tells me to ignore the message if someone else made the request, but I'm a bit worried. I mean, why would anyone attempt this if s/he has no access to my e-mail? Steinbach (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Some options for you are: someone who thought they had an account by the name of Steinbach on Wikipedia (for example, someone did register that username at jawiki[16] and ptwiki[17]); someone mis-remembering their similar username; someone trying to be annoying; or a hacker with no clue. You can therefore usually just ignore it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I got that message as well on Friday (a request from 99.157.240.152). Apparently, there's some attack going on (which isn't uncommon on the Internet at all). If you've been using your WP password elsewhere you should change it ASAP and make sure you use different passwords for different sites. If you've got a strong password and it's uniquely used for WP there's nothing to worry about, just ignore that email. --Zac67 (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both. @Zac67: I already suspected I wasn't the only one. Mine came from a different IP, but one registered in the US where I've never set foot in all my life. Steinbach (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I got that message as well. It seemed to come from an IP in Poland.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The normal thing to do with such messages is quite simple; just ignore them, as has been already said. Many people are indeed doing so, otherwise we would be seeing deluge of posts like this everyday. But the good news is that very soon (probably early next year) users would have even more control on their accounts and power to stop such messages completely by electing to require both username and email before any password reset mail is sent. This would be when the work on Password Reset Update project is finally completed. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hatnote for similar named organization without an article?

Wikimedia received an inquiry ticket:2019120410011208 regarding an issue with a similar named organization.

While I explained that we typically used a hat note when we have two organizations with similar names in Wikipedia, it appears that in this case, one of the organizations has a Wikipedia article and the other does not. I looked at the Guidance Wikipedia:Hatnote but I didn't see clear coverage of how this should be handled.

The Wikipedia article is OpenStudio, while the similarly named organization has a website here.

Is it, or should it be acceptable to create a hat note to explained that the Wikipedia article is not about the business management site?S Philbrick(Talk) 17:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of any hatnote is to provide a quick link to the article about a similarly named entity. If such an entity does not have an article then no hatnote is necessary. On the other hand one should consider notability of the entity. If it is is notable then an article about it should be created and a hatnote added. Ruslik_Zero 20:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. What would we do when an article name could be confused with dozens or hundreds of similarly named entities without articles? Sam Walton (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
As Ruslik0 and Samwalton9 have mentioned hatnotes are for navigation among existing articles. If there isn't an article the hatnote will be a redlink and that is not useful. The same applies to "See also" sections. If the guidelines for either of these does not mention this then I would suggest adding a sentence about red links not being created and/or removed for both. MarnetteD|Talk 21:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The convention on this is clear and simple; we don't link nonexisting article in hatnote. WP:REDHAT clearly explains that. Either the subject is notable (so create the article first) or it's not (therefore no article, no hatnote). – Ammarpad (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Contributing Money

I clear junk like cookies after each session online. I contribute 2£GBP occasionally but find next session I get the begging bowl come round again. Blunt Sword WP is using. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.49.17.60 (talk) 11:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

So you know the source of your problem and the solution to it. Except you still call cookies "junk". I don't see a basis for complaint here. I have been on hundreds of websites in the past ten years, and 98% of them have far more intrusive advertising than Wikipedia's occasional banner. Elizium23 (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
When you walk down the street and see some charity's funds collector or just a poor beggar at the corner. And you drop some coin into his box or hat. Do you expect him to disappear from that corner the next time you walk there? Why would you expect so – just because you gave him a pound or two a week ago...??? --CiaPan (talk) 09:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
There are browser extensions that allow you to create a whitelist of cookies that are protected from deletion. I would suggest that you get one. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

New Years' Eve

Hello Wikipedians! For those of you using the Gregorian calendar, what are you doing for New Years' Eve? I'm watching a TV broadcast of Vika and Linda performing a live cover of ABBA's Fernando (song), and Casey Donovan (singer) performing I Will Survive (song). And it's awesome that we have articles on all of thos things! Pelagic (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC) (disclaimer: I may have been wining earlier [does anyone know the link to that page?])

face palm "thos"
@Pelagic: WP:WHAAOE. --CiaPan (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
<thumbs up> thanks, CiaPan. Exactly that! Happy New Year. Pelagic (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year from Sydney, Australia — UTC+11! Can't believe those peeps from New Zealand and Kiribati didn't get in first. Pelagic (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Personal Life sections of BLPs

Here is a story in the Washington Post about "Personal Life" sections in biographies of living persons. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/obsessed-with-wikipedia-personal-life-entries-youre-not-alone/2019/12/30/cb31a50a-2673-11ea-9c21-2c2a4d2c2166_story.html Basically, many readers like these sections, so that, as long as we are in compliance with verifiability and the requirements for reliable sources and other aspects of the policies on biographies of living persons, maybe we should remember that is The Reader for whom we are writing the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Only as a comment: this quote stuck out to me, That explains why many facts are left out. Earlier this year, a piece by Allie Jones in the Outline argued that “The ‘Personal Life’ sections on many men’s pages are severely lacking” and pointed out some “abhorrent” men skate by with brief entries while women’s are filled with — sometimes scandalous — details. Not only on BLP but across the board, too many editors are facsinated to document the scandalous side of any topic (even beyond the gender bias), which leads to a good chunk of the behavioral problems that end up at AN/ANI or at ArbCom. Our goal should not be to try to document all the scandalous details simply because we can pull from a wide range of sources; when material is potentially scandalous (or may violate privacy, or may have other harm), we should be guided by RSes to avoid undue coverage in any part of someone's private life. --Masem (t) 07:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
This may be an issue of WP:DUE. When you consider that most tabloids enjoy documenting the scandalous sides of the lives of celebrities, politicians, et.al., it is rare that we see "John Smith brings his wife flowers every Sunday and they own two very cute puppies which are the apples of his eye. Smith supports 3 local charities by volunteering every Saturday." Elizium23 (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
It's not only tabloids. I have read entire books on men's biographies that did not even mention wife or kids, while even a short article on a woman's bio will usually mention marital status. Sexism runs deep in this area. WP did not invent it and it's just a reflection of available sources and their biases. Renata (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Recategorizing a number of biographies

I found a number of biographies that should be moved to a sub-category. The category structure is already there and I can create a list of the articles pretty simply, it will just be tedious to do by hand. Is this eligible for a bot request? The list is User:Bri/Recat. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

​I'd use WP:AWB/WP:JWB or make a request at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks. Wouldn't request a bot for this, I've done 30 out of the 140 in your list and it included some incorrect ones (like Death panel) and some were also ambiguous regarding whether the person was a conservative or whether they had been shortly involved with something regarding conservatism. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Thjarkur, thanks a lot! I had signed up for AWB rights a long time ago, but was put off by the requirement to install software. JWB was perfect for this. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC requesting uninvolved comment.

Please see Talk:List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#RfC_on_booster_landings_graph. Some comment from editors who are not regulars of the page is requested. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 02:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Oversectioning

Adding multiple sections to relatively short articles seems like one of the most abused acts of editing on Wikipedia. It adds virtually nothing other than clutter. There ought to be a guideline to only section an article when each of the individual sections would, by itself, be longer than a stub article (i.e. 10+ sentences). Praemonitus (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

In terms of the general idea, Ceyockey, I agree - I can see aspirational sectioning as a benefit. Obviously that could be taken overboard, but anyone who saw it would already be entitled to fix and merge them even now. This Guideline can only help in two ways - either it "authorises" editors to fix articles that breach it, or it discourages editors from making the mistake in the first place. The former is already done, and the latter won't occur because editors who make that style of mistake aren't au fait with MOS. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
There's no empirical evidence to support this that I can find. There are a multitude of stub articles on Wikipedia that have been sectioned up and tagged for improvement, but haven't expanded significantly in many years. Praemonitus (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
It's up to you, as the proposer here, to provide empirical evidence that this is "one of the most abused acts of editing on Wikipedia". Why is this a problem that we need to be concerned about? I certainly can't see any evidence at all for this being a problem that should come anywhere other than near the bottom of our priorities. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
After clicking Random article five times, I came to this: Rangamati Sadar Upazila. This sort of layout is not at all uncommon, and I expect it will look like this five years from now. Praemonitus (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
That doesn't answer the request. Why is this a problem we need to be concerned about? Not just evidence that it occurs but that it is a problem in and of itself that we should attempt to discourage even more? Do you personally want to perform the outreach to tell people who make articles like this? (This is a volunteer project.) --Izno (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

South Front/southfront.org

I'm not sure if this is the right place (I am not a regular contributor to the English Wikipedia), but as the original article was deleted and the discussion archived: Concerning South Front: This article was deleted in 2017 for notability-reasons. However, as the website has a clear bias and is being used in a range of citations (e.g. [18][19][20][21][22]) not citing this bias: what might be the best way to inform readers that the sources have this bias? Or is this not an issue? Hardscarf (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Hardscarf: According to [23] that is a known source of fake news and should be blacklisted. If it's on the blacklist, the software should be blocking it I think. Maybe ask at WP:RSN about what to do with these citations? RudolfRed (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

New decade

If you've been here long enough, what was your first edit of the last decade? Mine was Special:Diff/337740563 on 04:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC) to Shakespeare's Spy. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Some of us are pedantic enough to think that the new decade starts from 2021. The first year AD or CE was the year 1, not 0, so each new decade starts with the year ending in 1. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
ISO years, on the other hand, do have a year 0000. Eman235/talk 17:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Good point. In that case, my first edit of the decade is Special:Diff/407601857 on 04:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC) to Hana Kimi. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Phil Bridger, https://xkcd.com/2249/ has some relevant commentary. Elizium23 (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Pedantry aside, rolling over to a new digit in the tens place is a lot more exciting than rolling over to 2021. I bought my "new" car with 7 miles already on the odometer (presumably from moving around the factory, dealer's lots, and test drives), but I'm going to celebrate when the odometer rolls over to 100,000 miles, not when it gets to 100,007. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Phil Bridger Hear, hear! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
But, since you ask, my first edit of 2010 seems to be Special:Diff/335228202 to South East London Synagogue, an article that has been merged into New Cross since. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
@Rotideypoc41352: Not such a big deal, IMVHO. How about waiting a bit more for a new millenium...? CiaPan (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
To jokingly take your comment way too seriously: I can barely remember what I ate for breakfast yesterday, let alone my first edit a thousand years later. And as wonderful as Wikipedia is, I don't know about the longevity of its records or servers or technology. I mean, we're missing a veritable hoard of information about the twelfth millennium HE... Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Rotideypoc41352, my account is older than 10 years and I had ~70 edits before 2010, but my first one of last decade was removing vandalism from my longtime favorite Clarissa Explains It All. I never have been able to meet Melissa Joan Hart in person, but I did travel to LA to see her at Paley in 2011. Since those days, I've branched out quite a bit, and been quite prolific. I broke 40,000 edits a few weeks ago. Elizium23 (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Congratulations! And happy editing, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Rotideypoc41352: - unless you were talking to very new editors, we've all got first edits in the last decade...though some of those first edits were made a bit later! 2012 for my first - amazingly a legitimate edit, fixing the number of member states in the UN (in the MUN article). I feel I bedded in quickly, as it only took 34 minutes and 3 more edits for me to make my first complaining edit about Wikipedia! Nosebagbear (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Raider of the Lost ISBN

Any idea which of the three ISBN numbers listed on PDF page 5 is the correct one for this book?

  • ISBN 0-203-04107-0 Master e-book ISBN
  • ISBN 0-203-19965-0 (Adobe eReader Format)
  • ISBN 0-415-00240-0 (Print Edition)

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Any. Ruslik_Zero 15:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, any. A book can have separate ISBN numbers for the hardback, the paperback and the e-book version. That's what's happening here. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Released art works and art books

  • Modern art books for free/Guggenheim [24]
  • Paris Musees released digital artworks [25]
  • Art Institute of Chicago released digital images [26]
  • Metropolitan Museum of Art art works in public domain[27]
  • Getty Museum artworks: virtual library to download [28]
  • New York Public Library: released artworks, images, books. [29]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs) 16:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Help wanted from everyone who has the time

(crosspost from WP:AN)

A massive (the largest ever) Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigation, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Dr. Blofeld, was recently opened. The usual 3 people at CCI won't be able to complete it themselves, so I am asking everyone who has the time to help clean it up. No copyright knowledge is required, and instructions + further information can be found at User:Money emoji/Dr. Blofeld CCI cleanup. I will also be listing this at WP:CENT, as the last time a large scale CCI cleanup effort was conducted (Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo), it was listed there. A big thanks to all who sign up, 💴Money💶💵emoji💷Talk💸Help out at CCI! 02:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Reader survey results

I finally caught up on a Wikipedia readership survey, which you can listen to in the second half of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIko_V1k09s (The first half is about the re-use of Wikipedia's contents, with a shoutout during the questions at the end to the United Nations for re-using some content while getting the attribution/licensing correct.) See mw:Wikimedia Research/Showcase for more information and links to previous content.

Age: Most readers are under the age of 25. This survey was taken at a time when many countries were not in school, so this is pretty much a year-round baseline.

Language: Every other person reading your article is not a native speaker of English. User:Dank, I'm not sure that this should be considered at all when you're looking for WP:Brilliant Prose, but it's something that other editors, such as User:Doc James, may want to take into account for other purposes.

Why are there so many missing articles about Martians like me?

Identity: As for who reads what, everyone reads about religion, geography, and people, but people read about people who are like them – men read about men, women read about women, youth read about youth, etc. This means that when we don't have content on ________ people, then those readers don't find what they want. Women read about medicine, biology, and television shows more than men. Men read about sports, technology (the article about YouTube was given as an example), and military subjects more than women. (They didn't get enough numbers to make any similar statements readers who identified in other ways.)

If you want more information, please see mw:Wikimedia Research/Showcase#November 2019. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

We have the following guideline Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. IMO our goal should be to use easier to understand language without making our content wrong. Over the last decade we have decreased the reading level of the leads of our most read medical articles from grade 15.7 to grade 12.7.[30] So it can be done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The purpose of a lead is of course to provide an accessible summary of the article but is also to engage the reader and want to make them read the article. The latter is being sacrificed in order to meet computer generated "readability scores". Like trying to make your web page appear first on Google, there are ways of making a sentence have a low score that does not guarantee the text is readable or that anyone would want to read it. In the medical domain, this American obsession of mathematical reading models has resulted in removing words our readers need to know or might want to learn, and replacing them with baby words. The result can be haphazard.
For example, Chlortalidone is a "water pill" or "water tablet" (a Diuretic). Neither this article nor the diuretic article mention "water pill" even though most lay websites do. It is used to treat edema which is swelling caused by fluid buildup in your body. If you are on it for this purpose, your doctor will have mentioned "fluid retention" and "edema" yet these are not words in our lead. The word "swelling" is wikilinked to edema but why would someone click on a wikilink for a common word? Swelling happens for all sorts of reasons that aren't treated by diuretics. Our reader is told this swelling is "due to heart failure, liver failure, and nephrotic syndrome, diabetes insipidus, and renal tubular acidosis." Woa those last three just blew the reading scale away. We aren't told which bit of the body is swelling (e.g. your lower limbs) so it could be one's nose for all we know. If our reader's gran was told they have "fluid retention" or "edema" then the lead of this article will not make it obvious that this is why they are on that pill.
We can deal with necessary hard words by explaining them in-text e.g., "edema (swelling due to fluid retention)" or "swelling due to fluid retention (edema)" or other techniques of in-context usage and clever writing. This way, the reader not only understands the article topic, but learns important necessary words that their doctors are using. But, no, we can't mention "edema" because that's on some list of hard words and we can't put a clause in parenthesis because that increases sentence complexity scores.
A short sentence doesn't necessarily mean good writing. We have a short sentence in the lead paragraph: "It is taken by mouth." which is just terrible terrible unengaging prose. I good writer would have avoided that. Merely inserting the word "tablet" into one of the sentences would have sufficiently clued up the reader about where to stick it. -- Colin°Talk 13:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Very interesting that Bangladesh, with half the population and a 73% literacy rate should make up a larger portion of en.wiki readers than the US. Also a lot of interesting results for Hebrew that stand out from other languages markedly. Also, given that south Asia has such a large percentage of English readers, I would have like to see them spun off from the global population as Africa was. GMGtalk 11:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    @GreenMeansGo: Where is that stat on Bangladesh's readership stated, specifically? --Yair rand (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Yair rand: On this page, specifically this graphic at the bottom. GMGtalk 19:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    @GreenMeansGo: It absolutely does not say that! This (not very clearly explained) table is about the % of US/Bangladeshi readers of Wikipedia looking at en:wp. One of the interesting things the survey does seem to show is that only about 75% of American views are of en:wp (no doubt Spanish is the main other language), vs c. 90%+ of those from India & maybe 83% of those from Bangladesh. Also that the Dutch look more at the English Wikipedia than the Dutch one. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Johnbod: Oooohkay. The "ratio of views" is the ratio of views from that country that are views of en.wiki as opposed to other language projects, not the other way round. Yes, that's quite a confusing presentation there. GMGtalk 18:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi Whatamidoing, can you direct us to where we can find the most information as it pertains to the readership of the English Wikipedia? I've found this, but it doesn't say much, and this (which says that 76 percent identified as male in the recent survey). Where does it show that half our readers are not native English speakers? SarahSV (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
    @SlimVirgin: I believe that's a reference to this graphic but I think it's a misinterpretation, assuming I understand the metrics correctly. It should probably be that about a third of our readers speak English as a second language. Somewhat less than a third speak English as a first language but are multi-lingual. GMGtalk 00:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
    GreenMeansGo, thanks for the link. The first thing I wonder is whether that's about the English Wikipedia. Second thing is why English is split between two groups ("English World" and "English Africa"). Here it says "English World" is only US and India, so has it left out Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand and the United Kingdom? SarahSV (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
    The other thing I wonder is why the WMF would rely on a small survey of a few hundred people for this information. They have access to the locations of our readers, so they can tell us what percentage of English Wikipedia pageviews are from Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and United States. Most people in those countries have English as a first language, so that figure alone would give us a good idea. SarahSV (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
    @SlimVirgin: That doesn't seem quite right. English World had some 6k responses, but India and the US were the only countries where there were more than 500. But I'm not really sure why they picked "more than 500" as a meaningful metric to report. It seems fairly arbitrary. I would have much rather they link us to a spreadsheet of the full tallies for those who were interested. GMGtalk 11:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
    SarahSV, what I know is what was said during the research presentation, which is linked in the first sentence of my post. I encourage you to watch the presentation if you haven't. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
    Hi Whatamidoing, thanks. The only thing I can find about this on that video (here) is Isaac (WMF) saying "So English Wikipedia, almost half of the readers did not list English as one of their native languages." I've been trying to find out more about this kind of thing for some time, so I'd very much like to see some of the data. How the respondents were selected would make a difference, which pages the survey notices were on, etc. Not including a lot of the English-speaking world is something I'd like to see explained, because surely that would make a difference too. As GreenMeansGo says, cutting off the responses at 500 seems arbitrary. SarahSV (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi -- thanks all for engaging. I'll try to respond to some of the questions from the thread. Regarding which countries the data represents: we randomly sample readers in a given language edition via the QuickSurveys tool, which randomly samples readers (browsers technically) and shows them a link to the survey in Wikipedia articles. The data you see in the graphs is from the full set of respondents from a language. The countries you see listed at the 500-response threshold are those that we could release specific data for (we haven't gotten to that point yet but let me know if this would be valuable). We don't release data on countries that had fewer than 500 responses for privacy reasons -- this was a threshold used in prior surveys. It is difficult to draw robust conclusions from fewer than 500 responses as well. For both English and French, we upsampled readers in Africa so we report results that are both representative of the entire language edition ("World") and just the results from readers in Africa as well ("Africa"). Regarding reader language: we specifically asked the survey respondents to provide their native languages (or mother tongues). We don't assert any order -- if the respondent listed "English" while taking the English survey, they would be considered a native speaker. If they did not, they are considered a non-native speaker. We then also divide between people who list only one native language ("Monolingual" though I can see how that would be confusing as these people very well may be fluent in other languages, just not native speakers) and people who list more than one native language ("Multilingual"). Thanks! --Isaac (WMF) (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Greek withdrawal from the eurozone

This article was tagged for updating in 2017 and is not only hopelessly out of date, but reflects the fake news of yesteryear. I have proposed to scrap it quite some time ago, but this was simply rejected and it is still standing there in all its ugly and biased glory. Never mind that the euro has the support of over 2/3 of Greeks today. Wikipedia is supposed to be reliable and neutral, not a collection of failed anti-European rhetoric, no matter how many Brexiteers want it otherwise. When will Wikipedia realize that this undermines its own credibility? Jcwf (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

If there's an article that you think should be removed, just nominate it for deletion at WP:AfD. However, I looked at the article briefly; based on the number of references from a variety of well-known reliable sources, I think it unlikely that such a nomination would go anywhere. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I would add that the article, although I agree that it needs updating, is nothing like "a collection of failed anti-European rhetoric". It simply reports what people on all sides of the debate said at the time when this was a live issue. The best approach to this would be to update it from being a current affairs report based largely on primary sources such as news reports to a proper article about history based on secondary sources such as academic books and papers, which have undoubtably been written by now. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Folklore

Hello Folks,

Wiki Loves Love is back again in 2020 iteration as Wiki Loves Folklore from 1 February, 2020 - 29 February, 2020. Join us to celebrate the local cultural heritage of your region with the theme of folklore in the international photography contest at Wikimedia Commons. Images, videos and audios representing different forms of folk cultures and new forms of heritage that haven’t otherwise been documented so far are welcome submissions in Wiki Loves Folklore. Learn more about the contest at Meta-Wiki and Commons.

Kind regards,
Wiki Loves Folklore International Team
— Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk)
sent using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Should the Foundation call itself Wikipedia ?

Given this and this, an RfC has been opened on meta :

-- Jheald (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Women South Asia 2020

Wiki Loves Women is back with the 2020 edition. Join us to celebrate women and queer community in Folklore theme and enrich Wikipedia with the local culture of your region. Happening from 1 February-31 March, Wiki Loves Women South Asia welcomes the articles created on folk culture and gender. The theme of the contest includes, but is not limited to, women and queer personalities in folklore, folk culture (folk artists, folk dancers, folk singers, folk musicians, folk game athletes, women in mythology, women warriors in folklores, witches and witch hunting, fairytales and more). You can learn more about the scope and the prizes at the project page.

Best wishes,

Wiki Loves Women Team

--✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 10:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Localization wanted

Genesee River, near Rochester

Yesterday, I uploaded this historic view on the Genesee River from 1859. Unfortunately, I have no clue where it was taken exactly. I would guess somewhere in the Letchworth State Park. Does anyone here know these falls? Sorry, if this page isn't the right place to ask. If so, I would be grateful for a reference to the appropriate place. --Zinnmann (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Zinnmann:, I can't help with the question myself, but perhaps one of the Reference Desks can help you? Nosebagbear (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I'll try it on misc. --Zinnmann (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey, Zinnmann. You should try Google maps in satellite view , and then nip down into street view to identify obvious geographic features which are unlikely to change over the centuries. I live in the UK and know nothing of this river, but it took me just ten minutes to go upstream from Rochester and to check out every waterfall. Try this link. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
...and I reckon back in 1859 the photographer was standing at exactly this spot at Middle Falls (50 mi upstream from Rochester). Cheers Nick Moyes (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Now THAT is service! Nosebagbear (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Nick Moyes, thank you very much for research. That's just amazing! Google maps is a great hint for future cases. Again: Thank you very much! Best wishes! --Zinnmann (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Research on RfAs - Looking for help

Within the framework of a research project, we are investigating the Requests for Adminship (RfA) process on English Wikipedia. We are especially interested in learning how English Wikipedia determines who are qualified administrators. We want to understand the strengths and weaknesses of Wikipedia’s voting processes and identify factors that could distort these processes. Ideally our study helps to determine how the process can be further improved. To this end, we have already evaluated the thousands of English Wikipedia elections on RfAs held between 2004 and 2014. We would like to discuss our results with Wikipedians and discover answers to our unanswered questions.

Therefore, we are currently looking for interviewees. I talked with User:LZia_(WMF) and asked for advice on how to communicate with enwiki community about our need for interviews and she suggested I reach out to you via this Village Pump. Ideally, you will have already participated in a Wikipedia vote and/or are considering voting yourself. It would be great if we could have a short conversation by phone / Skype / Zoom, of around 30-45 minutes. To thank you for your participation, we can offer you 85 US-Dollars (or €75). We are happy to transfer the money to you or if you prefer to the Wikimedia foundation.

This interview will be used to provide background information for the evaluation of the quantitative data that we have already collected. We plan to publish our results both in scientific journals and publicly online for any interested professionals.

Data protection: If you agree, we would like to record the interview. This data will only be available to the project team. If any quotes from the interview are used in publications, they will be pseudonymized.

The research team is composed of Helge Klapper (Erasmus University), Linus Dahlander (ESMT) and myself, Henning Piezunka (INSEAD). If you are interested, please contact me via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Henningpiezunka. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henningpiezunka (talk • contribs) 10:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

As a follow-up, I reached out to one of the researchers via their university contact, who has confirmed the research is occurring. Nosebagbear (talk)
@Nosebagbear: I can confirm that I have talked with User:Henningpiezunka about their research at a very high level, and I indeed recommended that they directly reach out to enwiki community and seek for input/participation given that the focus of their study is enwiki. For further clarity given that I'm writing this message with my WMF account: I'd like to point out that this is not a WMF Research collaboration, a WMF project or a project WMF has vetted. I provided general advice to User:Henningpiezunka in terms of interacting with you all and what I understand as the correct course of action in a case like this. I leave the decision to participate and at what level to you all as a community. If there is anything I can do to support you in your decision making, please don't hesitate to reach out. And as always: thank you for your support of research on the Wikimedia projects. --LZia (WMF) (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Henningpiezunka, good luck with your research, please check the histories of interviewees as those most motivated to participate may fall outside mainstream Wikipedia views. A good litmus test would be: generally agreeing with the consensus on RFA decisions with not more than 10% of arguments going against the consensus. Guy (help!) 14:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Actually that would be a very poor litmus test indeed - many of us avoid pile-ons & mainly vote when the numbers are close, or the consensus just seems wrong. Johnbod (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd suggest also posting on WT:RFA. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd be happy to be interviewed. I nominated ten successful candidates between 2010 and 2016 and maintain some stats on the RFA process. ϢereSpielChequers 12:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Contact the address above then. Johnbod (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Category on Commons

As specified here and here the Category:Palazzo Molin (San Polo) on Commons is wrong. That builiding, is the Palazzo Donà delle Rose, not Palazzo Molin. Correction is necessary. --93.34.228.189 (talk) 11:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Abxbay: who created the category originally. GMGtalk 17:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Additionally, the Canal is my primary school, who I will love forever, I'm sure of what I'm saying... --93.34.228.189 (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@Abxbay:@GreenMeansGo: In this page you can notice that Palazzo Molin is located in San Polo 2514 (Palazzo Donà delle Rose is 2515) and in this pdf (page 8) there is a image of Palazzo Molin. --93.34.228.189 (talk) 08:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Movement Learning and Leadership Development Project

Hello

The Wikimedia Foundation’s Community Development team is seeking to learn more about the way volunteers learn and develop into the many different roles that exist in the movement. Our goal is to build a movement informed framework that provides shared clarity and outlines accessible pathways on how to grow and develop skills within the movement. To this end, we are looking to speak with you, our community to learn about your journey as a Wikimedia volunteer. Whether you joined yesterday or have been here from the very start, we want to hear about the many ways volunteers join and contribute to our movement.

To learn more about the project, please visit the Meta page. If you are interested in participating in the project, please complete this simple Google form. Although we may not be able to speak to everyone who expresses interest, we encourage you to complete this short form if you are interested in participating!

-- LMiranda (WMF) (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

hi. I would definitely like to add some data to this great effort. I will fill out the forms requested. thanks, LMiranda (WMF). --Sm8900 (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Wrong labels translation

The File:Antonino Cannavacciuolo-signature.svg on Commons have some translation errors in the labels.

In the Details section, “SVG sviluppo” should be “Sviluppo SVG”, and “Questa firma è stata creata con un ignoto SVG programma.” should be “Questa firma è stata creata con un programma SVG ignoto.”. How can I fix? --2001:B07:6442:8903:B9F7:34B4:B495:EEAF (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey anon. You may want to try on c:Commons:Help desk. There's probably more Italian speakers around there than there are here. GMGtalk 16:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Where to get help with the article for Ecological grief

Hi all

I've recently added some content to Ecological grief and plan to do more in the future, could someone suggest some Wikiprojects etc where I could ask for help with it ?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@John Cummings:, if you find some, please let me know. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Follow editor

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T2470

How can I add all edits from a certain editor to my watchlist? Not edits per article, but edits per editor. Alternatively, I would be satisfied by the possibility to receive an update when a certain editor makes an edit. Debresser (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser: you can't - there is a 15+ year old outstanding request on this at: phab:T2470 you could follow. — xaosflux Talk 00:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Then it's about time. Debresser (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
You'd have more luck asking someone you know who makes scripts as the community wishlist team stated they will not build this feature.​ --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@Debresser and QEDK: You can make a poor-man's version by doing something like on this page: User:Xaosflux/sandbox82. — xaosflux Talk 14:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Now, make a python script to pull a snapshot every so often, deploy it to Tool Labs and voila! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@QEDK: Or we could all post there that we want this, till they give in. Debresser (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Nice. Debresser (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Debresser, you can set up a User:SD0001/W-Ping to drop a reminder at the top of your watchlist to go check a certain page in (whatever length of time). I have a couple set up in case I miss a watchlist notification when it goes by. You can't do it directly on their contributions page, has to be to their talk or user. --valereee (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Nice, although doesn't come close to what I was asking for. Debresser (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about making a small change to {{Press}}, if you have an opinion. The change is small but the template is widely used. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

6,000,000th article

Hello, folks! We are only 2,500 articles away. We should be ready to celebrate everywhere, and also congratulate the winners of the Six-million pool and the Six-millionth topic pool. --186.54.24.209 (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Countdown to six million articles

{{Wikipedia:Six million articles}} Transcluded from [[Wikipedia:Six million articles]]. ↠Pine (✉) 03:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

that's awesome. keep us posted!! --Sm8900 (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I converted it to a link, since it's no longer just a countdown and was screwing up the formatting of the rest of the page. Anomie⚔ 12:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Only 111 left to go now!? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Hurry! All the admins go to AfD and start closing deletion discussions! GMGtalk 16:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Promotional banner for the 6 millionth article?

A special logo we ran in November 2015 to celebrate 5 million articles on the English Wikipedia

On 1 November 2015, the five millionth article on the English Wikipedia was created, and for about a day, we ran a promotional banner over top of the Wikipedia logo celebrating the occasion. As I recall, there was also a celebratory banner with a link to Wikipedia:Five million articles, an information page we created about the occasion. At the time I am writing this, we have 5,997,150 articles on English Wikipedia. So we are getting very close. I was wondering if there was any appetite for doing another run of celebrations for 6 million articles. Mz7 (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Previous discussions:
Mz7 (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, we’re cutting it a bit fine to do anything major, but I would support using the same banner as last time (with an updated figure). Reading over past discussions, there seemed to be some opposition over the celebration of quantity over quality, but in my opinion it’s harmless to mark a significant milestone like this; other Wikipedias do it and positive publicity may attract new editors. – Teratix ₵ 00:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd support using the previous logo... with the number updated. It's really a milestone even though the argument for quality is good one too. The strip is quite small and non-distracting, some people may not even notice it. If there's a consensus to do this, it should be done from the server-side through phab request not via sitewide CSS. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I have an appetite for it. Killiondude (talk) 05:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Logo for 6 million articles in English Wikipedia
information Administrator note @Fuzheado: for the last time a very specific subset of sized images was created:
  1. File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en 5m articles 135 white.png
  2. File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en 5m articles 204 white.png
  3. File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en 5m articles 270 white.png
Then we applied this with a local css hack (c.f. Special:PermaLink/688765970. This seems appropriate given the prior consensus and lack of current opposition. Can you create these exact files and have a commons admin protect them from upload please? I can pre-test on testwiki. (Please ping me on replies to this thread) — xaosflux Talk 14:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Ah, good point, I'll do so now. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: - Files are done. Let me know if you have any issues. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  1. File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en 6m articles 135 white.png
  2. File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en 6m articles 204 white.png
  3. File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en 6m articles 270 white.png
Are the completely done, i.e., do they need protected at this moment? GMGtalk 18:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
They are not currently protected to my knowledge, so if you want to initiate that process that would be great. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done GMGtalk 18:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo, Fuzheado, and Mz7: sample is up at test2wiki:Main_page - look OK? — xaosflux Talk 19:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
If the sample is OK'd by anyone else, and an admin can confirm that we are at 6MM now , ping me and I can make this live. — xaosflux Talk 19:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: We are definitely past 6 million and here to stay. Go ahead and move things. :) Who's helping to figure out the 6 millionth? I have some candidates, but it's complex. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah. Every way I know of to check says we're about 100 past. Probably well enough margin to account for anything but a sudden massive G5 SPI closure. GMGtalk 19:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done added site-wide in Special:Diff/937234247. May take a little bit to update across cluster and caches. Any int-admin should immediately revert if something bad has happened. I can't see leaving this up for more than a couple of days, feel free to ping me when ready to come down. — xaosflux Talk 19:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: (not int-admin) Looks good to me! Also tested on various Apple devices via Responsive Design Mode. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@Xaosflux and Fuzheado: Thank you both so much for rolling with this! Embarrassingly, I was asleep while all the changes were being discussed. Mz7 (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I think a week is not a long time to let people know that we've got 6m articles, so yes, I'd definitely keep it there for a week. And it doesn't look that bad, actually. Debresser (talk) 09:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Article identity

Do we know what the 6 millionth article was? How do we go about finding that out? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

This has always been more of an art than a science, since the article count in constantly in flux due to deletions. The previous thread for determining this is at Wikipedia talk:Five million articles#Thread for determining 5 millionth article, which we could look at for some strategies. What I would start doing is look at the current article count, then scroll through Special:NewPages to find the ballpark area, then pick one we agree on is the six millionth. Mz7 (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Six million articles if you want to help figure it out! — xaosflux Talk 20:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Could anything possibly be less significant than which dubious article is number 6,000,000? (Also, it is indeterminate.) - A876 (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Aw, don't be like that—it's all just for fun. You're right that we cannot know for certain. As I understand it, we went through to find the time around which the 6,000,000 should have been created, made a shortlist of articles created around that time, and then picked the best, most promising article out of that bunch. What we were left with was Maria Elise Turner Lauder, created by Rosiestep. Mz7 (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The world is a ridiculous place. That a fully formed and beautifully referenced article on a woman written by a leading Wikipedian knight/dame (are Americans even allowed to be dames?) should magically become the 6,000,000 article is good news for Wikipedia's PR department. There's a serious article in this morning's (London; 28.01.20) Times that men should be forbidden from discussing sport in the workplace because it makes women feel uncomfortable. That is plainly stupid and so, to my mind, is the suggestion that we believe this is truly the 6.000,000th article. Is Wikipedia that keen to advertise its perfect worldliness? Let's be honest, no way was that the 6.000,000th article; it was probably on a village or person (or even infamous person) none of us have ever heard of - that is the knowledge we should really be celebrating. Giano (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

6,000,000 articles 👍

Main page: WP:6M

Congrats on your 6,000,000th article, and many more to come! --Alvaro Vidal-Abarca (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations! --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Congratulatins from it.wikipedia! :-) --Phyrexian ɸ 03:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Hurray! Jingiby (talk) 06:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Came to say that the globe logo with that red banner is fugly and distracting. Could it please be fixed to use the regular logo's color scheme, or better yet, eliminate the banner altogether and just put a blurb somewhere? The red banner clobbered my eyeballs so badly every time I viewed a page, that I had to adblock the logo to be able to see the page in peace. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:4FFF (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
You'll survive, I'm sure. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not bothered by it now that I've adblocked it into invisibility. But I should not have to adblock Wikipedia. Though, I have the privacy invasion beacon also adblocked, so there is that. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:4FFF (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. The bright red clashes with the blue/grey standard skin, to the point where it is constantly dragging one's eyes away from the page, on the impression that an error has occurred. Please get rid of the red. Eleuther (talk) 08:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree that it is not the best colour choice. Looks a bit like those spam ad links to me, to be honest. But, what's done is done, and changing it to anything else would just create more distraction. I think we should simply let it run its course now. Cheers, Rehman 09:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
For background, the logo here is a modification of what was chosen at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/5 millionth article logo when we hit 5 million articles. The reason why we didn't run another selection RfC this year is because we didn't notice the article count getting close until it was too late. It's only going to run for a day or two, anyway, so I agree there's no use in changing it (and for what it's worth, I think it looks clean and appropriately celebratory, and the claims of unbearable distraction seem exaggerated). I suppose we can change this to another color in 5 years when we hit 7 million. Mz7 (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Also on the stay side - I don't view as either a flaw or a celebratory colour - to me I just keep thinking that there's a notification icon that's on the left for some reason. Jeez, colours are complicated. Nosebagbear (talk)
Yeah, I'm exactly the same. I keep thinking there's a notification or alert of some kind, pretty distracting. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
If it's going away in a few days then it's not worth changing, but I think it is quite obnoxious and also that "celebratory" is inappropriate for something like this. It should be informational rather than celebratory, per WP:NPOV. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:4FFF (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

A bit late to the party but no, I didn't miss this milestone. But let's not forget that we're not even close to the limit. According to a guesstimate I did last year, (any) Wikipedia could contain at least thrice as many articles. To say nothing about length, quality, and being up to date. So we're not done yet and I find that strangely reassuring. Steinbach (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC) PS: to certain people above: neither the colour of the banner nor the fact that this milestone was celebrated bothered me in the least. One can definitely be too critical.

Wikimedia 2030 community discussions: Influence our shared future!

From today on to 21 February, the last facilitated round of movement discussions on the Wikimedia 2030 recommendations will be held. I created a dedicated page: Wikipedia:Wikimedia Strategy 2018–20. These conversations offer the opportunity to review the movement strategy draft recommendations, and discuss how English Wikipedia community would be affected as well as how well they align with the strategic direction.

Wikimedians across the world have been shaping the 2030 strategy since 2017. The first phase was aimed at establishing a shared strategic direction: that by 2030, Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge, and anyone who shares our vision will be able to join us. This vision of Wikimedia’s future is shared by all of us, irrespective of background (such as home wiki, culture, etc.) or contributing model (some of us don’t edit, and yet, do take part in fulfilling the Wikimedia mission).

Wikimedia 2018–2020 is all about recommendations that answer the question: what systemic changes in our worldwide movement are needed to advance this vision? These new draft recommendations are intentionally broad and focused on long-term impact. However, they will inevitably be familiar to many of you. Your previous feedback was taken into account, and the recommendations are based upon both 2017 and 2019 discussions reports.

Since July 2018, a group of more than 90 volunteers from across the Wikimedia movement have worked to produce various drafts of recommendations to support this change. This effort is now reaching its final stage, and we invite you to review and discuss the new strategy recommendations. This final set synthesizes all previous drafts, and will offer a clear and condensed product for your review.

After the discussions, the recommendations will be finalized, and presented at the Wikimedia Summit in Berlin. Soon after that, the implementation phase will begin.

You can learn more about the process of forming these recommendations and the next steps in the Signpost’s text by Risker, and in a dedicated FAQ on Meta-Wiki.

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

this sounds excellent, SGrabarczuk_(WMF). thanks so much for posting this info. I will tag a few other editors who might be interested in this as well. Hey, Bluerasberry, Ipigott, Michael E Nolan, feel free to check out the process noted above. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi SGrabarczuk_(WMF). sorry, could you please let me know where I might go to discuss this? I'm not sure where to go, based on the pages that I read there. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia Strategy 2018-20 is a reasonable place for general discussion, or on the talk page for each specific recommendation. Comments are welcomed on anything, but I'm not sure that all of these recommendations (even if they were all adopted in their present forms) really apply to this particular community. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing this. Michael E Nolan (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Sigh... I tried to read the material linked... and I have to say that it is utterly incomprehensible. Both the goals and recommendations are so full of buzzwords and jargon that I can not understand what is being proposed. It needs a complete rewrite into plain English. Blueboar (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
blue boar, those are my thoughts exactly. I’m starting work on that now but’s it’s still in progress. Come by and check my contribs to see what I’m working on. I could use your input. Thanks!!!! —Sm8900 (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
As I indicated on the discussion page on Meta, there is a deeply sad irony that in a process where the core driver is supposed to be that the Movement must embrace inclusion and equity as principles, what they have actually produced is nearly incomprehensible to anyone not steeped in the esoteric jargon and buzzwords, still mostly meaningless to those who are, entirely opaque to anyone who doesn't read English at a doctoral level, and apparently completely impossible to translate. GMGtalk 15:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: I agree. do you want to create a shared collaborative page, to address some of your concerns? --Sm8900 (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
@Sm8900: I'm not entirely settled on what, if any steps can be taken at the community level to address the issue. It's entirely possible that doing the wrong thing can be worse than doing nothing. So for now I'm content to continue to consider the options and continue to discuss. GMGtalk 18:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, I made some changes to the Wikipedia:Wikimedia Strategy 2018–20 page and created sub-pages with all the recommendations and additional materials. And, hopefully this is a useful advise, please read the recommendations through the lens of the Principles. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Office hours

If you want to learn more about movement strategy or ask the core team your questions regarding the process, join our office hours tomorrow, on Thursday, January 30 at 8:00 UTC (one hour) and at 18:00 UTC (one hour). Find links and see more: here. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

That's at https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20200130T08 (3:00 a.m. EST) and https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20200130T18 (1:00 p.m. EST). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Percentage of editors vs. visitors/readers in English Wikipedia?

Can anyone point me to statistics or source about the percentage of visitors/readers who actually edit English Wikipedia? I have heard stats ranging from .025 to .05 of all readers/visitors to Wikipedia actually edit. Thank you!

MatthewVetter (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Matthewvetter: Special:Statistics will show you that we currently have 120,034 "active users" (1 edit in the last month), compared to ~7.8 million pageviews last month. — xaosflux Talk 17:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Xaos. @debaser42 this is basically the analysis you did, correct? MVetter (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
The choice of which measures to use to count the number of readers and editors is necessarily subjective, but, whichever measures are used, the number of readers is much greater than the number of editors. That is what we editors should always bear in mind. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
First of all, 7.8m pageviews give no indication of the amount of viewers.
If we have 6m pages and 7.8 pageviews, it follows that many pages don't have even 1 view per month. Debresser (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
The link by xaosflux says 7.7 billion, not million. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Page views, however, can only tell us so much... it does not mean 7.7 billion readers (as a single reader might account for thousands of page views)... and many of those page views will be by editors, checking to see that their edit formatted correctly. Blueboar (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
There are about 830 million unique devices that access the English Wikipedia per month. That's also not the same thing as number of people, but it's probably easier to derive from. --Yair rand (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

wikimedia projeckts

how to find most viewed Wikimedia projeckts Amirh123 (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Annual growth rate

how to find Annual growth rate of Wikimedia projeckts Amirh123 (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

New tool: Who Wrote That?

MediaWiki has made a new browser extension available: Who Wrote That?. When installed, it adds "Who Wrote That" to your Tools menu which, when activated on an article, will let you see which editor in which edit added a specific bit of text just by hovering over the text, rather than hunting through a list of diffs. (It also highlights all of the other content added by that editor.) I'm really excited by its functionality so wanted to let others know about it, and this was the only place I could think of that was appropriate. Schazjmd (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Just checked a little bit and am impressed, I know it's still in beta but seems like this will save a lot of time sifting through edits. Shearonink (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I tried it out briefly last night, and I was also very impressed! I have spent a lot of time weeding through diff pages when trying to fix the huge backlog in Category:Pages with broken reference names, and I think this tool will be very helpful with that task. --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
This is truly exceptional! This will be an amazingly useful and powerful tool. Thank you! -- RoySmith (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
That is amazing. Bus stop (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
It works on older versions of a page too. I had removed something from an article, then wished I'd checked first to see where it came from so opened an older version of the page and Who Wrote That still worked. I really like this tool. Schazjmd (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Cinque Terra

"Cinque Terra" does not meaning nothing in italian, and no link exist to that page. I have requested various times for deletion and always rollbacked. Why there is need to exist useless page? --93.34.228.189 (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

It is a redirect to Cinque Terre, not an article in its own right. It seems like a reasonable enough search term; "Terra" is similar to "Terre" and a possible typo or misreading, so there's no need to delete it. – Teratix ₵ 11:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I've added a notation on the redirect that it is from a misspelling. — xaosflux Talk 14:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Brexit

Is anyone coordinating all the updates to articles, categories and templates, once the UK leaves the EU in half an hour? Wikipedia:WikiProject European Union/Brexit task force appears moribund. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing:, Well, I don't know if anyone is coordinating that right now. however, if you are interested in doing so, there are a few articles where you can do so. One good place is 2020 in the United Kingdom. you can also try 2020 in United Kingdom politics and government. Also, the article on Brexit. Also, Premiership of Boris Johnson. --Sm8900 (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Where would I look for an experienced Mediawiki admin?

Hey there! Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but I don't know where else I should look. We are looking for an experienced Mediawiki admin for a custom Mediawiki setup. Thanks a lot! IonutBizau (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

mediawikiwiki:Discord is available, as is mediawikiwiki:IRC, if you need some help. If you need a dedicated admin, I think you might need to approach a wiki farm for hosting or something... --Izno (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
@IonutBizau:, if you are still looking for someone to help, I am available to do so. Please feel free to reply or to let me know. thanks!!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia 2030 community discussions: Halfway to the conclusions

Icons of 13 strategic recommendations

As I wrote in my last message here, the strategic recommendations for how we can achieve the Wikimedia 2030 vision are available for your final review. There are three weeks left to share your feedback, questions, concerns, and other comments.

These 13 recommendations are the result of more than a year of dedicated work by working groups comprised of volunteers and staff members from all around the world. These recommendations include the core content plus the Principles and the Glossary, which lend important context to this work and highlight the ways that the recommendations are conceptually interlinked. The Narrative of Change offers a summary introduction to the recommendations material. On Meta-Wiki, you can find even more detailed documentation.

Community input has played, and will continue to play, an important role in the shaping of these recommendations. They reflect this and cite community input throughout in footnotes.

In this final community review stage, we're hoping to better understand how you think the recommendations would impact our movement – what benefits and opportunities do you foresee for your community, and why? What challenges or barriers could they pose for you?

After this three-week period, the Core Team will publish a summary report of input from across affiliates, online communities, and other stakeholders for public review before the recommendations are finalized. You can view our updated timeline here as well as an updated FAQ section that addresses topics like the goal of this current period, the various components of the draft recommendations, and what's next in more detail.

Thank you again for taking the time to join us in community conversations, and I look forward to receiving your input. Happy reading!

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_63&oldid=1142561535"