Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

  Policy   Technical   Proposals   Idea lab   Miscellaneous  

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page

The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals pages, or – for assistance – at the help desk, rather than here, if at all appropriate. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

« Older discussions, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55

Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy	other	Discussions	Ideas
A request for adminship is open for discussion. RfC: Recent policy changes about verifiability as a reason for inclusion RfC: Adopting a gender neutral default for policy, guidelines and help pages RfC: Linking to details regarding the offline Medical Wikipedia app RFC on the proposed policy update on cosmetic edits done by bots Wikimedia Movement 15 year strategy discussion Merging "Infobox single" and "Infobox song" Combining AfC reviewers and new page reviewers For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
archive talk edit history watch

Fair use template

Is there a template I can tag articles with that use too many non-free images in them? Thanks. SharkD  Talk  04:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@SharkD: {{Non-free}} seems to do this job. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! SharkD  Talk  04:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@SharkD: You could also just send the images to WP:FFD if they are borderline or remove them and let the automated deletion tagging robot take care of them. Depends on the situation. If you don't mind me asking, what article? --Majora (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Majora: The article is Action role-playing video game. I'm not sure there are more images than there should be. SharkD  Talk  06:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@SharkD: So I've always been more strict with my interpretation of our fair use policy and to me, that article has way too many non-free images on it. Essentially one per section amounts to nothing more than a gallery of fair use images (just one that is spread out instead of in a nice neat row). A few of those images are so overused on other articles as well that it is severely straining our fair use policy (specifically WP:NFCCP #3) in my opinion.

This is a gray area. Wikipedia purposefully follows a far more strict fair use policy than actual US copyright law. We do that to encourage as much "free" content as possible. We are the "free encyclopedia" after all. In terms of actual US copyright law, those images on that article are probably fine (standard disclaimer: this is not legal advice but my interpretation of the complexities of copyright). I can see how someone would argue that each of those photos fits into our fair use policy. I can see how they could win that argument. I can also see how the opposite can be true. The grayness of our policy allows for both to occur. The only way to be sure would be to put the lot towards FFD as one nomination and see how others interpret it. --Majora (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocks in de finite

Nowadays blocks can be indefinite, which means that their expiry has not been set. Was the code word originally "in-finite" as opposed to "in-definite"? In the Finnish Wikipedia there is still in use the translation "forever", which leads me to think that the original wording in English might have been something else than it's now. --Pxos (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, it's been "indefinite." The idea is that it is not necessarily forever: a person could be unblocked later. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. The idea being that there is no set expiry; the user is blocked until the relevant people decide they should be unblocked. 'Forever' would be incorrect because it implies the result can never be changed. Sam Walton (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

As long as I can remember (just over 12 years now) the wording here WP:INDEF that blocks are "indefinite not infinite" has applied. This is quoted quite often at AN and ANI threads about blocks. Translations from one language to another can be tricky things and this may be one of those situations. MarnetteD|Talk 20:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

If the intent had been "forever", any native English speaker would have used "permanent", not "infinite". ―Mandruss ☎ 20:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

According to WikiBlame, the text in the dropdown list of block reasons was changed from "nfinite" to "indefinite" in July 2005 by Zzyzx11. From their contributions around that time, I can't figure out what prompted them to make that change however. Graham87 10:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It's unrelated to that diff, but there was some interesting early discussion about that here. Sam Walton (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

That brings back memories from 12 years ago when we were more relaxed in edit summaries. That was for consistency. Despite what MediaWiki:Ipboptions had at the time, the block log was listing "with an expiration time of indefinite", not "infinite".[1] I knew what and where MediaWiki:Ipboptions was. I didn't know (and still don't really know) what system message is generating the "with an expiration time of indefinite" for the block log. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Zzyzx11, the logs take all their contents from current system messages. If you were to change the wording "infinite" to "a very long time indeed", all the logs would change as well, and it really would read in the logs that in the year 2005 someone was blocked for "a very long time indeed", althoug at the time it would have read "infinite/indef/whatever". So the logs of a wiki are not a reliable archaeological evidence of how things once were. Only diffs are. --Pxos (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Then my memory fails me, sorry. I might have done it because Wikipedia:Blocking policy had more frequent use of "indefinitely".[2]. Or maybe because there was an issue with the MediaWiki software at the time, per the summary of the edit made four minutes after mine (and to whoever I was trying to block, another admin was able to get it through). And I do not think it was an accident that one day later I changed it to match the default formatting at the time.[3] But again, 2005 was a time when admins had more of a luxury of being more bold on the system messages without discussion. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

So the word has really been verbatim translated from English to Finnish before July 2005, because the Finnish WP has used "forever", like, forever. Whenever there is a mightily confusing wording, I have learned to go back 10–15 years searching for the relevant term in English. Sometimes the original wording is miserable, sometimes the translator has botched things up. As long as Blame can be placed correctly on a Wiki, things are all right. --Pxos (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

All wikis are different. It's possible that Finnish Wikipedia's rules are open to a "forever", permanent ban. Spanish Wikipedia has a permanent block with no avenue to appeal, which has occasionally led Spanish users here to plead with Spanish admins on their enwiki pages. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia logo animation

Hello friends,

Please enjoy this animation my computer took one week to generate. :) --Psiĥedelisto (talk) 10:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Play media

Nice work! ―Mandruss ☎ 20:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree! I always forget that the globe is actually 3D and has other sides. --Majora (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Excellent! Is that one month of coding and one week of computer processing time? You should add this to User talk:Jimbo Wales where this would be welcome relief from some of the stuff currently going on. Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Support! Jimbo needs the break. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Like~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Really cool. Shearonink (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee seeking new clerks

The Arbitration Committee clerks are currently looking for a few dependable and mature editors willing to serve as clerks. The responsibilities of clerks include opening and closing arbitration cases and motions; notifying parties of cases, decisions, and other committee actions; maintaining the requests for Arbitration pages; preserving order and proper formatting on case pages; and other administrative and related tasks they may be requested to handle by the arbitrators. Clerks are the unsung heroes of the arbitration process, keeping track of details to ensure that requests are handled in a timely and efficient manner. Clerks get front-line seats to the political and ethnic warfare that scorches Wikipedia periodically, and, since they aren't arbitrators themselves, are rarely threatened with violence by the participants.

The salary and retirement packages for Clerks rival that of Arbitrators, to boot. Best of all, you get a cool fez!

If you're interested, please read and follow the directions on this page

For the Arbitration Committee Clerks, Kharkiv07 (T) 20:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration Committee seeking new clerks

Help - can't find the Wikilink to a WP policy/guideline/rule about multiple cites to one reference

The first time a reference appears in an article, it's the full cite. Thereafter, it is supposed to be the <refname="whatever"/> version (and not the other way around with maybe the full cite at the 10th occurrence and then the partial ones preceding it). I am pretty sure that this is a policy/guideline but I cannot find the WP page or shortcut! Help please & thanks. Shearonink (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

See Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once. Nothing says the full footnote needs to be first. It can be at any place the reference is used. If it is an Infobox or other template it would be better to have the full reference in the text instead. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, using named references at all is not required. It would be acceptable for a particular page to use a citation style in which there are no named references, and citations that are used more than once are just repeated in full. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

That was just the form I used in this post (re refname, also since that is what the MOS pages use as their example as in WP:REFNAME lol). I know it's not required for a GA etc. At some point today I did find a statement that said the full cite 'should probably be first but that it wasn't a requirement" but now can't even find that WP-page. If anyone knows what I am talking about (I read it somewhere here on WP and I just want to know *where*) please put me out of my misery and post the link etc here. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I've never seen that anywhere in any of the reference guidelines so I can't help. After several years of correcting reference problems, however, I can tell you that in practice the full reference tends to be wherever the editor first used the source in an article and is as likely to be several citations deep in the article as at the first usage. It would not be a good idea to require moving the full reference once it is added just because a new use comes in ahead of it. The parser doesn't care where it is. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata editor for Wikipedia

I would like to announce my grant proposal for the development of a gadget for editing Wikidata information (primarily used in the infoboxes) without leaving the Wikipedia page. My goal is to make one simple gadget helpful for all users which cover 80-90% of the needs, even if not everything is available for editing. In simpler terms, it's about creating an editor for "Wikidata infoboxes". Please write your opinion and wishes on the grant page. — putnik 09:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Email throttle

Hi, I accidentally refreshed an Special:EmailUser page a stack of times yesterday. I still seem to be throttled 20 hours later. Is there a time limit before the action is unlocked, or have I triggered some permanent lock? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 03:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Our mw:Manual:$wgRateLimits in https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=InitialiseSettings.php says:

                'emailuser' => [
                        'ip' => [ 5, 86400 ], // 5 per day per ip (logged-out and new users)
                        'newbie' => [ 5, 86400 ], // 5 per day for non-autoconfirmed
                        'user' => [ 20, 86400 ], // 20 per day for users
                ],

ip's cannot actually mail users. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 22:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Super Mario World/GA2

The reassessment on Super Mario World, Talk:Super Mario World/GA2, is still open. A volunteer may be needed, or the page can be converted to the community reassessment. Comments are welcome either here or there. --George Ho (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Requests for comment on Microscope article

Please comment on a few requests for comments on the Microscope article.

Talk:Microscope#Request_for_comment_on_how_a_scanning_electron_microscope_works

Talk:Microscope#Request_for_comment_on_ultramicroscope

Thank you, --2601:648:8503:4467:F4B3:6D6C:9DCC:DC06 (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

What is the status of forced administrator recall?

Where was the last serious proposal for recalling bad or abusive admins, and what kept it from being adopted? —swpb^T 18:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

In a nutshell, Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#It should be easier to remove adminship. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Importance of article history

Is there a neat, user-friendly explanation of why we need to keep article histories? I think there used to be, but I can't find it.

I'm dealing with a persistent user who doesn't understand our copyleft obligations at all. Any links to suggested help or project places, or even the meta, would be greatly appreciated.

Places that might mention or link to it you'd think include:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list
• wp:page history
• meta:Help:Page history
• WP:guide to deletion
• wp:Copyleft

And perhaps I'm already looking straight at it somewhere there. Happens from time to time. Anyway, any help appreciated. Andrewa (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. I don't know why the page history pages don't explain this. They should. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that's exactly the sot of thing I am after. But that doesn't go nearly far enough... a link from an edit summary does not show up in "What links here", so there's a danger if this protocol is followed that a page whose edit history is required for attribution purposes will be innocently deleted.

Has this perhaps slipped through the cracks over the years since I became a sysop? A sort of wp:instruction slip (the opposite disease to wp:instruction creep)? Andrewa (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why putting the information on the talk pages is called "optional". I would think for any substantial copying that Template:Copied should be put on the destination talk page at least. At the moment that template is merge/split specific. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. And under substantial copying I think we need to include anything that might put the free reuse of Wikipedia under threat if not properly attributed. Which could be a single sentence, or in theory even a phrase.

In any case, and at the risk of argument from silence, there seems to be a serious gap in our documentation, IMO. Andrewa (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Now raised at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Page history. Andrewa (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

New essay - NPP and hoaxes

Hi, I've been writing up an essay on spotting hoaxes during NPP and things to watch out for, based on personal experience. I hope it covers some new ground.

I'd be keen to see if anyone has any thoughts or feedback - I'm thinking of moving it from userspace to being an essay if people like it. Blythwood (talk) 11:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Mixed feelings. I enjoyed reading it but I expect most of it is pretty obvious to New Page Patrol regulars, and we risk encouraging hoaxers by publicising their achievements and providing a reference page of techniques for them to use. See wp:don't stuff beans up your nose. Andrewa (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Community notification of grant application

Hi all

I'm applying for a grant from WMF to continue my work at UNESCO from September this year, please take a look, let me know what you think and endorse if you want.

The main goals are:

1. UNESCO’s publication workflows incorporate sharing open license content on Wikimedia projects.
2. Support other Intergovernmental Organisations and the wider public to share content on Wikimedia projects.
3. Support Wikimedia contributors to easily discover and use UNESCO content and the documentation produced.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirect Filter

I am aware that the redirect filter for the page list is disabled due to performance issues. Does anybody know when it is expected to be working again? Thanks, Alex the Nerd (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Alex the Nerd

There's no timeframe. You might want to follow along on phab:T160983. Anomie⚔ 20:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Coordinates -- decimal vs. degrees/minutes/seconds

I'm starting to construct a list article, and am finding the coordinates for the locations involved expressed in both decimal form (41.289°S 174.777°E) and degree/minute/second form (57°18′22″N 4°27′32″W). Given that I'm going to have to convert some of them, is there any reason to prefer one form over another? Is there any advantage to a reader, or to other software that might want to make use of the data? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I suggest mentioning this at Template talk:Coord where people who deal with this sort of thing are more likely to notice. Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Credibility Reputation - Major Media Stories

My concerns about "High-Conflict Subjects vs. Saboteurs," expressed in Wikipedia talk:Protection policy, recently drew this reponse from a senior editor:

"Your assertion that the "credibility of Wikipedia, itself, is at stake" seems a bit alarmist, but I actually wouldn't be surprised if we wind up with egg on our faces a few years down the road..."

I replied:

"It's a bit late for that. The credibility of Wikipedia is not that high in most circles, and its crediblity has been the butt of countless sarcastic remarks, wisecracks and late-night comics' jokes.While I think Wikipedia has merit (or I wouldn't bother with it), Wikipedia's credibility has been in danger for years, now. ... Wikipedia has "egg on its face" every time some visitor reads an obviously corrupted article."

Then I did a little research, to underscore the long history of Wikipedia's tarnished reputation, and found these critiques of Wikipedia, published by the same sources that Wikipedia generally encourages editors to cite as references. If they're credible, then consider these articles they've published about Wikipedia's credibility:

• 2005-11-29: USA Today:

"A false Wikipedia 'biography,'"

• 2007-03-29: NBC News

"The word on Wikipedia: Trust but verify", "Popular online encylopedia, plagued by errors, troubles educators."

• 2009-02-04: ABC News:

"Wikipedia's Woes" "...Wikipedia does have some serious shortcomings, the most glaring of which is its accuracy."

• 2009-12-15: Wall Street Journal:

"Ron Livingston vs. Wikipedia Editor: The Challenge of Policing the Web" "...an attempt to censor or alter information leads to wider publicity. That’s what happened to Livingston... an anonymous user repeatedly changed the actor’s Wikipedia profile to claim he’s in a gay relationship (he’s straight and married), [so the actor] filed suit... to uncover the cyber-vandal’s identity, [but that] led to a slew of news articles and even accusations that Livingston is homophobic."

• 2012-04-19: ABC News:

"Wikipedia: Public Relations People, Editors Differ Over Entries"

"1,300 public relations people... surveyed... told her 60% of Wikipedia entries contained factual errors about their clients' companies, ranging from trivial to highly controversial -- and the PR people, being 'interested parties,' felt they could not make corrections."

• 2014-06-26: CBS News:

"Wikipedia drug entries often inaccurate or outdated, study finds" "Overall, 41% of the relevant Wikipedia entries had been updated within two weeks following an FDA safety warning. Nearly a quarter (23%) took more than two weeks to update, while more than a third (36%) still didn't reference the FDA warning a year after it was issued, the study authors said."

• 2016-02-01: New York Times:

"On Wikipedia, Donald Trump Reigns and Facts Are Open to Debate" "Wikipedia’s rules generally forbid anyone with a 'conflict of interest' to edit pages, but this rule is difficult to enforce because editors are almost never identified by their real names"

• (currently) Harvard University:

"What's Wrong with Wikipedia?" in Harvard Guide to Using Sources "...Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic research..."

We Wikipedians need to be careful about our reputation, and how we earn it, and how we protect it, or Wikipedia will gradually fade into irrelevance, for lack of credibility, and even our most honorable work will be lost in the smoke of our faults. ~ Penlite (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm not sure that all of these sources actually demonstrate that wikipedia lacks credibility. The "Harvard Guide to Using Sources", for instance, says that wikipedia is "not a reliable source for academic research", but we're not intending to be a reliable source for academic research, we are intending to be an encyclopedia! Indeed, the HGUS specifically says that "In fact, some instructors may advise their students to read entries for scientific concepts on Wikipedia as a way to begin understanding those concepts." That's hardly the statement of an organisation who think that wikipedia lacks credibility.

More generally, reliable sources have been questioning the wikipedia model for more than a decade, as your own list demonstrates. That's pretty much as long as wikipedia has been widely known as the go-to encyclopedia. We haven't faded into irrelevance yet, and I don't see any particular reason to be more worried about that now than we were last year, or in 2010, or indeed any time in the past decade or so... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

As the young man said: "Well, I got away with it. Must be OK." As the middle-aged man said: "See, I told you I could get away with it." As the dying man said, on his deathbed, "Well, my sins haven't caught up with me yet... so what's to worry?"

~ Penlite (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Africa best picture Community vote

Is open. 3 images have already been selected by a jury. Please select a 4th winner in the images listed here. Vote now :) c:Commons:Wiki Loves Africa 2016/Community Prize Selection Anthere (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject assessments vs. external reviewers vs. ORES

Hey folks, I have been collaborating with some researchers who are publishing a dataset of externally reviewed Wikipedia articles (the sample was taken back in 2006). I'd like to take the opportunity to compare the prediction quality of m:ORES' article quality model with these external reviewers, but in order get a good picture of the situation, it would also be very helpful to get a set of Wikipedian assessments for the same dataset. So, I have gathered all of the versions of externally reviewed articles in User:EpochFail/ORES_audit and I'm asking for your help to gather assessments. There's 90 old revisions of articles that I need your help assessing. I don't think this will take long, but I need to borrow your judgement here to make sure I'm not biasing things.

To help out, see User:EpochFail/ORES_audit.

ORES is a generalized machine prediction service that helps catch vandalism, measure the development of articles, and support student editors. The more we know about how ORES performs against important baselines, the better use of it we can make it to measure Wikipedia and direct wiki work. --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 22:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections

Please accept our apologies for cross-posting this message. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, I am pleased to announce that self-nominations are being accepted for the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Elections.

The Board of Trustees (Board) is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long-term sustainability of the Wikimedia Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. More information about this role can be found on Meta-Wiki. Please read the letter from the Board of Trustees calling for candidates.

The candidacy submission phase will last from April 7 (00:00 UTC) to April 20 (23:59 UTC).

We will also be accepting questions to ask the candidates from April 7 to April 20. You can submit your questions on Meta-Wiki.

Once the questions submission period has ended on April 20, the Elections Committee will then collate the questions for the candidates to respond to beginning on April 21.

The goal of this process is to fill the three community-selected seats on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. The election results will be used by the Board itself to select its new members.

The full schedule for the Board elections is as follows. All dates are inclusive, that is, from the beginning of the first day (UTC) to the end of the last.

• April 7 (00:00 UTC) – April 20 (23:59 UTC) – Board nominations
• April 7 – April 20 – Board candidates questions submission period
• April 21 – April 30 – Board candidates answer questions
• May 1 – May 14 – Board voting period
• May 15–19 – Board vote checking
• May 20 – Board result announcement goal

In addition to the Board elections, we will also soon be holding elections for the following roles:

• Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)
  • There are five positions being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.

• Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson (Ombuds)
  • One position is being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.

Please note that this year the Board of Trustees elections will be held before the FDC and Ombuds elections. Candidates who are not elected to the Board are explicitly permitted and encouraged to submit themselves as candidates to the FDC or Ombuds positions after the results of the Board elections are announced.

More information on this year's elections can be found on Meta-Wiki. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the election talk page on Meta-Wiki, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-electionswikimedia.org.

On behalf of the Election Committee,
Katie Chan, Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee
Joe Sutherland, Community Advocate, Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, 03:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your language • Get help