Policy | Technical | Proposals | Idea lab | Miscellaneous |
The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.
|
« Archives, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 |
Contents
- 1 Sidebars of modern religions in articles about their historical predecessors
- 2 Read-only mode, not for this wiki, but for most of the others
- 3 Overlong/excessive fictional storyline content
- 4 Analyzing fake language problems?
- 5 Template:Newsletters
- 6 How to credit the author when I copy their text from one article to another?
- 7 Wikimedia Foundation Medium-Term Plan feedback request
- 8 Number of Wikidata edits per year?
- 9 Removal of red-links from navigation boxes.
- 10 List of banned users at MfD
- 11 Clubs?
Sidebars of modern religions in articles about their historical predecessors
Hi, I have a problem with @Srnec: and @Joshua Jonathan:. First, I put the Template:Heathenry to the Germanic paganism article and user Srnec remove it with reason "modern stuff has nothing to do with ancient religion". So due to this rule, I removed Template:Hinduism from article historical Vedic religion and then it's restored by Joshua Jonathan, because he think that it doesn't have sense. So let me explain please: who of them are right? These templates should be included in this articles, or not? --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 06:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding the Historical Vedic religion, see Talk:Historical Vedic religion#Hinduism sidebar. Regarding Germanic paganism and Heathenry (new religious movement), I think you've got a point:
Its practitioners model it on the pre-Christian belief systems adhered to by the Germanic peoples of Iron Age and Early Medieval Europe.
- Germanic paganism should be added to the Heathenry-sidebar. See also Talk:Germanic paganism#Heathenry sidebar. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hinduism descends from the historical Vedic religion in a way that Germanic and Slavic neo-paganism do not descend from their ancient forebears. They are revivalist or reconstructionist, but the chain of tradition was completely broken. They do not meaningfully "descend" from ancient paganisms. Srnec (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- This is not true that chain of tradition was completely broken in case of Slavic paganism; modern Slavic Native Faith derives from folk culture. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Bloodofox: please look at this discussion. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Read-only mode, not for this wiki, but for most of the others
Read-only mode for up to 30 minutes on 11 April
10:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Just to save everyone having to look: enwiki is not on that list. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Overlong/excessive fictional storyline content
Hey. Not sure if this is the right place, apologies. I tripped over the article Insignia trilogy and the long-term editor in me had to be talked off the ledge. This is by far the worst example of allowing an entire book to be written as a plot summary I've seen for years. Possibly the absolute worst. I've no idea how to approach dealing with this article, or if I should. Please advise: is it our policy to slash these "summaries" or is it somehow accepted that books can have articles like this? Thanks. doktorb wordsdeeds 01:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah editors get carried away. According to "The Longest Plot Summary on Wikipedia" (2014) it used to be Alley Cats Strike around 23.9k -- but Insignia trilogy may be as high as 40k. This is a common problem. But try to keep it down, the history of Alley Cats shows a years-long battle. -- GreenC 01:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I have been as bold as I can, removing almost everything. It was rather obvious when I pressed "edit" to find the paragraphs were clearly copy and pasted from notepad or something similar, justified in one narrow column. Clear WP:PLOTBLOAT and WP:NOT violation, ditto COPYVIO I suspect too. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Analyzing fake language problems?
Are there any tools to look at a bit of fractured English and figure out if it's really a lack of fluency, or somebody faking poor grammar? Every so often, I'll ask somebody a question which I know they'd prefer not to answer (i.e., "Do you have a WP:COI"), and get back an answer in broken English. Often, I'll look at the response and think, "This person really does understand what I'm asking, they're just faking a language issue to avoid answering".
When a non-native English speaker messes up a sentence (easy to do; English spelling and grammar are total disasters), there's usually common mistakes based on what their first language is. For example, native Spanish speakers often misuse "in" and "on", since they're the same word in Spanish. It seems like it would be within the realm of current language recognition technology to look at a bit of broken English and say, "This is indicative of a native XXX speaker, based on the way they misuse YYY construction", or, "This doesn't look like anything expected from any non-native English speaker". Or even, "Given the existing samples of other stuff this person has written, they're grasp of English is probably better than they're letting on here"? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- RoySmith, as someone who works on natural language processing, this is an interesting engineering/research problem. That having been said, I think that ultimately in the context of wikipedia this is something that is best judged by humans on a case-by-case basis rather than automated. For example, someone may make frequent and consistent errors writing in English, but still be able to understand you well enough to comply with a request to disclose COI. At its most useful, I could see something like this being brought up as evidence at ANI, but even then you need to have a human make a judgment about what the best way to deal with the issue is. signed, Rosguill talk 21:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Template:Newsletters
I made the following template to replace the horrible Wikipedia:List of newsletters.
It only includes active newsletters, as far as I could determine what they were. The small t links take you to Google translate for newsletters that are not in English. Inactive newsletters can be found by clicking "see all". 'RC' gives recent changes on the English Wikipedia for a quick review of what's new.
If you know of missing newsletters, please add them to this template. It's not the most well-designed of templates, so if you run into issues, just drop a message on the template's talk page and I'll update things accordingly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing, RexxS, Tom.Reding, and Lea Lacroix (WMDE): now that I think of it, this is something that would be very nice for Wikidata to have a category/structure on. I don't really know how things are categorized over there, but some structure could be
|
|
|
With further substructure as warranted (e.g. language categories), individual newsletters categories, and so on. So something like Wikipedia:Bots/News/201808 would be found in
- ⯆Wikimedia newsletters
- ⯆Active newsletters
- ⯈Bots/News
- ⯈en:Wikipedia:Bots/News/201608
- ⯈en:Wikipedia:Bots/News/201702
- ⯈en:Wikipedia:Bots/News/201704
- ⯈en:Wikipedia:Bots/News/201707
- ⯈en:Wikipedia:Bots/News/201803
- ⯈en:Wikipedia:Bots/News/201808
- ⯈Bots/News
- ⯆English newsletters
- ⯈Bots/News
- ⯈en:Wikipedia:Bots/News/201608
- ⯈en:Wikipedia:Bots/News/201702
- ⯈en:Wikipedia:Bots/News/201704
- ⯈en:Wikipedia:Bots/News/201707
- ⯈en:Wikipedia:Bots/News/201803
- ⯈en:Wikipedia:Bots/News/201808
- ⯈Bots/News
- ⯆Wikipedia newsletters
- ⯆English Wikipedia newsletters
- ⯆Bots/News
- ⯈en:Wikipedia:Bots/News/201608
- ⯈en:Wikipedia:Bots/News/201702
- ⯈en:Wikipedia:Bots/News/201704
- ⯈en:Wikipedia:Bots/News/201707
- ⯈en:Wikipedia:Bots/News/201803
- ⯈en:Wikipedia:Bots/News/201808
- ⯆Bots/News
- ⯆English Wikipedia newsletters
- ⯆Active newsletters
or something like it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've created Wikimedia newsletter (Q63108743), which may help. See This Month in GLAM (Q15868218) for an example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- The Signpost (Q7395165) is popular enough, so using that as a guide - there's no "Wikipedia newsletter" Wikidata item (afaict); instead, instance of (P31): Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) + newsletter (Q264238) are used. When combined, they can be used to effectively search for "Wikimedia newsletters".
- Magazines aren't sorted by genre (e.g. Elle (Q154020)), so newsletters wouldn't be either. I'm not going to be doing anything with these, but to whoever does, it'd be a good idea to see how the majority of the most popular newsletters are currently described in Wikidata, as a starting point. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
How to credit the author when I copy their text from one article to another?
This work by User:Michaelneurosx is too much detail (about postoperative pain) for the broad overview article, Pain. Presently, Postoperative pain is a redirect to Pain. I'd like to use Michael's contribution to start Postoperative pain as a stand-alone article. How best to attribute it to him. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- The policy is WP:CWW. The requirement is to link to the source article in the edit summary when adding it to the destination. Crediting the particular author is not required (and is often not practical because multiple people will be responsible for a paragraph). The theory is that attribution can be determined from the source page's history. However, in this case the solution is to use edit summary:
copy text from [[Pain]] by [[User:Michaelneurosx|Michaelneurosx]]
- Johnuniq (talk) 07:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, John. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikimedia Foundation Medium-Term Plan feedback request
- I think I missed the part where the actual plan is. All I see is a bunch of marketing jargon, vague platitudes and fairly arbitrary percentages. Maybe you provided the wrong link. GMGtalk 23:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Number of Wikidata edits per year?
how to find how many edits in wikidata in this year or last years Amirh123 (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure what is being asked... are you asking how much Wikidata has taken from Wikipedia, or how much Wikipedia has taken from Wikidata? It goes both ways. Blueboar (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- The question doesn't mention Wikipedia, so I think Amirh123 is just asking about the number of edits on Wikidata per year. --Pipetricker (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Ah... then you would have to ask at Wikidata itself. That said, I am not sure if the question can be answered. From what I understand (and those more familiar with Wikidata can correct me if I misunderstand) Wikidata compiles much of its data by automatic downloading from various other on-line databases... if the data on those sites change, the data on Wikidata automatically changes as well... without any edit showing on Wikidata itself (Because the coding that automatically pulled in the data did not change). Blueboar (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- The question doesn't mention Wikipedia, so I think Amirh123 is just asking about the number of edits on Wikidata per year. --Pipetricker (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Exactly the same way as when you asked the same question about Wikipedia a month and a half ago - https://stats.wikimedia.org/. —Cryptic 13:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- example wikidata has 912000 edits I want find how many edits in year or last years
- I go to stats.wikimedia.org but not any find about wikidata edits
- Amirh123 (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Amirh123: Did you see the selector at the upper right? This is the more specific link. If you click on the Edits pane, you can drill down further. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- AlanM1, does https://stats.wikimedia.org/ take you directly to the V2 version of the Stats site? It doesn't for me; I have to click on "Wikistats 2 Alpha" to get there from stats.wikimedia.org. On the V2 page, I can type Wikidata into the small search box (which initially says "All wikis") and then select Wikidata which takes me to stats.wikimedia.org/v2/#/wikidata.org. --Pipetricker (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Pipetricker: No, which is why I gave the more specific link. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- AlanM1, does https://stats.wikimedia.org/ take you directly to the V2 version of the Stats site? It doesn't for me; I have to click on "Wikistats 2 Alpha" to get there from stats.wikimedia.org. On the V2 page, I can type Wikidata into the small search box (which initially says "All wikis") and then select Wikidata which takes me to stats.wikimedia.org/v2/#/wikidata.org. --Pipetricker (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Amirh123: Did you see the selector at the upper right? This is the more specific link. If you click on the Edits pane, you can drill down further. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, there's this user (User:Aspects), who constantly deletes red-links from navigation boxes by referring to "per WP:NAV". Do we have a policy like this? --Joseph (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Someone who cares about an article may very well adjust links as part of other work on that topic. However, no one should systematically remove links or anything else without first getting consensus that such activity would be worthwhile. In addition to WP:NAV, WP:REDNO has some guidance. Similar discussions are WT:Navigation template#Red links and WT:Manual of Style/Infoboxes/Archive 12#RfC: Red links in infoboxes. Johnuniq (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- I wrote a long response, but while adding to it, kept coming across debates that show there is not much consensus regarding redlinks in navigational templates, so I will stop removing them, but will not revert any previous edits I made since I still agree with them. If I am reverted and in this case, I will not remove them again. Aspects (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
List of banned users at MfD
Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rockstone35/list of banned users. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Clubs?
I was wondering if there was any sort of clubs on Wikipedia, and if i could create on if i wanted to.The 2nd Red Guy (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)