If you expected a reply on another page and didn't get it, then please feel free to remind me. I've given up on my watchlist. You can also use the magic summoning tool if you remember to link my userpage in the same edit in which you sign the message.
Please add notes to the end of this page. If you notice the page size getting out of control (>100,000 bytes), then please tell me. I'll probably reply here unless you suggest another page for a reply. Thanks, WhatamIdoing
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
Describing species
You have a good handle on taxonomy, but peer review is not a requirement to describe a new species. I've encountered organismal biologists with years of experience who think that peer review is a required, so it's not an uncommon misconception.
The peer review process didn't exist in Linnaeus's time (although there are many rules for describing species that have been added since Linnaeus). Raymond Hoser#Taxonomic work and Wells and Wellington affair are a couple of notorious cases where taxonomists self-published new species, in a way that the taxonomic community thought was unethical, but they did follow the all the requirements for naming species. It is true that most new species description are published in peer-reviewed sources, but reputable scientists do describe species in sources that aren't peer reviewed. Taxonomic monographs are often published as books (which may have an editor, but not peer reviewers), and usually contain descriptions of new species.
This goes back to the importance of taxonomic databases. Since self-publication is in accordance with the rules of nomenclature, some secondary source is needed to show that the taxonomic community accepts that a new species is valid. 20 years ago, that secondary source would've been a monograph. And the opinions as to validity presented in the taxonomic databases are often based on monographs. But if the most recent monograph was published 10 years ago (which would be a very short time in taxonomy), and 2 new species have been described since then, Wikipedia needs a source that shows whether the recently described species should be regarded as valid or not. General practice among Wikipedia editors who work on taxonomic articles is to not create articles for newly described species until a relevant taxonomic database acknowledges them. We do get new articles for newly described species from editors who see a news item about the new species (very few new species make the news), but theses aren't editors that do a lot of work on taxonomy articles. Plantdrew (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! Now... how much of this can you get in the relevant Wikipedia articles? Many editors use them as a source of truth. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Relevant Wikipedia articles (I think Taxonomy_(biology)#Taxonomic_descriptions and species description would the primary ones) don't say that peer review IS a requirement. Are you saying that they should explicitly state that peer review is NOT a requirement. There are 3 independent sets of rules of describing species; one for animals, one for plants/fungi and one for bacteria. I wasn't thinking about bacteria when I wrote my previous comment; there is one single journal approved for publication of new bacterial species (not sure if the rules of nomenclature for bacteria explicitly call for peer review, or if it's implied as prerequisite to getting published in the right journal in the first place; and I can't check right now as the relevant website is down). The different rule sets make it a little hard to talk about species description practices generally, especially for sourcing a negative statement (i.e. that peer review is NOT required). I do have a source that could serve to support peer review NOT being required for animals.
- I'm a little puzzled by your comment that editors use Wikipedia articles as a source of truth. Surely far more readers do than editors. Were you thinking about some guidance that is more editor focused? It seems an essay on the role of taxonomic databases is Wikipedia is needed. Plantdrew (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm thinking about the internal debates, and especially the upcoming Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale. Editors (the ones who are trying to base their responses on facts, at least) often look in our own articles to find out, e.g., what constitutes a Secondary source or what Editorial independence means. I think that the two main examples in that RFC will be individual species and professional athletes (especially the ones from before about the mid-20th century). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm a little puzzled by your comment that editors use Wikipedia articles as a source of truth. Surely far more readers do than editors. Were you thinking about some guidance that is more editor focused? It seems an essay on the role of taxonomic databases is Wikipedia is needed. Plantdrew (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert: Gender and sexuality
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Madeline (part of me) 20:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Maddy from Celeste, since you're a relatively new editor, I'd love to know what you think of the wording in these boilerplate messages. The first time you saw one, did it seem kind of scary? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- I did think it's a bit ominous-sounding at first, though by the time I received one myself I already knew the procedures so I wasn't freaked out. On the other hand, there are only so many ways to inform someone that getting banned is significantly easier in certain topic areas. Madeline (part of me) 06:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. It's always good to have an idea of what someone with "fresh eyes" sees. I think we made some progress on it during a re-write a couple of years ago, but I still wonder whether a more ...humorous? message would work better: "Friendly warning: other people (possibly including the person posting this message) were really bad at these articles a few years ago, and Mom is still mad about it. Keep your head low, move slowly, and stay out of the line of fire." It's not really suitable for such a ceremonial action, but I think it would give people a clearer understanding of the actual situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Maddy from Celeste and WAID, I know this thread is a bit old, but I'll poke my head in.
- I think the message does sound ominous; at least, editors will think "why am I getting this warning"? The italic part helps.
- About the comment "there are only so many ways to inform someone that getting banned is significantly easier in certain topic areas", you are right. The message could say "Just so you know, it is easier to get banned when you are editing in (topic), so please be careful". I like seeing plain language when possible. David10244 (talk) 06:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. Plain language is also helpful for people who aren't native English speakers, and that's a sizable fraction of editors here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- WAID, on your point, @Chiswick Chap just accused me of misbehavior for alerting them [1] Venkat TL (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- I can certify that when someone that one has been having a discussion with suddenly puts such a thing on one's talk page, many thoughts go through one's mind about that person's intentions, mood, personality, and emotions, so it is hardly likely to be conducive to an open and collegiate discussion, even if it is formally correct. It also leaves the average person thinking that it will be best to avoid the whole area, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- If you are in a dispute with an experienced editor, and you leave a DS alert, then you should expect them to notice you've taken the necessary step to permit you to tattle to Mom about them. Even an inexperienced editor might assume you were trying to scare them away from editing. Leaving DS alerts during a dispute is not an effective way to win friends and influence people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- "Accusation of misbehavior" is so far the worst over-reaction I have seen for a procedural act. It is an 'alert' and if the user isn't alarmed (alerted?), well then the alert might fail its purpose. Venkat TL (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's challenging, isn't it? Because there's the procedural act, which could be taken as a purely routine action, but there's also the fact that an individual editor decided to take this consequential action, at this specific time. In the context of a dispute, it is rather like a guy sidling up to your home or business and saying something like "Nice place you've got here. It'd be a shame if anything happened to it". It will feel like an attempt to intimidate, even if the words themselves are neutral.
- I have wondered occasionally whether we should have these delivered automatically, by bot, e.g., on your fifth-ever edit to a tagged article or your third in the same week. Bots are rarely accused of malign intentions. It'd probably be simpler to have a noticeboard where you could ask uninvolved editors to consider threatening the person you're in a dispute with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- What is the alternative if not done in the moment? we cannot go back in time, and waiting a week/month later to alert may be misconstrued. (may even be called psychopathic, the user waited for n days and then posted that.)
- I have a better suggestion expanding on your bot idea. These pages are generally tagged on the talk page. so a bot can easily alert every editor on their first edit to such topic page once a year. This will probably need RFC, but starting a subscription based bot service like newsletter would be easily acceptable I believe. People who take offence with the human alert can subscribe for a bot alert. Venkat TL (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Well, the most popular alternative to not doing it during a dispute is not doing it at all. Most editors don't want to see people sanctioned, and the only significant difference between delivering this exact message, and delivering any other message ("Were you around during WP:ARBPS? It's amazing how that subject has been such a problem for so many years"), is that sending or receiving this particular message makes editors eligible for sanctions through Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. If you don't want someone sanctioned (including yourself), then don't deliver the sanctions-enabling message.
- Bot-delivered notices have been considered in the past and rejected on the grounds that we don't want needless spam (e.g., if you were just fixing a typo) or to scare off less experienced editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- By suggesting not doing it, you are assuming that the users dont need to be sanctioned at all. If so then the sanctions itself will not be existing in such a utopia. nobody knows how people are going to behave in a topic area full of people with passions and POVs. Thanks for trying, I believe this kind of sugarcoating works in negative way, it can be construed as "Nice place you've got here..." .
- I think a plain, "Please note: the article X is under DS Y" should siffice. but sadly it wont count as an alert, as DS mandates this template and only that template, nothing else.
- Speaking for myself, I think this alert asks people to follow the rules, specifically about non consensus based editing and revert wars. Most of the time the intention is not to sanction but ask the editor to stick to the tested rules.
- If I had to choose between spam vs getting offended, I would easily choose spam.
- It was good talking about it, I have never discussed it with anyone before, thank you for kind replies. It is late here, so I will take a bow. Have a good day/evening. Venkat TL (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- I believe that most editors don't need to be sanctioned at all. I think that my view is common throughout the community. I see that you've gotten blocked three times in the last three months, but that's really unusual. Most editors are here for a decade or more with zero blocks.
- I also suggest being slow to bother with DS alerts because if people really "need" to be sanctioned, then the DS system is not the only way to make that happen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- twice. Thanks to the generosity of @Daniel Case. Venkat TL (talk) 08:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- "Accusation of misbehavior" is so far the worst over-reaction I have seen for a procedural act. It is an 'alert' and if the user isn't alarmed (alerted?), well then the alert might fail its purpose. Venkat TL (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- If you are in a dispute with an experienced editor, and you leave a DS alert, then you should expect them to notice you've taken the necessary step to permit you to tattle to Mom about them. Even an inexperienced editor might assume you were trying to scare them away from editing. Leaving DS alerts during a dispute is not an effective way to win friends and influence people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- I can certify that when someone that one has been having a discussion with suddenly puts such a thing on one's talk page, many thoughts go through one's mind about that person's intentions, mood, personality, and emotions, so it is hardly likely to be conducive to an open and collegiate discussion, even if it is formally correct. It also leaves the average person thinking that it will be best to avoid the whole area, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- I did think it's a bit ominous-sounding at first, though by the time I received one myself I already knew the procedures so I wasn't freaked out. On the other hand, there are only so many ways to inform someone that getting banned is significantly easier in certain topic areas. Madeline (part of me) 06:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
UK RfC
Hi, WhatamIdoing. Would you be willing to close the RfC with a brief statement? I don't think anyone else is going to do it and I'd rather not be the one to close it as the originator. Legobot will close it in two day's time (11 Oct) if we don't do anything. Maybe that is fine? Angry Candy (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Bryan or Redrose64, I wonder if one of you could manage to do this in the next few days, assuming nobody responds to the ANRFC post before then? I commented at the RFC (though not on the substance), and Aquillion and I both commented at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Are Request for Comments meant to be neutral, so there's a small risk that an editor might feel like I was biased against the less popular viewpoint.
- Angry candy, in plainer language, Legobot will stop advertising the RFC in two days. "Closing" is one of those words that gets used for multiple purposes. Also, Wikipedia:There is no deadline. You don't need a summary statement right away. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Done. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you!
Really appreciating your thoughtful, sensible comments in the Article creation at scale RfC. I want a double plus thanks with sparkly bits button that means the Foundation has to give you book token credits, but perhaps this meagre coffee (exchangeable for your beverage of choice) will suffice. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Aww, you're sweet. I'll take hot chocolate, please.
;-)
WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
On "A is a village near B in county, country", I'm thinking of a series of stubs on CPs in an administrative division in which I used to live that were created in 2005 from A to mid-B by an editor who never touched them again. Several years later, I created the set B–W (there are no XYZ) as fat stub/start articles, but it took me a further couple of years and a deal of obsessive–compulsiveness to go back to the As and make better articles of 'em, even though I lived near one particular A, a gorgeous village with a complex history just begging for further expansion. And even now, if I'm honest, I resent just a teensy-weensy smidge that the B-class article on that particular A, of which I am the only non-bot editor with >=1% text, "belongs" to the original creator. Perhaps I'm unusual, but there's enough defensiveness over the list of editors by article count that I doubt it. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- You're certainly not unique in that regard. I've seen editors ask whether they could get prior edits deleted (especially redirects) so that they can claim credit for creating the article. The Wikipedia:Four Award is sometimes blamed for this, but I suspect that we would have some of these requests anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
House dress
"House dress, a type of simple dress worn at home for household chores."
- I added this to Dress then User:Toddst1 and keeps reverting.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dress&diff=1115561269&oldid=1115552126
- Do you think House dress is an improvement? .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- I would assume that Todd doesn't have much reason to know what a house dress is – presumably he's not a woman born into the Greatest Generation, which is the generation that wore those dresses – and wasn't thinking about just WP:Building the web to existing articles.
- Have you considered having a polite conversation at Talk:Dress about whether the article should include a link to House dress? Perhaps other editors would have some alternative suggestions, such as adding a sentence in the ===20th century=== section, since that type of dress was invented in the 20th century. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks
My fat fingers - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- No big deal. (Of course, if there had been a problem, I'd certainly want to know. My fingers sometimes seem to type of their own accord, and then I look up and discover that I've destroyed the formatting on a page, left out half a sentence, or typed words that start with the same letter as what I was thinking, but otherwise don't match, like "random" when I meant "ranger".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- 🙂 I don’t even know how or when that happened to be honest 🤷♀️, I’m getting old you know.. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
medical terms
It seems that many of us are beginning to think about making our articles more readable for our readers. In medical articles we try to avoid terms that are familiar to those in the trade but not the general public when we can. However, we do frequently write that such and such was found to be whatever according to a review article or a systemic review, something that most of our readers know nothing about. Look for example at a brand new article, Birth plan. These reviews can be very misleading. For example if they looked at 100 studies and only found a small number that met their standards they might well come up with something that casts doubt on the value of, in this case a birth plan--which I find very hard to believe as accurate. Do you have any ideas on this issue? Sectionworker (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- Well... the story presented there doesn't seem to have much to do with my rather cynical understanding of birth plans. The view I've developed may be as (in)valid as the fear of the full moon in the emergency room, but they seem to be a list of how it's never going to happen. Also, I tend to believe the nurses who joke that if the birth plan is longer than two pages, it'll be a C-section. I don't know any mothers who wrote one. I wonder if it's more of a thing for first births, as a way to manage fear of the unknown, or for home births, which require more planning in general. I looked at a few books by promoters online tonight, and they seem to have padded the birth plan by including chapters on deciding whether to have a hospital birth, whether to have a midwife or physician, what to pack in your suitcase, etc. By the time you hand over the birth plan to the nurse at the hospital, all of those choices have either been enacted or it's too late.
- It might be useful to rearrange the article to describe the contents of a typical or officially recommended birth plan (assuming we can pretend that a typical version exists) before getting into questions of who recommends it. For example, consider the line "which individuals should be present at the birth for support, food and water intake, body position, care of the newborn regarding separation and skin-to-skin contact, breastfeeding, desired interventions if there are complications, pain relief, and cultural preferences". I read that and think: "which individuals should be present at the birth for support (hospitals handled that for centuries before birth plans were invented, and midwives for basically all of human history), food and water intake (you don't necessarily get a choice), body position (a first-time mother won't know what works for her, so this is likely to be practical only for people who need to write things like 'I can't roll over on my right side because of an injury'; otherwise, it's just going to be 'here are all the options I read in a book that sound appealing to me'), care of the newborn regarding separation (you don't necessarily get a choice) and skin-to-skin contact (why wouldn't anyone want this, if the baby's healthy enough to do it? I suppose it's the place to write 'I have sensory processing needs and can't tolerate being touched' or 'My husband's carpal tunnel problem has flared up recently, and he's terrified that he'll drop the baby – and for solid nerve-damage reasons, not just new-father jitters'), breastfeeding, desired interventions if there are complications (the parents may be the least competent people in the room to make these decisions), pain relief (first-time mothers are likely to be unrealistic), and cultural preferences (useful)."
- If I were running the L&D ward, I might insist on birth plans, but turn it into a checklist based on local policies and practical points. "Choice 1: This hospital uses intermittent fetal monitoring whenever this is medically sound. If the staff recommend continuous fetal monitoring, it's because they think there are medical problems that could result in your baby dying today, and they are hoping that if the machines alert the staff to a problem quickly enough, we might be able to save your baby's life. Your choices: [ ] Yes, please take reasonable steps to save my baby's life, even if it means I will be stuck with a cart full of beeping machinery. [ ] No, I am not the kind of person you can trust to choose my baby's life over the temporary annoyance of a beeping machine. Choice 2: It's the hospital's policy that people who may suddenly need surgery, such as a C-section, don't get to eat or drink much, if anything, for their own safety. [ ] Okay, but what happens if I get really hungry or thirsty? [ ] No, and when you request the legal conservatorship, you can tell the judge that I said I believe that I'm magically protected against all complications of anesthesia, including aspiration pneumonia."
- As you can see, I'm not the kind of person you'd want on the hospital's marketing committee, but I'm struggling to see what a reasonable, well-informed person would put in a birth plan for a hospital birth that would make a significant, positive difference and not just be standard operating procedure. You could note things like an initial preference for a comfortable birth vs a natural one, but the kinds of things that I'm seeing online could probably be shortened to "I really don't know what I'm talking about, and I manage anxiety by overplanning".
- In terms of how to expand the article, I wonder if it would be possible to find sources about its use in vulnerable populations. A birth plan might be valuable for people with certain disabilities, because they can write things like "I'm blind, but that doesn't mean I'm incapable of caring for a baby" or "I had my breasts removed due to breast cancer, including the nipples and the milk glands all the way up into my armpits. Put a sign on the door that warns the lactation consultant not to come in here and tell me to 'just try' breastfeeding." I can also imagine that a birth plan might be appropriate for fetal death, or when the baby is expected to die during or shortly after birth.
- Facts that are missing: There's no single thing that's a birth plan; a note scrawled on the back of a paper napkin could be called a birth plan. The article should say that they're used all over the world. I'd also like to know something about the difference between a collaborative birth plan and a self-prepared one. The first cited source suggests that a self-prepared birth plan, sprung on the providers at the last moment, may be somewhere between useless and slightly harmful.
- This reminds me about living wills. Some years ago, one of the midwestern hospitals apparently reduced the concept of a living will to a small number of simpler questions. There were three or five questions. One of them was "Do you want antibiotics?" Every person admitted to the hospital answered those questions. Over time, it solved a lot of problems for them – mostly, they thought, because the patients later talked to their kids and grandkids about how they answered those questions and why. If anyone has figured out what content in a birth plan would be useful, it would be good to mention that in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- I think this has perhaps veered off from the original question. It may have veered usefully off, but I think the original question was more about whether we should explicitly attribute "according to a review article or a systemic review" in-text and also on the value of systematic reviews for article writing. Maybe it would be better to deal with this by thinking about other medical issues and leave discussion of specific articles to those article talk pages.
- For the first, I would say generally no. If their conclusion represents mainstream medical/scientific accepted views then we can state them in Wikipedias voice. You are absolutely right that the general reader will have no idea what a "review" is (other than, an opinion about a restaurant, a film or a product on Amazon), never mind what a "systematic review" is. And furthermore, they have no need to know what those are in order to understand that Wonderpam is effective. I think we often explicitly cite reviews like this because either we are used to writing like that on talk, or because we think it gives authority to what we say. Sectionworker is right that all it does is confuse the reader with jargon. Sometimes explicitly citing reviews can be a sign of an article becoming a battleground between two factions, who then effectively fight in front of the reader. Or maybe just editors who are so used to writing defensive text in such battleground topics, that they forget what encyclopaedic text looks like.
- There will be cases where we should mention reviews and I'm thinking perhaps of cases where they have been historically important in the adoption or rejection of some practice. Areas where the science was notably contested or in doubt and was then conclusively decided perhaps. And for some topics where the history is dealt with in detail, it is useful to show how the science has progressed. I'm thinking e.g. Lung cancer#History. A treatment section in an article should I think preferably cite clinical guidelines or consensus guidelines which are often based on systematic reviews but which can take into account the practicalities and options available. An article dealing extensively with research on a therapy, like ketogenic diet, needs to explain then what these kinds of reserach and reviews are. We could write a much shorter ketogenic diet article that merely says whether it is effective and for whom, but then I think it would be less educational. If we did do that, I'd argue that it should just comment on the effectiveness without attribution.
- Wrt the general use of systematic reviews, I agree with Sectionworker that often they can set the bar so high they conclude saying "we know nothing". I've recently read two systematic reviews on the ketogenic diet (PMID 33354711 and PMID 35535020), which come to somewhat different conclusions and vary wildly in whether the authors consider animal models relevant, and one even suggests (I think) looking at biomarkers rather than observation. I've read several systematic reviews on this topic where it is clear the authors are not subject experts, have unrealistic expectations of the patient population group, and are merely following an algorithm or perhaps drawing a line wherever suits the case they want to make. In other words, I'm not sure they are always the gold standard we think, and may be as prone to bias as a narrative review.
- But more importantly for article building, they only tend to look at one narrow thing: effectiveness (or toxicity/tolerance) of a treatment (or toxin). When we build articles round such reviews, we end up with a highly medical-science point-of-view of a topic that is far more complex than that.
- To return to the original topic, and trying not to get side-tracked, think about choices for pain relief in childbirth. We do that because a medical science approach might be to impose whatever option the medic thinks is best (and that science has determined is best), which could be an epidural say. When we go in for other kinds of operations or procedures, we don't tend to get offered a choice (at least not in the UK, maybe you can pick the cheapest in the US). They recognise that some people want to try without pain relief or have experiences of previous choices that they don't want to repeat, etc. And they also discuss the choices in terms of managing expectations, so someone wanting a home birth won't get an epidural, and even if you go into hospital, there may not be time or availability-of-staff to give you one. So here the benefit of considering and discussing the options, and expressing a preference, are for reasons quite separate to something you can measure and assess in some systematic review. Ok, you could do some questionnaire "How much agency did you have during your birthing experience, from 1..10", but I can think of 101 ways that the results could be influenced by factors quite separate from whether or not there was a birth plan document.
- I think instead, we offer choices (and manage expectations) about pain relief because medics recognise that people vary and they too would want a choice in that situation. That kind of human empathy and acceptance of human variation isn't something you can measure in a systematic review. -- Colin°Talk 10:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I blew past the easy question, because it was settled years ago: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Cite sources, don't describe them. You shouldn't write things like "In a 2019 review article" for accepted facts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the above re reviews Waid. But re your long response to birth plans, it seems that we disagree on almost everything. As I think you may know, I am a retired RN. In all my years I never met a nurse or any other staff that would laugh and make fun of a birth plan and I never worked in any hospital where that sort of attitude would be acceptable either. I've always remembered back when I was a new nurse and another one told me about her first patient death experience. The family was gathered about a youngish woman's bed as she died when her cancer caused her to blead out. The nurse told me you could see her life going out in her eyes. And then she said the dead woman's sister and she ran into the closet hugging each other and crying. You usually avoid showing that sort of emotion but never the less you do care very much about your patients. As you may know, the nurses that took care of dying COVID patients and were the only ones allowed to be with them as they died suffered and could hardly take it any more.
- About the birth plans, I thought that the UK would have more birth friendly hospitals than even here because I thought that most births are in a hospital but assisted by a midwife. Plus I thought that most women are released the next day because they have midwives to watch over them at home. And I don't think that there's any question but that a midwife gives better care than an OB&GYN gives. My understanding re a birth plan, even with a midwife in charge it helps a woman to feel in control of the birth, helps her parter or other person of her choice to understand the guidelines that she and her midwife or other birthing professional have decided on, and in the rare case that a midwife has two births going on at the same time assures her that her plan is available if it is needed. Furthermore, if the nurses are laughing about a birth plan, it is hard to believe that they are not familiar with the midwife that practices at their hospital's expectations. Furthermore, any midwife that assists with either a home birth or a hospital birth is well aware of the always present danger of a lawsuit. So, they know exactly what the hospital expects of them, too. All of this is helpful as a woman draws up her birth plan, and it is clear that it is best done with her midwife's help or if she has a physician as her care giver the birth class that s/he has her taking. Colin, I'd like to make some comments about your helpful edit too. Sectionworker (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- I can get the idea that someone who turns up with a 10-page birth plan they've written entirely themselves is likely to be a problem patient. The way I see it, the plan is tool to begin and work on a discussion between all those involved. While yes I'm sure many people think about who they want with them for support and don't need a prompt, there are plenty clueless people in the world who need a little nudge that they should think about it before labour starts. Examples like whether you want the baby cleaned up before being placed on your tummy haven't just appeared out of nowhere. I can see how it might be best to ask that question before the baby is born, unless someone is offended you think their baby is especially dirty. My experience of all this is a generation out of date. But I do recall feeling that they wanted to give you as much control over this very personal and special event but at the same time making you aware that it may all go to shit. I remember the midwife at the antenatal class demonstrating birth using Playmobil figures round a tiny bed. That while some births might be you, your partner and a midwife, which is all very cosy and private, if you urgently need a caesarean, ... and then they dumped an entire tin of Playmobil figures into the scene. -- Colin°Talk 21:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- I suspect that whether a birth plan is useful depends on its contents, which is why I'm interested in the difference between a collaboratively written plan and a self-prepared one that's sprung on the L&D nurses at the last minute. The sort where the parents and the midwife/ob sit down together and review the actual policies and guidelines, in light of the individual situation, sounds helpful. For example, one of the hospitals near me doesn't do salpingectomies (all the others do). For about half the women planning a C-section, that would be an important thing to know, and you'd find this out by talking to your healthcare provider rather than by writing a self-prepared birth plan. However, that kind of useful information doesn't seem to be going into birth plans. Here are some examples of the other kind:
- Don't use words like labor or contractions.
- Don't let her know how far labor has progressed.
- Don't look at or touch the birth canal.
- Don't give any advice or coaching unless she specifically invites you to.
- She's planning to post on social media every five minutes.
- They're filming everything for television.
- The father is to be naked throughout labor and delivery.
- Nobody at the hospital is allowed to mention the baby's sex.
- The only light in the room is to be a lamp that looks like a candle.
- Plus an endless supply of trivial things that the staff don't care about (in the US: Bring your favorite pillow? Wear your own T-shirt or make the hospital handle all the laundry?) or that require no advance planning (e.g., listening to music on your own phone; turning down the lights) or that can't be fulfilled (e.g., a water birth in a facility that doesn't do water births).
- In this blog post, a woman describes her own birth plan (first birth) and what she thought about it afterwards. It does not sound like it was an especially useful exercise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- I suspect that whether a birth plan is useful depends on its contents, which is why I'm interested in the difference between a collaboratively written plan and a self-prepared one that's sprung on the L&D nurses at the last minute. The sort where the parents and the midwife/ob sit down together and review the actual policies and guidelines, in light of the individual situation, sounds helpful. For example, one of the hospitals near me doesn't do salpingectomies (all the others do). For about half the women planning a C-section, that would be an important thing to know, and you'd find this out by talking to your healthcare provider rather than by writing a self-prepared birth plan. However, that kind of useful information doesn't seem to be going into birth plans. Here are some examples of the other kind:
- I can get the idea that someone who turns up with a 10-page birth plan they've written entirely themselves is likely to be a problem patient. The way I see it, the plan is tool to begin and work on a discussion between all those involved. While yes I'm sure many people think about who they want with them for support and don't need a prompt, there are plenty clueless people in the world who need a little nudge that they should think about it before labour starts. Examples like whether you want the baby cleaned up before being placed on your tummy haven't just appeared out of nowhere. I can see how it might be best to ask that question before the baby is born, unless someone is offended you think their baby is especially dirty. My experience of all this is a generation out of date. But I do recall feeling that they wanted to give you as much control over this very personal and special event but at the same time making you aware that it may all go to shit. I remember the midwife at the antenatal class demonstrating birth using Playmobil figures round a tiny bed. That while some births might be you, your partner and a midwife, which is all very cosy and private, if you urgently need a caesarean, ... and then they dumped an entire tin of Playmobil figures into the scene. -- Colin°Talk 21:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I blew past the easy question, because it was settled years ago: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Cite sources, don't describe them. You shouldn't write things like "In a 2019 review article" for accepted facts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Well I will discuss that silly, silly list later but for now I am just filled with rage at this woman's doctor and what she put her through. All this was done just to let it be known that all this about empowering women is just silly, silly when it comes to decisions that only the highest level of humanity, physicians, should be making. (Not to mention that it makes control of the timing of the birth easier for the physician to plan their day around.) What an absolute asshole her physician is and there are plenty of them out there who are just like that. (fortunately a lot more of them are men than women) She lets her write that silly birth plan but then puts her on pitocin long before it is medically necessary. For example, see the Mayo Clinic's advise here: " Inducing labor is a serious decision. Work with your health care provider to make the best choice for you and your baby."[2] And then to have the physician come into her room sneering at her about "natural" birth? More later. Sectionworker (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- "She lets her write that silly birth plan" is my point. Silly birth plans are being written. Does anyone (i.e., any reliable source) know what is actually useful and non-silly to put in those plans? I haven't found anything yet. Maybe the research hasn't been done. I could imagine, though, that useful conversations could be had about things like general pain tolerance (e.g., if you have a very low pain tolerance for everyday things, you should be encouraged to embrace the benefits of an epidural; if you have a high pain tolerance, you should be encouraged in the opposite direction) and to review some basic facts, such as the fairy tale that you can "opt for a cesarean to avoid the pain". Nobody tells any other class of patients that if a surgeon slices your lower belly open and roots around in it for a few minutes, you'll "avoid the pain". We tell them they'll be in pain for at least a week afterwards while everything heals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that finding an example of someone doing something silly on the internet is relevant. Perhaps it would be useful to set our personal opinions aside, you know, like Wikipedians? :-). The NHS for England and Wales, preparing for the bith, list a birth plan along with antenatal classes, thinking about location, and packing your bag for hospital. The Getting ready for the birth page on NHS Scotland is similar. This is a thing that a national health service regard as a standard (though optional) part of pregnancy preparation. If it was widely regarded by health professionals as a silly foolish thing to do, you'd only be able to read about it on some wellness section in a glossy magazine. Indeed, if it was as stupid an idea as is being suggested above, then perhaps the NHS pages would say "Please please, for crying out loud, don't make a birth plan, you are wasting our time and setting yourself up for disappointment".
- Sectionworker, a good source might be NCT: Writing a birth plan and deciding about pain relief. They are a reliable lay source, and you can click the little slider button on the page to show their references. One of their sources PMID 30675962 is a systematic review (hmm) and surprise surprise finds "There is not enough evidence to support or refute that birth plan can improve the birth experience or satisfaction with birth." Let's be clear here, they are saying they haven't found enough evidence meeting their standards, to support but also to reject birth plans. And yet they exist and they continue to be promoted by my NHS and childbirth charities. The second source PMC 3392605 has some huge caveats in it about being only an interview with a self-selected 15 people and "this study is very specific to the Waterloo Region in Ontario, Canada", which mirrors my comment above about how it is impossible to measure these things without 101 other factors entering the mix. It is a good example of how I think even thinking a systematic review might work out is naive. Their comment
The clearest recommendation that results from this study is that all members of the labor and birthing care team, including family, partners, nurses, doulas, midwives, and obstetricians, need to support women in making informed choices and negotiating these decisions during the birth process.
is useful. Becasue that is the aim, "to support women in making informed choices and negotiating these decisions during the birth process", and whether that is done formally with a template you download from the NHS, a few sentences on piece of paper, or just a verbal discussion with health professionals during your preparation for birth, those things are undeniably appropriate goals. There are choices and we want them to be informed ones and for them to be also aware of when choices might be made for them. A healthcare system can, I think, use such a document as an aid in that process, and that opinion is demonstrated by the fact that it is used by health professionals in that process. There are some silly people in the world, there are some rude health professionals in the world, and there are some opinionated Wikipedians in the world, but none of them change this hard fact. -- Colin°Talk 10:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC):- Waid says this and I fully agree: "I'd also like to know something about the difference between a collaborative birth plan and a self-prepared one. The first cited source suggests that a self-prepared birth plan, sprung on the providers at the last moment, may be somewhere between useless and slightly harmful." This also shows how some physicians use their patients to boost there already sky high egos. To let that blog pt. have such unrealistic expectations about the amount of pain involved in a natural birth and then let her call that her birth plan is just maddening to me because I have known in my career some like that. That doctor knew full well that she would be screaming with pain when the pitocin took effect. And then to ridicule her about her "birth plan", which had nothing what so ever to do with a real birth plan...grrr. If she was not willing to help her patient to write up a real birth plan she should have had her go to birth classes. Which she should have done anyway but seemingly did not. I rate her doctor D- because there are plenty of them out there and in other fields that are even worse.
- BTW, if the hospital that this doc works at has these sort of "birth plans" thrown on their desks perhaps the nurses do laugh in the break room and write up the above list like the husband will be naked throughout which sounds to me to be an exaggeration of something that really did happen. In the U.S. we only have (from memory) about 3% midwife attended births. But they are not allowed to be the attendant in the hospital and could only, perhaps, act as a doula. Also, only around only 28% (memory) are certified Baby Friendly where the dad holds the baby skin to skin. Perhaps the above mentioned hospital was in Florida or some other Southern state where things a pitifully backward in many areas who are not aware of dads doing skin-to-skin.
- Anyway, I will try to work with the article to make it plain that it is a tool to use with the help of some sort of professional. I did look for that already and didn't see anything.. I have asked CrossRoads if it would be ok to have the page be for both education and plan as that will help. Much thanks to both of you and hopefully we can improve the new article. Sectionworker (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, NHS! I had completely forgot about them and in fact before we got on this long discussion here I was going to try to work that site into the pregnancy article section. It should be easy enough to work NHS info into the birth plan article. They say "midwife" but I'm sure it's OK to add "or other healthcare..." Sectionworker (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- That doctor knew full well that she would be screaming with pain when the pitocin took effect. Maybe, but everyone's different. I know several women who thought childbirth wasn't that bad, including one who was was describing her experience of being induced with pitocin. I also know a couple whose experience with ordinary, uncomplicated, non-induced childbirth put them off having any more children.
- I suspect that the "naked" birth plan came from a nudist couple. Skin-to-skin doesn't require being completely naked, or being naked before the baby's out.
- In California, certified nurse midwives aren't required to have any physician supervision for low-risk births. They can be the sole attendant in the hospital. I think about 10% of births here use a CNM, and that almost none of them are home births.
- I am looking forward to seeing what you can make of the article. "A tool to be created in partnership with a healthcare professional" sounds like it would be a useful concept to communicate to readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- OK the, since you seem to want to continue to argue. It does not matter what a few women told you. Let's use stuff we can source. It is well known that pitocin does make cramps hurt more. As for the silly list, as though it happens all the time and is worth discussing here, please show me the source where you got that stuff. If we're going to argue about it I need the source. As for CNMs using hospitals I see I was wrong about that as it is now being done in many hospitals here. I am glad to see some progress. Sectionworker (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- I think we shouldn't be quick to condemn the ob for teasing the woman. After all, if she knew what she was doing, and she thought that having her husband make funny faces at her would get her through labor, then maybe the ob expected her to have a high pain tolerance, Or maybe they had the kind of months-long or years-long relationship that included gentle teasing, or one in which difficulties were met with humor.
- Some sources for you: Page 162 in this book covers birth plans from the POV of informed consent and legal issues. Page 79 in this book has a list of "topics typically included". Page 128 in the same book puts limits on implementation (safe birth first, birth plan second). Page 381 in this book has a list of topics that a birth plan "should" include and puts the duty to explain to the family that they can't have what they asked for on the nurse. Two useful points on that page: First, "The woman must also understand that the more extensive her birth plan, the less is the likelihood that all her expectations will be met", and second, that the birth plan gets integrated into the nursing care plan. Page 381 in this book says that birth plans "should be developed collaboratively during prenatal care to assist families and the healthcare team discuss their respective expectations". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- All good information but I never argued that the plan should be made without assist from a health care person. As for defending that asshole OB she had, I just will never see how you can defend her. OBs have on the average 10 to 20 births a month, thus they know full well what the experience is like. And then you are telling me that she just thought that the patient seemed to have a high level of pain tolerance and so, oh let's just joke about it rather than ask the patient to take birthing class to learn what she's in for. And then to start pitocin at 4cm instead of 6 goes against all protocol except of course the protocol of not waking the OB in the middle of the night for a patient birth. Please see this site to see what should have happened[3] Sectionworker (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know, or say, what the ob was thinking. I only say that I can think of several scenarios in which it wouldn't have been completely inappropriate or unwanted, and the mother did not say how she felt about this. Some women would have felt crushed by disapproval. Others wouldn't. Others might even gain confidence from a joke, the same way that nervous fliers gain confidence from seeing a smiling, laughing, clearly unstressed flight attendant when the plane encounters turbulence. I wouldn't recommend it as a general behavior towards a stranger, but I don't think we should make assumptions (either way) about how it was experienced between those two particular people, within their own unique relationship. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- I find it totally amazing that you would want to continue to defend an OB that wanted her patient to check into the hospital to be induced because she was 1cm dilated. And then to start induction at 4cm before she was even having any regular cramps, which signifies the beginning of real labour. And then tease her about her wish for a natural childbirth? Not only did this doc not help her patient prepare for a natural birth she saw to it that the patient was sure to fail. It should be plain that the way the doc handled this woman's birth was standard practice for her in her practice because it made her schedule more 9 to 5 than up at any hour of the day or night.Sectionworker (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- 1 cm dilated, yes, but also 100% full-term and with an 8.5-pound baby, which is bigger than average even in the US, much less in Asia. High-birth-weight babies have their own set of risks, and I don't think that advice on a US personal-injury lawyer's website is a good way of determining what a doctor in Asia should be doing for a particular birth.
- I'm not endorsing the ob; I'm endorsing a small amount of non-judgmentalism, at least to the extent of remembering that we can't fully know what other people, in other countries, in other cultures, think is okay in their relationships, and that it's what they think, and not what completely uninvolved strangers who have only a ftiny part of the story and no experience with the local culture think, that actually matters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- I find it totally amazing that you would want to continue to defend an OB that wanted her patient to check into the hospital to be induced because she was 1cm dilated. And then to start induction at 4cm before she was even having any regular cramps, which signifies the beginning of real labour. And then tease her about her wish for a natural childbirth? Not only did this doc not help her patient prepare for a natural birth she saw to it that the patient was sure to fail. It should be plain that the way the doc handled this woman's birth was standard practice for her in her practice because it made her schedule more 9 to 5 than up at any hour of the day or night.Sectionworker (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know, or say, what the ob was thinking. I only say that I can think of several scenarios in which it wouldn't have been completely inappropriate or unwanted, and the mother did not say how she felt about this. Some women would have felt crushed by disapproval. Others wouldn't. Others might even gain confidence from a joke, the same way that nervous fliers gain confidence from seeing a smiling, laughing, clearly unstressed flight attendant when the plane encounters turbulence. I wouldn't recommend it as a general behavior towards a stranger, but I don't think we should make assumptions (either way) about how it was experienced between those two particular people, within their own unique relationship. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- OK the, since you seem to want to continue to argue. It does not matter what a few women told you. Let's use stuff we can source. It is well known that pitocin does make cramps hurt more. As for the silly list, as though it happens all the time and is worth discussing here, please show me the source where you got that stuff. If we're going to argue about it I need the source. As for CNMs using hospitals I see I was wrong about that as it is now being done in many hospitals here. I am glad to see some progress. Sectionworker (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, NHS! I had completely forgot about them and in fact before we got on this long discussion here I was going to try to work that site into the pregnancy article section. It should be easy enough to work NHS info into the birth plan article. They say "midwife" but I'm sure it's OK to add "or other healthcare..." Sectionworker (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Re the lawyer's site, don't forget that you used a blog to make your points and you still have not provided a source for your "silly list". Plus, you have completely ignored my earlier information re starting pitocin with an acceptable site. Re the size:
- Most full-term healthy newborns weigh anywhere from 5 pounds 11 ounces to 8 pounds 6 ounces (2.6 to 3.8 kg). Low birth weight is less than 5 pounds 8 ounces (2.5 kg) at full term, and larger than average is a birth weight over 8 pounds 13 ounces (4.0 kg).
So, at 8.5 she still had a few more days to see if natural labor would begin. Besides, from what I read it is hard to estimate the weight of an unborn baby to more than a one pound accuracy anyway. You seem to know that that blog is from a foreign site--I thought it was from the US. Where is it from? Sectionworker (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- NHS: Here's the team. Also Birthrights, who say "NHS maternity care in the UK is led by midwives". And a good thing too. -- Colin°Talk 18:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- I am using that site in the article. I added a little more to the section and removed any talk of birth plans are available, etc. I never heard back from Crossroads about making the birth plan include classes as well. It needs to be done. Sectionworker (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- NHS: Here's the team. Also Birthrights, who say "NHS maternity care in the UK is led by midwives". And a good thing too. -- Colin°Talk 18:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know where the blog is located, but the mother gives her location as a particular city in southeast Asia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Talk page alert: It's too full!
This is an attempted funny reminder that your talk page is 280,166 bytes full. Which is technically incorrect as this message will take up at least a calculated minimum of 1 byte. :P --Super Goku V (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you! WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
Hello, WhatamIdoing! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Two items of software feedback
Hi WhatamIdoing, I'd be grateful if you could look into the following issues and/or pass them on.
- The Reply feature on talk pages used to work perfectly. Over the past few days, however, I've encountered errors such as text in the edit window not corresponding to the preview (e.g. a paragraph becoming duplicated in one window but not the other) or additional characters being inserted when adding a paragraph break. Is this a known issue?
- A banner just invited me to try a new interface (Vector 2022). However, when I didn't like it, there was no easy and obvious way to undo the change; I had to go into Preferences, which might be beyond more casual users. When a software user is invited to try something, the expectation is that it can be undone with a single click.
Thanks and best wishes, Andreas JN466 09:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Jayen466, for the first, I need to know what your browser/OS is. Please also read this: User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF)#Problem with add topic tool and let me know if that feels familiar. (I think yours is a different problem.)
- I know they considered putting instructions for turning off Vector 2022 in the banner, but since Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, and definitely nobody's going to remember a single line about how to disable it after trying it out for a few days, it's not the best way to go about it. Consequently, they put a semi-permanent link in the main menu (the replacement for the left sidebar). It says "Switch to old look" in bold. It seems to be very effective: About 10% of registered editors opt back out, but yours is only the third comment I've seen about it being too hard to figure out how to do it.
- I believe that this semi-permanent link will stick around for some months, maybe even a year or two, but it will eventually be removed. I don't know what the specific plan is in this case (or if they've even settled on a specific plan yet), but a typical thing to do would be to keep it as long as it seems to be used at any significant rate, and then remove it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Re Vector, I was reminded of how it works when you change screen settings in Windows. You can "Apply" a new setting, and are then asked whether you want to keep the new setting. If you say No, everything goes back to the way it was. That would be cool here.
- As for the Reply feature, I encountered the problems on two very different platforms: once in Opera on a desktop running Windows, and once in Silk on a Kindle Fire. Don't worry about it for now; if it happens again, I'll take notes on what exactly I did, along with a screenshot. Andreas JN466 21:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- The Windows system sounds like the "Preview" option in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering.
- If you can come up with a reliable way to trigger the bug, I'd love to have it. I suspect that it's an intermittent bug that requires repeated, slightly complex actions (like copying and pasting ref tags) plus the right phase of the moon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Jayen466, here's my usual list of the three "weird behavior" bugs:
- phab:T319090 – for inexplicable copy/paste problems
- phab:T156228 – shift key + GoogleTrans gadget
- phab:T316838 – shift key without the gadget
- I suggest that you look through them and see if one feels similar. If it does, then that's the place to post your description and any screenshots.
- I don't expect these to be specific to DiscussionTools/the Reply tool. You're likely to encounter them in anything that's got mw:Extension:VisualEditor behind it. And in all three cases, it feels like a problem in VisualEditor itself (i.e., before VisualEditor hands the contents over to Parsoid). But until we can reliably reproduce it, the actual cause can't be determined, so I could be wrong about that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Jayen466, here's my usual list of the three "weird behavior" bugs:
Happy holidays
Season's Greetings | ||
Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Magi by Luca Signorelli is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC) |
Belknap and advocacy
Hi, please see my recent comment about Belknaps carnivore diet advocacy [4]. Is it worth me filing an ANI report because this user is disruptive on red meat and saturated fat articles. (disclosure I have debated Belknap on Twitter about his carnivore diet) 90.241.67.238 (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- I doubt that it would be productive. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Happy New Year, WhatamIdoing!
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 04:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Mulberry, KS
I did some research and the best restaurant (and maybe the only restaurant?) is Gebhardt’s Chicken Dinners [5] - seems like to get a sandwich we'd have to go to nearby Pittsburg, KS. Andre🚐 07:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- You made more progress than I did. I only found a convenience store (using Google Maps). You might have a shining future at Wikivoyage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oh wow, yeah, I could do a lot of damage on that, but I probably won't. Andre🚐 05:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- They're nice people, and there's lots of scope for fun editing. There's also a lot of really useful not-quite-gnoming work that needs to be done, especially to remove restaurants that closed during the pandemic. It's not difficult work, and the listing editor is really quite nice to work in. I suggest looking up the article for a place you know fairly well, and seeing whether it needs anything obvious. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hmm, an old version of my meta userpage is there [6] but SUL doesn't seem to have logged me in... Andre🚐 05:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- If you're in Firefox/blocking third-party cookies, that is probably the problem.
- It's the same username/password even with the automatic login doesn't work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hmm, an old version of my meta userpage is there [6] but SUL doesn't seem to have logged me in... Andre🚐 05:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- They're nice people, and there's lots of scope for fun editing. There's also a lot of really useful not-quite-gnoming work that needs to be done, especially to remove restaurants that closed during the pandemic. It's not difficult work, and the listing editor is really quite nice to work in. I suggest looking up the article for a place you know fairly well, and seeing whether it needs anything obvious. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oh wow, yeah, I could do a lot of damage on that, but I probably won't. Andre🚐 05:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
You helped empath along so I credited you as a co-author in the DYK. If you don't want the credit or the bot message you can remove yourself from the template. (After it is reviewed I will promote it so User:Psiĥedelisto § Best and at that time if you are on the DYK will give you a co-author note there too.) Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 11:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Congratulations on the nom. I hadn't realized that it was such a new article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: Thank you! I actually wrote it because someone told me they're an empath and I couldn't find any reliable information on what that meant and was very surprised we just had a redirect to empathy without any information on this concept. In some ways it makes sense that it took this long, as until recently this was a classic case of a WP:FRINGE topic. But given all the media attention, the internet culture usage of the term, and the fact that more and more people self-describe as empaths, I felt we needed to split the page for real this time. The past attempts were not well written so replacing them with a redirect (in 2010, 2015) probably made sense at the time per WP:Think of the reader. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 14:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Trump Talk
Just a suggestion to add the following after the part "For comparison" of your message [7].
- Whereas for this article,
- Donald Trump: 18 links per 631 words, rated B
Bob K31416 (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Hitchhiker's guide
If you like Douglas Adams's humour, the book series is great and I highly recommend it. Books vs radio series have different strengths, so whether or not you prefer one to the other is just a matter of which strengths you find more appealing. (The movie actually got good critical reviews.) isaacl (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Isaacl. I tend to prefer books overall, but I've never encountered a radio show that got turned into a book, so I'm not sure what to expect. I'm much more likely to try a book than a movie. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- The books aren't a straight adaptation; more of a remix/new variant with parts of the different series ("phases") drawn into different books, new content added, and as Adams stated in the introduction to one of the omnibus editions, in some cases the same scenes are included but with the characters having entirely different motivations (which he described as being like adding new content except for being able to reuse dialogue). Text allows for greater verbosity, which gives Adams more room for his elaborate absurdist humour and punchline setups. (Radio of course provides an aural background along with the actor readings to convey emotion.) Regarding the movie, Martin Freeman's acting style is a great fit for Arthur Dent. isaacl (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Inquiry
I seem to recall reading somewhere that the majority of edits made through unblocked TOR exit nodes were constructive, was that WMF research and if so do have a link handy?
Also the internal effort to assist editors from filtered countries fizzled, did the foundation ever try something similar? At some point I remember running across discussions related to the issue on meta but I can't seem to remember any details at the moment.
Disclosure, this inquiry was prompted by Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Allow registered editors to use vpn (open proxies) I doubt I'll have the time to add anything thoughtful to it, but I'm trying to collect my thoughts since I have a feeling that many of the related issues are going to come up with increasing frequency. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- I've never heard about research from unblocked TOR exit nodes. I've heard that claim made (for years and years; I think the study was done around 2006) about unregistered/IP editors. I'm not sure that the research was done by the WMF, but it is probably documented on Meta-Wiki.
- I'm not familiar with Wikipedia:WikiProject on closed proxies. The most recent big discussion at Meta-Wiki that I'm aware of is m:Talk:No open proxies/Unfair blocking.
- I agree that this is going to become a bigger problem over time. For that matter, it already has. Tech-minded folks have been warning us about this for at least 10 years already. It's worse now than it was back then. It will continue to get worse until we stop relying on IP addresses as the primary form of identifying bad actors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah I still remember all the headaches AOL gave us back in the day, but it's worse now than it ever was. I guess I'll have to search around and send out a few feelers. I appreciate the pointer to that meta discussion and I'll try to look it over when I get the time. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- As a quick update, this is what I was thinking of in case you're curious. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Editing news 2023 #1
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter
This newsletter includes two key updates about the Editing team's work:
- The Editing team will finish adding new features to the Talk pages project and deploy it.
- They are beginning a new project, Edit check.
Talk pages project
The Editing team is nearly finished with this first phase of the Talk pages project. Nearly all new features are available now in the Beta Feature for Discussion tools.
It will show information about how active a discussion is, such as the date of the most recent comment. There will soon be a new "Add topic" button. You will be able to turn them off at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion. Please tell them what you think.
An A/B test for Discussion tools on the mobile site has finished. Editors were more successful with Discussion tools. The Editing team is enabling these features for all editors on the mobile site.
New Project: Edit Check
The Editing team is beginning a project to help new editors of Wikipedia. It will help people identify some problems before they click "Publish changes". The first tool will encourage people to add references when they add new content. Please watch that page for more information. You can join a conference call on 3 March 2023 to learn more.
–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Delete everything?
I am a little worried about a recent tendency towards working up new policies to needlessly delete tens of thousands of articles. I saw your patient response and explanation at the Village Pump in one of these cases and wanted to thank you. It sucks that you have to waste your time arguing things like this instead of fleshing out lepidoptera articles, but be assured that at least it was appreciated by someone. Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 03:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Mr.choppers, thank you for the kind message. One of the nicer things about Wikipedia is that everyone knows something, and no one knows everything. That was one bit that I can contribute, but the best days are the ones where I learn something from other editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Mr.choppers (alt) Marthatak (talk) 06:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
A heart for you!
A heart for you! | |
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Born25121642 (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC) |
- Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Talk page vs RM name change discussions
Hi WhatamIdoing, You mentioned on the Mpox talk page that most moves happen out of RM. This feels right, but do we have any data on the numbers? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 14:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- I've never seen any research on it, but Special:Log/move shows about a thousand page moves today (which, if they all have talk pages, could be 500 actual moves). For comparison, Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions#March 9, 2023 lists 13 moves for discussion. If that's typical, then that suggests that there is something on the order of one RM for every 30+ actual moves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- Which is encouraging as this is a wiki and we are supposed to be bold, not bogged down in bureaucracy. I suppose not all of those moves are undiscussed via RM as, for example, about thirty 2022-23 mpox outbreak pages all got moved as a result of one discussion. Is that kind of thing, where whole sets of pages get moved in sync common? Currently the log is showing a whole bunch of pages starting "NA-" for the National Assembly of Pakistan.
- Btw, I cannot for all my many years, learn how to spell bureaucracy. The edit window has a spell checker (Chrome?) which offers suggestions, but no matter what way I try to spell and alternatively spell the word, none of the suggestions ever include the correct word. I have to stick my abomination into Google and then of course it appears by magic. -- Colin°Talk 08:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think it's common for large sets of page moves to be discussed in advance, and sometimes (usually? almost always?) those will happen with RM tags.
- (If you're using the Reply tool, then try its link tool to make a link to Bureaucracy, and then remove the link formatting. Nobody will ever know.
;-)
) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)- It is a bit awkward. It offers to link to a spelling mistake redirect. -- Colin°Talk 14:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, but you should be able to see which one is the redirect and which one is the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- How do these figures cope with undiscussed moves that are reverted? The page mover software gives "revert undiscussed page move" as one of its standard reasons for the edit summary. I revert a good few; it is a classic new editor form of over-reaching. A RM rarely follows. Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Less than 5%, if the most recent thousand page moves are representative.
- It would be convenient if we could isolate only moves within the mainspace, but I don't see a way to filter for that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- How do these figures cope with undiscussed moves that are reverted? The page mover software gives "revert undiscussed page move" as one of its standard reasons for the edit summary. I revert a good few; it is a classic new editor form of over-reaching. A RM rarely follows. Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, but you should be able to see which one is the redirect and which one is the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- It is a bit awkward. It offers to link to a spelling mistake redirect. -- Colin°Talk 14:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)