Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

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.

« Archives, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80

Problem on Era conversion

This topic has been removed to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

Dr Sushil Kumar

Please see the history of the Dr Sushil Kumar article. Directorichr (talk · contribs) continues to edit the article to a non-standard formatting of references. I keep reverting it back to a formatted version, and try explaining to the editor what's wrong with their edits, but they never respond and just keep reverting back. What's my best action? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The article creator has not made edits except to this one article. I suggest it be nominated for WP:AFD. The user name, Directorichr, suggests he is identifying himself as Director of the ICHR. Notability is questionable given the current references. An arduous negotiation with someone who is unwilling to join discussions might thus be avoided. If relations had started out better, it is conceivable we could work with him to create a keepable article. Against tooth-and-nail opposition I don't think it is possible. EdJohnston (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Concur - Pointillist (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Article has been nominated for deletion: see the discussion here. - Pointillist (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Internet users by language per article on Wikipedia

I've made a chart comparing the rough number of Internet users who speak a particular language as their primary language to the size of the Wikipedia in that language, see:

• User:Dcoetzee/Internet_users_by_language_per_article_on_Wikipedia

It's fairly incomplete, but still interesting. Dcoetzee 05:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Poll: autoformatting and date linking

This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 09:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Admin coaching

Hallo, is the admin coaching project still active/in use? I was going to sign myself up for coaching, but then noticed that the unfulfilled requests were sitting around for many months without action. Thanks, tempodivalse [☎] 14:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I've wondered that for awhile myself. The talk page is so scarce there hasn't been a single thread from March '08 to March '09 and the same question was asked in 2007 with nary any improvement; it appears this was never the springboard that was hoped for. Requests for coaching just sit there and no one really rattles the cage about it. Maybe it needs a call to arms over on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship where they are currently lamenting the lack of good admin candidates. (If someone really wants to save admin coaching, they should nominate it for deletion: a brilliant way to make a point and everyone will say it is a massive abuse of the system — yet it works every time!) --64.85.214.183 (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Since many months, only three "coaches" continued "coaching". Considering the reputation of admin coaching, I'd advise you to not request coaching anyway. The page was marked as inactive, but it was removed. See latest archive (it was broken, repaired). Cenarium (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Correct Name of Category?

There is a Category:Industry by country but this only has 6 countries, and it is undecided whether to say “Industry in Fooland” or “Industries in Fooland” or “Industry of Fooland”. (this is not "about" policy, just asking what the policy is! Category is underpopulated, but should be standardised first! Perhaps “Industry in Romania” should replace both existing categories?

Category:Economy of the United Kingdom has subcategories for Banking, Energy, Mining and Tourism; but not for Manufacturing and/or Industries. While there are Company categories for a number of Industries, this does not seem to cover either individual factories or Government factories eg see Category:Royal Ordnance Factories or Category:Government munitions production in the United Kingdom. So perhaps "Industry in the United Kingdom"? Hugo999 (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Two new toolserver tools

...for you to try out. They're for finding incorrect uses of needs-infobox and needs-photo parameters and can be accessed fromhere. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Blogs as sources, WP:BLOGS

Since I still keep coming across issues where people falsely say "blogs can't be sources"--an out and out incorrect statement--I've whipped up Wikipedia:Blogs as sources/WP:BLOGS as a quick reference distilled from RS & BLP policy pages to give a quick clue on how blogs are allowed to be used from certain websites, and how on what articles. Any feedback on the talk is appreciated there. rootology (C)(T) 03:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Main Page shortcuts

I used MP as the shortcut prefix[1] [2] for “main page” since it is used in the main page’s source code, for example id="mp-topbanner"[1]. I used the prefix with the following shortcuts which I need for my user page : Main page, top, On this day... & Did you know..., Today's featured picture & Other areas of Wikipedia, Wikipedia's sister projects & Wikipedia languages. The prefix is not intended to be a namespace, but simply a shortcut prefix for Main Page with the letters following mp representing a section of the main page. These shortcuts are useful, allowing for example one to go directly to the part of the main page that includes the section “Other areas of Wikipedia“. As I’ve already pointed out, mp is in the Source of the main page and there represents the main page. I’m using the shortcuts and I hope others will find them helpful also. For example, suppose you want to go directly to “today‘s featured picture” from the multilingual portal. You simply use the short cut.Chuck Marean 09:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiLog - Wikipedia Blogged

Hi all,

As some of you may know, I've started an unofficial blog about Wikimedia projects (but inevitably focussing more on Wikipedia).

I would really appreciate it if you took the time to pop over, perhaps leave a comment or two... If you like what you see then please subscribe!

I definitely plan to involve the community with the creation of the blog's content - articles focussing on particular WikiProjects, for example. If you're at all interested in working with me, then please do not hesitate to contact me.

Cheers,

--Heebiejeebieclub (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Why AfD frustrates me

I've got a question on Wikipedia policies. More specifically, about how they're applied to AfDs. I'd like to direct your attention to this AfD. The nominator suggested that Susan Boyle does not satisfy notability guidelines as she's just another contender on a TV show. I agree with that, as contenders do not merit their own article. Then came a flurry of 'Keep' arguments stating that as she sang so very well and the judges gave her a standing ovation right after she sang the first note, she deserves her own article. Youtube was also being used as a deciding factor about whether she was notable or not. From my understanding of policy, Youtube should not / cannot be considered. Strong Keep over 250K youtube views already amongst well over 50 videos (edit: now over 350K on one vid alone and While I always strive to maintain a NPOV, I must point out the sheer quality of her performance... standing ovation from the judges, the entire crowd, after just the first vocal left her lips. were some of the arguments used. Also, if she is notable (which I doubt), it would be because of a single performance. Wouldn't that come under WP:ONEEVENT or WP:BLP1E? All the news paper articles talk about that one performance too.

So that is my opinion up there. And yet, I must be wrong. As Looie496 pointed out, 31 people wanted to keep it, 5 people wanted it deleted. So he closed it (non-admin closure). I was rather looking forward to an admin closure, as that admin would decide whether (1) Youtube can be used as a measure of notability, (2) WP:ONEEVENT can be ignored by zealous fans, and (3) whether AfD is really a !vote process or a vote process.

So I want to get your opinion on this. What do you guys think?

On a lighter note, here are some of the more amusing !votes:

Keep - it belongs here because I looked for it here on Wikipedia.

VERY STRONG KEEP - This article NEEDS to be on wikipedia. Without it, wikipedia would be a terrible place! Please, please, please keep it!

Keep (no, that's not a typo). ...

Oh yea, and since I'm posting this anyway, I question the relevance of WP:SNOW in AfDs. It's all very well in RfAs where a minimum % of supports are required, but AfDs require consensus. A hundred people could repeat the same wrong argument and it would still get closed by WP:SNOW. Not fair. Antivenin 08:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest taking it to deletion review. For one, it is a non-admin closing by someone already involved in the discussion. It should have been left to an admin. --Farix (Talk) 11:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

With my admin hat on, I have reverted the closure and relisted the debate. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Good deal. I honestly didn't think the closing would stand at WP:DRV because 1) It was a contested debate closed by a non-admin. 2) The closer already commented in the debate. 3) The closer merely vote counted instead of weighing the arguments. --Farix (Talk) 12:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, in case anyone wants to know, the reversion ike this is allowable by WP:DELPRO and the advice in WP:NAC, whose contents under "Inappropriate closure" caused me to revert Fritzpoll (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)

Under a literal interpretation of the current rules, as cited by Anti, I'd say it should probably be deleted. However the voting at this AfD may indicate that these rules reflect only the consensus of those most active at AfD - a complaint that appears quite often on various discussion pages. There's been public criticism of WP's current deletionist tendencies, with suggestions that it's driving editors away (one in PC Pro, where a journalist created a stub on a notable subject, Political Quarterly and it was deleted within hours; another in The Economist).

The article Susan Boyle's only content issue is excessive use of diret quotes, although each is attributed and referenced and only short extracts are quoted from each source, so I expect there's no problem about WP:COPYVIO. I'd WP:IAR and keep it. --Philcha (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

While there might be ground for a procedural relisting due to the AfD having been closed by someone involved in the debate, and apparent vote counting:

1) We should not be wasting time and effort for purely procedural reasons. WP is not a bureaucracy etc. The debate was promptly snow-closed again.

2) Non admin closure ? So what ? What is the rationale here ? If something does not require admin tools, why insist only an admin should do it ? Unless I've missed something since I joined the project, there is no aristocracy here, no prerogatives, only potentially damaging tools granted to trusted users. I have no issue discouraging inexperienced editors from closing AfD debates, but the essay at WP:NAC is taking it several steps too far in my opinion. If the only thing wrong with an AfD closure is that it was performed by a non admin, then there is nothing wrong with it. Equendil Talk 14:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The main issue is identifying experienced users. Admins are already reviewed for their experience. Ordinary users are not, and require separate review. Dcoetzee 23:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

And on the other side of the equasion, why are we always in a rush to close debates? imo, WP:SNOW should only apply after a certain amount of time (i.e.: 3 days) and only if the !voters are unanimous in their views. I don't like policy for the sake of policy, but I hate unnecessary drama, and allowing AfDs like this to be closed early, especially by an involved party, only creates a ton of drama. Just let the damned AfDs run their length. Resolute 13:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: Due to a cross-posting this is also being discussed at the Help Desk: Wikipedia:Help desk#Why AfD frustrates me. – ukexpat (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Afd now reopened per discussion at WP:ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle again. – ukexpat (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia under scrutiny WTC collapse

Folks, I do not understand what you are doing. Look at this.

I feel certain that the WTC controlled demolition hypothesis is false, I mean, how could it be demolished? It would take days to prepare. That said, I do not understand why such a large group of editors is concerned with renaming the article, and deleting scientific information which is relevant to the article.

One fact we know about science is, that most scientific facts turn out to be wrong in the end. That's how science works: we do the best we can, find we were wrong, there is more to know, and move on. These partisan battles are unprofessional.

Kaaskop6666 (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's an issue of undue weight, fringe theories etc. If the "truthers" have a problem with the way Wikipedia deals with these issues, they are welcome to initiate or contribute to relevant discussions and attempt to change the consensus. – ukexpat (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Get real, wikipedia should not allow truthers to distort neutrality, but deleting relevant information in order to deny them a voice is going too far. We should be neutral, that is, to both sides. Kaaskop6666 (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that we allow them to distort neutrality. What I am saying is that rather than them bleating about in a blog, which will just allow them to wallow in self-pity, they should man up and come here to discuss their issues. If they don't choose to participate in our processes, that's not our fault. – ukexpat (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is what you get for just making one revert and posting two comments on the Talk page:

Blocking a user after one edit and a few comments on the Talk page?

As I noted above, after I returned a reference to the Bentham article supporting the controlled demolition "conspiracy theory" [to a Wikipedia article dealing with the "controlled demolition conspiracy theory"!], I was immediately warned that I could be blocked from Wikipedia. After that sigle edit, I only wrote two comments on this Talk page. After that, I found the following on my own talk page:

I've filed an arbitration enforcement request against you. See

WP:AE. Jehochman [[User

talk:Jehochman|Talk]] 16:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What on earth is going on here? I appeal to all fair-minded editors: do not allow Wikipedia to go down this route.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perscurator (talk • contribs) 21:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Your review in going in your favor. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Discretionary sanctions, editors continuing to edit a 9/11-related article over an item that has reached an opposing consensus, or under discussion, are subject to administrative sanctions less forgiving in effect elsewhere on the site. I wouldn't continue reverting if I was you... - BanyanTree 22:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh. The history of World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories is funny: split from 9/11 conspiracy theories as a "Theory" and promptly moved to a "Hypothesis," before making its way back to the characterization used in its parent article as "conspiracy theory" after much argument and discussion. The complaints about "activist editors", as opposed to editors who don't edit I suppose, are a tactic typical of tendentious editing - choosing the revision of an article that you most prefer and then pretending that this revision is the baseline from which any deviation is obvious bad faith. Move along, nothing to see here. - BanyanTree 21:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I discuss this in the context of the respectful and fact-based coverage of the nanothermite findings in Danmark's TV2 and the country's other reliable mainstream sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories#Respectful_and_serious_coverage_of_the_nanothermite_residue_article_in_reliable_sources_in_Danmark

Perscurator (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

New fun (and possibly useful!) list

Hi.

New project-space page: Wikipedia:You might be Wikilawyering if...

Please edit, and enjoy. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

NEW PROJECT

I think that there should be a new project create called the Wikipedia Against Vandalism. Any users (reformed vandals and users with a clean history can join) that want to sign up and help can. Awareness should be raised about vandalism on Wikipedia. People don't seem to get that whatever they write only stays on Wikipedia for about a minute. That one minute of fun that they get just hurts the reliability and public opinion of Wikipedia. There should be a forum for everyone to talk about the subject and publicly state their reformation. The project will do other things, and administrators that have the main goal of blocking vandals can also join. Each administrator that blocks a vandal or users that refer a possible vandal to an admin, can log it into a list. We will update the number of blocked vandals everyday and it might possibly get put on the main page of Wikipedia. I am willing to create this project, but I need someone with a vast knowledge of Wikipedia (preferably an administrator) to guide me since I am very new to Wikipedia. Please spread the word about this proposed project. Thanks. --Thenachoman (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's already the Counter-Vandalism Unit- you might want to check it out. :-) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Notification of WikiProject Living people

In order to have an organized page centralizing all the tasks relating to biographies of living people, a WikiProject has been created. There are several areas in need of greater attention, each listed on the project page. This is a project-wide problem that needs everyone's attention. Please take a look and help where you can. لennavecia 20:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I don't know if this is possible or plausible, but would there be a way to allow certain IPs to edit semi-protected pages? I know with dynamic IPs it's difficult, but if there is a way it would be smart. For example, see Special:Contributions/74.137.108.115. --99.240.227.108 (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)