Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
How about a userbox or something like that to show support for Aaron Swartz, Open access and #pdftribute? I put a line on my userpage
Misplaced Pages donates to The Geek Group
From a status update from The Geek Group's president, Misplaced Pages (or, more probably, WMF) have donated a load of servers to The Geek Group. On behalf of The Geek Group, I'd like to say thank you. Osarius - Want a chat?18:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
"Am deutschen Wesen soll die Welt genesen", hatten wir alles schon mal. "By the German character the world shall be healed", we had that before. But perhaps one of your suggestions should be followed; it is for you to guess which one. Lectonar (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
"holocaust denial gets version-deleted, the vandal gets only one waring ang gets blocked" - Despicable enough, I agree, but in article space noting someone's views about this (with some high quality references, naturally) is (unfortunately) unavoidable at times. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
In that case it wouldn't be holocaust denial, but writing about holocaust denial, which is a completely different thing. There are pretty obvious historical and legal reasons why the German Misplaced Pages might choose to have a specific written policy about this, rather than rely on general vandalism policies to deal with it as we do here. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I'm quite aware of the historical and legal implications, but the OPs description of the issue left a lot to be desired. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Need fewer trivial templates but more clever: I agree, as a general principle, that there are "too many templates" especially for trivial issues. However, the current vast diversity of templates, on enwiki versus dewiki, has inspired creating some new valuable templates, based on the wealth of prior template ideas. For example, new Template:Autotable5, which autonumbers the rows in a table (up to 5 columns), was based on examining some earlier, but very complex, row-number templates which ran too slowly, and could have been deleted as unworkable. The wrapper template for measurements Template:Convert/spell uses {Convert}'s wealth of unit names ({{convert/spell|7.65E12|mi|ly}} → Template:Convert/spell). Also, new Template:Location_map_all can show locator dots correctly in all browsers, based on old Template:Location_map which now fails in Internet Explorer compatibility-mode browsers. Plus, Template:Brick chart now handles decimal numbers. Yet, I have also advised deleting many trivial templates, but anti-template deletions went too far years ago, and some of the most valuable efficient templates were deleted, such as for quick spacing inside wp:wikitables. Instead, we need to foster more clever templates, and the new, lightning-fast Lua script modules (searching text 180,000x faster than markup) will enable development of astounding, text-analyzing, helper templates using heuristics in #invoke'd modules. Meanwhile, we can still learn clever ideas from numerous old templates. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Is this list the result a discussion about this specific subject on de:WP, or is it your opinion of the general feeling there? If it's the former then could you please provide a link to the discussion? My initial reaction to this is that it seems to confirm national stereotypes, with de taking a more prescriptive approach and en being more laisser-faire, apart from the last point where these roles seem to be reversed. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
The Germans have long been innovators, ahead of the pack in new technologies and ideas for how to run a wiki, but I seriously doubt the list posted above has any kind of official standing or support from the bulk of de.wp users. If it did I suspect someone with, you know, an account, would be telling us about it. Suggest ignoring this thread as useless shit-stirring. The Germans run their WP, we run purs, each according to local community consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
That is most probably 93.82.1.22's personal interpretation of the situation - at least I am not aware of any kind of "official standing", recent discussion on that topic, poll etc. There are of course many different opinions. Just one example: On the one hand, there are people who think that the category structure at en: is way too complex (or "deep" in the sense of Category:1980ies movies with male persons flying helicopters) and needs serious weed control. On the other hand, there are people who think that the category system at de: is being regulated way too strictly, prohibiting even the basic Category:Aviation films (because that is not a "recognized genre"). My very personal impression is, that de: is drifting into the direction of an Encyclopedia Galactica while en: floats into the opposite direction (i.e. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy), with both appoaches having their own advantages and disadvanages. de: seems to be a bit short of hoopy froods and maybe en: could benefit from some of our german Vogons ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
For those poor Germans who are so unhappy about the state of their big sister English Misplaced Pages. I thought cookies and love might cheer them up and adopt a more positive view. Lova Falktalk10:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Not to get too caustic here: just try posting the wikilove on de-WP...but what do I know, I am German myself. But I never felt at home in de-WP....Lectonar (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Lova received cheerful thanks, followed by a request for something to drink. A glass of milk was provided, and then a cup of tea in case anyone was lactose intolerant. It was a very happy conversation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Maybe I am to German for my own good, with prejudices against Germany. I will sit in my corner now, and cry a little bit ;). And listen to Gustav Mahler, and yes, I know he is Austrian. Lectonar (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I want to update cite error messages for the top used languages. Can anyone translate "see the help page" for these languages? I need "help page" to be linked, so I have shown it underlined. --— Gadget850 (Ed)02:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I can't really help with the translations, but if no one else comes along I note that the default message for MediaWiki:newarticletext contains "see the help page"; if it's translated more-or-less the same (which I believe is typically the case) you might be able to crib from the other-language versions of that message. Then there's MediaWiki:viewhelppage which is "View help page" and MediaWiki:tooltip-ca-nstab-help which is "View the help page". Anomie⚔03:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Good morning to all! Italian Misplaced Pages reaches one million articles today, come party with us, and leave here a message to support our community! Have a nice day! --Patafisik (talk) 07:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
As long as attribution is given, yes. Someone else here might give you a more detailed description of exactly how the text needs to be attributed, but Misplaced Pages does allow its text to be used for commercial purposes. RyanVesey18:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
About half the outfits that market books that are word for word copies of our articles do acknowledge that the text is from the wikipedia, while the rest do not. Geo Swan (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOTINHERITED is wikilink to a section of the highly regarded essay WP:Arguments to avoid. I am not forum shopping, so I won′t name the discussion where this came up, but I was recently concerned by participants in a discussion who I thought were calling upon WP:NOTINHERITED in a completely backward manner.
Most individuals who have standalone articles written about them have notability based on a number of factors. WP:BLP1E allows for exceptional individuals, who are notable for just a single event, to nevertheless have a standalone article written about them, if the single event is compelling notable -- like being awarded their nation′s highest medal. But for most individuals their notability is based on evaluating various factors that build towards notability.
For individuals who have had a book, or a chapter of a book, or a couple of paragraphs of a book, written about them, this is a strong factor for their notability. Similarly, having an interview published in an WP:RS, being quoted, or appearing in a documentary would be a strong factor adding to their notability.
In this discussion I have argued that when an individual has their courage recognized by having a ship named after them, this too is a factor adding to their notability.
Other participants claim this does not add to their notability, because notability is not inherited.
But Martin Luther King′s already very considerable notability is further enhanced by having streets named after him. I suggested namesakes derive further notability by having something significant named after them, as I see it as a further recognition from their peers of how remarkable they were.
It likely depends on the relative level of geographic importance here, as I know that at local levels there are often buildings, streets and parks named for local individuals of merit but without broader importance outside the community - eg just becuase John Q Smith Drive exists in Smalltown USA doesn't mean that John Q Smith is notable. On the other hand, when what is being named has regional or national importance - such as a battleship for the military, federal government buildings, and the like, there's probably a very good reason that the name was used for such an important item and likely there will be sources for that. The problem is distinguishing from local source for a person with only local notability, and broader sources for a person that should be notable in broad terms. I would argue that it is still the case that NOTINHERITED applies, but like how the subject-specific notability guidelines work, having a major building or feature named after a person is a likely sign that sources about that person exists, and thus we presume notability for a stand-alone article. --MASEM (t) 21:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks.
I think we mainly agree. I wouldn′t agree that a park named after a local, by local officials, conferred zero notability to that individual. Rather I would suggest a sliding scale, where a National Park would confer more notability than a Provincial or State Park, which would confer more notability than a municipal park. I think the size and underlying value of the park, as well as the size of the municipality-province-country would also be a factor. But I think even the smallest park, mandated by the smallest municipality would still confer a small measure of notability -- particularly if the local park was named after a local who had acheived a measure of national or international prominence.
For WP:ACADEMICS publications add to their notability, but other reflections of that they are admired by their peers also add to their notability. When evaluating publications, we consider whether there is meaningful professional editorial review, for fact-checking, reasonable, an absence of plagiarism, and other credibility issues. Publications that have meaningful professional editorial review count more than publications with poor or non-existent editorial control.
The way I see it, many of the decisions to name infrastructure after an individual are done after thorough planning. Lists of candidates are drawn up. Recommendations are made, based on the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates. When the naming choice is done professionally like this I see it as similar to the behind the scenes work of professional editors. I see this as conferring notability, without surmizing the decision makers relied on what we would consider WP:RS. I see the behind the scenes research of the decision makers and their professional staff as a substitute for the research of professional journalists and their editors.
Circular citations in connection with Jean-Pierre Hombach
I would like to draw attention to the work of Jean-Pierre Hombach. Seemingly prolific he just copies content from Misplaced Pages and make it "his" books, — if my investigations are correct! I have made a blog post about the case. There are two problems with this issue:
For at least some of the works he does not seem to give correct CC BY-SA attribution. If you browse Lulu, Amazom.com or Google Books the CC BY-SA nature of the material is not apparent. I should note that at least one of his books might be attributed correctly (the Whitney Houston one). I have not acquired his books. My only entry for the content of the books is Google Books so I cannot examine the full content, and the license and attribution might be hidden somewhere.
Citing Hombach's production gives rise to circular citation in Misplaced Pages: Misplaced Pages used as a source for Misplaced Pages. I have just done a Google search and found five citations to the Hombach books.
IANAL, but possibly Misplaced Pages contributors could take legal action, that might put a bit attention to this issue. Perhaps a word of warning should be issued for Google Books when using it for quick "citation needed" fix: It is not easy to get an overview of the entire book. It was not immediately clear to me whether Hombach had copied Misplaced Pages. The copyright pages on Google Books for Holmbach books say in many cases "2010", while the books seem to be published in 2012 (see links in blog post. — fnielsen (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I do believe that tool refreshes on demand, however the toolserver automatically caches all database queries for performance reasons, so you should probably wait an hour-ish for it to update. Legoktm (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Hurm. It says the list was generated on 21 January 2013, 8:32:43 UTC, and the changes I've made over the past couple of days (addressing the issues listed in maintenance templates and removing them) haven't shown up. I check back pretty often, I'm sort of vain that way. --Kierkkadon03:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
And it might have something to do with the migration to the Virginia servers that will hopefully be resolved. See WP:VPT. Template:Date shows the 22nd for me, for example. I say definitely post again if it doesn't go away. Biosthmors (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I missed the timestamp in the original report, I'm guessing its generated on a regular basis, so its probably best to ask Svick when it will get updated next. Legoktm (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi all! I am looking for opinions - preferably with a good argument - on external links, because I don't know if I was right or wrong removing them. Could you please shine your light here? Thank you!
Appropriate noticeboard for input on "offensive material"
Per WP:GRATUITOUS: "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." I found a crime scene image in Barry Seal that does not appear to be particularly "informative"or "relevant" to the article. Is there a particular forum or noticeboard to which I should bring this for a second opinion? Thanks! Location (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
It should be discussed at the talk page of the article. Discussions regarding article content are best handled on talk pages of articles. Give such a discussion a few days to develop, if things reach an impasse, you can attempt dispute resolution. --Jayron3205:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Could someone explain to me what does this edition by a bot mean in my user sandbox page?
The edition is this. Which page did I supposedly change its English style to? And the bot ends its message inviting me to ask questions in my own talk page! I am absolutely puzzled. Thank you in advance. --Canyq (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
You may also want to ask at User talk:AnomieBOT. This is the type of message meant for your talk page, not your sandbox. Looking at your contributions, I don't see what may have triggered it. Chris857 (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you both for your info. Since I try to write a neutral English I was wondering how could I have done something like changing between British and American English but, in case I did something wrong I, preferred to post the issue here. Again, thank you very much. --Canyq (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
New Q&A website proposal for wikis
I understand that this might be off-topic here, but I would like to garner some attention to a proposal for a new Q&A website just for wikis hosted by the StackExchange Network. This new proposal allows new editors of Misplaced Pages to post their question on how to edit or other relevant questions. Experienced editors with the coding bit in them can also use the site to know about contributing to MediaWiki, which is the software behind Misplaced Pages. Not only this, the site is also relevant for other wiki systems like DokuWiki.
I am currently on the call for people to follow the proposal and support the creation of such a Q&A website. If you don't mind, please create an account on the Area51 site, confirm your email address and follow it! If you are interested, you can also create some example questions for the site and upvote existing questions too. Thank you! --Hydriz (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for pointing that out. I am retrying with a new proposal with a broader scope so that it can attract more questions and editors and not necessarily be isolated to Misplaced Pages alone. --Hydriz (talk) 11:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
On interface design (periodic table)
About trying to get the element names in the Periodic table. At WP:VPT I have started a question about layout problems. Since it is not only Tech, but also about good UI design, I'd invite you at VPM to take a look. -DePiep (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Template:MOS-TW
An un-registered Wikipedian went to Template talk:MOS-TW and they want the template changed. Please go to the talk page and see what to say in response. (This morning, I wrote this on Joe Decker's talk page, but he hasn't made any response.) Georgia guy (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Why are edit summaries not mandatory?
Hi, could anyone please point me to the bit of policy that explains the rationale why edit summaries are not mandatory?
I have some 5,000 pages in my watchlist, and it's very difficult to follow everything up when so many people are not leaving edit summaries.
I am sure this is the kind of thing that must have been discussed 498134598 times before, so if you could please point me to the discussion, that'd be great.
I believe that edit summaries should be mandatory.
It would be far more informative, because I'd immediately check to see if the edit was vandalism. I agree with Azylber here, there is no reason not to make edit summaries mandatory in order to save an edit. RyanVesey19:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
How? Can't you do the same for a blank edit summary if you think it's something a vandal might do? Either way, you'd only catch the vandals who want to be caught. The vandals who want their work to stick around already know to lie in their edit summaries so their diffs are less likely to be scrutinized. Kilopi (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - For users who actually write long articles instead of just watching them, it is very annoying to have to give an edit summary every time you make a small edit. Would suck the joy out of it. Mandatory edit summaries would hardly prevent vandalism. The vandals would just make false edit summaries, which they do already. Thus, every edit would have to be checked anyway, and nothing would be gained. A much better way to prevent vandalism would be mandatory registration, or make registered users have to approve IP edits before shown, since practically all vandals are IPs, while registered vandals are simply banned. FunkMonk (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Edit summaries should be required to be good faith edit summaries. A few words of edit summary could satisfy this requirement. Occasional forgetfulness could be overlooked. Bus stop (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
See above. Vandals are not stupid. Sometimes they just write "corrected typo" or some such, while actually adding malicious content. So again, absolutely nothing would be gained from making edit summaries mandatory. Nothing other than adding a nuisance for those of us who actually write articles. FunkMonk (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Edit summaries serve a variety of purposes. Their use cuts across this project from article space to talk page spaces to many other parts of the project. A general policy should be in place requiring good use of edit summaries. I think constructive edit summaries should be a requirement for participation in this project whether one's account is "registered" or not. Bus stop (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
You're still ignoring the point. Vandals can make edit summaries that appear "good". They already do, as shown above. So I repeat, absolutely nothing would be gained, and false edit summaries would just become the norm for vandals, instead of blank ones. FunkMonk (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Not for the majority of contributors here it seems. And it would be the only strong argument for mandatory summaries, which, again, has been shown to be weak after further inspection. IP edits approved by registered users is the way to go, and has already been implemented in some articles. It should be applied to all. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - Wouldn't really change anything; vandals would add fake summaries. Might also make it a bit harder for new users to contribute; if they don't see/forget the edit summary and click save; they'll end up with the edit form again. I'm guessing that most people won't have any problems with this and will see the message above the edit summary input field, but it might be an issue for some (this has actually been a problem for a few users coming to #wikipedia-en-help). If you are having problems checking up on every edit to the articles in your watchlist, a better solution might be to reduce the number of articles you follow instead. Bjelleklang - talk21:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
There are many reasons for requiring edit summaries. Accountability is primary, in my opinion. It is not sufficient to simply make an edit; one should also be required to justify and explain the reason for that edit as well as identify it in the scheme of edits. Bus stop (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
If I have to explain every time I correct a minor typo, move an image, move text, move word order, or whatever, which I might do dozens of times within an hour when writing an article, I'd rather not waste my time, and not write the damn article. Usually, one can trust that a registered user is not doing vandalism. Therefore, the problem is mainly the IPs. FunkMonk (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
"one should also be required to justify and explain the reason for that edit" Um, I dunno about you, but I've got better things to do with my time. I usually just say "tweaking" or "formatting" and leave it at that. Yes, it'd be NICE if the edit summary is descriptive (mine for this comment isn't, just because), but it's a waste of time to try to regulate their use with policy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
"Tweaking" is fine. "Formatting" is fine. These are good faith edit summaries. Everybody has their own style of explaining what they are doing. I think leaving the field blank should not be permitted. It is not hard to type some sort of short explanation that sheds light, for other editors, on the purpose of the change you have made. Vandals can be very resourceful. No one has suggested that making edit summaries mandatory eliminates vandalism. I think there are many purposes edit summaries can serve in many settings. A focus should be placed on the role edit summaries play in the daily operation of the project. We are each ultimately accountable for ourselves. Our edit summary should be a counterpart to a good faith contribution to the project. Bus stop (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Then I, and probably others, would cease to write long articles here. Long articles require tremendous amounts of "tweaking", so in a given article expansion I will write it once for every ten edits perhaps, and then the next ten edits will be blank, because they are also "tweaking". FunkMonk (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
There could be created software which would insert the same edit summary repeatedly. But a pause should be inserted into the automated process at which you would be asked if you wished to use the stored edit summary. You would have to choose to use the stored edit summary or write a different edit summary. Bus stop (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I actually sympathize with the need to "tweak". I too write in a "to and fro" manner that I don't fully understand. Therefore the automated edit summary mentioned above appeals to me. Bus stop (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I think strongly recommending summaries for article edits is as far as we should go with this. Although I would like it to be mandatory to link to the applicable policies/guidelines when we revert article edits. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
No it wouldn't. What it would do is tell hapless newbies (a) that we have policies and guidelines, (b) which one they've broken and (c) what they can do (if anything) to improve their edit. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes it's obvious why an edit should be reverted but less obvious whether there is a policy that applies - and even where there is we shouldn't expect editors to have read all of the policies. Peter James (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose If I have to make 20 identical minor edits, say adding a category all of the selected picture pages in a portal, I don't want to have to give edit summaries. Yeah, it's not a big deal when it's 20, but when it becomes 140, then it becomes painful. Sven ManguardWha?00:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
First of all: I don't think it is a good idea to have even hundreds of pages on one's watchlist, let alone thousands.
As to making edit summaries mandatory or not, there are halfway solutions. For instance: Make edit summaries mandatories except in the case of minor changes (in that case that would be more effective if the software could detect what could, in no case, be called a minor edit). Some Wikis (I seem to remember the Japanese one, the Italian one, etc.) force you, if you want to save an edit without an edit summary, to enter the characters from one of those "spam filters" (what are they called?) which show moving modifying characters in ways that can't be handled by spam software (you know what I mean, but what are they called?). Also it is possible to always prompt you if you've entered a blank edit summary (with a more visible message, incidentally) but let you do it eventually it you insist. For the moment that is an option in your preferences Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. Sven Manguard's point is of course well taken. But such special cases as he describes could be handled differently. More generally the requirement could be tailored to the type of file and type of action. Finally I'd like to know what the OP thinks is the reason for people entering blank edit summaries? Laziness? Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 05:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
When I was a lad, I enabled the force edit summary option which I got around by leaving space bar or punctuation as edit summaries. I'm sure watchlisters were just thrilled. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
Lova Falk talk 10:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Done Cookies and love Lova Falk talk 11:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Y
Resolved Yes, I keep forgetting about commercial use purposes in the license.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
