The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is not enough consensus in favor of additional rules for April Fools' content and/or editing on Wikipedia. There is not enough consensus in favor of stopping celebrations of April Fools' on Wikipedia altogether. There is no consensus on whether the jokes are funny. Disclosure: I giggled a bit at some of them. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Time to stop April Fools' Day joke edits on Wikipedia? This nonsense should be stopped. First, since Wikipedians are from all over the world, this confuses WP for more than a few hours. Second, April Fools Day is unknown to people in many countries. Third, it is not funny. Just stop it. --Bduke (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Duke. Having a separate AfD log page for everyone to dump their attempts at humor onto is already lame on an almost visceral level, but when I see a teenager with a climate change denial userbox hijack other people's pages "as a prank" or whatever one should call it, that doesn't exactly reinforce the impression that Wikipedia is something massively worth contributing to. Maybe leaving shenanigans of this particular nature to websites that don't feature highly visible write-ups on living people that anyone can edit would be a little more theme-appropriate. But what do I know. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 10:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Thirded. It's mildly cretinous and wholly unprofessional. If anything genuinely funny took place that might make up for it; but the average Wikipedian hasn't got the imagination to do more than an online version of pulling a chair from under someone. SN54129 10:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• I'm also with the "Bah! Humbug!" brigade here. Jokes with disclaimers (such as a special AfD log or a "humour" tag) are just not funny. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  I would disagree. Since all jokes must be tagged, a joke, no matter how funny it actually is, would either be "just not funny" according to your logic (if tagged) or breaking the rules (if not tagged). NotReallySoroka (talk) 05:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  Exactly. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• +1. Jokes with disclaimers suck and a global encyclopedia project isn't a good place for reader-facing pranks. And I wonder how globalized the practice is - the absence of, for example, India on April Fools' Day does kind of stick out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  Sadly, the absence of India is mostly due to the number of editors who participate in WP as long time accounts. Huge majority of the not-experienced-editor community, doesn't even know how WP celebrates April fools. Otherwise, April fools' is an incredibly famous and enthusiastically celebrated event here. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 22:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• The Pornography article seems to have had a 'joke' AfD template publicly displayed on it for 12 hours, according to its history. This is entirely contrary to the instructions at Wikipedia:Rules for Fools which says that 'jokes' should be kept out of mainspace, for an article which gets around 10,000 views a day. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  I removed a similar template, but editors need to let their hair down occasionally. Perhaps we could remind people of the rules rather than tightening them. Certes (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• April Fools Day has been getting easier to ignore over the last decade, and there is very little disruption nowadays (it has been over a decade since the last time people renamed the "delete" button for AFD). Having a page where people log their unfunny April Fools exploits is much preferable to sneaky funny hoaxes inserted in mainspace. Overall, I think the current rules are working. —Kusma (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  I second this opinion. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• If it's good for editor morale, I don't mind people doing this April Fools stuff on clearly marked subpages and so forth; and yes, that makes it even less funny, but people still seem to enjoy it. One thing I'm very much opposed to, though, is the reader-facing jokes on the Main Page. WP:Rules for Fools says that all jokes should be kept to the backrooms and tagged as humour, but astonishingly makes an exception for the Main Page. I really think that confusing and/or lying to the readers is completely incompatible with our mission. Dan from A.P. (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  I think DYK can be an exception to this. Nothing wrong with having two sets of humorous hooks for a single day. I don't really encounter the April Fools nonsense elsewhere, but I also am not a regular at venues where it seems to proliferate most. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Google hasn't done anything for April Fools Day in three years now, maybe it's time for Wikipedia to follow suit. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 15:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• I may have participated in the April Fools' Day hijinks slightly, but I agree it's time to stop doing this: It's kind of sad where an editor feels the need to tag something the next day as something that is not an April Fools' Day joke since the hijinks have been going on as long as they have been. Steel1943 (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• I have no problem with the DYK fun hooks, but anything else, particularly the number of AFDs and other pages that require admin cleanup, is annoying. --Masem (t) 16:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Yep ... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Angeles Lakers. Steel1943 (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support. The amount of disruption is much higher than the amount of humor. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• I don't think that this qualifies as a proper RfC, for several reasons. As for dealing with the disruption, it is probably impossible to avoid it all, but it might be worth considering banning 'joke' AfDs, since people clearly can't be trusted to keep them hidden, as they are supposed to be, and since the 'joke' is getting hopelessly stale anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
  • While it is annoying and I wouldn't mind seeing it disappear the question is "how are you going to stop it?" Are you going to apply punitive blocks to everyone? Are you going to page protect all articles for the day? IMO both of those are the "using a nuclear bomb on a gnat" situation. Before this RFD proceeds you really need to define what your solution is so people can understand the consequences of what they are voting on. MarnetteD|Talk 17:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I think stating something like "Any edits of the such will be reverted. Repeat disruption will results in blocks " may be a starting point. Steel1943 (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Yup. That would probably get the point across. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
        • Yes that is a good start. Stressing the "repeat" part moves a block from punitive to preventative. MarnetteD|Talk 17:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Agree that stating that April Fools' activities (outside of those that have been cleared by the community like DYK hooks) should be treated as disruption and can lead to blocks or other admin actions. --Masem (t) 17:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. What WP:April Fools needs to is to become better and more responsible. That's a challenge, but it's possible, and it's worthwhile for the editor retention benefits. I also have a procedural objection to this RfC being CENT-listed because we should focus on mechanisms to make April Fools better.
  There are several potential remedies we could pursue. We could try writing up a Wikipedia-specific version of Uncyclopedia's "How to Be Funny and Not Just Stupid" and promote it to encourage better jokes. We could try to revive WP:Department of Fun as a project to take the lead on some larger pranks. And we could try improving systems to help the best jokes rise to the top—the XfD poll is a good start, but it only comes out after the fact, and it only applies to one (not often funny) area.
  At the same time, I do believe we need to double down on ways April Fools is abused. That includes getting stricter about requiring that all jokes be disclosed, particularly with DYK on the Main Page, the most visible part of April Fools for readers. The journalism community realized around 2016 or so that humor can be a damaging form of misinformation and started labeling it accordingly, and although the Wikipedia community hadn't yet caught up when last checked in 2020, I think it's closer now, as evidenced in the discussion on MP talk started by Dan from A.P. Lines such as ... that according to a NASA essay collection, ancient carvings "might have been made by aliens"? are real misinformation in our information illiterate world, and the least we can do is to accompany them by a notice like {{DYK humor}}. I disagree with those above who claim that jokes cannot be funny if they are disclosed, as I've tried to show repeatedly by example. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  If all the jokes are isolated to a specific location, then they don't have to be limited to April 1. Let anyone interested create and read each others' jokes throughout the year, and those uninterested can ignore them. This should also encourage jokesters to focus on create more original jokes. isaacl (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not opposed to April fool's Day jokes, but I'd like to see some quality over quantity. I did not feel that the jokes I saw this year were particularly funny. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose cancelling other people's fun because you don't think it's fun. Let people have fun, it's one day a year, the world will survive it, even if they don't know what April Fools is. I'm not seeing any evidence of disruption that needs preventing. The current system seems to work. Levivich 18:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
  • When it creates extra work for others (like the random AFDs) that's not fun. Coordinated Aprils Fools events like the DYK are fine but the current problem is the individual uncoordinated stuff. --Masem (t) 18:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

    April Fools jokes, including random AFDs, do not create extra work for others. Levivich 18:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

    Every year there are some editors who do not follow WP:RULESFORFOOLS and that does create extra cleanup hassle. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

    When done within consensus, April Fools jokes don't create extra work for others. That there are some editors who make mistakes, like not following all the steps in RULESFORFOOLS and using Twinkle for joke noms, is not a reason, IMO, to ban all April Fools jokes, just like the fact that some people make mistakes while editing isn't a reason to ban editing. Absent evidence that April Fools is causing significant harm, there's no reason to ban it. Levivich 19:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

    @Masem, I think that's exactly backwards. The DYKs are the most problematic part of our approach to April Fools, since they actually reach and misinform a very large group of readers, as opposed to the errant deletion notice at pornography, which only affected the small group who happened to be visiting that page and who likely had no trouble figuring out that it was the result of a joke. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

    Most April Fools jokes on websites are intended to trick and lure the reader, so the DYK approach is absolutely in line, particularly when the DYK blurbs are given time to make sure they are usually technically "correct" but maybe worded in a funny way - the articles remain in policy compliance. The stuff that happens behind the scenes that only affects editors is not helpful at all. --Masem (t) 19:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

    I don't think there is going to be a lot of improvements made here if we don't even agree on what the problem is.. If I was doing an RFC, I'd do it like we did WP:RFA2021 to figure out what people think the real problem is. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. This year's jokes included a proposal to retarget WP:SMALLCAT to a picture of a small cat, and another to retarget Template:Condom to Template:Pp-sock, and that kind of inspired thinking makes the rest of the year worthwhile. BD2412 T 18:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. I have participated in April Fools for the last 3 years (2020, 2021, 2022). Here are the things I noticed as hurting the experience:
  • There is a significant amount of people who show up one day a year, make a bunch of jokes, and don't come back until next year.
  • Too many people submit more than 1 XfD. Less people comment on them because there are so many.
  • The XFDs tend to distract from the higher effort jokes like Wikipedia:Featured sentences, Wikipedia:WikiProject Users, etc.
  • Many jokes are the same every year (whether known or not)... and when they aren't, they are about something terrible like WW3 or COVID.

In my opinion, users should be limited to a single joke for the day (then they can only engage with other people's jokes). That would make the year page a lot less crowded and entertaining. Quality beats quantity here.
(edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support I actually have a stronger proposal. Let's ban all editing from 31 March 0000GMT to 2 April 1200GMT. (Admins can edit up to 31 March 1200GMT to clear out vandalism, etc.). The encyclopedia has reached the point it can survive 48 hours without updates. And, well, unless we literally turn off editing, I don't think we can keep April Fools' jokes off the project. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support - if we want to keep the encyclopaedia … well, encyclopaedic. Otherwise it gets pretty difficult to know what is an April fool and what is simply the way the world is right now. Actually I would be prepared to tolerate one single joke article in the whole of the Encyclopedia. But it’s like drinking and alcoholism: we could never stop at one. Springnuts (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support There certainly are some unique and actually funny ideas like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tic-tac-toe, but I'm unconvinced that April Fools Day celebrations are a net positive since they seem to inevitable cause chaos every year. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose and Pointless You might as well try to stop a freight train from running over you a sternly worded letter. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose A classic "people aren't following the rules, so let's make another rule" proposal. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support mainly for the third point; these "jokes" just aren't funny. Calidum 19:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The "these jokes are not funny" argument holds no water: humor is subjective, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to ban a tradition. If we ban the tradition, the jokes are not going to stop. They are going to be done in a solely disruptive manor. Strongest oppose humanly possible to the "shut the entire website down for three days" idea above, for what I hope are obvious reasons. HouseBlaster^talk 20:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose but remind editors of the rules, after making any necessary changes and clarifications. Disruption isn't helpful, but humour is. Certes (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Additional option: Expand RfC scope to include all joke edits in Wikipedia. Advantages: the encyclopedia will achieve unprecedented reliability, and will also likely lose the 99.9% of the content (the unverified bloat, which is not funny at all). Sorry for the detour, could not resist. 74.64.30.159 (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. If this had been posted yesterday, it would have been funny. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I know that Wikipedia has grown and changed a lot since the earliest onwiki April Fools' Day celebrations c. 2004, but can't we have fun just once a year?

I'm conflicted about placing hard limits on how many joke XfDs one person is allowed to do because I think it'll add to the "death by a thousand cuts" mentality associated with, say, the joke disclosure requirements. But at the same time, I look at the fact that not only did joke nominations get moved to a separate page to avoid clogging up the log, but that joke page had to get split in two because it was still hitting the transclusion limit. Sturgeon's revelation ("90% of everything is crap") is clearly in effect here. For every WP:Articles for deletion/Glasses (shameless self-promotion alert) or Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lunch you'll probably get:

• 3 weak-punchline AfDs that get no participation (I am guilty of this category). The problem is, as another user said, humor is subjective, and you never know what will make people laugh and what will fall flat. Maybe we should start G6ing these on April 2nd like we used to?
• 1 AfD that just repeats pop culture references (like the two We Don't Talk About Bruno ones)
• 1 person nominating a page for deletion because they don't like the subject (WP:Articles for deletion/Homework, WP:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump)
• 2 Obligatory AfDs for Earth and Wikipedia, where the same jokes get reused every year.
• 1 Among Us reference even though this is the year two thousand and twenty two.
• 1 AfD like WP:Articles for deletion/Alzheimer's disease that gets deleted for being in poor taste.

But at the same time, it would be sad to see genuinely funny stuff like Wikipedia:Featured sentences or User:LunaEatsTuna/cornflakes go away. Plus, search Twitter for wikipedia april fools to be reminded of the popularity of our April Fools' Main Page off-wiki. There are always a lot of bad April Fools' jokes every year, but none of them are as bad as this proposal. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• I don't use Twitter, so maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I searched "wikipedia april fools" and found 10 tweets expressing appreciation for the April 1st DYK, plus four or five anime websites retweeting the "hit by a truck" thing. That's a very small proportion of the 5 million people who visited the Main Page that day. Dan from A.P. (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: They aren't funny is WP:IDONTLIKEIT stuff. I do find (most of) them funny. MJL's proposal to limit jokes seems to be a good solution. + Some fun helps editor retention, it's just one day of the year & most editors follow WP:RULESFORFOOLS. If someone isn't, why should everyone be penalized for their actions? ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 22:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  I too agree with Pythoncoder. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 10:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• April 2nd already huh? Time sure flies. Generally agree with pythoncoder above: the public generally likes the quirky stuff (like DYK) that they see and the occasional bit of fun demonstrates that we are not painfully dull pencil-pushers. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support - I don't buy the argument that editing Wikipedia is only fun on April 1st and not fun any other time of the year. Indulging in mirthful recreation is one thing, but unprofessional disruption of Wikipedia's various spaces is another, and celebrating this miserable holiday provides an outlet for this sort of irritating vandalism to occur. Still, I realize this is becoming a perennial proposal that will never gain consensus.--WaltCip-(talk) 23:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - Wikipedia can be excruciating, citing rules and regs constantly. Anything to bring levity is helpful to the larger goal of building an encyclopedia because we are humans who benefit from humor (not everyone finds it funny but many do). I am reminded of the image at the top of Help talk:Citation Style 1, this is useful to defuse tension between those who see programmers as egotistical dictators vs. imperfect humans trying the best they can even if it doesn't always succeed or look pretty. It's a harmless image and useful to setting the tone of the page. -- GreenC 03:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. Firstly, since April Fools' jokes in the mainspace would be treated like vandalism, it leaves little space to most Wikipedian readers, who simply read WP pages without editing. Second, the "people in many countries", who do not know of April Fools, would still know the meaning of the word "humor" in English (since they are reading English Wikipedia). Lastly, although my joke AfD cannot be described as witty, there are other AfDs that could be described as such. There will always be black sheeps of the April Fools' family, who do not follow WP:Rules for Fools, and I think that they should be considered to have commited vandalism. However, for the vast majority who does follow Rules for Fools, and keep our jokes outside mainspace, just let us have one day of fun. It is your (plural) right to say "I don't like it" to April Fools', but for those who like it (like myself), just leave us alone. --NotReallySoroka (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• I did look into April fools the first year I was active. I might have done something but the rule that jokes need to be tagged makes it, to put it very mildly, utterly stupid. Either we should narrow down the list of acceptable jokes and remove the "must be tagged" rule or we may as well not do it at all. If the object is to share ideas one comes up with and thinks would be dope if they could do it properly, just create a "humorous" list on WP: space. Anyway, who, anymore, comes across something too stupid to be true and does not immediately check the date that is at best one click away? Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose in general - I see the standard mainspace main page things as a net positive. And if WP:FOOLS is followed elsewhere then we're unlikely to create wider problems. But we should have a general edit notice every year reminding editors of WP:FOOLS to try to prevent more general disruption. There really are editors who think it's a good idea to grab their stick and beat an old horse carcass for 24 hours as an April Fool - apparently not realising that they are being tiresome rather than funny. An obscure information page in our alphabet soup of policy documents won't stop them unless it's highlighted to them. Kahastok talk 09:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC) (corrected mistake 12:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC))

  I like the 1-day editnotice idea. What namespaces would we use it in? Definitely Wikipedia-space but is there anything else? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The nom's assertion is not based on any data, even their own research of sorts, not to mention zero academic or such evidence that people find it disruptive rather than endearing. As long as we keep it reasonably tame, as I believe we do, I don't see a problem, in lieu of strong evidence to the contrary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The problems noted beyond "insufficiently funny jokes" are coming from people who aren't following the April Fools' Day rules that already exist, and so are unlikely to follow this rule either. This would likely result in still having to put up with the disruptive, least funny jokes while losing the clever ones. The problems caused by editors being disruptive for AFD-related reasons can be dealt with under the current rules on the grounds that they are being disruptive, just as we deal with disruptive attempts to be funny the other 364 days of the year. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support: The April Fools' Day jokes on Wikipedia are rarely as hilarious as the people posting them like to think. We could do without them.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support banning joke Afds, as not funny anyway. I'm ok with joky DYK hooks, but not much else. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - at first glance, I thought this was a belated April Fool's joke. Oh, and Suffusion of Yellow nailed it. Atsme 💬 📧 17:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Joke XfDs during April Fools' Day

On one hand, joke XfDs have been a part of Wikipedia's April Fools' Day tradition for the past 2 decades. On the other hand, the number of joke XfDs have gone up significantly over the past decade. As a result, maintenance and cleanup of the joke XfDs have become much harder and more cumbersome now than it was when there were only around 20 AfDs on April Fools' Day, and the time and effort spent on maintenance and cleanup of the joke XfDs could be better applied elsewhere in Wikipedia. Furthermore, some Wikipedia editors regard the joke XfDs as disruptive and simply not funny. What should the Wikipedia community do about joke XfDs during April Fools' Day? 96.63.208.24 (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

If it's disruptive, WP:RBI per WP:RULESFORFOOLS. That's really the long and short of it. WaltCip-(talk) 02:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

As I said above: 1 XfD per person. It's an easy solution to challenge people to focus on one really good joke instead of several sub-par jokes. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposals for joke AfDs

I would like to propose the following for joke AfDs:

• Joke AfDs continue.
• All users are limited to one AfD entry, with an exception for a second entry from the winner of last year's vote for the funniest AfD. As another user have pointed out, this forces us to make better AfD jokes. Adding the exception for the vote winner allows Wikipedians to see more humor, since we can deduce that the winner of the poll can make a witty AfD.
• All joke entries must be posted on April 1 UTC, and run for a set amount of time (I suggest 3 hours) before it is (jocularly) closed to new comments. I would also suggest letting AfD run into April 2 if they are posted on April Fools' itself. Although this would limit the pool of AfDs that Wikipedians can participate in, this would force them to reply to AfDs that otherwise receive few replies, and avoids overcrowding a single AfD. Imposing a time limit also forces replying users to quickly think of a joke (i.e. they can't put off thinking of a joke until the end of the day). It would also make it fair for those who post AfDs later in the day (like myself).
• April Fools AfDs must have "(April Fools' Day [year])" appended to the article name. This clearly shows to unknowing Articles for Deletion participants that a certain AfD is done in jest, and eases housekeeping efforts.
• All joke AfDs must be tasteful, and should avoid topics such as wars and diseases. Put it this way - if a joke AfD would have an Admin come after you, it should be speedily deleted and the proposer dealt with.
• After a certain period of time, April Fools XfDs (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Witt Jr., which I wrote) are deleted for housekeeping, but their results can stay on a centralized page (e.g. Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2022). Mass deletion scripts would be effective, since all joke AfDs would have "April Fools' Day" and the year in its title. It should only take a few minutes, and will not result in the disruption and clean-up that some Wikipedians fear. I suggest that this deletion be performed on April 30, since one month should be ample time for people to enjoy jokes.
• WP:Rules for Fools are upheld, and acts as a "constitution" of sorts for April Fools' joke-makers, even for non-AfD jokes. Admins should have discretion to prevent disruption done to the page, even by means such as page protection.

There is a fundamental difference between those who make jokes (however bad it is) in the spirit of April Fools', and those who vandalize and excuse themselves with April Fools'. I hope that my suggestions would ensure that most AfD writers are of the former type. --NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• I would also think that a rule limiting the times an article could be sent to joke AfDs. For example, "no page may be the topic of more than [x] joke AfDs". This reduces the frequency of perennial jokes, and forces those who make it to write their original ones. --NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  I think all joke XFDs should be on the subpages of WP:APRIL20xx (20xx is the year) to easier management. To prevent disruption we should only open jokes in one prefix WP:APRIL20xx. Thingofme (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Not sure I follow the limited amount of time the AfD can be open rule nor why this is limited to just AfD.
Additionally, I don't see why (April Fools' Day 2024) needs to be added to the AfD since the page is already transcluded to either a seperate section or seperate page of the AfD process. Most of the time people already are already tagging the page as {{humour}}, so I don't see the point of changing the title.
I have never been a fan of mass-deleting or selectively deleting joke XfDs without consensus. In my experience, that just leads people to make the same joke over and over again because they haven't seen it had been made before.
Limiting the amount of times an article gets AfD'd as a joke makes no sense to me if we are already limiting people to one joke XfD (as I had proposed). If someone wants to sacrifice their one joke XfD of the year on something like Earth or Wikipedia, that's their choice.
As for the last bulleted recommendation, that can easily be solved by upgrading WP:FOOLS to a guidelines rather than information page. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

1. The "limited amount of time the AfD can be open rule" means that once an AfD is open, it would be live for a set amount of time before it is closed (with a joke reasoning, no less), and people may no longer comment on it. This rule can easily be extended to RfD, MfD, or other XfDs.
2. Appending (April Fools' Day [year]) to the AfD titles enables readers to discern, at a glance, joke AfDs from serious ones. For example, if I didn't tell you that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Witt Jr. was done as a joke, you might think it is a serious nomination for the Witt page to be deleted. However, if I instead titled it ".../Bobby Witt Jr. (April Fools' Day 2022)", then you (and everyone else) can immediate know that it is an April Fools' joke. Of course, tagging jokes is a good practice and rule (contrary to those who argue that tagged jokes are no longer funny), and it could easily be done without conflicting with my suggestion.
3. If my proposal passes, then it would mean that consensus argues that mass-deletion can be implemented. Since jokes can continue to be recorded at centralized pages (e.g. Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2022), we can easily weave in the times that a joke has been done in that page's records (e.g. "Earth was nominated for the 12th time...")
4. I agree. WP:FOOLS should be upgraded if a separate discussion results in such a consensus. NotReallySoroka (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Non-neutral RFC prompt

I just re-read the opening statement. It's not even neutral as required by WP:RFCNEUTRAL. We aren't going to get consensus out of this, so I'm just going to set a reminder to bring this back up in August for a more structured discussion. What does everyone else think about that? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Endorse. The loaded language in the prompt (e.g. "nonsense") should void this RfC ab initio. No comment for the August part. NotReallySoroka (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, let's close this. Works for me, sure. Steel1943 (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A. C. Santacruz Ahecht AndyTheGrump Atsme BD2412 Bduke CX Zoom Certes DanFromAnotherPlace Doctor Duh Egsan Bacon Floydian GreenC Headbomb HouseBlaster Isaacl Jo-Jo Eumerus Johnbod Kahastok Kusma Levivich MJL/P MJL MarnetteD Masem NotReallySoroka Novem Linguae Paul Erik Phil Bridger Piotrus Pppery RoySmith Sdkb Springnuts Steel1943 Suffusion of Yellow Tavix The Blade of the Northern Lights Thingofme Usedtobecool WaltCip Wugapodes ianmacm pythoncoder 力

Apologies to any who have already seen Wikipedia talk:Rules for Fools#What is Wikipedia's April Fool's Day?, but if you have not, then you may be interested. Rezur Ekt (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Rezur Ekt: I didn't get your Ping, most likely since your signature was not in the same line as the user name mentions/links. Steel1943 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

A. C. Santacruz, Ahecht, AndyTheGrump, Atsme, BD2412, Bduke, CX Zoom, Certes, DanFromAnotherPlace, Doctor Duh, Egsan Bacon, Floydian, GreenC, Headbomb, HouseBlaster, Isaacl, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Johnbod, Kahastok, Kusma, Levivich, MJL/P, MJL, MarnetteD, Masem, NotReallySoroka, Novem Linguae, Paul Erik, Phil Bridger, Piotrus, Pppery, RoySmith, Sdkb, Springnuts, Steel1943, Suffusion of Yellow, Tavix, The Blade of the Northern Lights, Thingofme, Usedtobecool, WaltCip, Wugapodes, ianmacm, pythoncoder, 力 See above, and a double apology if I have now pinged you twice. Rezur Ekt (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Why was this NAC'd after less than 2 days of discussion? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Presumably because the proposal/s could/should have been better constructed. Rezur Ekt (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Various issues with the RfC prevented it from gaining it any meaningful or applicable consensus. Firstly, in order to ban a community tradition like April Fools the proposal would have needed to garner much stronger support (similar to an RFA) for it to be implemented. Secondly, no clear set of additional rules were proposed in such a way that could allow the community to have a comprehensive and organized discussion that could result in clear and useful rules being added. Thirdly, the arguments against additional rules (such as people not following the current rules wouldn't follow the additional rules either) were much stronger than many of the support votes that just indicated they didn't find the jokes funny enough. Finally, the RfC was not created properly (with a brief neutral question/set of options). This would have been better as a general discussion to identify issues with AF and draft an RfC than a reactionary and non-neutral RfC 10h after AF ended. I hope this clarifies my rationale for closing, Floydian. If you wish I can amend my close to include this information. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Ta for the mass ping, but I've no interest in further participating in this discussion, as consensus is clearly against any wholesale changes. WaltCip-(talk) 16:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't have the institutional background knowledge to suggest anything new and well thought out with regards to Wikipedia in specific, but it seems to me that the most practical solution is to hope that the April Fools schtick keeps burning itself out on a broader scale and deal with individual incidents of genuinely disruptive tomfoolery as they arise. No comment on special rules for any of the more constrained areas like the DYK section, I'll leave that to the regulars. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Rezur Ekt: As I said above, I am willing to start a discussion about this at a later date.

Honestly, and I don't mean to discourage you, but I think that your suggested RFC might be even worse than this one.

First of all, you have 3 options from the start, but you are having a discussion about 4+ different things [(1) Whether to have April Fools Day, (2) Whether we should add If a particular prank or joke has been done before, do not do it again. Try to be original. to the list of rules, (3) If the COVID-19 prohibition should be lifted, and (4) Whether we should add a Rule 4 (and if so what it should be)]. That's a discussion heading straight for a WP:TRAINWRECK. You don't even let people vote for the status quo (which should be like a minimum!).

Secondly, just like in this discussion, you started off by making an argument in favor of a specific outcome. That is the exact reason why this RFC went nowhere. What we need here is more listening to what people think the problem is and less proposing solutions to it (not that I am perfectly innocent of that myself; see above). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

You don't even let people vote for the status quo: Providing a few options does not stop people from suggesting others. Also, RFCs are supposed to be normal talk page discussions using the normal talk page rules, not votes. The RFC process adds an advertising mechanism, not a voting system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Why have the Colour party templates been deleted? --Mbakkel2 (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mbakkel2, not sure what kind of templates you are referring to. But look at Category:Political party color templates if you mean templates for political parties. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma: That's the templates I was referring to, but most of them have been deleted. -Why? --Mbakkel2 (talk) 05:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mbakkel2, there was a lot of combining of templates once the new Lua module Module:Political party was completed. Party data, including colors, is now in sub-pages of that module. See the documentation at Template:Political party for how the new templates work. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma: Thank you very much! Best wishes--Mbakkel2 (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

Greetings,

The ratification voting process for the revised enforcement guidelines of the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) came to a close on 21 March 2022. Over 2300 Wikimedians voted across different regions of our movement. Thank you to everyone who participated in this process! The scrutinizing group is now reviewing the vote for accuracy, so please allow up to two weeks from the close of voting for them to finish their work.

The final results from the voting process will be announced here, along with the relevant statistics and a summary of comments as soon as they are available. Please check out the voter information page to learn about the next steps. You can comment on the project talk page on Meta-wiki in any language. You may also contact the UCoC project team by email: ucocprojectwikimedia.org

Best regards,

Movement Strategy and Governance

Here are some further statistics (see more stats at WP:VPP) outling which projects voters were eligible to vote from in addition to their home wiki. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

In these charts, a voter is considered to have qualified for a project if they had at least 20 edits between 7 August 2021 and 7 February 2022.

Voters by number of projects with qualifying edits

(including wikidata and commons)

•   1 wiki: 768 (33.5%)
•   2 wikis: 548 (23.9%)
•   3 wikis: 400 (17.5%)
•   4 wikis: 245 (10.7%)
•   5 wikis: 145 (6.3%)
•   6 or more: 186 (8.1%)

Qualifying voters per project

299 projects had at least one voter with 20 edits in the qualifying period: a voter may represent more than one project

More than 400 qualifying voters

80 to 270 qualifying voters

More statistics are available on Meta-wiki. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Xeno (WMF):, can something be done about the misleading statistics we often get about Wikidata? E.g. in this case, while it looks as if Wikidata has a massive amount of editors, in reality many of these have never edited at Wikidata at all: but article creations on your homewiki are automatically also counted as an edit you make at Wikidata. This skews the figures badly. For example, none of these edits have actually been made by me on Wikidata. Fram (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Fram: Good point- is there any kind of measurement possible here? For example, could a query pick out automatic wikidata edits from manually submitted? Another thought I had was to factor Wikidata edits somehow. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 10:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea for a good solution here, frankly, it's just something that bugs me any time sometime either shows such stats (like here) or actually brags about the size and number of edits on Wikidata (which you weren't doing, but I've seen it in the past from others). It is a large project, but it has in reality only a small percentage of "human" edits and a much larger percentage of either bot-made or imported ones. Fram (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

There may be similar issues on other projects. For example, 90% of the contributions credited to me on dewp are edits I made on enwp which someone has presumably imported complete with history and attribution. Certes (talk) 10:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that as well (I don't think enwiki normally imports edit histories from other projects, but the reverse indeed happens). Fram (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, good point Certes; users that only had their edits imported wouldn’t really be representative of the importing project if they never visit there. Though, since this is a 6-month window snapshot, hopefully it doesn’t pollute the data as much. Fram: Looking at the link you provided, there does seem to be a tag “Automatic Update from Connected Wiki” which may allow for further discernment of wikidata edits (but probably not for the instant case, since I didn’t write the query :) Xeno (WMF) (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Question: Does this impact the integrity of the CoC approval “vote” that just took place? Blueboar (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Blueboar: Wikidata’s automatically-connected edits could make it easier for a user to qualify to vote (as 300 edits are required). Since everyone has the same opportunity, I don’t think it affects the legitimacy, per se (there is no criteria about the quality or nature of the 300 edits). What are your thoughts? Xeno (WMF) (talk) 11:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Concerned that if a vote is counted as coming from multiple projects in the statistical data, the vote itself was counted multiple times. I don't think that actually occured, but wanted to make sure. Blueboar (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Blueboar: Ah, not to fret: each voter will only be counted once; this is just some data that I wanted to gather to “look beyond the home wiki” which doesn’t tell the whole story of where voters are actually active on various projects. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Good... and thanks for the reassurance. Blueboar (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Are the results up yet? For me, the results are the useful data. It's great to know that X voters participated, but what did they vote for, ya know? –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Not yet I’m afraid. We were told to allow 2 weeks for the scrutineering process. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• Novem Linguae: Now available, see below. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

The Trust and Safety Policy team published the results of the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification vote. The vote ended 21 March 2022. See the results and read more on Meta-wiki.

(More details at WP:VPP)

Xeno (WMF) (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

For the unwary: 1338 yes and 945 no, 65 struck votes I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Template:Germany-electronic-band-stub lacks an image, which means that what its image should be, "Stub icon" is put. Could someone fix this? Veverve (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is causing this problem, as neither the stub template nor commons image have been edited in months. Other affected templates include {{Germany-guitarist-stub}} and {{Germany-electronic-musician-stub}}. I'll crosspost this to WP:WPSS. Curbon7 (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

It sounds as if the expectation is that, if no specialized image is used on a stub template, the "standard" stub image () should be used, rather than leaving off an image entirely. Is that the issue? Her Pegship (?) 03:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

No. The problem is that the stub template {{Germany-electronic-band-stub}} specifies that the image should be c:File:MusicalnotesGermany.png, but for some reason, that is not able to be displayed and so the MediaWiki software is falling back on the alt text, which is the phrase "Stub icon". If the markup {{!}}link= is removed, that phrase is wikilinked to the image that should be displayed. It's not a problem with the stub template either - since if we reduce the image markup to base essentials, i.e. [[File:musicalnotesGermany.png|link=|35px|alt=Stub icon]] - the result () is the same. So it's either a MediaWiki software problem, or a server problem at Commons. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:2450:82EA:FC8A:4EA1 (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to let me know if you have any questions. questions! Xeno (WMF) (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Here's a question. Have you been sold a job-lot of exclamation marks at a bargain-basement price? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Ha - I'll add one more for a full 8 bytes worth of exclamations =] Xeno (WMF) (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Here's another question. Should all these "Movement" messages be considered spam? 71.247.146.98 (talk) 12:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

No, but WP:VPWMF might be a more relevant place to post them. Certes (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

"Mobile doesn't get enough developer love" is something you hear a lot. It looks like there's going to be some improvement in this area. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• That notice at the top has been placed at more than one of those survey pages' talk pages,;and, reading it, it does look as if people are being asked to comment at MW:Moderator Tools/Content moderation on mobile web, not on Meta. It might be just the wrong preposition, or it might be everyone responding to a request for comments by commenting on the wrong wiki where they will not be seen. As I mentioned at MW:Talk:Moderator Tools/Content moderation on mobile web, the latter would be sadly ironic. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• Here is my contrarian opinion: I am a very active editor and administrator on enwiki, and I use Chrome on Android phones, but it is not stressful for me because I use the fully functional desktop site on my phone 99% of the time. The only time I use a desktop computer to edit is when I am working with large image files. Otherwise, I edit with phones. I have written Good articles on the "desktop" site on my phone. I have answered thousands of questions from new editors on the "desktop" site on my phone. I have blocked thousands of spammers and sockpuppets and trolls and vandals on the "desktop" site on my phone. To repeat for emphasis, the "desktop" site is fully functional on 2020s era Android smartphones. Actually, that has been true for a decade. Some people have told me that I must have great vision. That is incorrect. I have terrible vision in one eye, and have suffered from severe amblyopia since childhood. I also have cataracts and glaucoma and other problems with my "good" eye, but I still find it very easy to edit Wikipedia on the "desktop" site on my phone. So my sincere question is, why should the WMF continue making the mobile site the default for people editing on Android phones when the misnamed "desktop" site works perfectly and is fully functional? Why not save massive amounts of money by shutting down all mobile sites and apps, and redirect phone editors to the fully functional "desktop site", which could be renamed the all-purpose site? I have asked these questions repeatedly for years and have never received a good answer. Instead, the WMF keeps pouring good money after bad to improve mobile sites and apps thst are not fully functional, and show no signs of ever being fully functional. Cullen328 (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this RoySmith :) I'd love to hear more about the features editors find lacking or desirable on mobile web so that we can make sure we're working on the most important items. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Samwalton9 (WMF): In terms of Mobile, literally the biggest frustration I have, to the point of screaming curse-words at my phone, is that when I am working in the desktop version on my mobile device, literally every time I access the site, it throws a pop-up at me that tries to divert me to the mobile version. I dismiss it sometimes dozens of times a day. I wouldn't mind if it asked the first time, and then when I said something like "no, I'm cool", it never asked me again. Instead, it keeps at it. Over and over. If I wanted to use the mobile version on my phone, I would do so. I want the desktop version on my phone. Stop trying to tell me I don't. --Jayron32 17:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Have you tried User:Þjarkur/NeverUseMobileVersion? It works well for me. CodeTalker (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I use that, too; best way to improve the reading and editing experience on my phone that I know of. But I also have the problem @Jayron32 describes, mostly on Wikipedias in other languages. The annoying popup shows up only in Vector, not in Monobook (which I use on enwiki and dewiki, the sites I read most). Is there a global version of that script or can we get it as a gadget? —Kusma (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I have not done so. Not real familiar with using scripts. Worth a shot. Does it do anything other than force mobile to always go desktop? --Jayron32 16:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jayron32: That does sound frustrating. When you say you're working in the desktop version on your mobile device - how do you get there? Is it by using the browser's 'desktop mode' function, by clicking 'Desktop' in the Wikipedia interface, or some other way? I haven't been able to reproduce this so I'm not completely sure what you're seeing. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

See File:Screenshot of mobile Wikipedia using desktop.png, which I just took of my phone. That little popup that says "View Simplified Page?" literally comes up every new Wikipedia page I load. I usually use a laptop or desktop computer to edit, but when I do edit from my android phone, I prefer to do so using the desktop version (being more familiar with it). If I end up (randomly) on the mobile version, I use the little blue "Desktop" link at the bottom of a page to get there, but usually I work from the desktop version while editing from my phone. About 1-2 months ago (maybe a bit more) it started with this popup nonsense. I don't know how to inform the system that I want desktop view to be my default on all devices, and to stop asking me every page. It makes Wikipedia almost unusable for me on my phone, having to dismiss that popup on every page that loads. --Jayron32 16:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Ahh, thanks for the screenshot. I think this is a feature of the Android Chrome browser, rather than anything to do with MediaWiki. Clicking it presents a largely CSS/JS-free version of the page; it doesn't take you back to the mobile site as far as I can tell. There are some guides on how you can disable that popup, though I've not tried them myself. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat

So, cat pictures have some degree of popularity. As well as videos of cats. Would that be something that should be added to the wikipedia page on cats? Is this the correct place to ask this question?

Should examples of cat pictures be put forth, or would that be too much?

Fearless lede'r (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The best place to ask this question would be Talk:Cat, because that is where decisions on the content of that page are made. Note also that we have an article Cats and the Internet. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

You might also get some useful input at Wikipedia:WikiProject Popular Culture. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Since the cats and the internet link is there, it may not be necessary. Fearless lede'r (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that for this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ActuallyNeverHappened02/UBX/AHK),

The guy put multiple user boxes on one page and used code to allow the user to specify which one instead of making multiple pages. Is it better to do that, or is it okay to make a page for each userbox? Which is more preferable?

EDIT: On second thought, I think I should post this on the new userboxes section thingy...

Fearless lede'r (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Your page, your choice. Not much else to say, really. Steel1943 (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  Should I add the ones I make to the gallery list? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Food) Fearless lede'r (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  Refer to my previous answer; not trying to be rude or anything, but it really does apply to about any questions regarding your user page design within reason. Otherwise, see Wikipedia:User pages; it gives some suggestions in general. Other than that, I'd say look at others' user pages for ideas on how to arrange user boxes on your user page. (Also, you aren't required to post your creations anywhere on your user page if you don't want to. But if you do, you can as well. 😀 ) Steel1943 (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The following code: Please select the <code><span style="color:#0645AD;">New section</span></code> tab above to post your comments below. has been added to many talk pages ([6]). From the random selection of pages transcluded it, I couldn't find an edit summary where the consensus was to add these. Aside from the fact that it looks out of place with the other talk page banners, using a hardcoded name for the section (which can change at some point) and a color scheme that makes the "New section" text look like a link is a very bad design choice. Was there a consensus to add this which I missed? If there isn't consensus, these should be removed. Checking here with the community first. Gonnym (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

It looks like these are almost all copy-paste insertions by User:Buaidh. I don't think they are a good idea, maybe Buaidh can provide some context before a cleanup job gets done to remove them? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

It does look out of place. There are better examples, suxh as the "Click here to start a new discussion" box at WP:ANI. Although extending something like it to article talk pages may be overkill. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

This line was added to help novice users. There is no consensus to either add or remove them. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 16:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Buaidh, if these are for newbies, they need to be removed immediately, as they are visible in mobile and refer to a tab that doesn't exist. —Kusma (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Not only that, but Vector 2022 says "Add topic" not "New section". And coloring something blue, but making it not clickable, is incredibly confusing. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that these should be removed. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 16:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

These should be removed. If we have something like this it should be integrated into the talk header and not mention tab names that are skin and preferences dependent. (I just see a +). —Kusma (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Now that we got a response, I'm in the "remove these" camp, also inform Buaidh that these are not useful and that they should not be added still. Barring any objections in say a day, an AWB job should be able to clean them up pretty quick. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, all. Is confusion about where/how to start a new section a problem? If you have ideas about problems with how talk pages look or function, then please post at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project (or ping me to any existing discussions). Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that an AWB bot would make quick work of this. I'll handle coding the bot and BRFA once this achieves consensus. There's also a thread at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Talk page "Please select the New section tab ... " message removal. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree with removal. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Already from 15th April to 31st May you can participate in the article-editing competition CEE Spring 2022 - about the region of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE)! And I warmly invite you to join it now (some have already done)!

The competition is for several years very popular in many Wikipedias in languages of the region, helped to focus the communities to fill the content gap, and now came also to the English Wikipedia. In fact, one of the issues that the competition faced in previous years was lack of articles in English Wikipedia, so participants had harder times to translate it to their languages. Now we are striving to help these (future) participants too.

This year we also propose subcategory about the international constructed language Esperanto, which comes from the region, its linguistic characteristics, and the regional community. We also support the independent competition #WikiForHumanRights (15th April - 15th May) - you can participate in both competitions by writing about human rights in CEE (read rules for both competitions in advance ;).

I hope you will enjoy the competition(s), expand your knowledge about the CEE region and help spread the knowledge to the wider world! --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia community,

My name is Zarine Kharazian - I am a PhD student at the University of Washington, working with the Community Data Science Collective. My research group is currently recruiting participants for an interview study on disinformation risks across Wikipedia language editions. Specifically, we are interested in understanding whether some Wikipedia language editions are more vulnerable to systematic disinformation and ideologically motivated editing than others, and why. We are also interested in understanding the cross-wiki monitoring mechanisms currently in place to defend against systematic disinformation risks across Wikipedia editions.

In order for us to interview you, you must be an adult and willing and able to record a roughly hour-long interview via video or voice chat in English with a researcher from our team. We will not disclose any identifying information about you and will not retain your contact information past the completion of the study. Unless you opt out of payment, participants will receive a $20 gift card that is usable on Amazon and a range of other places.

More information about the study, including a link to the short screening questionnaire, is available here: https://wiki.communitydata.science/Content_Integrity_and_Disinformation_Risks_Across_Wikipedia_Language_Editions

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your time, I really appreciate it. --Zarinek (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Why do people keep asking us to participate in surveys using the lure of a monetary reward, when that is contrary to our principles? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Is it socking to make 60 accounts to do the survey? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Not if you systemically lie in 30 of them. After all, what would be better in a survey about disinformation than actual disinformation! Blueboar (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Lying is considered misinformation, not disinformation. 172.254.162.90 (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Disinformation is defined as: "false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth". Sounds like lying is disinformation too... --Jayron32 11:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

One answer (perhaps an unkind one) to Redrose64's question could be, because the people who make such offers do not actually know what Wikipedia represents. But it is a popular website recognizable by all, so associated research is bound to be noticed more. And it is obvious that in the last few years the term disinformation has been a "trending" (heh...) one. If a global spin is added, say about other-language Wikipedias, it rounds out the package. Eventually, the research study is published, and with luck also receives breathless attention from the media, including so-called "reliable" sources (heh...). Soon after it may be cited on Wikipedia, closing the circle. 65.88.88.201 (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Whose principles? Failing to see what's unethical about being compensated for time. Schierbecker (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure? Generally, Wikipedians hate money. (Exaggeration, but still) casualdejekyll 18:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anyone objects to payments for writing about Wikipedia for publication elsewhere. Certes (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that is the case here. One wonders about the expected quality of research that offers $20 Amazon giftcards as inducement to participants. That is apart from other considerations, such as that the stated premise of the research maybe baseless. Why should there not be disinformation in Wikipedia? Most of the information content is unverified and of unknown/unexamined relevance and neutrality. What difference does it make if Wikipedia in country A is claimed to have more of it than Wikipedia in country B by some newfangled measure or other. Imo it is much more important to research properties that proclaim to be actively against disinformation. Are they really? Or are only rooting out disinformation that suits their biases? 68.174.121.16 (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Greetings! I'm Zarinek's faculty advisor for the project and also a long-time Wikipedian. In terms of payment: It's not an Amazon gift card but it can converted into one (or a bunch of other things) or into a donation to a number of charities. Or it can be refused if you don't want it or don't want any indentifiers in our records! In terms of substance: we're not walking into this with a newfangled measure of misinfo/disinformation and it's not our goal to make one. We're interested in understanding how different Wikipedia's think about these things. These kinds of reactions are valuable and we'd love to talk more! —mako๛ 01:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I presume you have an approved IRB protocol in place for carrying out this in-person survey? --WaltCip-(talk) 13:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes. The protocol has been reviewed by the University of Washington Human Subjects Division and has been classified as human subjects research that qualifies for exempt status (Category 2). Zarinek (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

OK that's good enough for me. As far as I am concerned, this is a legitimate human subjects study. WaltCip-(talk) 19:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

In 2017[7], I shared here some Blender renders I did of User:Slashme's files. I've done some more…this time they required a lot more editing to his files to make them loop, move cameras around, edit his shaders, etcetera. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 16:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• This one in 3D!

Hi Psiĥedelisto, nice work! Two effects that I kind of liked with my original animation is that the pieces are invisible before they float into place, and that the letters are invisible until the piece slots into the globe. But that's a matter of taste, I guess :-D --Slashme (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

wow these are so cool 😍 AHollender (WMF) (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Are there two users who can edit to test Nogai Wikipedia? It can be also a Turkic user who knows little bit Kipchak and the Cyrillic alphabet (mostly possible is Kazakh, Karakalpak, Crimean Tatar and other Turkic and Kipchak languages). When you know one user please ping it. Because we need only two users who need to be active in Wp/nog to approve Wp/nog. TayfunEt. (talk) 05:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

Next week we will change the software that lets you play audio and video files on your wiki from Kultura to Video.js. With this change, the old player won’t be accessible anymore. The replacement of the player has been active as a beta feature since May 2017.

The new player has many advantages, including a better design, consistent look with the rest of our interface, better compatibility with browsers, the ability to work on mobile which means our multimedia will be properly accessible on iPhone and Android, better accessibility, and many more.

The old player has been unmaintained for eight years now and was custom for MediaWiki (unlike the new player which is a widely used open source project) and uses old, slow, deprecated, and abandoned frameworks such as jQuery UI. Removing the old player’s code also improves performance of the wikis for anyone visiting any page (see this blog post). The old player has many open bugs that we will be able to close as invalid after this migration.

The new player will solve a lot of old and outstanding issues, but will also have its own bugs and missing features. All important known ones have been fixed, but there will be some small ones to tackle in the future, after the rollout.

What we are asking now is to turn on the beta feature for the new player and let us know about last-minute any issues.

You can track the work in T100106 and read more information about the new player on this page: mw:Extension:TimedMediaHandler/VideoJS_Player

Thank you, Amir Ladsgroup^overleg 00:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The Moderator Tools team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on improvements to the mobile web interface. In particular, we are exploring improvements to tools for content moderators, including patrollers and administrators.

If you edit from a mobile device, or would like to do so more, we want to hear from you so that we can prioritise work on the features which you need most!

Please share your opinions on our project page on MediaWiki. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Straw poll time.

If content is collapsible, in which direction do you expect the chevron to point when the section is collapsed? And when it's uncollapsed?

Up?
Down?
Right?
Something else? See also phab:T306660. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Right when collapsed, down when expanded. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's the nearest we have to a standard, as used in categorytree and elsewhere. Certes (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

originally posted at WP:VPWMF

A new section has been added to m:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines/Voting/Results, direct link at m:Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/April 2022 - Board of Trustees on Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

It has been pointed out that WP:VPWMF is a low traffic notice board, so I am reposting this here. Basically the Foundation read the voters comments, is doing another draft of the enforcement guidelines to vote on, and is immediately reviewing the language of Article 3.1 of the UCoC. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Greetings,

I did rewrite an article Draft:Ex-Muslim activism in Kerala which was not originally mine. I just helped it to my capacity and I will prefer some one else takes over the process of further improving of the draft.

Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Drafts aren't owned by individual people. If someone else finds it interesting enough to work on then they will do so, regardless of whether or not you "formally" declare yourself done. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

A draft of the 2022-23 Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan has been published. Input is being sought on-wiki and during several conversations with Maryana Iskander.

Please find the schedule, languages supported, and Zoom links for the calls below.

See full announcement on Meta-wiki. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The first conversation starts in about 15 minutes. Please see the corrected link: https://wikimedia.zoom.us/j/82114230052 Xeno (WMF) (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

What good is that to people who don't look at their watchlists every ten minutes? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

There was someone in the original Zoom link providing the updated link. (My understanding is the original link didn't permit live interpretation.) Xeno (WMF) (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• The final general call will begin in just under an hour. I hope you can join us at the following Zoom link. The languages supported with live interpretation for this call are English, Spanish, and Portuguese. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  Nope. Five hours ago, due to me working through my watchlist chronologically. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry Redrose64, you will have to read my comment contextually with the attached timestamp; moments can be so fleeting. There's one more conversation scheduled for 28 April 2022 at 16:00 UTC, though it will focus mostly on Wikimedia Commons.

  Hopefully that's still some time in your future when this message finds you, though if it's now in your past the conversation recordings will have had been made available here. Perhaps it will find you in the immediate present during the planned meeting, and you can click this Zoom link to join us in real time. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello everyone! There is an open Call for Candidates for the 2022 Board of Trustees election. Find out more on the Apply to be a Candidate page. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The seats to be filled this year were previously selected by affiliates in the m:Affiliate-selected Board seats/2019 process. This year, a different method will be used:

1. Candidates submit their applications (by May 9; this deadline may be slightly extended);

   Any community member can become a candidate if they meet the general and special conditions outlined here.

2. Affiliates vote to short list six (6) names from the candidates' pool.

   Each affiliate carries one vote. The affiliate vote is scheduled to take place in early July.

3. The Community votes to elect two of the six shortlisted candidates.

   Community Voting is scheduled to begin on August 15 and end on August 29.

4. The Board will appoint the two newly-elected candidates as the new Trustees.

   This final step, which will conclude the election process, is expected to take place in early October 2022.

@Election Volunteers: ( "{{@EVs}}" ) <-- The Movement Strategy and Governance team is inviting local users to help publicize the different stages of the election . Feel free to add your name here. Thanks in advance, and to those who have already registered.

If you have any questions, please post them here, on Meta-wiki, or reach out to me directly.

Kindly cross-post and advertise widely.

Best regards,

Xeno (WMF) (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Xeno (WMF): Thanks. During the Call for Feedback discussions that led to this new voting method, which has the affiliates determining who the community can vote for, it was said that this new method might be used for future community-and-affiliate-selected seats in general ("The question is broad in the sense that the answers may refer not just to the two seats mentioned, but also to other, Community- and Affiliate-selected seats. The Board is hoping to find an approach that will both engage the affiliates and give them actual agency, and also optimize the outcomes in terms of selecting people with top skills, experience, diversity".)

I think having the affiliates determine who the community can vote for long-term would be unacceptable. Can the WMF make a binding commitment today that this method will only be used this once, and will not be used for future selections of community-and-affiliate-selected trustees?

I am asking this question because at the time the distinction between community-selected seats and affiliate-selected seats was abolished in the bylaws, Jimmy Wales said elsewhere, back in November 2020:

It is of course a bit awkward for me to comment here, but I think that I should.

As is well known, I have no interest in being the boss of anything or the dictator of anything. My most keen interest is for the future of the encyclopedia, with all the core values intact: that we are a community-first project, that we are a charity, that we are neutral, that we strive for quality, and that we work towards governance that means safety for all these values in the long run.

In the past few years, there have been several crises that have made it increasingly clear to me: the biggest problem on the board is not a lack of professional expertise, but rather a lack of community representation and control. I am a steadfast proponent of that - you can speak to James Heilman for more details (I've not consulted with him in advance but I'm sure he'll tell you about my concerns about the "professional" board members who don't seem to have our values at heart.)

I am deeply concerned about the tone of some of the latest proposals from some quarters: a reluctance to be firmly clear that community control - in the form of voting and not just some vague "community-sourced board members" language that might mean anything or nothing - is not negotiable.

I believe that we need to be moving in a mildly different direction with the board expansion. I don't want to make a specific proposal but I will say this: rather than an expansion that keeps community in a slight +1 position, I think we need an expansion that gives the community an absolutely dominant role.

I've not spoken yet about my personal role, because I want us to focus on the long run. But my preference is not to step aside until I am sure that the "professional" appointed seats are absolutely always in service to the community, by making sure that their numbers are - relative to the community numbers - reduced.

Removing my voting seat - yes, it's a good idea in the long run, as I am just one person and not that important in the grand scheme of things. But for now, I feel that my role is to represent the moral conscience of the movement and to prevent takeover by outside interests who do not understand our values. So for those who ask when, I would say: when we are safe. And I don't think that's true just yet.

So I and others are concerned that this election represents the "thin end of the wedge", normalising a process that is made to look like it empowers the community now, by giving the community a voice on what "used to be" affiliate-selected seats, but actually removing free choice from the community in the long term, as this marks the first time we are explicitly selecting "community-and-affiliate-selected seats", after the change in bylaws – which Jimmy Wales was so concerned about in his comments above – went through after all.

Note that this matter is being discussed in multiple places:

Links:

• Mailing list threads: [8][9]
• Discussions on Meta: [10][11]
• Discussion on German Wikipedia: [12]

Historic Signpost coverage of the bylaws discussions that ended in the removal of community elections from the bylaws:

• "WMF Board considering the removal of Jimmy Wales' trustee position amid controversy over future of community elections"
• "Foundation removes community elections from bylaws, calls for feedback on future process for 'community-and-affiliate-selected' trustees"

Your (or trustees') comments would be appreciated. Regards, --Andreas JN466 11:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia would be a great encyclopedia/resource if it weren't for all those pesky editors. The first step is to cement the power of the board making its power absolute. Johnuniq (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Note today's post by User:Pundit on the mailing list, where he declined the opportunity to confirm that there would be an open election in 2024.

2024 is when the four community-selected seats come up for re(s)election.

So I think it's more likely that the format of the 2024 election will be similar to the format being trialled this year (community voting on a shortlist pre-selected by the affiliates, rather than the full candidate pool). Andreas JN466 16:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

:::I am open to all views and ideas on this. I think maybe all parties here arcting in good faith. I would like to adask one question, or perhaps it is a suiggestion of sorts. is there any possibilit, any latitude to set up some kind of committee for a group of editors who could relaysideas, questions, concerns to the board? wouldn'tthat accomplish some of the same goals, as electing actual editors to the board? since the goal here seems to be to foster greater communications between editors and the board, then wouldn't acomiittee of sorts have the same practical effects?

also, I am pinging rosiestep let's remember that she is one of the current existing members of the board, and I think she is outstanding as a respresentative for the editing community, and many of its key concerns, so I would like to invite her simply to look nover this topic, and to comment if she wishes to do so. i simply wanted to remidn everyoine that we do already have someone who is very highly-qualified who is already on the board, and who perhaps could help to enoguhten us about some of the postiive aspects of thios process, both actual and potential. i hope that sounds helpful to everyone. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I just realized this is archived., and not active. sorry, but I came here by clicking another link. i will withdraw my comment above, but I'm wondering how to raise this topic again.; thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello Wikimedians!

The Wikipedia Library has free access to new paywalled reliable sources. You can these and dozens more collections at https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/:

• Wiley – journals, books, and research resources, covering life, health, social, and physical sciences
• OECD – OECD iLibrary, Data, and Multimedia​​ published by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
• SPIE Digital Library – journals and eBooks on optics and photonics applied research

Many other sources are freely available for experienced editors, including collections which recently became accessible to all eligible editors: Cambridge University Press, BMJ, AAAS, Érudit and more.

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: log in today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 13:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaWiki message delivery (talk • contribs) 13:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello!

Have you noticed that some wikis have a different desktop interface? Are you curious about the next steps? Maybe you have questions or ideas regarding the design or technical matters?

Join an online meeting with the team working on the Desktop Improvements! It will take place on 29 April 2022 at 13:00 UTC and 18:00 UTC on Zoom. Click here to join. Meeting ID: 88045453898. Dial by your location.

Agenda

• Update on the recent developments
• Questions and answers, discussion

Format

The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes will be taken in a Google Docs file. Olga Vasileva (the Product Manager) will be hosting this meeting. The presentation part will be given in English.

We can answer questions asked in English, French, Italian, and Polish. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the talk page or send them to sgrabarczuk@wikimedia.org.

At this meeting, both Friendly space policy and the Code of Conduct for Wikimedia technical spaces apply. Zoom is not subject to the WMF Privacy Policy.

We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The first meeting starts in 40 minutes! We'll be waiting for you. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Just an interesting question, when do discussion closers need to implement the outcomes they decided based on their reading of consensus? 2601:647:5800:1A1F:5178:A3FA:90C3:144D (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

It depends. If it's a a deletion request and an Admin closes as delete, then they are the only ones who can delete. If it's a merge request, WP:MERGING says it's the involved editor (the one proposing the merge) who has to do it, not the closer. Doug Weller talk 15:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, with some discussions, such as an RFC on article content, once closed anyone can implement the results; it is usually one of the people who proposed the version of the content that was endorsed by the RFC. --Jayron32 16:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

A discussion closer never actually needs to implement the outcome, in terms of violating some basic principle and needing to be blocked, but, as in the case mentioned by Doug, when it takes little effort and most editors cannot do so it is courteous to. Even in the case of deletion I suppose that any editor could tag the article with {{db-xfd}}, but if anyone made a habit of not implementing the outcome then others would get a bit fed up with them. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussions by and involving admins which require the use of their tools invariably end up with the admin intending to use their tools closing the discussion. That is, if a discussion at ANI is clearly in consensus to block some editor, what happens first is that an admin decides they themselves will be the one to do the deed, so they would be the ones to close the discussion. If they even close it. As noted, not every discussion needs closure, many times discussions are just enacted on and left open where consensus is clear and no one is likely to object. "Closing statements" are an optional thing. If the discussion is obviously going one way, and needs no clarification or explanation, many of them just never get "closed". From WP:CLOSE: "Often, consensus is reached in the discussion and the outcome is obvious...There will be nothing more that is said, and everyone moves on. When formal closure is more likely to happen (like at XFD discussions), then likewise, an admin will first have needed to decide they're going to delete the article, THEN they'll close it. I've never heard of an admin closing an XFD and leaving it for someone else to delete; you pretty much always are willing to delete it before you close it, otherwise you leave it for someone else to deal with it. --Jayron32 16:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

And conversely, we don't encourage NAC closures of things requiring tools such as delete - because it makes more work - someone has to go solicit an admin that wants to volunteer to perform the deletion. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

However, aside from situations where admin tools are necessary to enact the results of a discussion, closure of any discussion is open to any sufficiently experienced Wikipedian in good standing, and non-admin closures are not given less weight than admin closures. --Jayron32 13:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

In the past, I usually (i.e. in 99% of cases) haven't enacted the results of my closes. Aside from participants being better positioned to make the edits, my feel was that it acts as a basic 'sanity check' of my close being correct (or at least, not universally opposed by everyone who cares about the dispute). In some contentious issues I've noticed editors hesitant to make the edit enacting the result themselves; one implementing editor (in an edit summary) mentioned their concern the diff may be misrepresented and 'used against them'. Since then I've started to enact more discussion outcomes if the implementation is clear, and because I don't think my reasons against implementing outcomes myself actually mattered to anyone else. And in issues like the Jewish Chronicle RfC socking, in hindsight I see that self-implementing (and doing so sooner) could've saved editor time and prevented a (mostly unnecessary) contentious debate.

Overall my experience is that implementing results, if the implementation steps are clear to the closer, is the best course of action. If the implementation details are unclear or complicated, leave it to discussion participants, who will probably implement better/faster than I. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Does the OP have any particular case in mind when asking this question? The reason that I responded in the way that I did was because the failure to implement a closure should not be used as as a stick to beat anyone with. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Specifically merging and splitting. These actions are generally more complex to enact after closure. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:DCEC:F9E5:B087:A84B (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

You might of noticed the Hitler teapot article on DYK recently, but weirdly, the day after, the page got 270,000 pageviews. I spoke to @Theleekycauldron, but they had no idea why it got so many page views that day, and neither did I. Does anyone know why it got so many views? I'm just curious, and apologies if I have posted this in the wrong place. Anyway, Thankyou in advance! HenryTemplo (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

With sudden spikes like this, you'd normally expect there to be some external source that directs traffic to the article - and sure enough, that seems to have happened here. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Mystery solved! Thankyou, enjoy your day! HenryTemplo (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

https://kirkegaard.substack.com/p/political-deletionism-at-wikipedia?s=r bi (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I see that the writer of this article uses "woke" as a pejorative. That means that he considers it better to go through life fast asleep. Why should I take any more notice of what he says than the random stranger who sat next to me on the bus today? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Like most talkative random strangers, they may or may not have something useful to say. However, a cynic (moi?) might summarise the WMF goals as: 1. be woke; 2. run an encyclopedia; 3. be woke; 4. be woke. Certes (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

As I have informed recently, a popular article writing competition CEE Spring (about Central and Eastern Europe; now with special subcategory about Esperanto) is happening here on the English Wikipedia until the 31st May 2022. I warmly invite you to participate, write some article and win a valuable prize! If you have question, I will happily answer it on the competition page talk.

Also, for more wide outreach, I have just asked for a CentralNotice, which should appear also in this project. If you have a comment on the request, you are welcome to write it on the request page. --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

If you are actually asking for a literal Mediawiki:Sitenotice, I don't think this rises to the need for that. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

What do people think? Is it useful to have the table of contents included when you print out the article? If it included page numbers I would say yes, it's definitely useful. But since it does not I'm not so sure what the value is. Is it just a waste of paper? Are there some use cases people know of? AHollender (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• I echo your opinions. If there's added functionality for showing page numbers in ToC, it's definitely more helpful. Otherwise, I can't think of a reason why ToC would be required. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 19:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

It can be useful to know what sections to expect in the article. —Kusma (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a gadget enabled (User:TheDJ/Print options) which includes the option to omit the ToC when printing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

That's neat! Whether you want to print the table of contents is going to depend on the article. —Kusma (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I concur with you and CX Zoom. casualdejekyll 21:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd say it depends on content of the toc, whether it seems useful or not. Some make lovely mini summaries, others mere bureacratic foreplay. --Palosirkka (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The old (2010) behavior is that a "Printable Version" link, when saved as PDF, produces a nice table of contents with linked TOC entries to the appropriate main body of the document. When someone opens the PDF they can click on a table of contents entry and jump immediately to the appropriate part of the document for that table of contents entry. Without those table of contents links, large documents become difficult to navigate.

Our organization publishes a large policy document with many table of contents entries. Being able to click on the appropriate entry in the table of contents and immediately be positioned at the proper spot in the body of the document is a real lifesaver. ChuckAtWFHB (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done
Compare section 7 of Digital twin with section 9 of Electronic authentication. Looks like the almost precisely matching parts were added by one contributor, with a whopping grand total of 3 lifetime edits across Wikimedia. Note the missing word "of" in the very first heading: when he substituted the name of article 1 with the name of article 2 in his copypasta with minor alterations, he erased one word too many. The passage was present in the other article at the time this edit was made. I smell a rat! --Palosirkka (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Since no takers, took care of it myself. --Palosirkka (talk) 07:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I know this sounds trivial, but I noticed while tidying up the good article list that many articles on domestic animals (Polynesian Dog, Florida Cracker Horse, Georgian Grande Horse, Liptov Baldspotted Rabbit, the list goes on and on) capitalize the name of the animal in question, which the majority do not do (Arabian horse, Persian cat, etc.). I believe the latter is more correct (besides, as mentioned, more widely used overall), but either way, we need consistency. I am strongly suggesting that all offending articles be moved. Any thoughts? --An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

MOS:COMMONNAMECAPS seems a good starting point. If I recall correctly, at one point following style guides that always capitalized such names was more accepted. From that and related links it seems the decision has been made to convert them as you ask, but I haven't tried to track down where the decision was made or where progress is being tracked. Anomie⚔ 12:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organisms § Capitalization has more details on the history of past discussions, as well as current consensus. isaacl (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I hadn't seen this. In this case, all of the articles I cited appear to actually be correct. However, it did not take me long to find actual rule-breakers (Canadian horse, Nokota horse, Colonial Spanish horse, Chukotka sled dog, McNab dog, etc.) In most of the ones I found, the inconsistency extends to the article itself. --An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

In some cases the word is part of the name or a common name, for example in German Shepherd Dog the "dog" is often part of the name of the breed. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I said that the articles I had originally found were actually correct. However, since the Canadian horse isn't generally referred to as simply the Canadian, then per the version of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organisms § Capitalization that existed when I started this discussion, horse should be capitalized in both the title and article. Now that the rules are changing, I will have to check again. --An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Also, see WP:NCFAUNACAPS: Current practice/consensus is to use sentence case for capitalization in titles and in articles. (There was a rather lengthy WP:RFC which determined this a few years back, but I can't find it at the moment.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
• It's really simple, only capitalize those parts of common names that would be capitalized in other uses. German would capitalized no matter what. Shepherd wouldn't.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know where else to put this, so if this is the wrong forum, feel free to remove or move it. I stumbled across the article contemporary society today. It has three references. The first is to Arvanitakis, James (2009). Contemporary Society. Oxford University Press Australia & New Zealand. ISBN 978-0-19-556810-3. No problems there.

The second reference just reads: 2.^television^{[clarification needed]} . The third and final reference reads: 3.^google

This may be one of the funniest things I've ever seen on Wikipedia. This should be encased in amber and stored somewhere so it won't be forgotten. Where should it go? —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I think you've already put it in the right place, but that's unlikely to result in preservation. Certes (talk) 10:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I hope this is not the wrong place to mention it, I am not aware of anywhere else. About the article Birmingham, Kentucky, it has been turned from a general article of Birmingham, into a racism article of Birmingham, I am not against a racism article but it is no longer a general article, although still titled like it is. I commented on the Talk page over there, also. Middle More Rider (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it was changed in February in this edit, which probably needs to be looked at for possible POV issues. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Look at the edit history. The content was previously removed as a copyright violation. Springee (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the material due to the copyright issue. Any readdition should rephrase the material completely and cut the section down to a more reasonable size to avoid giving undue weight. Sadly, this sort of thing was all too common at the time. Coverage of it should not make it seem that it was more significant in this town than in many others. It could perhaps be used better in the sundown town article. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies and the edit, it looks much better now. Middle More Rider (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• User:MJL/Wikipedia YouTube video script

I have just launched a fun game that will last until next week. The premise is simple; you write whatever you want (subject to the posted terms), and I will make a YouTube video following whatever script the community has collectively written. If you want to play, please be sure to add your name to the CC-BY 3.0 declaration, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Transgender people in China#Maoism says "The attitudes of younger generations that have been less exposed to Maoist ideologies are beginning to reflect more accepting attitudes towards members of the LGBTQ+ community." How does Maoism influence people's attitude towards the LGBTQ+ community? Are there other factors of different attitudes among different generations? --沈澄心✉ 09:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The article cites a source, an edited compilation of papers by various authors, published by a university press in Hong Kong. The source can be previewed in Google Books, including (at least for me in the US) the specific pages cited, which I just finished reading. In it, the author lays out the argument that the political/social environment of the 1950s-2000s [i e. Chinese communism, and from the 1960s-1990s the more overt Maoist phase] was detrimental to the expression of non-traditional sexual orientation or identity. The source supports the wikitext claim. 172.254.162.90 (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Guys (and I say "guys" advisedly), this is embarrassing. Normally Wikipedia is all over major current events. Articles about recent shootings are often a mile long and plagued with edit conflicts. But a massive, US-wide shortage of the formula that many infants need to live? Parents begging, stealing, and taking other desperate measures to keep their babies fed? Crickets here. This began in February, and until I started an article yesterday, there was nothing here. Even after I created it, it went unedited for so long that a bot removed the {{current event}} template. So far, only one other editor has contributed in any meaningful way to the article. The mostly young, overwhelmingly male demographics of the editor base have created a blind spot here that makes us look terrible. I have very little time this weekend to work on the article; with others please step up? —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 18:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

This seems like one of many instances of systemic bias on Wikipedia, which many editors seem to think is not a problem. It's good that we now have at least a tiny bit of coverage of this, but I have to wonder whether shortages of infant formula milk in less developed countries are much worse. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Remember that WP is a not newspaper. Not every event widely covered by the news needs to be documented in WP. Editors are often far too fast to make articles on perceived events when those are actually tied to other topics or haven't shown long-term notability. For example an article that claims to cover "2022 US fuel price crisis" is inappropriate given that's explicitly tied to the Ukraine-Russian situation. This is not to say the baby formula shortage isn't a newsworthy event, and it is getting more attention, but its the type of topic that we should take caution to make sure it really is an event with long-term coverage and not covered from other topics. --Masem (t) 18:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the (wildly incorrect) suggestion that such an event might not pass NOTNEWS (which I've been here long enough to be quite familiar with, thanks) is a pretty perfect illustration of the problem. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 01:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not that it clearly isn't news now, but maybe only in the last two or three weeks has it gotten to the point where it made sense to have an article on it. If this article was created back in Feb when there was speculation there may have been a run on formula, that would have been a problem, and unfortunately we get too many editors creating articles on those inclinations. --Masem (t) 02:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd argue it's been article-worthy for closer to six weeks, but isn't two or three weeks late bad enough? And how much longer would it have been? —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 13:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

A super quick scan of sources show that at 6 weeks ago you had some hints of a problem in the market, but it wasn't until mid April where it started to hit that 40% number that RSes called it a problem. Before that point, it would have been synthesis to connect the dots like that. Clearly we are well past that point with major coverage of it over just this weekend, and lots of good sources that explain the issues leading up to it (including the market elements). It also helps to know that RSes clearly do not consider this a short term problem, which if the shortage cleared up in a few weeks we'd likely not have an standalone about it. --Masem (t) 16:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any shortage. Breast is best, the world over. Don't get me started on Nestle. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

That is a rather unhelpful comment. Many mothers cannot produce enough milk to sustain infants, and cannot afford wet nurses. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

We do have a very good article on the 2008 Chinese milk scandal. @Phil Bridger:: You're right, but so is Redrose64: the US has a one of the lowest rates of breast feeding in the developed world (26th out of 30 in the OECD last time I looked). I'll post a list of issues that the article could examine on its talk page rather than here, but I'm not optimistic about much getting accomplished, on-wiki or off. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd love to hear about your experience with breastfeeding, since apparently it's a solution that's possible for everyone. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 01:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm not touching this because this has become a political talking point and I would rather not have some asshole who can't shut up and won't change the subject drag me to Arb Enforcement (even if the thread is frivolous) because they can't check their own biases on Wikipedia. American politics attracts far too many partisans and far too few voices of reason. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

You can just not help; you're not obligated to announce that you're not going to help. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 01:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

You're completely missing the point of what I wrote. I'm trying to point out that this is likely to be perceived as a "hostile" topic to edit about because of its connexion to a topic area that is infamously one of the worst ones to work on in Wikipedia because of the entrenched partisanship. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 03:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

So (a) that article looks fairly light right now, with multiple empty sections. (b) Fix it up, if it's in the news still feel free to go nominate it at WP:ITNC. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Good idea; done. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 14:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Thought you might be interested in seeing how well that went... I've been on WP for 16 years, and I'm pretty much in shock at this reaction. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 15:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, at least the article got improved ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — xaosflux ^Talk 15:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello!

Have you noticed that some wikis have a different desktop interface? Are you curious about the next steps? Maybe you have questions or ideas regarding the design or technical matters?

Join an online meeting with the team working on the Desktop Improvements! It will take place on 17 May 2022 at 12:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC on Zoom. Click here to join. Meeting ID: 86217494304. Dial by your location.

Agenda

• Update on the recent developments
• Questions and answers, discussion

Format

The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes will be taken in a Google Docs file. Olga Vasileva (the Product Manager) will be hosting this meeting. The presentation part will be given in English.

We can answer questions asked in English, Italian, Polish; also, only at the first meeting: Farsi, Vietnamese; only at the second meeting: Portuguese, Spanish, Russian. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the talk page or send them to sgrabarczuk@wikimedia.org.

At this meeting, both Friendly space policy and the Code of Conduct for Wikimedia technical spaces apply. Zoom is not subject to the WMF Privacy Policy.

We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

The meeting begins in 10 minutes. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Dear colleagues,

I'm not sure here's a right place to post this information, please correct me if necessary.

Russian internet regulatory agency Roskomnadzor issued "notifications on violation of the order of dissemination of information" regarding two English Wikipedia articles (the translations in English are in the second part of the notifications):

• 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine - Notification #558144-HB
• Rashism - Notification #558145-HB

It may be worth discussing these, or not, I don't know.

Also, if you are curious about notifications concerning Russian Wikipedia, there's a special page there. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 13:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The Euromaiden entry is seriously weak, leaving out critical recent scholarly findings regarding the assasinatiins that occurred on 20 Feb 2014. Wiki has placed an editorial block on this member and thus deliberately prevents the accurate correction of the Euromaiden entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevejcallen (talk • contribs) 01:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Stevejcallen: Not sure what you are talking about; the Euromaiden article is not protected from editing, nor is your account blocked. Can you please clarify the problem? --Jayron32 13:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

We have about 480 URLs that are hosted at AWS with an "&Expires" time-bomb that causes the URL to stop working as described at WP:AWSURL. I've been monitoring for new additions (email alerts) and "fixing" as they arrive about a couple per week. Looking for help with the existing old stock. There are a couple ways to fix:

• Add an archive URL. Sometimes one exists, though often not.
• Determine the underlying filename (typically PDF) and Google for a URL replacement.
• Determine the paper name and Google for a better link eg. Special:Diff/1089013150/1089025745
• Delete the URL entirely as unverifiable eg. Special:Diff/1088870703/1089033104

If anyone wants to pitch in, however much, Wikipedia:AWSURL/oldstock tracks which articles have been checked.

-- GreenC 14:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@GreenC I'm fairly sure that URL you had to delete as you were unable to find it is supposed to be https://www.academia.edu/5042036/Dress_and_the_fabric_of_the_television_series_the_costume_designer_as_author_in_Dr_Who. Why it was added there I have no idea, it doesn't actually seem to match up with the work listed in the bibliography, and it's been that way since it was added [13]. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes good catch. To complicate further in the "Scholarly views" section is another essay from the same book, "He's Not the Messiah: Undermining Political and Religious Authority in New Doctor Who". -- GreenC 03:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; and Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 17:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I accidentally visited a Wikipedia in another language and got a welcoming notification. I of course had a talk page created on that Wikipedia. How do I delete it?! Blacky the Bre (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

There's no reason to do so; it does no harm there. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Blacky the Bre (a) only admins can delete pages (b) there is almost no reason to delete such a page, just ignore it. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I just accidentally visited the Ukrainian Wikipedia, if you want to know. Blacky the Bre (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Several Wikimedia projects have bots that will automatically create a user talk page if you visit that wiki (I kept a rough list at User:Redrose64#Non-English editing, beginning at "For some reason"). Normally the message is harmless - even if annoyingly in what is (to you at least) an unreadable language. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

If you want the notification to go away, you can just erase it. There's no reason to delete such a page. --Jayron32 13:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I want to report a missing feature on Wikipedia codes. Where to visit? -GogoLion (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I believe the missing features page is missing. Moving to the same subject, I think it depends on the type of feature. Is it a technical one? Is it content-based? A missing guideline or policy? Etc. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Technical GogoLion (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Not sure why you want to be so vague, but WP:BUG has information on how to file a feature request in the software that Wikipedia uses. — xaosflux ^Talk 08:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@GogoLion if you can give a summary of it, we can point you in the right direction. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Since I started doing anti-vandal work, I've always wondered how it looks like when an IP receives a message on their talk page. They don't have bells nor notice things, so what gets displayed? ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 17:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

When the IP enters the (source) edit window, a notification is activated/displayed at approximately top left (desktop) about a message waiting at the IP talk page. Will persist unless dismissed/IP navigates to the talk page. I never use visual editing tools so I don't know what happens when the user edits via VE. 24.168.24.89 (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Clarifying that the notification only displays at the edit window and IP talk page. 24.168.24.89 (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Lol1VNIO: You can easily find out for yourself. On any page, find a link to another Wikipedia page (n.b. not one of those at top right - Talk, Sandbox, Preferences etc.); then open that link using your browser's "private browsing" feature - in Firefox this is achieved using a right mouse click then selecting "Open Link in New Private Window"; in Microsoft Edge this is also a right-click then selecting "Open link in InPrivate window". Then in that new window, click on "Talk", click on the browser's URL bar, press Ctrl+A then Ctrl+C to copy the link to your clipboard, then return to the page you were on before. Return to your logged-in browser, click on the URL bar and press Ctrl+A then Ctrl+V to paste the copied link into your URL bar. You should now be looking either at a talk page, or a standard message like "No messages have been posted for this user yet." Use the new section tab to post a (signed) message, and having saved it, return to the private window. Click on any "[edit]" link, you should get an pale orange box showing "You have a new message (last change)." That's what IPs see - they don't get anything like that when simply reading pages and following non-edit links, unless they go to their contribs page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

 Administrator note doing these steps may lead to your IP address being publicly associated with your username. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Where should the counting begin for Wikipedia:Silence and consensus ?

 – The discussion has gone off on a tangent about Epiphyllumlover's behavior. The original question is better posted here. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:28ED:E3D4:1C9:B47 (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

In a hypothetical situation, there could be two editors, one who tries to use the talk page and the other who reverts and stays off the talk page. If the individual using the talk page wants to invoke Wikipedia:Silence and consensus, where would the count begin for the seven days? Do the seven days stated in Wikipedia:Silence_and_consensus start from the last talk page comment where the other individual is pinged and won't respond, or do they start from seven days after the last revert?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• Whatever is longest. It is not a count down. If you have to ask it has not been long enough, or maybe its just time for both to stop editing on that article/subject. Jeepday (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
• Asking a "hypothetical" when it's not is bad form. Quick review of contributions shows this question is related to a very specific content dispute. Seek a third opinion or start an RfC. In fact, WP:NOTSILENCE seems to have been met already and no timeframe of inaction by the other editor invalidates their concerns or prevents them from re-stating them if you add the edit back in.Slywriter (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, where are you reading any mandatory seven day waiting period? Wikipedia:Silence and consensus makes no mention of such a rule, it merely notes that if no one disagrees with you, then no one disagrees with you. The functional text of that page is the phrase "until disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing)" Being reverted is sufficient to establish that consensus is in doubt. If you're just asking as a general idea "how long is long enough to wait after I ping someone or notify them on their talk page that their input is needed?", I generally check a person's contribs list. If they have been active sufficiently, and aren't responding over a couple of days of active editing, I assume they had the chance to read any necessary comments. Depending on the depth of the dispute, pinging may not be as useful as directly leaving a message on their user talk page. Best practice is to make sure they've been given a legitimate chance to respond. If the others choose not to do so, then proceed. If they come back and say "hey, wait a minute..." then self-revert and give them a chance to discuss. Also, per Slywriter, there is no time limit on objections; you don't get to say "you missed your opportunity because you didn't respond fast enough" as though you get to ignore objections. Once people dispute something, take it seriously no matter when it happens. --Jayron32 16:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Silence and consensus is only an essay, and a rather questionable one. And it doesn't seem to mention a time period. Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Jeepday and Johnbod, thank you for explaining.

Slywriter, I've never started an RfC or a third opinion. I have voted in RfCs and once was rather active at AfD, but to the best of my memory have never participated in a TO process. I am not sure these or similar formal processes in general would resolve such a situation because an editor can just refuse to agree to an RfC or TO. The form of resolution I've seen in the past is where after enough time, a third party steps in and the disagreement is resolved in what ever direction the third party says. Once earlier I asked a general question which also pertained to a specific situation, and did not get reprimanded for that. I have come across the pattern of one person discussing and the other person reverting from time to time over the years, not merely in the present context or topic, and not necessarily involving me. This isn't a concern I have about just one specific article. If I state that something exists in the abstract, I hope that does not get understood to indicate that it doesn't also (possibly) exist in the concrete.

Jayron32, I remember someone stating that seven days was a safely long enough period to assume WP:SILENCE, but sure enough that isn't on the WP:SILENCE page. I can't remember the context, maybe it was an inference from PROD which is formally set at seven days. I've wondered about the general idea too; thank you for explaining about the several days. I would like to acknowledge disputes seriously, but wonder how to do it without a talk page discussion.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Not sure why you would say an RfC isn't binding. They establish community consensus and any editor editing against that consensus will be looked at poorly by the community(and admins). My concern with presenting a hypothetical when actual controversy exists is the specific facts may have an impact on the guidance given including directing to a notice board better suited to handle the matter, along with concern that the community giving advice on such hypothetical would lead to you pointing to this AN thread as confirming your position and being used to forestall another editor's concerns by saying AN supported my position, when the community hasn't actually weighed in on the specifics. With all that said, an editor repeatedly reverting without engaging in meaningful discussion could be a behavioral issue as listed in disruptive editing Slywriter (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

For RfCs, can't an editor just refuse to give consent to an RfC to keep it from being held in the first place (in a lower traffic talk page)? And if I were to go ahead with an RfC without consent, I'm concerned that would count as tendentious.

"...AN thread as confirming your position..."--I actually went and did that once, but I forget what the topic was. It didn't make a difference in the outcome though. So that is a reasonable concern. I did not intend on doing that this time around in any of the articles (spanning more than one topic) with on-going or recently stale disputes I can think of--for a variety of reasons that I don't need to get into here. Johnbod's comment about WP:SILENCE being questionable rings a bell. By asking an abstract question about WP:SILENCE which relates to concrete problems, I am able to get a handle on the questionable aspect of WP:SILENCE--before I decide what to do.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Refusing to participate in the RfC would almost certainly constitute WP:SILENT being met and unless you started an utterly frivilous one, the community would never take a good faith RfC as disruptive editing. As for low traffic pages (and really all RfCs), a neutral notice about the RfC can be shared with related projects to encourage wider participation. Additionally, some editors are signed up to recieve RfC notifications.Slywriter (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining; I understood it wrongly.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

People generally say that RFCs aren't binding because they aren't. RFC is an advertising mechanism for discussions, not an enforceable contract. Some of them don't come to conclusions, and others don't represent the community's views. Looking among recently ended RFCs, I see, e.g., one closed in less than half a day, one on a trivial wording change by a now-blocked editor, one with 13 options to vote on and therefore unlikely to reach consensus, one with just five comments, two of which are about whether to have an RFC, one with just four editors – none of these are the kinds of discussions that should be considered "establishing community consensus" or producing any sort of "binding" result.

There are also times when an RFC's closing statement (if it needs one; if it gets one) doesn't align with the community's view. That happened at MEDRS a few years back, and the editors who revolted against the bad summary were were not looked at poorly by any admins. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Dear Wikimedians,

We are glad to inform you that the 2022 edition of Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos campaign is coming up in July.

This is a formal invitation to invite individuals and communities to join the campaign to help improve Wikipedia articles with photos and contextual images.

The campaign will run from July 1 to August 31, 2022 and several communities and Wikimedia Affiliates have already indicated interest to organize the campaign in their localities. Please find your community or community closer to you to participate: WPWP2022 Campaign: Participating Communities.

The campaign primarily aims to promote using images from Wikimedia Commons to enrich Wikipedia articles that are lacking them. Participants will choose among Wikipedia pages without photos, then add a suitable file from among the many thousands of photos in the Wikimedia Commons, especially those uploaded from thematic contests (Wiki Loves Africa, Wiki Loves Earth, Wiki Loves Folklore, etc.) over the years. In this third edition of the campaign, eligibility criteria have been revised based on feedback and campaign Evaluation Reports of the previous editions. Please find more details about these changes and our FAQ here on Meta-Wiki

For more information, please visit the campaign page on Meta-Wiki.

Best,
Ammar A.
Global Coordinator
Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos Campaign 2022.
17:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

For some reason, items in the file namespace can't be moved, at least by unlicensed users like me. But File:Akbar khan playback singer.jpg needs to move to Draft:Akbar Khan (Kerala musician) or something like that. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think moving is necessary here. The whole draft is unsourced, apart from artist's own fb, youtube, instagram, and full of unencyclopedic trivia, e.g., he likes chicken biryani, etc. From top to down it's either an autobiography or a Fan POV. More importantly, even though I'm from India too, a Google search fails to substantiate that the person is notable enough. I've gone ahead and nominated it for deletion under CSD G11. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Trying to cut my workload down on archiving 400 references if possible. Thanks Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

https://iabot.toolforge.org/index.php?page=runbotsingle should do what you want. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/upload/Флаттершай&offset=&limit=500&subtype=upload&type=upload&user=Флаттершай At the moment there are 1400 images, there will be the same number more. --Fluttershy — talk 04:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Category:Flag template shorthands has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Fernando Trebien (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Template:Expand language has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --N8_wilson 20:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Dear community members,

I am reaching out to you all today to inform you on the upcoming Wikimedia Foundation fundraising campaign in Austria, Belgium, France, and Luxembourg.

We will be showing banners on Wikipedia in Austria, Belgium, France, and Luxembourg in July (we are currently still working out the dates and I will inform you of the precise dates as soon as I can). Prior to this, we are planning to run some tests in June, so you might see banners, if you are logged out of your Wikipedia account, before the campaign starts. This will ensure that our technical infrastructure works. We are currently working on the messages for the banners and I will share examples with you later.

Generally, before and during the campaign, you can contact us:

• On the talk page of the fundraising team
• If you need to report a bug or technical issue, please create a phabricator ticket
• If you see a donor on a talk page, VRT or social media having difficulties in donating, please refer them to donatewikimedia.org

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks you and regards,

JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I can now confirm that the banner campaign will start on the 11th of July. Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 10:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, when we see a category (i. e. Category:Wikipedia maintenance), we can see letters and symbols in bold. So, my question is how can I edit those characters/symbols? on translatewiki.net or another place? Thanks! ⇒ AramTalk 19:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Aram: Each bold character is a heading matching the initial of its entries. In Cities in Florida, Miami is under the bold M, etc. That initial comes from the article title, unless there's a sort key. Most people have a sort key with the surname first, so Irish folk singers lists Mary Black under B rather than M. You can't edit those headings, but you can move a page to a different heading to by changing its sort key (or moving the page to another title). In a small category with no other entries sharing the initial, that might even cause the old heading to disappear and the new one to appear. Certes (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Certes: Thanks for your reply and explanation, but that wasn't my intention. Let me explain further. For example, see ckb:پۆل:ئەورووپا, and ckb:ئەوراسیا member, for example, is under ء instead of ئ. I want to know where those letters are defined. ⇒ AramTalk 20:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, no idea: I don't know that language and it has an unfamiliar editor rather than showing me the wikitext. Perhaps the article has a defaultsort starting with ء. Certes (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Certes: It's okay. I think those characters have to be defined somewhere because that character (ء) is not in my language. Anyway, thanks for your answers. I hope another user can help me. ⇒ AramTalk 21:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Aram: In category pages, there are three ways that the heading is chosen, and all of them are driven by the individual pages that are in the category. In the normal course of things, pages are shown under a heading that is the first character of the page name (for right-to-left scripts, as in this case, this will be the rightmost character), ignoring any namespace prefix. But under certain circumstances, this can be modified. If the page has code like [[Category:Fooians|*]] the page will appear under the "*" heading; similarly, if the page has {{DEFAULTSORT:*}} the page will again appear under the "*" heading. I'm using English examples because this silly browser can't handle Sorani text, but I notice that the article ckb:ئەوراسیا uses the second of these for the first of the four categories. There is more at WP:SORTKEY. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thanks for your reply, but it's still not clear to me why ء appears instead of ئ. Both have their own Unicode and should not be confused with each other. I think either there has to be a configuration page to recognize those characters (such as MediaWiki:Cite references link many format backlink labels), or there's a bug in the system. ⇒ AramTalk 23:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Aram suggest you open a bug report on that. Those labels are the "category-group" labels, but I don't think they are defined on-wiki. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

This may (or may not) have something to do with Unicode equivalence. ء is ARABIC LETTER HAMZA; ئ is ARABIC LETTER YEH WITH HAMZA ABOVE. Something may be decomposing "Yeh with Hamza" into its two component characters, then sorting under the first of those components (Hamza). You'd need someone familiar with Unicode and Arabic characters (i.e. not me) to confirm that. Certes (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Certes: I don't think what you said about Hamza has any effect. See ar:تصنيف:بلدان أوروبية غربية, it's members are correctly classified under their own letters and Hamza had no effect on the classification. @Xaosflux: I created a bug report (T310051), but I don't know if they can treat it there. Thanks! ⇒ AramTalk 11:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

It will at least get more eyes on it - the English Wikipedia editors here are not going to be as familiar with some parts of the Arabic alphabets. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Why is there such a plague of unsourced people lists by nationality/ethnicity? I ask because not only are unsourced lists in general not a great thing, but with BLPs we go out of our way to avoid pigeon-holing people in terms of nationality or ethnicity unless it is central to their notability. And yet, on many lists, there is willy nilly pigeon-holing of people as certain nationalities or ethnicities with little more than a page link, and often when their national/ethnic self-identification is not even mentioned in their biographies themselves. In some ways this seems like backdoor unsourced BLP violation on mass. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: Could you show us a couple of examples? Thanks. PamD 13:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@PamD: Ok, well I noticed it because of articles like this: List of Israeli Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews, because, notably, "Mizrahi Jews" (Quote: Many Jews originated from Arab and Muslim countries today reject "Mizrahi") and "Sephardi Jews" are actually quite political terms with ethnic connotations, so that's already a bit dodgy. The lack of sourcing you can see for yourself, but then if you drill down into the articles, few make any sort of statement about this, and often it is just in the categories. For some profiles, however, it is uncited and not even in the categories on the linked pages. Avigdor Kahalani for example. Then I looked up another example (chose another Middle Eastern ethnic identity): List of Druze - also with examples without any cited or linked references, e.g.: Nahida Nakad. Ok. How far does the problem spread? Lists of Americans. Drill Down: Hakka Americans. Choose a random option: Randy Chin. No citation and no mention of anything to do with 'Hakka' anywhere on the profile. Seems widespread. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 I'm guessing you're talking about some of the lists in Category:Lists of people by nationality and Category:Lists of people by ethnicity? Selecting List of Croatian Americans and List of Chinese actresses as two random examples, I see List of Croatian Americans does cite sources for some of the people on the list, but is mostly unsourced while List of Chinese actresses is totally unsourced. However, selecting (again at random) Ann Cindric (an unsourced entry from List of Croatian Americans), I see her ethnicity is sourced in her article.

I would think nationality would be less controversial than ethnicity. I also think the vast majority of these are intended to serve mostly a navagational purpose, and thus the sourcing is the articles to which they link. That said, controversial things should be sourced wherever they appear - and ethnicity (and even nationality on occasion) can be controversial. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 13:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey folks. I didn't know where to put this, so I decided that the village pump would be the best idea. I have seen some userpages referring to the plural of userbox as 'Userboxes'. However, I have also seen some userpages referring to the plural as 'Userboxen'. Which one is correct? Are both correct? Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The official plural is "userboxes", modelled on "boxes". "Userboxen" is a whimsical analogy to irregular plurals such as "oxen"; it's technically wrong but widely accepted and can raise a smile. Certes (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

For a singular userbox used by more than one person (as most are), I assume it is thus usersbox? Nosebagbear (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Userboxen is correct because a Germanic suffix is cool: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Userboxes/Archive_2006#A_plea_for_the_Germanic_plural. Some people are just not cool. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

we're not German, so shouldn't be using German pluralisation. "Userboxes" is correct English. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

But the English language is a West Germanic language. The roots of English are Germanic. There is a heavy French/Romance influence due to the Norman Conquest, but there is still that Germanic root. So, whenever we do anything linguistically weird for Germanic languages, blame the French. Whenever we do anything linguistically weird for Romance languages, blame the Germanic influence. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

And it it's weird for both, you can probably blame Greek. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Userboxen is correct because it is whimsical and it upsets people who can't take a joke, which is a noble enough cause to override all other concerns. --Jayron32 13:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron32, you caused me a very big smile.
Steue (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• “Boxen” is not German… it appears in several English dictionaries as a non-standard (archaic) variant for “box”… which has been revived and adopted by computer programmers (I suppose you could call it computer jargon). I would say that (in this context) BOTH are correct. Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• If, as seems to me but I'm open to being proved [proven?] wrong, the singular "Userbox" was made up for use by Mediawiki, then that project can also make up the plural. Here on the English Wikipedia I have seen both the standard "Userboxes" and the non-standard "Userboxen" used extensively, so it seems that both are probably correct. But, whatever is decided here, and my preference would be for nothing to be decided, let's accept that this project uses English, not German. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  Again, it’s not German… it’s “programming jargon”. I found this out with a simple google search for “boxen”. Now, if you want to argue that we shouldn’t use programming jargon… fine. I just think we should be accurate in our arguments. Blueboar (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  I know it's not German. That's why I said "both are probably correct" and "my preference would be for nothing to be decided". Phil Bridger (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• You should use the proper collective noun, in this case "a nuisance of userboxes", just like cats. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• dab: in the early days of email, "user box" was sometimes used to distinguish personal mailboxes from others, such as the "system [mail]box" etc. The term is still used in printer interfaces of multiuser printers with built-in physical or virtual storage. The "user box" is space for individual users to store print jobs and other documents. This printer user box may also be associated with an email user box. Because complexity is the geeks' favorite hallucinogenic. Afaik the plural in these non-Wikipedia cases was always "boxes". It is also possible this section will attract comments in inverse proportion to the topic's importance. Guilty as charged. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• I've always used userboxen, regardless, it's not particularly an important matter. Legislating that one is more correct than the other is a waste of everyone's time. casualdejekyll 16:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• Hang on, have we decided how to spell WP:LEAD or WP:LEDE yet? Johnuniq (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I’m holding out for “LEED”. Blueboar (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
• I prefer Ǚzerbǿxen, but am willing to concede that it might be like deer, and the plural of Userbox is Userbox. On the other hand, perhaps it is like goose, and the plural is Userbeex. BD2412 T 04:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  Geese have beex; userboxes don't. Surely it's Userböx. Certes (talk) 09:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• I think there's clearly a lack of guidance in this area and we should have an RfC on creating a guideline on this. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  Shouldn't we first have an RFC on whether to have an RFC? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  Several, I would think… And let’s not forget to have a side-debate on whether the RFCs are neutrally worded or not… and some accusations of canvassing and forum shopping. We have traditions to uphold after all. Blueboar (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  That process doesn't have significant support currently, you can follow up by following the proper Wikipedia:Requests for process to get it going. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  And thus began the Great Userboxen War of 2022. WaltCip-(talk) 15:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  No. It's the Great Userboxes War. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  Pardon me while I go run off to file an WP:RFARB.^[FBDB] WaltCip-(talk) 17:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Userboxen, by analogy with Vaxen. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually, upon further consideration, I've come to the conclusion that this is all wrong. Userbox is plural. The singular being userbok. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

You've got to cite your sources, Roy. Kids these days probably don't know what a VAX was: "[very common; by analogy with VAXen] Fanciful plural of box often encountered in the phrase ‘Unix boxen’, used to describe commodity Unix hardware. The connotation is that any two Unix boxen are interchangeable." WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

These days, spelled "Docker" :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• "Eyesore". —Cryptic 15:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• Userboges. Or is this way of forming the plural reserved for words ending in -nx? —Kusma (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• "Userboxes". Period. In an encyclopedia we should use the gramatically correct variant, not some random slang. — SummerKrut 21:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  But is there a "correct" variant? Is "userbox" a word? If so who made it up? Shouldn't the same people be able to make up the plural(s)? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• We clearly need a suite of small, colourful rectangles to help editors express their views on this contentious issue. Certes (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
• I LOVE how this "discussion" turned out. Speaking of opinions... how many of you will be fine with me making a template for this? Like "This user thinks that the plural of userbox is {{{1}}}" or something. ARandomPage, the named space (Update them!) (Stuff they do) 14:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  @ARandomPage I'd love that, personally. Would you mind linking to here in it? Thanks, and Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  Well... I don't know what image to use. Any ideas? ARandomPage, the named space (Update them!) (Stuff they do) 02:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  @ARandomPage

  This user thinks that the plural of userbox is userboxen!

  This user thinks the plural of userbox is userboxes!

  Those are some ideas for userboxen/s/g/:o. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  I was going to suggest that, if you haven't got anything better to do , you might want to create a userbox with the text, "This user doesn't give a fuck what the plural of userbox is". But then it occurred to me that the editors that could use it don't display those things on their user page anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Phil Bridger:: Would there not be a group of userbox-using Wikipedians who truly don't give a flip about the plural of userbox? Given the size of this place, it is a certainty, so I've made this. @Fakescientist8000:: Thanks for the examples. Since I'm too lazy to modify them, I've copied them into a template. ARandomPage, the named space (Update them!) (Stuff they do) 10:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  I suppose you are right. There is no limit to human silliness ingenuity. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  Since this topic seems to have more legs than a centipede, a portal may be apt. 64.18.11.68 (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

box: translated into German: Kiste
boxes: Kisten.

The plural "boxen" is not mentioned in the "World Book Dictionary" (edition of 1979) from Thorndike-Barnhart. And this comprises two large size volumes.

To: Phil Bridger: According to above mentioned dictionary, both are correct; and mentioned (in this dict.) in exactly this sequence, which, I suppose, shall give a hint to preference.

Thanks to most of you, now I've found where to get my daily dose of big smiles from.

Just out of curiosity of how it is done, I tried this one:

This user doesn't give a fuck what the plural of userbox is.

Steue (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

as long as we are exchanging userboxes, I thought I might offer this one. you're welcome.

This user understands nothing to be absolute in the realm of quantum fluctuations.

--Sm8900 (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• The correct plural is Userboxii. MarioGom (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

In 213 BCE, Qin Shi Huang destroyed all privately-held unorthodox books in by fire. In 206 BCE, Xiang Yu set a fire on the governmental library containing unique copies of the books, sounding the death of ancient Chinese thoughts and history. Yongle Encyclopedia was finished in 1408. It comprised 22,937 chapters in 11,095 volumes and 917,480 pages. Only one copy after that original copy was made. Most of them are lost in history and only about 800 chapters survive today. In 1932, 463 thousand Han Fen Lou rare books were burned in war.

To prevent such regrettable things that destroy the memory of mankind ever happen again, let's systematically back up the world's all surviving books in public domain to Wikimedia Commons.

Half a million book files were uploaded as part of the project. Currently only Chinese and Japanese books were uploaded, but the ultimate goal is ALL books in ALL languages from ALL countries as long as in public domain. Welcome to participate to accomplish the grand goal! --The Master (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I've tried reading the notes on the EFN template but when I try to separate notes by type it doesn't seem to do anything. I'm interested in separating the ref bundles on The Dark Knight (film) from the actual notes, so creating two separate groups that are displayed independently. Is that something that is possible? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't exactly understand what you are trying to do here. If you want to have two separate lists of notes, then a different listing scheme is required, one list using {{notelist}} and {{efn}} (lower-alpha), and another list using e.g. {{notelist-lr}} and {{efn-lr}} (lower roman numerals). 50.75.226.250 (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah Ok I thought you could just add a name to {{notelist}} and create a separate grouping. Basically, I have notes that are explainers, and notes that are just bundles of several references and I wanted to split them out. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

By "bundles" I am assuming you are referring to notes that include several nested references (with note text "Attributed to multiple references"). Imo, this is superfluous. You can directly call the multiple references inline. If this offends aesthetically, maybe you can limit the number of related references. If there is one or two reliable references that support the particular wikitext, that is enough. Once something is proven, adding more proof is unnecessary. Alternatively, you may call the reference(s) within {{efn}} by using its/their {{harv}} anchor(s), a method that may give a more literal hint to readers. 68.132.154.35 (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

is the election for WMF board still active? what's the status of that? I just happened on a discussion of that topic. I am chagrined that I commented there, as it was an archived discussion, and I did not realize it at the time. any updates on that? I am sorry to ask this basic question here. by the way, I am not suggesting myself as a candidate for this election, just to be clear. thanks.--Sm8900 (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi everyone. okay, I want to repost the highly-important notice below, which I found at this archive page. I'm a little perturbed that this announcement could simply be archived, instead of kept visible on a long-term basis.

if no one objects, I plan to post the notice below at Community Portal, to make sure this gets at least some genuine visibility. I hope that's ok? thanks. 

Hello everyone! There is an open Call for Candidates for the 2022 Board of Trustees election. Find out more on the Apply to be a Candidate page. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

---

The seats to be filled this year were previously selected by affiliates in the m:Affiliate-selected Board seats/2019 process. This year, a different method will be used:

1. Candidates submit their applications (by May 9; this deadline may be slightly extended);

   Any community member can become a candidate if they meet the general and special conditions outlined here.

2. Affiliates vote to short list six (6) names from the candidates' pool.

   Each affiliate carries one vote. The affiliate vote is scheduled to take place in early July.

3. The Community votes to elect two of the six shortlisted candidates.

   Community Voting is scheduled to begin on August 15 and end on August 29.

4. The Board will appoint the two newly-elected candidates as the new Trustees.

   This final step, which will conclude the election process, is expected to take place in early October 2022.

---

@Election Volunteers: ( "{{@EVs}}" ) <-- The Movement Strategy and Governance team is inviting local users to help publicize the different stages of the election . Feel free to add your name here. Thanks in advance, and to those who have already registered.

If you have any questions, please post them here, on Meta-wiki, or reach out to me directly.

Kindly cross-post and advertise widely.

Best regards,

Xeno (WMF) (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sm8900: It's an old notice, and shouldn't have been revived. It concerns a "Call for Candidates", a phase that is now over (see m:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2022#Timeline) - as shown above, it closed on 9 May - a month ago. As certain later stages are approached, further announcements will be made. Xeno (WMF), do you have anything else to add? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the interest and ping Sm8900 & Redrose64. The current stage involves affiliate representatives asking questions to candidates and then voting to shortlist six candidates for a community vote in the later half of August. I'll post more details about that below. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

The 2022 Board of Trustees election Call for Candidates has now closed. This Call led 12 candidates from ther community to submit their applications. Learn more about the 2022 Board of Trustees candidates.

The Analysis Committee will now consider the candidates’ applications with the skills and criteria provided by the Board. The trustees seek certain skills and competencies to improve the capacity of the Board. After the Analysis Committee completes their review, the ratings of each candidate will be published. These ratings are for informational purposes only.

For more information about the 2022 Board election, you may find the timeline, voting information and other ways to get involved on Meta-wiki.

Thank you for your support,

Movement Strategy and Governance on behalf of the Elections Committee and the Board of Trustees

Xeno (WMF) (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

this is very helpful. thanks for the post. as far as the relevance and timeliness of past posts, that's entirely true... but maybe we also should have a page here in the project namespace, simply to document the entire process? would that be ok? should I create Wikipedia: WMF Board elections 2022, simply to provide one logical place which editors can refer to later, and where we will have some record and some data about the entire length of the process, to create some record that we can refer to later?

I think that might be rather helpful and relevant to the editing community. please feel free to share any comments. thanks!!! Sm8900 (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

by the way, I am supplying some alternate names below, simply to; a) see if the articles are already created, and also b) see which options people might prefer. thanks!

some possible page names might include Wikipedia: WMF Board elections, Wikipedia: Board elections, Wikipedia: WMF governance, Wikipedia:WMF roles. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I have created a draft of a possible page, at User:Sm8900/Index/Drafts/Wikipedia:Wikimedia Foundation elections. it is not fully finished, and I need to edit it a bit; right now I simply copied and pasted some text over, from a page at the meta site. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sm8900: Please don't do any of this. Leave it to those who are actually organising this very important appointment, which goes far, far beyond the English Wikipedia. In short: if you are not a WMF employee, stick to reading about the candidates. You may vote when the time comes, but don't interfere with the process. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Redrose64:it is not interfering to simply make a suggestion. Sm8900 (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

also i don't see your comment as addressing my suggestion. Sm8900 (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

It is far too late to change the process for this year. If you want to make suggestions as to how future elections might be conducted, the place to do so is at m:Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections (on Meta - not English Wikipedia), but don't be disappointed if your suggestions are not taken up next time. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I entirely agree. I do not seek to change the process in any way. your point on that is totally valid and spot-on. my only goal here is to create just a few, basic, incremental efforts to create some resources here, which might help the editing community to be more aware of and receptive to knowledge and updates about the existing efforts and processes now which relate to WMF governance, and current particpatory processes such as the elections, etc.

however, again, your point about the non-feasibility of trying to change this existing current process in any way is totally accurate, in my opinion. I agree with you on that. thanks!! Sm8900 (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I am starting the navbox below as one possible model and idea for how to group links together, in a coherent format, that might be beneficial to the editing community, in raising awareness in a helpful and convenient way, to provide a convenient overview of pages that relate to various current governance resources, elections, events, processes, and various other relevant links and resources.

I am not presenting this here for formal approval here right now; once I have developed this draft version somewhat, I plan to present this sometime in the future. I simply wanted to provide a look at this draft in progress, simply to illustrate one possible approach to helping the community to find information items more easily and more effectively.

even though this is simply a partial and incomplete initial draft. I'm willing to engage in a collegial discussion, if anyone wishes to offer any input. thanks!!

• INCOMPLETE DRAFT VERSION OF POSSIBLE NAVBOX:

--Sm8900 (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Your draft doesn't have any place for non-local events such as Wikipedia:WikiConference North America or m:Wikimania 2022. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

that's a very good point. thanks for that feedback. I will give that some thought. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Dear community members,

I am reaching out to you all today to inform you on the upcoming Wikimedia Foundation fundraising campaign in Denmark, Israel, Malaysia, Norway, and Portugal.

We will be showing banners on Wikipedia in Denmark, Israel, Malaysia, Norway, and Portugal from the 2nd to the 30th of August. Prior to this, we are planning to run some pre-tests in July, so you might see banners, if you are logged out of your Wikipedia account, before the campaign starts. This will ensure that our technical infrastructure works. We are currently working on the messages for the banners and I will share examples with you later.

Generally, before and during the campaign, you can contact us:

• On the talk page of the fundraising team
• If you need to report a bug or technical issue, please create a phabricator ticket
• If you see a donor on a talk page, VRT or social media having difficulties in donating, please refer them to donatewikimedia.org

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks you and regards,

Julia JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Could we have information on why those regions are selected? Perhaps lower visitor-to-donator ratio? Or is it editor-to-donator ratio? I am curious at the numbers. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 09:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

We run our campaigns across many countries and in continuous communication with the local affiliates and communities. Including numerous countries in our fundraising efforts ensures that donations come from many donors which helps Wikipedia and the Wikimedia projects stay independent. The campaigns are seen roughly once a year by the communities and we are lucky to have readers across the world who support us. JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

If the media consider a person as an expert in something should I add this into the article or should I refrain from it and instead list reasons why one might think this person is an expert? --Igor Yalovecky (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Igor Yalovecky it "depends" - does it make the article better? Many biographies use that term. Consider the context, and the reliability of the source. There is certainly a stronger call for that sort of language if someone is regularly an expert witness in trials - maybe less so if they are an expert at something subjective. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, the language used in wikitext is important, since that language, as well as its meaning is what is proven by citations: e.g. you could say "considered an expert by the media", or "an expert (according to press reports)" etc. It is a different approach if one is nominated an expert within their field of expertise. A professional book on programming or chemistry or history may refer to a person as an expert, or it may cite the person's work as an expert source. In that case I believe it is safe to drop the references to the media/press views, and just state, "considered an expert" or "an expert". 50.75.226.250 (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Generally, "expert" is an unhelpfully vague term, which few WP articles use. I've been an "expert witness" in a rather large court case myself, but if I had a WP bio, I don't think I should be described as an "expert". Being a "frequent expert witness in trials" is a different matter. Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod Agreed, it’s too often misused as an argument from authority Doug Weller talk 18:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• "Expert" is like "philanthropist"; a fluffy word thrown into bios as puffery. Experts do indeed exist, but often something like "scholar who specializes in research on X" is both more neutral and informative than "is an expert on X". Expert should almost never be used in wiki-voice, unless it is claim explicitly supported by secondary sources like "considered an expert in topic X by other researchers." "Expert witness" is a different, legal category and role. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Apparently that shows up when you search up a non-existent article. I understand the rationale but when was this implemented? Where is the discussion, if any? I just recently noticed this so I am curious. interstatefive  16:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Interstatefive there is discussion at MediaWiki_talk:Searchmenu-new-nocreate - more improvements may be needed! — xaosflux ^Talk 17:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

A few months ago, the Community Safety survey was conducted on English Wikipedia. The results are now available on meta. We hope you will use this data to continue discussions about safety in your community.

The quarterly survey will be conducted again this month.

Your feedback and questions are welcome on our talk page.

Thank you!

-TAndic (WMF) (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I've recently overhauled and reorganized the community bulletin board, so I'm posting here as a reminder to all WikiProjects that it's a useful way to post announcements and messages, Hopefully, now that it's been decluttered, the board has a greater effectiveness at communicating its notices, so please post them there if you are part of a project or WikiProject that has an event, or is making an announcement. Thanks! — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 16:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Input would be appreciated at the talk page of MOS:Words to Watch about MOS:ALLEGED and the distinction between the definitions of 'alleged' and 'accused' as terms. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Making this the new default

Hello. I wanted to give you an update about the Desktop Improvements project, which the Wikimedia Foundation Web team has been working on for the past few years. Our work is almost finished! 🎉

We would love to see these improvements become the default for readers and editors across all wikis. In the coming weeks, we will begin conversations on more wikis, including yours. 🗓️ We will gladly read your suggestions!

The goals of the project are to make the interface more welcoming and comfortable for readers and useful for advanced users. The project consists of a series of feature improvements which make it easier to read and learn, navigate within the page, search, switch between languages, use article tabs and the user menu, and more. The improvements are already visible by default for readers and editors on more than 30 wikis, including Wikipedias in French, Portuguese, and Persian.

The changes apply to the Vector skin only, although it will always be possible to revert to the previous version on an individual basis. Monobook or Timeless users will not notice any changes.

The newest features

• Table of contents - our version is easier to reach, gain context of the page, and navigate throughout the page without needing to scroll. It is currently tested across our pilot wikis. It is also available for editors who have opted into the Vector 2022 skin.
• Page tools - now, there are two types of links in the sidebar. There are actions and tools for individual pages (like Related changes) and links of the wiki-wide nature (like Recent changes). We are going to separate these into two intuitive menus.

How to enable/disable the improvements

• It is possible to opt-in individually in the appearance tab within the preferences by selecting "Vector (2022)". Also, it is possible to opt-in on all wikis using the global preferences.
• On wikis where the changes are visible by default for all, logged-in users can always opt-out to the Legacy Vector. There is an easily accessible link in the sidebar of the new Vector.

Learn more and join our events

If you would like to follow the progress of our project, you can subscribe to our newsletter. You can read the pages of the project, check our FAQ, write on the project talk page, and join an online meeting with us.

Thank you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Join us on Tuesday

Join an online meeting with the team working on the Desktop Improvements! It will take place on 28 June 2022 at 12:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC on Zoom. Click here to join. Meeting ID: 5304280674. Dial by your location. The following events will take place on 12 July and 26 July.

The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes will be taken in a Google Docs file and copied to Etherpad. Olga Vasileva (the Product Manager) will be hosting this meeting. The presentation part will be given in English. At this meeting, both Friendly space policy and the Code of Conduct for Wikimedia technical spaces apply. Zoom is not subject to the WMF Privacy Policy.

We can answer questions asked in English and a number of other languages. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the talk page or send them to sgrabarczukwikimedia.org. We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The meeting starts in half an hour. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

According to the article, K-pop is a general term of all popular music, mainly Korean pop music. As the term has so many meanings, i think it's better to not use it as genre on every song/single template. How if we remove it from single templates? -GogoLion (talk) 04:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe this would be clearer if you gave an example?

For example, are you saying that the singles by BTS, such as 2 Cool 4 Skool, should not be marked as K-pop? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing Yes, if the single has pop track, then just put pop, don't put K-pop because K-pop has many meanings, it can be pop, hip-hop, new wave, R&B, or soul. -GogoLion (talk) 09:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Why not put it in both? A song can be both pop and K-pop, right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing first, use ping so i can see you from notification. Second, did you understand what i mean? Pop and K-pop? That's not... Have you ever read the K-pop article? Did you know what is K-pop? -GogoLion (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@GogoLion, K-pop is not any kind of popular music at all. Michael Jackson did popular music; Michael Jackson did not do K-pop. The term is not meaningless, and it is not redundant to "popular music". It is possible for a song to be both pop and K-pop. In such cases, we should (and do) name both of these genres. When a song is both disco-pop and K-pop, then we name both genres.

Editors use their best judgment to determine the number of genres to list for each song. Sometimes it's one; sometimes it's two; sometimes it's three; sometimes it's even zero. Sometimes the genre is narrow and specific; sometimes it's a broad, catch-all genre – the kind that someone might describe as "having so many meanings", like Classical music or Religious music. That's okay, too. Not every song fits into a tiny, hyper-specific category. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing bestie... You want to compare pop and K-pop with Michael Jackson? There's a regional genre called "American pop" but people still don't use it because it can be folk, swing, jazz, and teen pop. K-pop is actually a market name, like Hollywood, but in music. It can be hip hop, R&B soul, etc... Go to the article, you will see "K-pop is 'a form of popular music' originating in South Korea as part of South Korean culture. It 'includes styles and genres from around the world', such as pop, hip hop, R&B, experimental, rock, jazz, gospel, reggae, electronic dance, folk, country, disco, and classical on top of its traditional Korean music roots"

GogoLion (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Several photos uploaded by contributor eatcha look questionable:

First, the first: File:Zaniskari Horse in Ladakh.jpg The location is wrong. If we look at the satellite photo, this location is at the top of a mountain, and therefore cannot correspond to a pasture. Moreover, this horse is probably a horse of Mongolian breed and not Zanskari. (https://stock.adobe.com/search?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aaudio%5D=0&filters%5Binclude_stock_enterprise%5D=0&filters%5Bis_editorial%5D=0&filters%5Bfree_collection%5D=0&order=relevance&serie_id=105512052 Finally, this photo seems a bit too professional, a little too polished to be a simple holiday photo.

The same is true of several other photos uploaded by this same contributor. For example: File:Sunrise Chagar Tso Lake Ladakh.jpg This photo cannot be a photo of Chagar Tso Lake. Indeed, Lake Chagar Tso is surrounded by mountains, and a mineral landscape without vegetation. While in this photo, the relief is flat, without any mountains on the horizon, and looking closer, we see that the banks are covered with trees. Finally, here too, this photo seems a little too professional, a little too "slick" to be a simple holiday photo.

These doubts are reinforced by the fact that this contributor has already been caught red-handed (see his talk page). He once uploaded a photo found on the web, claiming it was of him, and giving a fake location. We can also see that he does not hesitate to modify the metadata to make them correspond...

I think these 2 photos are not the only ones to cast doubt on, but there are several others, in particular photos obviously taken in winter, of landscapes covered in snow and ice, and which he claims to have taken in July... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djampa (talk • contribs) 09:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

File:Zaniskari Horse in Ladakh.jpg, File:Sunrise Chagar Tso Lake Ladakh.jpg. Schierbecker (talk) 10:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The horse photo is a Featured Picture. Link to the user talk page discussion? Schierbecker (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Domestic-pigeon.jpg, talk page discussion is at the top of commons:User_talk:Eatcha. In any case, Djampa, these concerns should be raised on Commons:Commons:Village pump, not here on Wikipedia. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Dear community members,

I am reaching out to you all today to inform you on the upcoming Wikimedia Foundation English fundraising campaign in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, United Kingdom, and the United States. The campaign will have two aspects:

• Emails will be sent to past donors from September to November
• Banners will be visible to non-logged in users of en.wikipedia.org from late November to the end of the year.

As part of the English campaign we test our infrastructure on a regular basis throughout the next few months. Currently I can share with you when we will be running banner tests in July.

In July we will be running short banner tests for a few hours on the 13th, 20th, and 27th of July. This means that you might see banners, if you are logged out of your Wikipedia account. I will be in touch again in early August to let you know about the next testing phase. I will also publish sample emails and banners closer to the time on our Fundraising Meta page.

Generally, before and during the campaign, you can contact us:

• On the talk page of the fundraising team
• If you need to report a bug or technical issue, please create a phabricator ticket
• If you see a donor on a talk page, VRT or social media having difficulties in donating, please refer them to donatewikimedia.org

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks you and regards,

Julia JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 07:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

For context please also see '"Wikipedia's independence" or "Wikimedia's pile of dosh"?' in this month's Signpost. This reviews current WMF fundraising messages against the background of the Foundation's very favorable financial situation. Andreas JN466 22:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Can somebody find out how many unique missing articles there on here which are on German Wikipedia? There's got to be a tool somewhere for that? Charles Matthews you're often good with wiki data?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Should be possible with https://petscan.wmflabs.org. Always hard to deal with the interface, is all. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: OK, a kind of toy version in SPARQL: https://w.wiki/5Mcx . This should give 100K hits on people who have an article in deWP, no article in enWP. It ran for me in about 52 seconds, so a much larger version might time out. That starts off "instance of human". If you don't have any such restriction, then probably you're going to be doing 100x more dud searches and you won't get much. But with a few tricks it might be possible to get a count (from articles that are linked from Wikidata) with a caveat about false positives because items need to be merged. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

You might like https://w.wiki/5Md5, which lists cities with deWP article, no enWP article: 109 hits. I mean, with restriction on the subject, this approach is useful and cheap. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Featured articles in other languages, which indicates that there are 355 Featured Articles/Exzellente Artikel at dewiki that do not have (known) enwiki equivalents. Wikipedia:Featured articles in other languages/German shows the whole list (sort the "Articles in English" column to find the missing ones). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I just learnt about this list and got to revert some (uneducated?) vandalism on Wikidata that wrongly tagged articles as FA, GA,... There needs to be some better safeguards imho. Maybe, restrict Wikidata tagging to admins and list every language FAs in a MW page. When a local admin adds/removes a page, a WD admin bot synchronises accordingly. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 14:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Wikidata records use the same basic page-protection model as Wikipedia articles, with the result that it's all-or-nothing. You can't (or at least, you couldn't) restrict this little field to admins without preventing editors from editing anything else.

I believe that the usual approach to this type of problem is to have a bot watching for such edits, so that the bot can overwrite changes from the authorized/canonical source whenever anyone changes them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: There's also my fave toolforge tool, "Not in the other language", which generates this list restricted to Featured articles. If you don't restrict the category, then the list is very long. If you just want the number of such articles, I would post your question at Wikipedia:Request a query. Looks like Charles has already written a few of these. Mathglot (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC) Updated by Mathglot (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks people. @Mathglot: this is good but is there anything which will give me the figure of how many articles there in total are without generating a massive list? Astounding that there's 355 featured articles which are yet to be started on here!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I think we should have a page on here which has a big table of how many missing unique articles there are on each of the wikipedias and how many are featured or good etc. If a bot or something could be coded to generate a list every year or few years and update the figures I think it would be useful. Obviously we can't assume every missing article is notable, in many cases they won't be but something which keeps a note of it would be of use. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Just once. I wish those who make techno changes to Wikipedia, would consult the community first. Now, we've got changes to how our 'section heading' & 'posts' are created on talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

You didn’t see the notice?… it was clearly on display at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying “beware the leopard”. How did you miss THAT? Blueboar (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Come off it, Mr. Day. You can't win, you know. You can't lie in front of the keyboard indefinitely. WaltCip-(talk) 16:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Think a Watchlist Notice pointing to the VP thread would be useful here? — xaosflux ^Talk 17:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The change was requested by the community, following the RFC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Enabling the New Topic Tool by default. Matma Rex talk 18:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps more to the point: @GoodDay and anyone else, if you don't like it, go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion and turn it off. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not, but there has been ongoing community consultation on this at Wikipedia:Talk pages project going all the way back to Talk Pages Consultation 2019 (which was advertised on all the Village pumps: VPT, VPM, VPI, VPR, VPM, and VPP, as well as in The Signpost). More recently, the enabling of the latest tool was discussed on the Village Pumps here and here and was in the Tech News newsletter (which is also posted to VPT) here and here. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it was sarcastic at all. There are more than 100K registered editors editing this wiki just this month. It's too big for everyone to read everything, or even to remember all the things we've read. No matter what we do, every change will surprise some editors. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Seeing as I've grown used to it. I'll forego removing the change, via the preference route. GoodDay (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)