Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:34, 4 March 2020

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Backlog

Transcluded from User talk:Wugapodes/Tasks

GAN report: mystery solved?

Wugapodes, you may recall that in the GAN report's Malformed nominations sections, an "Unknown nomination" link to the Film section of the page, but with no other information beyond that, showed up for this first time on June 1, 2019. It finally disappeared last night, and I have a tentative diagnosis.

I believe the nomination in question was for Rushmore (film), which was originally made on May 31, 2019, during the day and with a subtopic of "Film". It was clearly a handmade GA nominee template (people are supposed to substitute the GAN template): what I thought was the problem here was that there were no links for the nominator or their talk page, which I fixed. What I missed when I finally started investigating in mid-June—and what I think caused your bot to pick up on the error—was that the date/time field was malformed: all times are supposed to have two digits for the hour and two for the minutes, and this was formatted "8:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)" rather than "08:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)", something I didn't notice until today, when I was trying to figure out what went wrong.

I think it was the problematic date that caused the problem, though there may have been something else about this nomination that caused it—this is a tentative diagnosis, after all, and it may be accurate, partially accurate, or not the actual issue at all. Still, this info might help you track down where in the code the error might have been generated, and why the link was to the section rather than the actual (problematic) nomination.

Hope all is well, and best of luck tracking this down. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Wow, yeah, that's probably it. The regular expression which parses the noms assumes that the timestamp has two digits for the hour, so that's an easy fix. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

GANs to do

• Talk:Park Avenue main line/GA1
• Talk:Martin Scorsese/GA1 (unless someone gets there first)

New Years Greetings

I've noticed that some of these GANs directly above are either done or on hold. In case you might be interested, I've recently listed the biography for the film director Martin Scorsese as a nomination. He is nominated for an Oscar this year and I thought it might be nice if his article could be brought to peer review quality before the Oscars next month, if you might be inclined to look at it. CodexJustin (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Jordan Hall

I saw your comment at RFA and got curious about Jordan Hall. When it comes back, here are some weak to middling sources that I dug up:

• Exterior statue
• “Mission-style colonnade”
• Renovation information
• Mention of origins
• Life Magazine mentions of Prison experiment
• Zoology in the building after 1900
• Building houses Zoology department

With the addition of some prison experiment sources to the above, I'd say the bare minimum is there to establish notability. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

This is decent coverage, although not entirely independent. Looks like the hall was named after Stanford's first president, David Starr Jordan.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP: thanks for this! SandyGeorgia also found a couple sources that were interesting. If I get around to writing the article again, these will all be very helpful. A fun fact about Jordan is that he was one of only two people to ever receive an honorary degree from his alma mater, Cornell University; the other being Cornell's co-founder A.D. White. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Wugapodes,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources request

I was wondering if you would be willing to send me the following articles from CEEOL:

• Putík, Daniel (2013). "Slovenští Židé v ghettu Terezín (1944 – 1945)". Historický časopis (in Slovak) (02): 289–311. ISSN 0018-2575.
• "Lublin, Lipowa 7. Obóz dla Żydów-polskich jeńców wojennych (1940-1943)". Kwartalnik Historii Żydów (in Polish). 228 (04): 490–514. 2008. ISSN 1899-3044.
• Podgórski, Artur (2010). "Arbeitslager in Poniatowa 1941-1943". Kwartalnik Historii Żydów (in German). 236 (04): 425–448. ISSN 1899-3044.
  • For List of Holocaust transports from Slovakia, Draft:Lipowa 7, and Operation Harvest Festival. Many thanks! buidhe 15:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
    • @Buidhe: I had some technical issues connecting to the database, but I don't need to use a proxy to retrieve them if I'm on campus. I should have them to you in a day or two. Sorry for the delay! — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
      • @Buidhe: sent. Let me know if you got them! — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

        Thanks so much! buidhe 21:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-08

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• Pages on Wikidata and Commons now load faster. You can read more about page load performance.

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 18 February. It will be on non-Misplaced Pages wikis and some Wikipedias from 19 February. It will be on all wikis from 20 February (calendar).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Mexican Federalist War

How did you arrive at a "delete" conclusion for the discussion (Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 10#Mexican Federalist War) on the redirect Mexican Federalist War (diff) -- PBS (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@PBS: Of the six participants in the discussion over three weeks, only one advocated keeping the redirect. Two participants, BDD and Rosguill, specifically rejected the keep argument. Clear consensus to delete. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Thanks! -- llywrch (talk) 06:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

ChessBrowser

Are you planning to +2 https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/mediawiki/extensions/ChessBrowser/+/561389/ yourself, or wait for someone else to review it? Just wondering... --DannyS712 (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Gah, sorry, it's a busy time of the quarter and all the gerrit emails keep getting lost in the shuffle. I'll +2 it and work through the other comments too. Sorry! — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: no need to be sorry, I just wanted to do the cleanup separately, since I know you've done a lot of rounds already DannyS712 (talk) 07:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you take a look at https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/mediawiki/extensions/ChessBrowser/+/574225/ ? DannyS712 (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-09

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 25 February. It will be on non-Misplaced Pages wikis and some Wikipedias from 26 February. It will be on all wikis from 27 February (calendar).

Future changes

• There will be a reply button after each post on a talk page if you want one. This will soon be a beta feature on the Arabic, French, Dutch and Hungarian Wikipedias. You will have to turn it on if you want to use it. It will come to more wikis later. You can test the reply button. It was briefly shown earlier than planned by mistake on the four first wikis last week.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

21:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wiki4YearofSound2020

Really good stuff. I am enjoying the information on many languages. Thanks for participating! TMorata (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
• Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
• Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
• Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
• CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.
• The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included L293D, Kingsif, Enwebb, Lee Vilenski and CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 March 2020

• From the editor: The ball is in your court

• News and notes: Alexa ranking down to 13th worldwide

• Special report: More participation, more conversation, more pageviews

• In the media: Mapping IP editors, Smithsonian open-access, and coronavirus disinformation

• Discussion report: Do you prefer M or P?

• Arbitration report: Two prominent administrators removed

• By the numbers: How many actions by administrators does it take to clean up spam?

• Community view: The Incredible Invisible Woman

• In focus: History of The Signpost, 2015–2019

• Recent research: Misplaced Pages generates $50 billion/year consumer surplus in the US alone

• From the archives: Is Misplaced Pages for sale?

• Traffic report: February articles, floating in the dark

• Gallery: Feel the love

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Op-Ed: What I learned as Wikimedia UK Communications Coordinator

• Opinion: Misplaced Pages is another country

• Humour: The Wilhelm scream

WikiCup newsletter correction

There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter; L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead, Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Administrator changes Money emoji Athaenara • DeltaQuad Fishhead64 • Kudpung • Mikaey Bureaucrat changes DeltaQuad

CheckUser changes DeltaQuad [REDACTED] Oversight changes DeltaQuad

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
• A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

• Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
• The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Tech News: 2020-10

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Problems

• Readers who were not logged in briefly saw the interface in a language decided by their browser. It should normally be in the language of the wiki. This happened for a short period of time last week. This was because of a bug.

Changes later this week

• If you forget your password you can ask for a new one to be sent to your email address. You need to know your email address or your username. You will now be able to choose that you need to enter both your email address and your username. This will be a preference. This is to get fewer password reset emails someone else asked for.
• When you asked for a new password you could see if the username didn't exist on Special:PasswordReset. Now the page will show the username you entered and tell you an email has been sent if the username exists. This is for better security.
• On Special:WhatLinksHere you can see what other pages link to a page. You can see if the link is from a redirect. You can now see which section the redirect links to.
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 3 March. It will be on non-Misplaced Pages wikis and some Wikipedias from 4 March. It will be on all wikis from 5 March (calendar).

Future changes

• The developers are working on a new interface to solve edit conflicts on talk pages. You can give feedback.
• There is a vote on the creation of a new user group called abuse filter manager. The vote runs from March 1 to March 31 on Meta.
• wgMFSpecialCaseMainPage was used for the mobile site. It was deprecated in 2017. It will stop working in April. Wikis should see if they use it. If they do they should fix it. You can read more and ask for help. This affects 183 wikis. There is a list.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

00:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Please remove the edit protection on Talk:North East Delhi riots

You have edit-protected this page but it means no IP editor can now comment atTalk:North East Delhi riots#Requested move 3 March 2020. Considering that all editors, not just logged-in editors, are invited to comment on the requested move, it's going to be hard to get consensus if they cannot then do so.

Can you please remove the protection or, in the alternate, note there that in my view that just naming the page Delhi riots is enough per WP:CONCISE, since we don't need "2020" to disambiguate which riots they are (no other title contains "Delhi riots"). 94.21.238.148 (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi anon, I've copied your comment into that section. I understand your frustration, and hopefully the page will not be protected for long. As you can tell from all the redacted entries in the page history, we're having some very serious issues on that talk page. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Wugapodes/Capricorn.js

For unification, it would be better to remove the “to” prepositions in the Namespaces, To section, being already included in the heading. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Please log ECP of North East Delhi riots

Per the terms of Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Enforcement_log, please log your ECP of North East Delhi riots at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_enforcement_log#India-Pakistan. Thanks. Buffs (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Buffs: The page was placed under ECP by Jayron32 on 26 February. I only move protected the page (which I did log). It's not clear to me that the ECP protection Jayron placed was an arbitration enforcement action since it was in response to a request at WP:RFPP. Jayron, did you intend this as an Arbitration Enforcement action? — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The rationale you listed included "applied as an discretionary sanction under WP:ARBIPA". I'm basing my request on that verbiage. Buffs (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that clause qualifies the first part of the log message "Consensus required before moving page". This is further explained at the AE log entry that I added when placing the move protection: "Consensus is required before the page may be moved, and is enforced by full move protection (placed by Wugapodes, 2 March 2020)". That action did not modify the already existing ECP protection placed by Jayron on 26 February. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Buffs:I did not issue a discretionary sanction. This was a normal ECP based on a request at WP:RFPP. I was neither aware of, nor had any intention of, citing ARBIPA in my protection. --Jayron32 19:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Buffs: Also, you will note that Wugapodes DID log the action THEY took, and had already done so before you told them too. --Jayron32 19:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

1. Never "told" him to do anything. I asked. 2. I appreciate the clarification. Some of these ECPs are vague at best. Buffs (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Buffs: Sorry, I must have missed the question mark you never tried to type, nor any of the question words you never tried to you use when you "asked".--Jayron32 03:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Little help?

A new RFC was filed almost immediately after your response, asking largely the same question. The OP also pinged back everyone who had supported version A in an obvious attempt to prop up his interpretation of your close that even though consensus was for version C, it was really for version A. What's worse, several editors have responded to his ping.

At least two of them have also repeated the bogus "original research" attack against me that was made multiple times before and during the previous RFC. (I interpreted your Participants were asked to use their editorial discretion to determine how sources should be weighed in order to describe the etymology of the article topic. as referring to this "original research" claim; my apologies if I am the one who is interpreting you wrong.)

Beyond speedy-closing the RFC (a debateably INVOLVED action...) or issuing blocks/block-threats for repeated bad-faith accusations, I'm not sure exactly what you could do, but any advice on how to proceed from here would be most appreciated.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The question of whether the Yuriko Sato article from Version C should remain tagged was never addressed in the previous request for comment. The current request for comment only asks whether the tags should remain or be removed, so this is a new topic of discussion. Hijiri88 pinged every person from the previous RFC who had supported version C, but none who had supported version A. Therefore, I pinged the remainder who had supported version A. This way, everyone who had previously expressed interest in the mottainai issue was asked to participate in the new RFC.Martinthewriter (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, and I already explained how the two are not the same. Canvassing people who you know will agree to preposterous proposals like citing a source that clearly got the relevant information from Misplaced Pages just because of who is already involved in the discussion (or whatever other reason) is not the same as notifying the people whose already-stated opinions are being misrepesented.

Anyway, can I assume from the above that you have taken on board the multiple messages about not calling standard editorial discretion "original research" and will no longer do so? If so, this is a victory regardless of what else happens.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hijiri88 and Martinthewriter: I think the current RfC asks a useful question that was not resolved by the discussion I closed. In the previous discussion, the Sato citation was a point of contention, but I don't think participants came to a conclusion on its reliability.Regarding canvassing, this is a bit of a grey area. It seems like everyone has been pinged, so it's not really a vote stacking problem at the moment. Be more careful of pings in the future, and try to be aware of how the notifications will come across to those on the other side. My two cents are that asking the same people to come back is a recipe for needless conflict, and that you probably won't get a great resolution. I would recommend leaving a neutrally worded message on WikiProject talk pages like WT:WikiProject Japan and WT:WikiProject Linguistics. Editors watching those pages likely have expertise and interest that could help resolve the dispute.As for good faith/bad faith, I think you both may want to take a bit of a breather. I don't think either of you are acting in bad faith, but you're clearly rubbing each other the wrong way. As editors, we are supposed to evaluate sources for their reliability, and while that requires editorial discretion, it's not WP:OR (which has a very specific definition) and is actually encouraged by policies like WP:DUE. I can promise you that there are many things academics publish which are absolute crap (I've put out my fair share of CV padding crap), and so just like any newspaper article, we need to consider who is publishing an article and why to evaluate reliability and due weight. Rather than focusing on each other, try focusing on what compromises achieve that goal. — Wug·a·po·des​ 15:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)