Wikipedia

User talk:Wugapodes/Archive 30

< User talk:Wugapodes
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Buidhe in topic October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive
Archive 25←Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32→Archive 35

Message regarding Capricorn from 0xDeadbeef

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, this is a very nice tool! However I noticed that it doesn't generate a summary for the categorization templates. Is this considered a good idea? (Instead of the generic "modify using Capricon", it could be "+R with possibilities, R printworthy, R to subtopic with Capricorn") Thanks. 0xDeadbeef 17:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea 0xDeadbeef. The edit summary isn't set up that way for a few reasons. First, the edit summary has a character limit, so in cases where a lot of categories get changed then information would be lost and the edit summary an incomplete picture of what got changed which is not ideal. Second, what got changed will always be available in the edit diff, and since redirect categories are pretty simple changes, the diffs aren't hard to read. Second, Third, for the majority of editors, knowing that categories were changed using a semi-automated script is enough info (some don't even know what redirect categories are, so the RCAT link is helpful); if power editors want to know exactly what got changed they can look at the diff. Fourth, for editors who do want that information, a consistent edit summary makes the diff easier to find while skimming edit histories or contribution histories; you can ctrl+f for the summary or just skim for the text since it won't vary between pages. All together, I think a simple edit summary makes edit histories more consistent and useful for a wide range of editors while still highlighting which diffs to look at if more information is needed. It's a design choice on my end, but I think it strikes the right balance among the needs of various kinds of editors. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the comprehensive response. 0xDeadbeef 10:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

 

  Administrator changes

  Valereee
  Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

  Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
  • An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

  Technical news

  • The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
  • Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

  Arbitration

  • The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

  Miscellaneous

  • You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
  • Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
  • Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
New Page Review queue August 2022

Hello Wugapodes,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination
MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.
Open letter to the WMF
The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.
TIP - Reviewing by subject
Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.
 
New reviewers
The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.
Reminders
  • Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
  • If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
  • To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-32

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

Changes later this week

  • There is no new MediaWiki version this week.
  •   Some wikis will be in read-only for a few minutes because of a switch of their main database. It will be performed on 9 August at 07:00 UTC (targeted wikis) and on 11 August at 7:00 UTC (targeted wikis).

Future meetings

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

19:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Personal opinions vs. formal standards of professional ethics

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Wugapodes, You left a comment on my Talk page suggesting that my academic research and years of academic publishing on professional ethics and healthcare ethics vs. militarism is all just "personal opinions". Your comment seems to be just a layperson's perspective on the subject area of professional ethics, military ethics and healthcare ethics. There are entire research literatures about these things, and Robert Jay Lifton's seminal book The Nazi Doctors is a good place to start. Was his research and interviews with those medical professionals just personal opinion too?

This concerns your deletion of 5 entire sections of the history of the Code of Ethics for the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA). They were already well-documented with a citation for almost every sentence, but I will try to address your specific concerns when replacing that content. Rather than simply deleting large amounts of other people's work, it would be helpful and constructive if you could correct it instead, or let the contributor know that something needs adjustment. Simply erasing 5 entire sections of history compromises the integrity of Wikipedia.

I replied back to your comment on my own Talk page, but thought it should also be noted on your Talk page that you appear to be making changes and major deletions based on your own personal opinions, in subject areas where you don't seem to have expertise or professional experience. PsycProf (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@PsychProf: I would encourage you to read the policies I linked in the edit summaries and lengthy talk page explanation summarizing them. Consider that, despite your (alleged) expertise in medical ethics, you might not be an expert on Wikipedia's policies and reconsider your approach. Boasting about your credentials is unlikely to get you very far; you'll notice I don't go and bring up my my degrees or academic research in content discussions, and it's because no one here really cares. If you want to write whatever you want, post it on your own website or get your original research on medical ethics through peer review at an actual journal, but content on Wikipedia must comply with our policies. It's painfully obvious that you're here to push a particular point of view, and that needs to stop immediately or you may be blocked from editing. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Wugaopodes, You seem to be missing the point, and threatening to block people who present reliable citations that do not agree with your point of view. Instead of making threats, sarcasm and deleting huge blocks of articles, why don't you correct issues to be helpful?
I was not "pushing a particular point of view" about CPA, anymore than the Senate Intelligence Committee was in their investigation of APA's similar secret policies. (Which is documented in detail on the APA page, under "Warfare and the Use of Torture" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psychological_Association#Warfare_and_the_use_of_torture.) Or anymore than Robert Jay Lifton was, in his book on how medical doctors could do research for the Nazi government. You didn't respond to that. PsycProf (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
As I said on the article talk page, I did correct the issues, and that correction was to remove them per the policies and guidelines cited. I didn't originally respond to your points about things-that-aren't-the-CPA because they seemed unserious. The APA is not the CPA; the third German Reich is not the CPA; the US Senate is not the CPA. In an encyclopedia article about the CPA, there's really no need to cover what people have said about organizations that aren't the CPA. You'll notice that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while the US Senate report and the Lifton book are not encyclopedias. Even if you are pushing a point of view in the same way or to the same degree as a report or a book, that is still inappropriate for this genre of writing. If you wish to publish original scholarship, synthesize primary sources, or persuade others that your hypothesis is correct, Wikipedia is not the place to do that because that's not what an encyclopedia is for. Thirdly, the APA article covers their contribution to the US torture infrastructure because it was a topic covered in multiple, independent, reliable sources such as The New York Times and Washington Post. We know it is a significant aspect of the organization because it is a topic covered by dozens if not hundreds of different organizations and led to well documented responses by the organization which also garnered outside attention. The CPA section you would like to include is sourced almost entirely to letters of unknown custodial history (some digitized using what seems to be a phone camera) posted to a partisan website, a position paper published in a now-defunct periodical with unclear editorial oversight, and a non-academic article from the early 90s. These are vastly different qualities of sourcing, and I don't think I need to seriously explain those differences. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-33

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

  • The Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia community decided to block IP editing from October 2021 to April 2022. The Wikimedia Foundation's Product Analytics team tracked the impact of this change. An impact report is now available.

Changes later this week

  •   The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 16 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 17 August. It will be on all wikis from 18 August (calendar).
  •   Some wikis will be in read-only for a few minutes because of a switch of their main database. It will be performed on 16 August at 07:00 UTC (targeted wikis) and on 18 August at 7:00 UTC (targeted wikis).
  • The Realtime Preview will be available as a Beta Feature on wikis in Group 1. This feature was built in order to fulfill one of the Community Wishlist Survey proposals.

Future changes

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

21:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP message

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hi Wugapodes,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-34

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

  • Two problems with Kartographer maps have been fixed. Maps are no longer shown as empty when a geoline was created via VisualEditor. Geolines consisting of points with QIDs (e.g., subway lines) are no longer shown with pushpins. [5][6]

Changes later this week

  •   The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 23 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 24 August. It will be on all wikis from 25 August (calendar).
  •   Some wikis will be in read-only for a few minutes because of a switch of their main database. It will be performed on 25 August at 7:00 UTC (targeted wikis).
  • The colours of links and visited links will change. This is to make the difference between links and other text more clear. [7]

Future changes

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

00:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-35

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

Problems

  • In recent months, there have been inaccurate numbers shown for various Special:Statistics at Commons, Wikidata, and English Wikipedia. This has now been fixed. [9]

Changes later this week

  •   The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 30 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 31 August. It will be on all wikis from 1 September (calendar).
  •   Some wikis will be in read-only for a few minutes because of a switch of their main database. It will be performed on 30 August at 07:00 UTC (targeted wikis) and on 1 September at 7:00 UTC (targeted wikis).

Future changes

  • The Wikimedia Foundation wants to improve how Wikimedia communities report harmful incidents by building the Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) to make it easy and safe for users to make reports. You can leave comments on the talk page, by answering the questions provided. If you have ever faced a harmful situation that you wanted to report/reported, join a PIRS interview to share your experience. To sign up please email Madalina Ana.

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

23:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

  Guideline and policy news

  • A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
  • An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  • An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
  • The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

  Miscellaneous

  • The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
  • Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022 on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 September newsletter

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The fourth round of the WikiCup has now finished. 383 points were required to reach the final, and the new round has got off to a flying start with all finalists already scoring. In round 4, Bloom6132 with 939 points was the highest points-scorer, with a combination of DYKs and In the news items, followed by BennyOnTheLoose, Sammi Brie and Lee Vilenski. The points of all contestants are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

At this stage, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For the remaining competitors, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and importantly, before the deadline on October 31st!

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. The judges are Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Update: Phase II of DS reform now open for comment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You were either a participant in WP:DS2021 (the Arbitration Committee's Discretionary Sanctions reform process) or requested to be notified about future developments regarding DS reform. The Committee now presents Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2021-22_review/Phase_II_consultation, and invites your feedback. Your patience has been appreciated. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-36

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 6 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 7 September. It will be on all wikis from 8 September (calendar).
  •   Some wikis will be in read-only for a few minutes because of a switch of their main database. It will be performed on 6 September at 07:00 UTC (targeted wikis) and on 8 September at 7:00 UTC (targeted wikis).
  •   On Special pages that only have one tab, the tab-bar's row will be hidden in the Vector-2022 skin to save space. The row will still show if Gadgets use it. Gadgets that currently append directly to the CSS id of #p-namespaces should be updated to use the mw.util.addPortletLink function instead. Gadgets that style this id should consider also targeting #p-associated-pages, the new id for this row. Examples are available. [10][11]

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

23:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Andy Ngo on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Closing two RMs

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

CHello. Hope you're doing well. Considering that you closed the RM on Charles III with a detailed closure response, I was wondering if you could do the same for Death of Elizabeth II and the article on his wife Camilla. The consensus for the first one appears to point to "Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II" as the acceptable name, similar to Death and state funeral of George VI. The suitable title suggested for Camilla's article appears to be "Queen Camilla" followed closely by "Camilla, Queen Consort", though the first one is based on WP:NCROY and is consistent with the articles on other queen consorts (Queen Letizia of Spain, etc.; also, the majority of people appear to agree that the name of a country cannot be added in Camilla's case as she's queen in 14 countries). I would be glad if you could take a look at the discussions and perhaps maybe close them. That would allow us to move the categories accordingly and have the templates corrected. Regards. Keivan.fTalk 00:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Questions about closing the Charles III RM early

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I am confused on how a fully reasoned closure, where one side of the argument is declared as compelling and another side not so, like what you wrote for Charles III, would be imposed early without waiting a full seven days. I'd normally expect some sort of snow-justification for such an early close, but given the structure of the close reasoning, this close did not come off as snowing. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I also had some questions; thank you Mellohi for opening this. I was wondering about the early closure, but I was also wondering about three aspects of your assessment of consensus:
  1. You said ~130 opposed, ~85 supported, and about ~240 participated. What was the opinion of the ~25 that aren't accounted for?
  2. Of the ~130 opposed, by my count around 25 opposed solely on the basis of the proposed disambiguation - that is was inaccurate. However, they didn't oppose disambiguation in general. How did you factor this into your assessment of consensus?
  3. How did you assess the !votes that opposed solely on the basis of consistency (or on the basis of consistency and the basis that the proposed disambiguation was inaccurate)? As far as I know, consistency is not a policy-based argument to reject disambiguation, and some of those votes were factually wrong - for example, one editor claimed It's consistent with several hundred years of predecessors, which is incorrect as can be seen at List of British monarchs.
BilledMammal (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
@BilledMammal: (1) The remainder were people who commented without supporting or opposing with a number explicitly labeling themselves as neutral or abstaining. These didn't have much of a pattern in their leaning. (2) They were largely insignificant in my reading. Where to move the page is mooted if there's no consensus to move it in the first place. (3) Firstly, consistency isn't unrelated to the determination of a primary topic. Part of determining a primary topic is figuring out what and where readers expect an article to be, and if we have a particular or apparent pattern, then that speaks to what readers would expect. It's not the strongest primary topic argument, which is why they were not weighed heavily, but they are not to be thrown out in their entirety either. Secondly, for the handful of oppose comments which can be nitpicked, they were balanced by the bad support votes you don't bring up. Supporters made arguments like "There are 20 other Wikipedia pages for people named Charles III" or "There have been many rulers throughout history named Charles III" which isn't how we determine primary topics at all. Others make arguments like "to combat recentism and potential Anglophone bias" or "The UK is not the centre of the world" which are at best useless for determining primary topic (if anything, they suggest there is a primary topic and we just don't like it) and at worst they are an attempt to WP:RGW. The example you bring up isn't even particularly wrong; based on the link you gave me every British monarch since George III has omitted the "of {country}" in the title which spans over 260 years of predecessors. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
@Mellohi!: WP:SNOW is not a policy, but WP:NOTBURO is. While we usually keep requested moves open for 7 days, the length is to ensure that adequate participation is gathered so that we don't close a discussion based on one or two comments on a low participation page. At over 200 comments in two days, the discussion was already one of the most well attended discussions of all time. The only reasons to keep it open longer would be bureaucracy for its own sake or to stall the inevitable. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Wouldn't the participation level simply be an indication of the widespread interest in the topic? I don't see any basis to infer that it is an exceptionally significant sample of the vast population of interested editors. A closure needs to be based on a highly probable estimate of the population consensus, not just on sheer numbers. So, absent near-unanimity, the seven day span would seem to be for valid sampling not just number of replies. SPECIFICO talk 02:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Discussions are not a sampling process and our processes are not restricted to core contributors only. The population is everyone, and any statistician will tell you that n>200 will result in a reasonably robust sample even if that is what you think we're trying to do with discussions. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Depends on the population size and variance of the statistic being estimated. You may believe that it is low variance, thereby justifying a small sample size relative to the population. However I would disagree about "not a sampling process" - otherwise, our articles would be unstable (not in the positive sense of continuously improving) depending on who happened to be participating at the time of any poll and thereafter. SPECIFICO talk 08:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Move review for Charles III

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An editor has asked for a Move review of Charles III. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022 on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Consensus, Policy, and Charles III

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

User:Red-tailed hawk, the nominator for the Charles III → Charles III of the United Kingdom/Charles III (disambiguation) → Charles III moves said this at the very beginning of the discussion:

I will also note that [i]n article title discussions, in the event of a lack of consensus the applicable policy preserves the most recent prior stable title, which would return the title of the dab page to Charles III.

Do you think this policy be clarified? Obviously it leaves everyone in a very awkward position if followed, as moving Charles III back to Charles, Prince of Wales would be very confusing. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[ᴛ] 04:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The more specific applicable policy (WP:TITLECHANGES) notes that if an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title. There's obviously good reason to not label him as the Prince of Wales when he's the king, and there was obviously consensus among editors that there was good reason to change the name of that individual's article. The point I was trying to make is that the current policy, when applied to the longstanding dab page, would command that we move the dab page back in the absence of consensus on whether or not it should have been moved in the first place. Any reasonable person who reads through the RM would know that reverting to "Charles, Prince of Wales" was something that nobody finds as appropriate, so the closer would have been able to default it to something like "Charles, King of the United Kingdom" or "King Charles of the United Kingdom". We have WP:IAR for a reason. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
@Brightgalrs: Red-tailed hawk is generally correct here. I would add: the title of the DAB page doesn't exist in a vacuum, and "winning on a technicality" rarely leads to the ideal outcome. Even if I agreed that there was no consensus on the primary topic, there wasn't a consensus on what the disambiguator should be, even among those who wanted one. As Red-tailed hawk points out, we cannot move Charles Windsor back to the "Prince of Wales" title because it's incorrect. If we perfunctorily move the DAB page back without taking into account the wider context, I, as closer, would need to pick a title. To do that, not only would I need to ignore a majority of editors, I'd then need to pick which faction of the minority gets to name the article. If we are trying to pick a title with the least support among editors, that would be a good process, but we are not. Avoiding situations where rigid application of rules would result in a worse outcome is the exact time to prefer common sense over bureaucracy. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-37

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

  • The search servers have been upgraded to a new major version. If you notice any issues with searching, please report them on Phabricator. [12]

Changes later this week

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

01:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Q8/9

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

at SFR's RfA are excellent; thank you for asking them. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Heh, thanks L235. My process is "what tool is the candidate interested in that I've I gotten myself into trouble for using? How would they have handled that situation?" I'm mostly interested in how candidates will think through the harder problems admins will face. Protecting a high school article getting vandalism from a rival school is a no brainer, but how do we weigh openness against limiting disruption? What tools are available and why might one be better than another? What does it mean to edit through full protection as an admin? I don't expect candidates to have perfect answers---there are so many tools it's not reasonable to expect someone to know them all site-unseen. My goal's to just get a sketch of the candidate's thinking so that I can evaluate whether I'd trust their abilities to make these decisions for real. Plus, if we think of RfA as an "open book test", then crafting questions like this helps the candidate develop higher-order thinking and problem solving using policies by making them work through some simplified problems. The Washington Post had a good perspective article on that last point in 2020 when a lot of teachers were transitioning to online, remote learning. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
+1 to the questions, regardless of which column you end up in. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Universal suffrage on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Question from COM221 (17:13, 13 September 2022)

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

How do I edit --COM221 (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@COM221: Our introduction to editing is the best place to learn about editing. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-38

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

  •   Two database fields in the templatelinks table are now being dropped: tl_namespace and tl_title. Any queries that rely on these fields need to be changed to use the new normalization field called tl_target_id. See T299417 for more information. This is part of normalization of links tables. [14][15]

Changes later this week

  •   The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 20 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 21 September. It will be on all wikis from 22 September (calendar).
  • In Kartographer maps, you can use icons on markers for common points of interest. On Tuesday, the previous icon set will be updated to version maki 7.2. That means, around 100 new icons will be available. Additionally, all existing icons were updated for clarity and to make them work better in international contexts. [16][17]

Future changes

  • In a group discussion at Wikimania, more than 30 people talked about how to make content partnership software in the Wikimedia movement more sustainable. What kind of support is acceptable for volunteer developers? Read the summary and leave your feedback.

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

MediaWiki message delivery 22:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Growth team newsletter #22

 

Welcome to the twenty-second newsletter from the Growth team!

Newcomers tasks reach the 500,000 edits milestone — more data publicly available

As of the last week of June 2022, the newcomers of the world have completed over 500,000 newcomer tasks. In other words, newcomers have made over half a million Wikipedia edits via Growth’s “Suggested Edits” module.

  • About 30% of those edits were completed on mobile devices.
  • Usage continues to increase; in June 2022 almost 50,000 newcomer tasks were completed.

We have added some new data to Grafana. You can now check the number of edits and reverts by task types, or the number of questions asked to mentors. You can filter the data by wiki.

If you have any questions, or there is more data you want access to, please let us know.

Ongoing projects and explorations

 
The new impact module is part of the Positive Reinforcement project. The image displays the mockup for mobile we used for user testing.

We are continuing our work on our new project, Positive Reinforcement. User testing of initial Positive Reinforcement designs was just completed. Interviews were conducted in Arabic, English, and Spanish. The outcome has been published on the Positive Reinforcement page. We are now utilizing user testing feedback along with prior community feedback to iterate and improve designs.

We are exploring the idea of a Copy Edit structured task. We have tested copy edits in Wikipedia articles for arwiki, bnwiki, cswiki, eswiki (Growth pilot-wikis) and enwiki with two different methods: LanguageTool and Hunspell. We will share more details here and on the associated Copy Edit page once the evaluation is complete.

Add an image was utilized at GLAM events in Argentina, Mexico, and Chile. For an overview of what was learned from these events, read: #1Pic1Article I: how Latin American heritage experts added images to Wikipedia (in English).

Experiments analysis

Add a Link Experiment Analysis has been published. The most important points are:

  • Newcomers who get the Add a Link structured task are more likely to be activated (i.e. make a constructive first article edit).
  • They are also more likely to be retained (i.e. come back and make another constructive article edit on a different day).
  • The feature also increases edit volume (i.e. the number of constructive edits made across the first couple weeks), while at the same time improving edit quality (i.e. the likelihood that the newcomer's edits aren't reverted).

Newcomer task edit type analysis has been published.

  • Communities had expressed concern that newcomers whose initial edits were structured tasks wouldn’t go on to learn how to complete more difficult tasks. The Growth team data scientist conducted a Newcomer task edit type analysis to see if this was indeed the case.
  • Results from analysis indicate that this likely isn’t a significant concern. More than 70% of users who start with the easy task "Add a link" also make another task type. Read the full analysis and methodology here.

News for mentors

A new system for the mentors list

The configuration of the mentors list will change over the next weeks. In the future, mentors will sign up, edit their mentor description and quit using Special:MentorDashboard. This new system will make the development of new features for mentors much easier.

At the moment, the mentor list is a simple page anyone can edit, unless it’s protected. With the new page, mentors will be able to edit only their own description, while administrators will be able to edit the entire mentors' list if needed.

The deployment will happen first at the pilot wikis, then at all wikis. Existing lists of mentors will be automatically converted, no action will be needed from the mentors. [18][19]

Mentors will be informed about the next steps soon, by a message posted on the talk page of existing Mentor lists.

Learn more about this new structured page on mediawiki.org.

A tip for mentors

Did you know that mentors can filter their mentees' changes at Special:MentorDashboard (and star the ones that require attention)? This feature helps to keep an eye on newcomers' edits, helping mentors to fix minor details, and encourage them if necessary.

And did you know that mentors have special filters to highlight their mentees' edits at Special:RecentChanges? Look for the following filters in RecentChanges: Your starred mentees, Your unstarred mentees.

Other improvements

Some improvements will be made to the mentor dashboard in the coming weeks:

  • While we now offer some options for mentors to take a break, the option to quit mentoring was not easy to find. This will be improved. [20]
  • Mentors at wikis using FlaggedRevisions will have a way to discover their mentees' pending edits. [21]
  • Dashboard discovery for new mentors will be improved. [22]

Recent changes and fixed bugs

  • We moved to a new Image Suggestions API. This new API will allow us to deploy Add an Image to more wikis. [23]
  • Starting September 19, a few more wikis now offer Add an image to newcomers. These wikis are Greek Wikipedia, Polish Wikipedia, Chinese Wikipedia, Indonesian Wikipedia, Romanian Wikipedia. [24]
  • Add an image has been disabled for a few days due to technical issue. "Add an image" added a blank line instead of an image. This has been fixed. [25]
  • In order to know if Special:EditGrowthConfig is used by communities, we now instrument page loads and saves of configuration. [26]

Have a question? A suggestion?

Please let us know! You can also read our FAQ page.

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

17:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Question from InsertGenuineName (13:55, 20 September 2022)

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

How do I, for example: add images, add sections and etc on Wikipedia? Is there a tutorial on YouTube or any site? --InsertGenuineName (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi InsertGenuineName, and welcome to Wikipedia! We have a tutorial on editing which walks you through the basics. The Irish Wikimedia community also has a video tutorial on youtube which you might prefer. Let me know if you have any more questions, and happy editing! — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

September music

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
September songs
 

Thank you for your eloquent support post for the SFR RfA, which would have convinced me if I hadn't arrived at the same result when looking myself (and, yes, opposing the opposes without saying so)! - Chamber music pictured today: Spannungen (tensions) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I bet the plant resonates so nicely---I used to be in a chamber choir as kid so I've always appreciated the sounds. I'm glad you appreciated my support, I'd been going back and forth for days. For the problems, I think it's good that we had a close RfA that didn't hinge on something salacious. It made me think hard about what RfA's about and how much benefit-of-the-doubt I'm willing to extend; it's good that we get to rethink that from time to time. Also nice to see a pass below 90%, hopefully it also inspires more candidates who are ripe for promotion but maybe haven't checked enough boxes to get 98% support. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, and agree. It would be nice if RfA could be changed to something a candidate of good will doesn't say afterwards - as this one did - he wouldn't do it again. I wonder if we could just let someone coming in above 70% become an admin on probation for half a year, without crat chat. I felt that the RfA was a bit of a battle field between parties, rather than evaluation of the candidate, continued in the crat chat talk, and don't know what could be done about that. Back to article writing ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
 
  • On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive.
  • Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wugapodes/Archive_30&oldid=1114776549"