Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) Article

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  Policy  Technical  Proposals  Idea lab  Miscellaneous 
The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.
« Older discussions, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60

A comprehensive parent article about non-theatrical films

Shouldn't there be a main article that encompasses the subjects of non-theatrical films like Direct-to-video and Television film? The two articles don't need to merge immediately, but I was thinking: Direct-to-video films are often shown on TV, and Television films will eventually released on home media and digital anyway. Plus, there's a trend among streaming services (like Netflix and Amazon Video) that they offer original films. That's actually a blend of both mediums, because such services act like a mix of premium TV channels (without linear TV presence) and home media platform (without physical releases). JSH-alive/ talk/ cont/ mail 12:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

JSH-alive, The first step would be to come up with a title for the article that people would be likely to search for. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay. Non-theatrical film, maybe? JSH-alive/ talk/ cont/ mail 06:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
It's not exactly what you are looking for but Non-linear media somewhat covers some of this.   Discant X —Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
That seems to be about on-demand media online in general. What I want is an article about the films that are not designed for theatrical release (A.K.A. direct-to-whatever films) in general. JSH-alive/ talk/ cont/ mail 16:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Important pages hidden from search engines

Some time ago, following this short discussion someone added {{ NOINDEX}} to {{ Undisclosed paid}}. As a result, pages on important topics such as Simon & Schuster, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, and Swansea University are currently excluded from Google search results (and, in the latter case, has been for a quarter of a year); despite no significant issues with the article content being identified on their talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Update: Simon & Schuster tag removed. Apparently, the offending content was removed some time ago... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Technical issues

I thought NOINDEX had no effect in mainspace? Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing#Indexing of articles ("mainspace")xeno talk 14:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
The articles named above do not appear in page 1 of Google results for their exact titles (though our categories, and non-English Wikipedia articles, do). The page you link to says {{ NOINDEX}} "has no effect in the main (article) namespace unless the article is less than 90 days old", but its not clear whether that is 90 days since creation, or last edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, my impression was that NOINDEX did not work on any article older than 90 days (from creation)..but articles with the {{ paid}} template do indeed seem excluded from search results (but not knowledge graph). I'd ask WP:VPT, because I don't think that is supposed to happen. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 14:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I've pinged VPT requesting an answer, here, about the technical issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • A look at Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company for example shows were ARE directing: <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow"/>. — xaosflux Talk 15:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
    The '90 day' expiration was supposed to be fixed in phab:T166852 - I suggest someone open a phab ticket to investigate this further. — xaosflux Talk 15:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
    @ Kaldari: can you take a peek at this? — xaosflux Talk 15:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
    Seems to be a glitch, that we should solve ASAP. – xeno talk 18:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
      • @ Xeno, Xaosflux, and Pigsonthewing: In theory, none of those articles (if they are older than 90 days) should be noindexed. It does appear, however, that they are being noindexed and excluded from Google. I'll file a bug to get this resolved ASAP. In the meantime, I would recommend removing the NOINDEX template from {{ Undisclosed paid}}. Kaldari ( talk) 18:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
        • @ Kaldari: Thank you! Please drop us the phab number for tracking when created. — xaosflux Talk 18:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
        • I've removed NOINDEX from that template per that. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 19:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Policy issues

  • Our drive-by tag-bombing process is not precise enough, or peer-reviewed enough, to use it to drive the deindexing process like this. Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Quite. Should the tag be noindexing by default? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
    • If people didn't want the articles about their companies taken out of the searches, they shouldn't have edited them. I'm sympathetic towards removing the template from articles where it is misapplied, but if an article has clearly been edited under a COI, and no one has sanitized it, tough noogies. I do partially agree with you, we should be doing a better job of using the tag appropriately, but insofar as such a tag is appropriately applied, it has the intended effect of discouraging paid COI editing. -- Jayron 32 16:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
      • "If people didn't want the articles about their companies taken out of the searches, they shouldn't have edited them." And what about the cases where there is no evidence that they have edited them? Or where the editor does have a COI, but there is nothing actually wrong the the content? Not to mention the fact that anyone can apparently have their competitors article removed from Google's index of Wikipedia by creating a throw-away account in their name. Or indeed the one about themselves, if they deem it too negative. Do we really want to give them that capability? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Sorry, when I said "we should be doing a better job of using the tag appropriately" what I meant was actually "we should be doing a better job of using the tag appropriately". Also, when I said "I'm sympathetic towards removing the template from articles where it is misapplied" what I really meant was "I'm sympathetic towards removing the template from articles where it is misapplied". Sorry for the confusion. -- Jayron 32 16:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
          • Your sarcasm is unwarranted. In the cases I've highlighted, people would argue (and have previously done) that tags like this are correctly and appropriately applied. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
            • People will argue for or against any number of things. It doesn't mean that consensus is on their side. -- Jayron 32 13:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
    I agree; there's a reason why noindexing of mainspace pages is not supposed to be allowed (except within 90 days) - and I assume it is because it would be too prone to abuse, and it definitely shouldn't be up to unilateral editor action to do so; anything that isn't supposed to be viewed should be deleted. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 19:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
My thought is that no, we should not be NOINDEXing mainspace pages, and the discussion on a page watched by only 180 editors was not sufficiently advertised to enact this change (though I think there could be technical issues at work, and the NOINDEX should be denied in the software). Is the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act also hidden from internet search? If an article is inappropriate due to paid editing, merely sweeping it under the carpet is not the appropriate response. – xeno talk 17:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act was hidden from search bots (and so was not in Google results); I've removed the tag from the page, as it was added in September 2017, with no explanation on the talk page of what was supposedly amiss. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm finding it hard to think of a case when we should NOINDEX a mainspace page (at least as anything more than temporarily), without deleting it altogether. If there's such a problem, and we've clearly and reliably identified it, why isn't it either fixed, pruned or deleted altogether? Andy Dingley ( talk) 00:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Consider this example: Special:Diff/868597398. Tag added by an IP, with no supporting information, nothing noted on talk page. (I've removed it) – xeno talk 18:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Like I said above, that would be a good technique for a comany's rivals (or other bad actor) to deploy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Indeed. It seems that the implementation was not working as intended. Great job bringing this for wider attention and hopefully this is fixed in short order. – xeno talk 22:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I am minded to agree that putting NOINDEX into the "undisclosed paid" template was a bad move. Quite aside from the potential for abuse mentioned above, an "Undisclosed paid" template merely means that someone somewhere thinks that an article was written for pay, but without proof. I also notice that {{ BLP sources}}, {{ Copyvio}} and {{ Medical citations needed}} don't NOINDEX a page even though they all indicate problems far more severe than paid editing (and the first two are also in the TOS). Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Cultural Diversity Observatory: Phase 2 Monitoring the Culture Gap

I am writing to tell you that the project Wikipedia Cultural Diversity Observatory (WCDO) has presented a plan for a second phase to extend the project and provide tools based on the data collected.

As a reminder, the WCDO aims at providing valuable strategic data in order to fight for more cultural diversity in each Wikipedia language edition. In the previous phase, we collected the Cultural Context Content (CCC) datasets for all 300 language editions and provided some top priority articles for different topics such as women-men, geolocated, among others (named Top CCC articles). The infrastructure for the project has been set (datasets and website).

In this new phase, we plan to create many more tools and visualizations: Top CCC article lists based on community member suggestions, but most importantly, to create a tool to monitor the gaps on a monthly basis and serve it as a newsletter. This way editors are able to constantly see the efforts dedicated to create geolocated articles or cultural context content more in general related to other language editions.

Also, we plan to research on marginalized languages in order to see which have more potential to become a new Wikipedia language edition, start creating content about their cultural context ("decolonizing the Internet"), and increase the overall cultural diversity of the project. Most of the project efforts are dedicated to data-compiling and analysis. However, there is a lot of work to do in disseminating the results and tools so they can create more impact in helping local events such as contests. If you think you can join the project, please write us at If you consider this may be helpful, please help us, provide some feedback and endorse the project.

You take a look at the project plan here: meta:Grants:Project/WCDO/Culture Gap Monthly Monitoring

Thanks in advance for your time. All the feedback is welcome. Best, -- Marcmiquel ( talk) 14:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

List all articles

First 5 articles on Wikipedia, as reported by API:Allpages sorted alphabetically

-- Green C 16:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, some bands and albums have weird names. Anomie 23:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Form of language

There is a form of words on Referring to 1924 Prime Minister's Resignation Honours "The King has been pleased to direct the following be sworn of His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council:"

That seems to me to be archaic and unencyclopedic. It is a direct copy of the London Gazette announcement; wikipedia in 2018 is not bound to follow anachronistic rhetorical flourishes used in court announcements.

Although this much should be obvious to us all, User:Wikimandia objects that we should use this wording - see Talk:1924 Prime Minister's Resignation Honours.

I'd be grateful for discussion & opinion here, a posting on Wikipedia:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals having gone unanswered. -- Tagishsimon ( talk) 01:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@ Tagishsimon: No, I am afraid this village pump is not for discussing and solving such kind of content dispute. Try Wikipedia:Third opinion or see #Resolving content disputes with outside help for more appropriate venues. – Ammarpad ( talk) 07:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks - done. I've asked that discussion be centralised at Talk:1924 Prime Minister's Resignation Honours#Form of language -- Tagishsimon ( talk) 11:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

What is the (better) corresponding page on English Wikipedia?

I would like to know which is the correct link in English wikipedia for [ this] page. Adithyak1997 ( talk) 07:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Already linked to Wikipedia:Signpost. – Ammarpad ( talk) 07:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Ammarpad: My main doubt is whether it was incorrectly linked. I think I have seen it in yet another page in English wikipedia with the same data. Adithyak1997 ( talk) 10:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Seems like we found the answer to this at WT:Wikipedia Signpost. ( ping) -- Pipetricker ( talk) 15:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Very long pages

Our longest pages are, presently:

  1. ‎List of giant squid specimens and sightings [732,759 bytes]
  2. ‎List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach [720,509 bytes]
  3. ‎List of compositions by Franz Schubert [715,917 bytes]
  4. ‎List of Australian treaties [705,033 bytes]
  5. ‎2016–17 Coupe de France Preliminary Rounds [690,244 bytes]
  6. ‎List of members of the Lok Sabha (1952–present) [670,419 bytes]
  7. ‎List of International Organization for Standardization standards [659,272 bytes]
  8. ‎List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States [656,613 bytes]
  9. ‎Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 2015 [656,161 bytes]
  10. ‎2017–18 Coupe de France Preliminary Rounds [655,564 bytes]
  11. ‎2018–19 Coupe de France Preliminary Rounds [652,633 bytes]
  12. ‎List of third party performances in United States elections [652,538 bytes]
  13. ‎1919 Birthday Honours [650,631 bytes]
  14. ‎List of BMTC routes [644,099 bytes]
  15. ‎Roush Fenway Racing [643,491 bytes]
  16. ‎2017 in American television [639,597 bytes]
  17. ‎Battle of Mosul (2016–2017) [637,308 bytes]
  18. ‎List of unnumbered trans-Neptunian objects [636,764 bytes]
  19. ‎Food Paradise [630,967 bytes]
  20. ‎2018 in American television [621,078 bytes]

and we have more than 500 articles that are over 300,000 bytes. That is far too big.

I have started discussion on the talk pages of some of those listed above, as have others, so far mostly to little avail. What is to be done? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

In general they should be split up but to suggest anything at all risks replies such as "I think the only solution to this article is to delete it, per WP:TNT, and start over. [1] (But that editor later developed a more constructive approach). Our notability guidelines can be very unhelpful. If you split the topic of an article or list into subtopics you run the real risk of people saying the subtopic is not in itself notable and it cannot inherit its notability from its parent. People far too often take WP:INHERITED as a one-line rule when it was actually intended as nuanced advice. Thincat ( talk) 16:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
" People far too often take <insert policy or guideline or essay> as a one-line rule when it was actually intended as nuanced advice. " is broadly true for every single piece of editing guidance at Wikipedia. -- Jayron 32 15:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
WP:INHERITED should be refactored because it is too broadly used. It is an essay not even a guideline. And it concerns "arguments to avoid in AfD discussions". That is all it is. Most of the time it is not applied that way rather as an actual rule for Wikipedia content. -- Green C 18:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I tried to add a caution to this essay, but was reverted because the essay is a "defacto guideline" (according to them). They then link to some NOTE guidelines of the special kind while ignoring other guidelines that contradict those and allow for inheritance. This essay is meant as an AfD discussion caution, not as a guideline for content. -- Green C 01:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Some current discussions, where there is resistance to splitting long pages, include: Talk:List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#Problems with using this page and Talk:List of compositions by Franz Schubert#This article is far too long. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Also Talk:List of United States Senate elections#Very/too long?; Talk:Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 2015#Splitting and List of Confederate monuments and memorials#Ways to possibly shorten article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
And Talk:Timeline of the presidency of Bill Clinton#Splitting proposal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

New Wikimedia password policy and requirements

CKoerner (WMF) ( talk) 20:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Question about other user's edits.

Don't know the correct board for this, but user keeps editing articles to add information that the article persons are christian, in places it doesn't need to be stated, but on the flipside has edited another article to remove information denoting that this person is Jewish, claiming that it is irrelevant information. Is this bad faith editing? @ Tornado chaser: -glove- ( talk) 00:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC) -glove- ( talk) 23:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps? It is certainly odd, and is arguably a disruptive removal of content. If I had come across this myself, I would likely have responded with a {{subst:uw-delete1}} banner (I see now that Tornado chaser actually did this already). Otherwise, just continue editing and wait for them to either explain themselves, get bored and stop being disruptive, or do something that is a more flagrant violation. signed, Rosguill talk 00:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Moving published articles to draft

Do we have a policy on when and how published articles may be moved to draft?

While it's better than deletion in some cases. I'm concerned that it occurs with no wider community attention, and may be a de facto as a "deletion by stealth".

Even speedy deletion requires two editors to be in agreement.

Perhaps we should have a template, like {{ Db}}, but for this use case? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, There's WP:DRAFTIFY. Perhaps also of interest is WT:Drafts#Non-reviewers draftifying pages Vexations ( talk) 15:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Those links heighten my concerns. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

how many wikipedia articles creating with bots

all wikipedias has 49 2000 000 articles I want know how many articles creating with bots — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 ( talkcontribs) 17:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't seem very likely. I'm not an expert on which user groups can create articles, but all new articles should be checked to make sure that they meet WP:GNG.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Ianmacm: Amirh123 seems (to me) to be asking how many articles Lsjbot (and other bots) created across Wikipedias. It's probably somewhere around ten million. Jc86035 ( talk) 18:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
For those who aren't familiar with Lsjbot (including me) it is a bot that can create articles. It was used extensively on the Swedish language Wikipedia to create stub class articles about living organisms. [2]-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Renaming Zodiac Seats U.S. to Safran Seats

Please visit Talk:Zodiac Seats U.S.#Requested move 4 December 2018 to discuss moving Zodiac Seats U.S. to Safran Seats. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 15:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Won't somebody please think of the children?

You are invited to join these discussions:

Wikipedia:Deletion review#1960–61 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1980–81 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)

Thank you.

Levivich ( talk) 16:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Experiment: Eliciting New Editor Interests (Update)

Hi all. An update about the experiment for eliciting new editor interests mentioned here earlier. documented, the first design of the experiment did not result in enough responses in the second stage. We have iterated on it based on the learnings and designed a new one which has significantly reduced the steps and cognitive load which was required in the first trial. In the coming 48 hours, we will start reaching out to those who registered on enwiki in September 2018 or later to encourage them to participate in the new design of the experiment. We do not expect this test to have impact on experienced editors. If you do observe an issue, please ping me here or on the project's talk page. Thank you! -- LZia (WMF) ( talk) 23:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

What is being able to edit Wikipedia worth to you?

I'm working to measure the value of Wikipedia in economic terms. I want to ask you some questions about how you value being able to edit Wikipedia using a 10-15 minute survey.

I hope that you will enjoy it and find the questions interesting. All answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be anonymized before the aggregate results are published. Regretfully, my team and I can only accept responses from people who live in the US due to restrictions in our grant-based funding.

As a reward for your participation, we will randomly pick 1 out of every 5 participants and give them $25 worth of goods of their choice from the Wikipedia store (e.g. Wikipedia themed t-shirts).

-- avi_gan Researcher, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy ~~~~~

Page move request

Files Go has been renamed to Files by Google, please move Files Go to Files by Google (please keep the original page as a redirect page). Thanks. -- XL-028 ( talk) 03:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

XL-028, done; just noting that WP:RMTR is the page for requesting moves to be done that you cannot complete for technical reasons. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 05:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)