Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 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, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58

Rotterdam–The Hague metropolitan area[edit]

The name Rotterdam–The Hague metropolitan area is not the correct name for this Dutch metropolitan region. I looked it up on the offical website, where on the English language page they write Metropolitan region Rotterdam The Hague. I have corrected the name inside the article already (including reference), but felt I should not change the article title without consulting the community. Not to offend anyone. --oSeveno (User talk) 10:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi oSeveno. To me the name you suggest reads oddly in English, and this Wikipedia doesn't have other article titles quite like it. The common form in such cases is the one we have now, with lots of examples in the U.S. (Baltimore–Washington metropolitan area, Buffalo–Niagara Falls metropolitan area) and some elsewhere (Islamabad-Rawalpindi metropolitan area, Padua–Treviso–Venice metropolitan area). There are few cases where the words "Metropolitan area/region" come first, and when they do, an "of" is inserted, as Metropolitan Area of Porto, Metropolitan area of León, and the only compound one I found Metropolitan Region of Vale do Paraíba e Litoral Norte. As most of the article isn't about the organisation called Metropoolregio Rotterdam Den Haag, but is more generally about the urban area covered, I think we should leave the title as it is, and insert into the article a specific mention of the organisation. Regards: Noyster (talk), 13:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Your suggestion seems a very good solution. Regards, --oSeveno (User talk) 13:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Use the ® symbol to indicate that the Unicode Mark is a registered trademark.[edit]

I discovered this on

Use the ® symbol to indicate that the Unicode Mark is a registered trademark.

Does it mean that most of the usages of the word Unicode on Wikipedia should be replaced with Unicode®? Coeur (talk) 10:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

No, see MOS:TMRULES on how various trademarks are dealt with. —Farix (t | c) 11:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, apparently there is no legal obligation at all to ever write ®. I got tricked by recommendations. Coeur (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Datetime picker for Special:Block[edit]

Hello all,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team made improvements to Special:Block to have a calendar as datetime selector to choose a specific day and hour in the future as expire time. The new feature was first available on the de.wp, meta, and on 05/03/18. For more information see Improvement of the way the time of a block is determined - from a discussion on de.WP or (phab:T132220) Questions? or want to give feedback. Leave a message on meta:Talk:Community health initiative/Blocking tools and improvements, on Phabricator, or by email. SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Awesome! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

A section needs an editor with knowledge[edit]

St._Simons,_Georgia#Cotton_production has two paragraphs that seem uncertain. There was some material about slaves but someone went in and called the stories false. I could not determine which edits those were and I don't know what is correct. Is there a way to get someone who knows the history to straighten it out? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully you will get an answer here Bubba73. You might also post at the talk pages for the wikiprojects associated with the article. I don't know how active either of those might be but I am just trying to get as widespread help as possible. MarnetteD|Talk 20:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Longest serving Wikipedians[edit]

I note that I have been contributing regularly for 14 years come the end of the month - who else has been around for 'a long time' (whether on a regular or occasional basis)? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations! I've got nearly 13 years. --Zac67 (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Check out the Category:Members of the Ten Year Society of Wikipedia editors and Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians in order of arrival/2001. Also Wikipedia:Wikipediholic. Rmhermen (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Is there a 15-Year Society yet? I am a for-interest wikian. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@Rmhermen: - How do people get added to Category:Members of the Ten Year Society of Wikipedia editors? Ross-c (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

What are hidden categories and how do I use them or benefit from them?[edit]

When I clicked the edit button while not being logged into my Wikipedia account, I was able to see a long list of hidden categories at the bottom.

I prefer to have my username and not my IP address as the editor's identity. So I proceeded to log in but now those same hidden categories have disappeared.

What were they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeldamaniac44 (talkcontribs) 20:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Zeldamaniac44: See WP:HIDDENCAT and Category:Hidden categories. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Removal of comment from talk page[edit]

Is it customary to remove other people's comments from discourse pages?-Inowen (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Presumably this concerns diff at Talk:Time. Article talk pages are to discuss actionable proposals to improve the article. If someone asks for sources regarding a particular issue, it is not helpful to offer personal thoughts. The situation varies depending on the article and the history of forum-like chatter on its talk. Possibly this article has had an over supply of that so someone thought they would remove the comment. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Can you source this claim that policy "varies depending on the article" in the talk page policy regarding removing comments from talk pages? Thanks, Inowen (NLFTE) 21:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments says: "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed". The removal [1] referred to WP:FORUM which says: "In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines." It varies what happens in practice. We have millions of articles and thousands of editors. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
The request for policy citation was to the commenter previous. The policy on talk pages indicates that removal or alteration of others' comments is not allowed, even for reasons of simple grammar, and certainly also applied to less neutral or trivial reasons such as disagreement with comments, and allegations of politics: "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." In any case I am objecting here to this removal based on the below statute in the policy: "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection."-Inowen (NLFTE)) 01:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not have a precise set of rules. The system is outlined at WP:5P with commentary at WP:BURO. My earlier comment describes what actually happens, regularly. A compelling point is that many people review this page and many of them would have seen the link I gave above which shows the issue in question. None of those people have felt a need to disagree with my comment or with the removal of the comment. Some pages attract a lot of comments that are generally not helping the article (an example is Talk:Speed of light although that has been quiet for a while). On such pages it is common for people to remove anything that looks a bit suspect, whereas on talk pages where discussion is rare, border-line comments are usually ignored and not removed. It's inconsistent, but it works. Johnuniq (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
One of the "specific exceptions outlined below" at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments is Off-topic posts. Article talk pages is for discussing improvements to the article and Wikipedia is based on published reliable sources. Somebody specifically asked for sources and you gave an unsourced reply [2] which sounded like original research to me. The same editor DVdm has removed unsourced posts about the article subject before.[3][4] See also "Stay on topic" at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#How to use article talk pages. If you have a reliable source for your post then you can post it again with the source. If not then I suggest you let it go. Anyway, the place to object is Talk:Time or User talk:DVdm. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Translating From Foreign Language Wikis[edit]

I keep seeing boxes saying that an article can be expanded by translating content from the same article on a non-English Wikipedia. Initially this looks like an easy win, particularly for a topic where there isn't an article on the English wikipedia yet. However, I keep looking at such pages and finding content that I don't want to translate. Often the articles I see aren't referenced very well, and often don't sound very encyclopaedic to me. In one recent case an article seemed to be full of overly detailed trivia and didn't really give a solid biography of the subject. I'm confident enough to read Wikipedia articles in (sadly only) one other language, but I certainly wouldn't want to offer an opinion on how the articles should be on the non-English Wiki. That's for another community to decide. But, I'm not finding the expected treasure trove of new content for English wiki. It's not all the articles that are bad, but it seems to happen quite often for articles on subjects that I am interested in. So, I suppose I'll keep on writing articles from scratch. This isn't really a question; I'm just curious if other people have had similar experiences or general thoughts on this matter. Ross-c (talk) 10:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

It is as you say Ross-c. Each language Wiki is a separate project with its own rules, standards and procedures. Translated content in English Wikipedia, just like any other content, has to conform with our rules on notability, BLP policy and the rest. By our standards referencing may indeed fall short on some of the other Wikis. Of course there is nothing to stop the translator hunting for extra refs in English or, failing that, in the other language, either to support the translated material or as a basis for extra added content: Noyster (talk), 14:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

How can we make it easier for Wikimedia contributors to understand Wikidata?[edit]

Noun Project author icon 1642368 cc.svg

Dear all

Over the past year or so I've been working quite a lot on Wikidata documentation and have been thinking more about the needs of different kinds of user. I feel that currently Wikidata can be difficult to understand (what it does, how to contribute, what issues there are and what is being done to address them etc) even for experienced Wikimedia project contributors. To help address this I've started an RFC to try and collate this information together. It would be really helpful if you could share your thoughts, especially if you find Wikidata hard to understand or confusing, you can just share your thoughts on the talk page and we will synthesize them into the main document.

Wikidata:Requests for comment/Improving Wikidata documentation for different types of user

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)