Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump 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, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59

Question about order of names[edit]

The article about the actor Victor Banerjee lists all the western directors that he has worked with first, and then the Indian ones. (Based on their names.) Given that he has worked with Indian directors of the status of Satyajit Ray, I'm not sure about this ordering. Does anyone have any thoughts about this? Ross-c (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:GENDERID advice requested[edit]

JY Yang is a writer who goes by the pronoun "they". I'm not sure which of the following article versions is preferable:

  • this older version, which avoids the use of pronouns so as not to confuse the reader as to why a known person is referred to as "they". But using no pronouns looks kind of weird, especially if the article is ever expanded.
  • the current version, which uses "they" but explains this at the outset, per GENDERID's advice to "explain it without overemphasis on first occurrence in an article". My concern with this is that it gives undue attention to what is ultimately a minor aspect of the biography, especially in a stub.

Any advice from MOS experts? @YarLucebith: you may want to comment also. Sandstein 08:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an MOS expert, but it looks fine to me the way it is currently. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Sandstein: based on experiences here I think an in-text explanation for pronoun preferences is a good idea for people who use they-them pronouns, if only because it can limit the number of well meaning editors who mistakenly attempt to "fix" the article by adding gendered pronouns. This is entirely a stylistic preference, but I think placing it as a parenthetical in the second sentence might make it feel a little less overemphasized: "Yang — who is nonbinary and uses they/them pronouns — has written a series of "silkpunk" novellas..." Nblund talk 16:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
The only thing that stands out is that explanation (which I do think is helpful), it just looks weird since its coming from a primary source. Perhaps moving that to a footnote so that the reader understands without calling out far too much detail to it? That's more just odd, not wrong/inconsistent with GENDERID. --Masem (t) 16:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, User:Sandstein. I agree with what I think User:Masem is saying; make the explanation of pronoun use a footnote attached to the first instance of “they”, rather than a substantial part of the lead. Then just run with it.
While here, I feel obliged to voice my skepticism regarding the (admittedly ubiquitous, and not unreasonable) assumption that readers will be genuinely confused by the use of the pronoun, as opposed to, say, disgruntled or irritated due to politically motivated prescriptivism. I, personally, have only ever seen non-binary pronouns “corrected” in circumstances where the responsible party realizes (either self-evidently or explicitly) that the pronouns were intended as written, but either feels a need to avoid confusing others, or—probably more often, I’m sad to say—feels empowered to declare this Wrong and rectify the transgression. I say this not to question anyone’s motives—I see only good will in this thread!—but to suggest that an abundance of caution in the name of the confused masses is, in my view, unwarranted. (It helps that virtually any source of info on Yang will provide matching usage, so anyone questing after the “right” gender pronouns out of genuine confusion will pretty quickly realize they’ve misunderstood)
One more thought: as it stands, GENDERID seems wholly inadequate here—it was clearly written first and foremost to address the issue of binary transgender people (i.e. trans men and trans women) whose notability falls partly—or perhaps in rare cases, entirely—outside the temporal scope of their presently declared identity and/or name. For people like Yang who have no widely disseminated deadname or previous gender identification, the particular pitfalls addressed by GENDERID are conveniently side-stepped, and we seem to be in the position of establishing new precedent. Let’s try something and see if it works. :)
tl;dr We’re venturing into uncharted waters; if the pronoun use is mentioned/explained somewhere relatively early on, I suspect we’ll be fine.YarLucebith (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for Community Input[edit]

Hello all. I'm currently developing a Wikipedia TriviaBot for use in the IRC channels on freenode. The intent and spirit of this bot is to help new editors learn crucial knowledge as well as expand veteran editor's general knowledge of Wikipedia. The bot is currently functional, though I'd still say it's in its beta phase. The reason for this post is to request community's assistance with expanding the database of Wikipedia related trivia questions from 80 total questions to thousands. This page has been created as a place for the community to submit questions for addition to bot's database. All contributions will be credited to the editor who submitted the question. I thank all who get involved. Anyone who is regularly on IRC are also welcomed to contact me to test the bot. Operator873talkconnect 02:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The bot is now active! Please stop in and see what you think! #wikipedia-trivia connect Operator873talkconnect 23:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
The bot is clearly broken, and just spouts trivia questions at a target less audience. It does not respond to my inputs.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 01:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

These articles need to be renamed[edit]

These articles need to be renamed:

--SrpskiAnonimac (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

"Kobilja River" calls for upper case "River". Bus stop (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Why should they be written that way? What do English language sources use for the names of those rivers? --Jayron32 18:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Rivers are only called "Vrljika" and "Kobilja", "river" should be in brackets --SrpskiAnonimac (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be some usage in English of "Vrljika River" and "Kobilja river".

"Traditional dishes offered at the end of the trip will give you an opportunity to enjoy the finest food at the spring of the Vrljika River inside the 250 years old mill."

"Around Vidovište, from Kobilja river (south-west) to Ilomska's canyon (north-east) there are the hamlets, as follows..." Bus stop (talk) 10:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Then you need to rename all the articles which they have in the title (river) in River (Category:Rivers of Bosnia and Herzegovina), e.g:
For example, these rivers have the name river (Bosnian: rijeka)
A more important question... Are all these “Crna” articles about the same river? Blueboar (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
No, these are different rivers, there is more:
in Serbia:
in Republic of Macedonia:

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Why is an article such as Ćehotina named that way? Why isn't it titled Ćehotina River? Are there different naming conventions in Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina for rivers than there are in the United States? The United States of course has Mississippi River and Missouri River. I find "Our Rafting club promotes and is one of the organizers of permanent open championship of Bosnia and Herzegovina R6 rafting on the Ćehotina river, World Cup rafting on the Tara River and other events such as school rafting, etc." Wikipedia titles that article Tara (river). Bus stop (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

OTOH, we have Rhine and Danube minus the "River" or "(river)" bits. SharkD  ☎  22:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Excellent point. How are we to make sense of this? Danube River (Encyclopedia Britannica). "Our Danube River cruises deliver you to culture-rich banks, from scenic vineyards to spectacular monasteries..." Again, Britannica: Rhine River. "Hillside castles, lush riverbanks and storybook villages take center stage during our Rhine River cruises through Switzerland, Germany and The Netherlands." Did our Manual of Style drop the ball on this? Bus stop (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

40,000 scientists identified by Quicksilver AI as missing from Wikipedia[edit]

40,000 scientists identified by Quicksilver AI as missing from Wikipedia.

-- GreenC 18:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Alright who wants to get to work on these and put those robots to shame.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
You? Blueboar (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I've done a few. I have some doubts about the selection procedure: at first glance it looks to have been a relatively unsophisticated media trawl. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
And the generated articles read like press releases from university media departments. Their bot may need more training on suitable style. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
How reliable is it for establishing notability? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Nobody knows. I think a far better way would be to identify scientists who have won a prominent international prize but do not have a wikipedia page. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 05:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I pointed this out over at the Signpost and at NPROF. The problem is that they took 30,000 articles on WP about academics, but we have no idea which ones, and if all 30,000 would meet our notability guidelines even under NPROF. As such, it's a "bad" data set that if there are a fair proportion of those in the 30,000 that would fail GNG /NPROF. If they had used articles that clearly passed either guideline, I am sure there would a good number of false positives (articles that would fail notability) but far less than what their current set has. --Masem (t) 05:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Kosovo Pomoravlje#Title[edit]

Talk:Kosovo Pomoravlje#Title -- SrpskiAnonimac (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Expert needed[edit]

{{Expert needed}} seems to be a very underused template.

So is there any proof that use of this template actually gets anything done? I've seen uses dating back to 2008 that have gone completely unanswered. FoxTrot used to have it for several years, without response from anyone anywhere despite multiple alerts. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 07:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised a template like this exists, as it seems to go against the principles of no original research. Aiken D 09:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
How so? An expert is likely to know more about the sources that exist for a topic and to know which sources are high quality. Anomie 11:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Stojan Janković[edit]

I would ask one of the admina to lock the article so that they can only be edited by registered users, the vandal mi non stop cancels the change, and the change has sources -- SrpskiAnonimac (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is the place to ask for protection. This looks like a slow edit war. Though I cannot tell that anyone is a vandal. Just a sr vs hr disagreement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


Can anyone find sufficient sourcing to prove to me whether or not Marcel·lí Perelló i Domingo is a hoax? I got nothing on GBooks. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The Spanish version is more developed involving a lot of editors over time with many sources, doesn't look like a hoax. -- GreenC 00:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Translation of image needed. Where to go?[edit]

I've been reading Wikipedia:RFT, but cannot figure out which procedure to follow when text on an image (not an article) needs to be translated. I just uploaded File:Tape Ball Color Space, Itten, 1919-20.jpg and cannot read the handwriting well enough to figure out what is written. Where do I go for such a translation? Do I go to the reference desk instead? Thanks. SharkD  ☎  17:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@SharkD: there is no specific procedure for such a thing. My main advice would be to contact users who have noted on their userpage that they want to translate from German. See Category:Translators de-en for the full list, but it's good to pick someone who has recent activity. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 00:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay thanks! SharkD  ☎  01:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Search box for village pump pages[edit]

This is kind of "meta" but why is there a unified search box for all the village pump pages? It would be better in my view if each page had its own search box. Sure a "search all Village Pumps" option would be nice, but having the "all" as the default brings in tons of clutter to already apparently random results... Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

can these images be uploaded to the commons?[edit]

By my reckoning these five illustrations are in public domain, but I would really appreciate a person knowledgeable in copyright confirming this.

The images are by illustrator Ellen Gertrude Cohen, created in 1891 and appear to be published in Britain in that year, but it is unclear of the publication. They are on a site that implies copyright, but they are not marked. May I upload all five images to the commons? If so, which tag? "in public domain in U.S."?

Thanks for taking a look.WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

If published at that time, it is in public domain in USA now. The British copyright status depends on the death year of Ellen Gertrude Cohen. You are better to ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Ruslik_Zero 20:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Ruslik0. I'll ask over there. Unfortunately I cannot find a death date for Ms. Cohen, but I'll put all that in over on the copyright page. Best. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Ordering of paragraphs in section[edit]

Hi, I am still looking for outside input for my RfC, reverting to random order has been done previously in April. Also this topic has been brought up before here at this page. Blueboar, JohnBlackburne and WhatamIdoing, would you consider adding a 3rd opinion to the RfC? So far only myself and the editor who disagrees have responded to the RfC. AadaamS (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Requests for donations[edit]

The appeal only appears when one is not signed in - rather than for registered users (who are going to be more supportive of WP than non-signers), who if they are on computers where they have ticked the 'Keep me signed in' box may never see the appeals.

Possibly there could be different types of appeal: for example would it be possible to make the 'Donate to Wikipedia' link on the side more noticeable? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jackiespeel: Do you have "Suppress display of fundraiser banners" checked under Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets? --Ahecht (TALK
) 17:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
The point was actually the reverse - those who are committed enough to create a user name might well be more willing to donate than IP-contributors/users.
The issue has been raised in the past (often in conjunction with comments on the amount of space taken up by the appeals - hence the suggestion that the link be made more noticeable). Jackiespeel (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


Closing for obvious reasons. --Yair rand (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Word has come to me of feminists, who are going to storm Wikipedia. So people, there’s going to be more vandalism on this page. Just a quick reminder that you should never be afraid to edit a vandalised Article. I’m not against women, I just like Wikipedia.ScRiptED (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Good. We should prepare cookies and tea for them, and make sure they are well-fed and energized for improving Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

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