Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:21, 4 October 2014

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

• WP:VPM

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

Interesting graphic flow chart on plagiarism

Credit to Patrick Allan at Lifehacker for this: . --Jayron32 01:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Good find, we should steal it. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there a readable version anywhere?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Categories of US Senators by mandate

I don't understand why there are no categories of US senators by mandate. For example John Edwards was a US senator in the 1998-2004 (or 1999-2005) mandate, if I understand right. I don't understand why there are no categories like Category:United States Senators 1998-2004 or something like that. Something similar with Category:MEPs 2004–09. —  Ark25  (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The U.S. senators are not categorized that way. In the U.S. senate, senators are organized by "class", of which there are three. See Classes of United States Senators. Unlike Parliament, the U.S. Senate never elects all of its members at the same time, only 1/3 stand for election in any given 2-year cycle. --Jayron32 01:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I understand that. But if a senator was elected for example in 1998, then he had the 1998-2004 mandate. Say we are in year 1999. At this moment in time, a third of the senators have the 1998-2004 mandate, another third have the 1996-2002 mandate, and another third have the 1994-2000 mandate. Replace „mandate” with another, more suitable word, like „term” for example. —  Ark25  (talk) 08:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

What the hell is a mandate? I've never heard "mandate" used to describe a Senator's (or a House Representative's) term in office. Sessions of the US Congress are always named (ordeal) United States Congress. For example, the current session is called the 113th United States Congress. Next year will begin the 114th United States Congress. —Farix (t | c) 11:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yea, it's not a classification or categorization that has any meaning in American politics. Tarc (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, the word mandate is not important. I translated it wrong from my native language. John Edwards for example was elected in 1998 and he was in office from 1999 to 2005. He was not the only one in this situation - a third of the senators (more or less, 33) were in office from 1998 to 2005. So, I was thinking that it makes sense to have a distinct category for those 33 senators - but I'm not American so you know better than me if it makes sense or not. Thanks. —  Ark25  (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

If we do it for all United States Senators‎, we should also do it for all Members of the United States House of Representatives‎ as well. The problem is that the number of terms is not limited, a Senator may serve any number of six-year terms (subject to the provisions of Article I, Section 3, Clause 3), not just one; and similarly a Representative may serve any number of two-year terms (subject to the provisions of Article I, Section 2, Clause 2), not just one. This is in contrast to the President, who under Amendment XXII is effectively limited to ten years: two full four-year terms plus the unexpired portion of the previous incumbent's last term. A politician elected to the House at, say, the age of 47, and who is re-elected every two years until the age of 79, would serve sixteen terms in total; that would mean sixteen categories. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

This is just overcategorization. Each member of the Senate will have a minimum of 3 categories for their term in office and the categorization doesn't provide anything useful. And for someone like Robert C. Byrd, who served 9 terms (51 years), would be in 26 such categories. And with 30 categories already on the article (which could already use a trimming), how would throwing 26 more categories be beneficial to the reader? —Farix (t | c) 10:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

As I understand Ark25's suggestion, a Senator wouldn't be in a minimum of 3 categories for their term in office, only for those six-year periods for which they were elected. Byrd was a Class 1 Senator throughout, so would be in the cats for 1959-65; 1965-71; 1971-77; 1977-83; 1983-89; 1989-95; 1995-2001; 2001-07; and 2007-13, but would not be in the cats for Class 2 or Class 3 terms. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. 9 terms = 9 categories. But yes, that means doing it for the members of the House of Representatives too, and for example for Sam Rayburn who had 24 terms that means 24 categories. That would be a lot. However, such a category would make reader's life easier, if they just want to see a list of Representatives for example in the 2005-2007 term. Having to figure that list from articles like United States House of Representatives elections, 2004 is quite a mess - at least from my point of view. Or maybe there are such lists (on Misplaced Pages) and I don't know where they are? —  Ark25  (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Royal Society of Chemistry - Wikimedian in Residence

I've just started work as Wikimedian in Residence at the Royal Society of Chemistry. Over the coming year, I'll be working with RSC staff and members, to help them to improve the coverage of chemistry-related topics in Misplaced Pages and sister projects.

You can keep track of progress at Misplaced Pages:GLAM/Royal Society of Chemistry, and use the talk page if you have any questions or suggestions, or requests for help. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations, and good luck. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Congrats, and keep up the good work. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Editors considering RfA

Are there any editors considering RfA in the next 2 years? If yes, please just indicate "yes". If the answer is no, a short response with a reason would be appreciated. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• No I am not qualified, I don't want the job and I don't like the acerbic tone at RfA in that order. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
• I think so in the near future - depends on if I gain the courage to face another RfA. Dusti 02:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
• Yes --Boson (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
• Yes Valenciano (talk) 10:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
• Maybe James12345 18:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, planning for 24 December 2014. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
• Hahaha! No.! Maybe. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
• Maybe next year, see this discussion Ritchie333 14:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, on April 1, 2015. On a more serious note, no, not until I do a bit of content work, at which point I may. ansh666 19:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• No I don't have the necessary technical and procedural knowledge at this point, and my ed count is way too low at 6k. The RfA process is the least of the issues. The RfA would not deter me if I knew I could cut the role. Anyway, it's a crap job. It really is. At this point the role appears to me as appealing as the pox. It could be that negative perceptions of the admin role itself, rather than RfA, is the significant problem in the very long term. Irondome (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, but not right now. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 12:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• No. If I had that kind of time to commit to something I'd find something more personally fulfilling to do. Respect to those who do it, though. Ivanvector (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes. I'm certainly going to give myself a few months to get experience, though. --Writing Enthusiast 03:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up

Okay, not a lot of responses. Oh, well. I posted here further to:

• Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship#RFA is dying
• Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship#Is two weeks of inactivity here normal?

Basically, some say that all of Misplaced Pages is dying, and the low RfA is a symptom. Others (me, mostly) think that the low RfA is because it is a scary gauntlet. I was hoping this post would shed some light. It didn't. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Give it time Anna. Responses are coming through.Irondome (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Does RfA matter any more? Misplaced Pages is not dying. It is transitioning from a project to write a great encyclopedia to a playground for social networkers. The partly written encyclopedia will have to be enough. What matters now is that Misplaced Pages is becoming a great platform for users who are here to be important or to push moral agendas on drama boards. This process started some time ago with the foundation and their efforts to flood Misplaced Pages with users who are not equipped to write useful articles. Now Jimbo is furthering the transition to the new order by sanctioning attacks on the remaining serious content builders. It seems that among this group are content builders who some people believe are toxic and dishonourable. Apparently this is the real problem on Misplaced Pages. It is a mistake to think this group are any more useful or should be treated differently from other groups, such as vandals. There are over one thousand admins, far more than actually needed to block and ban the serious content builders that social networkers decide are offensive. Then peace will descend. There will be little left for admins to do apart from bathing in love and kindness with the social networkers and their special agendas. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The users who are really important are those who get on quietly with adding content and who are always a pleasure to collaborate with and help, who never get blocked or warned, and who stay away from the drama boards because they have got better things to do. In short, the trolls who were determined to destroy the frail fabric of Wikpedia management by disrupting RfA as much as they could, and by sowing mean rumours around the site that all admins are are rotten, are losing their credibility (did they ever have any?), increasing their block logs, and . sounding like the crackling of thorns under a pot.

If anything, by yearning for a management-free structure, the anti-adminship campaigners are inviting the very anarchy that will lead Misplaced Pages into being a free for all for political POV pushing despots, spammers, rappers, and and vandals. Of course Misplaced Pages is not dying but it has reached the top of its parabola as a serious encyclopedia. Those former great content providers have little else left to but criticise those who do the maintenance work, and they generally blunder around making a nuisance of themselves. Admins are now needed to keep the crap and vandals out of the encyclopedia.

Any serious contender for adminship today has a very fair chance of passing and getting a reasonably clean environment for their RfA. Anyone who thinks otherwise should go and do their homework. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I would apply, the tools would be very useful for a bunch of janitorial-related stuff (page-move mostly), but I really don't feel like going through that horrible process again. Maybe the atmosphere changed since the last time I even visited an RfA page (2+ years ago), but I really doubt it would be anything less than a witch hunt for fuckups in my 120,000+ edits, followed by irrelevant question about the difference between a block and a ban, people supporting/opposing based on whether or not their favourite troll would be vindicated or punished, or what if questions about page patrols or vandalism when I never once gave a shred of a crap about that area of Misplaced Pages. That's my two cents. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

After seing Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#RFA_is_dying, maybe I could be convinced, but not before I really take a look at the last year or so of RFAs to see what the atmosphere is. Maybe. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Kudpung for your guidelines on proper behaviour for content builders. As always you are correct. Content builders are mistaken if they think they have a right on this site to express their own views about the system. Only admins have enough clue for that. Content builders that do not know their place and do not keep their heads down can now be simply eliminated following the new guidelines set up by Jimbo: they can be goaded and provoked until they say something immoderate, at which point they can be declared to be uncivil, toxic or dishonourable and be site banned for life. Content builders are disposable but admins endure. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting. So we need new admins more than we need content builders. Apart from the false dichotomy introduced there, tell me, what percentage of our articles have ever been peer-reviewed? --John (talk) 05:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Autopromo?

Hi! This article http://en.wikipedia.org/Pablito_Greco seem to be written by one person, the numerous sources seem to refer only to blogs or private websites of the same Pablito Greco (or dead links) who seems to be only present on the web through his own sites. So I wonder if the article meets the criteria of admissions of wikipedia?... Aleyo fr (talk) 06:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pablito Greco--Ymblanter (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Universities adopting Wikipedians?

I am not sure this is the right place to ask this question, but I didn't find any forum more suitable. I recall reading about an outreach program whereby universities cooperate with Misplaced Pages by offering library and research services to Wikipedians. Is this so, and if so, how do I try to promote this idea at my local university? Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

If you scroll down the page "Misplaced Pages:Reference desk", you can find a link to "Misplaced Pages:The Misplaced Pages Library".

—Wavelength (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ravpapa - You may also be interested in the Wikipedian in residence concept. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

That's it! Thanks! --Ravpapa (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

African-American Categories

What criteria determines whether or not a person is placed into categories such as "African-American singers" or "African-American actors"? The reason I'm inquiring is because numerous times on Misplaced Pages I have come across a person who is biracial or multiracial and is being placed into one of these categories. Frequently these persons do not even appear African-American (which in the U.S. is basically a synonym for black) e.g. Derek Jeter, Alicia Keys, Mariah Carey, and many many others who have a similar "ethnic mixed" appearance. How do we even know these people identify as "African-American"? Also if there are no sources saying they do, then why are they automatically being placed into these specific racial categories? 2604:2000:7FC0:1:E8D7:5FA9:D5A4:AD1 (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Also posted at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#African-American_Categories - let's keep the discussion there so it's all in one place. GoingBatty (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment asking that Jimmy Wales step down

Duplicate of post at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 173#Request for Comment asking that Jimmy Wales step down. Johnuniq (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The singularity is not near: slowing growth of Misplaced Pages The rate of reverts-per-edits (or new contributions rejected) and the number of pages protected has kept increasing. The greater resistance towards new content has made it more costly for editors, especially occasional editors, to make contribution. We argue that this may have contributed, with other factors, to the slowdown in the growth of Misplaced Pages. I want to create a request for comment. This request for comment would argue that the only way to reverse the negative trend of deleting other editors good faith edits would be for Jimmy Wales to step down. Thoughts? Walterruss (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC) I fail to see how the presence of Jimmy Wales causes people to delete good-faith edits... --Jayron32 11:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation pages with links/October 2014

Greetings all, just thought I'd mention that our monthly disambiguation linking contest is underway at Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation pages with links/October 2014, and that thanks to a sweet deal that we struck with the Wikimedia people, the top three disambiguation link fixers will get a free t-shirt from Wikimedia. I would really like to see some new blood come in and claim those top spots this month. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding a diagonal stripe to kit displayed in Template:Infobox rugby team

Hi, I'd like to be able to use the club/provincial teams infobox for my local rugby club ...

Template:Infobox_rugby_team

... however our team has a black diagonal stripe from right-shoulder down to left side across a white shirt, and I'm not sure how or indeed if there exists a way in which I can display this on the "| body =" line? I've looked for other examples, but as yet have been unsuccessful.

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Very many thanks,

Mike

mikejamestaylor (talk) 09:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mikejamestaylor: Have you asked at Template talk:Infobox rugby team, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Rugby union or perhaps Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Rugby league? Those pages are followed by people with much (if not all) of the specialised knowledge required. This page is somewhat ... miscellaneous. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Ahhh, no I haven't, but now that you say it it is startlingly obvious that perhaps I should! :-) Thanks for the heads up, much appreciated.

mikejamestaylor (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Editing Task

I am a member of wikipedia contributing to articles and such when I can. I was wondering if there was like a way to be given a list of things that need to be changed so I could help out by doing some of the edits and such. If something else needs to be done, just a list of changes that need to be done and give me a chance to help out more by actually making the changes that you requested.

Misplaced Pages Editor, Nix — Preceding unsigned comment added by A007Nix (talk • contribs) 13:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@A007Nix: Have a look at User:SuggestBot; it sends messages like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@A007Nix: You can also try Misplaced Pages:Backlog or joining a WikiProject related to your interests. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. @A007Nix:--BabbaQ (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment on chapter-to-episode statements in Game of Thrones episode articles

This isn't exactly a Misplaced Pages-altering issue, but it is likely to affect all the Game of Thrones episode articles and could set a precedent for other articles about adaptations from books. The content dispute has been going on for some time now and it's important to get enough new voices whose perspectives aren't skewed by previous conflicts or agendas.

RfC: Should the article state which chapters appear in the episode? is meant to determine whether Game of Thrones episode articles should have a statement like "This episode was based on of " in the body text. The first four respondents present the arguments for and against inclusion pretty thoroughly. Right now, some of them have chapter-to-episode statements and some don't. They look and are placed like this: Previous RfCs have addressed using this particular source or that, but this one is about including or excluding the statements based on whether or not they improve the article. Participation is greatly appreciated. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Without a reliable source, no because it crosses the line of original analyst. And it is for that reason that we removed similar statements form episode lists of anime that were adapted from manga or light novels. —Farix (t | c) 19:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on this RfC regarding the Ebola epidemic

Hello, per RfC policy, I'm publicizing this RfC here at the Village pump. This issue would benefit from input from the wider Misplaced Pages community.

The RfC link is here.

The question is:

Should we keep these newly created separate country articles about the Ebola epidemic and allow them to develop, or should they be deleted/redirected to Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa?

• 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Guinea
• 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Liberia
• 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Sierra Leone
• 2014 Ebola virus case in the United States

Your participation is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

SW3 5DL (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links