text:
no longer works the way it used to work. Infobox templates are horrible this way.  Geo Swan (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't use tables to mark up blockquotes... --Izno (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Geo Swan, why aren't you using plain old, which also works at all MediaWiki sites? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The technique I use can be prefixed with colons, so it gets indented when used in talk pages and similar fora. This can't be counted on working properly with clever quote templates, which remain in a constant state of flux.  As above, I want to build the habit of using the one technique that works everywhere, enwiki, commons, other WMF wikis, and non-WMF wikis that use the underlying wiki software.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Geo Swan wrote:
 * "The technique I use can be prefixed with colons"
 * The plain old HTML blockquote tag can also be prefixed with colons, it does not use any templates (clever or otherwise) and it works on all WMF wikis and non-WMF wikis using the MediaWiki software, and probably a substantial proportion of the wikis that aren't using MediaWiki. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI, there is a discussion open at MediaWiki_talk:Common.css - which is trending towards turning that bar off for Vector (default desktop skin) users/readers. — xaosflux  Talk 20:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI, there is a discussion open at MediaWiki_talk:Common.css - which is trending towards turning that bar off for Vector (default desktop skin) users/readers. — xaosflux  Talk 20:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Question about copyright violations
When I was a newbie in Wikipedia I used to make lots of copyright violations and plagiarism. Now altough them being deleted they are still in Wikipedia's database and can still be viewed by anyone by clicking page history. I heard that a Twitch streamer was fined in court due to a video which was violating copyright. But the thing is he was fined despite the fact he deleted that video. The court's reason for that was video still existing in Twitch's database. Could the same thing also be true for Wikipedia? Can someone's now fixed, amateurish, old edits haunt him back years later? --Visnelma (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Theoretically yes, but it's only happened once and that was a much more serious situation involving defamation. Don't worry too much about being sued; if an old edit ever were to become problematic, the courts would give us a chance to delete the revisions rather than jumping immediately to litigation. ‑ Iridescent 18:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Theoretically yes, but it's only happened once and that was a much more serious situation involving defamation. Don't worry too much about being sued; if an old edit ever were to become problematic, the courts would give us a chance to delete the revisions rather than jumping immediately to litigation. ‑ Iridescent 18:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Call for insights on ways to better communicate the work of the movement
The Movement Strategy recommendations published this year made clear the importance of establishing stronger communications within our movement. To this end, the Foundation wants to gather insights from communities on ways we all might more consistently communicate about our collective work, and better highlight community contributions from across the movement. Over the coming months, we will be running focus groups and online discussions to collect these insights. Visit the page on Meta-Wiki to sign up for a focus group or participate in the discussion. ELappen (WMF) (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Looking at the page, there appears to be a chicken-and-egg problem here. --Yair rand (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Redirects from project space to user space?
A couple of years back, I wrote User:RoySmith/Three best sources. After getting tired of typing that every time, I created WP:THREE as a redirect, which (to my pleasurable surprise) became quite popular. This morning, raised some reasonable concerns on my talk page about the appropriateness of this redirect. I feel that userspace is basically an extension of project space, so I don't see this being as much cross-namespace as, say, a redirect from mainspace to userspace. Certainly, if you make a broad division of namespaces into "stuff we present to the public as part of the encyclopedia" vs "stuff we need to run the project", both are clearly in the latter group. On the other hand, I can see the concerns about WP:OWNERSHIP.

I don't want to turn this into a formal RFC, but I am interested in what other people think about the general concept of redirects from WP to userspace. And, more particularly, whether what I've done with WP:THREE is legitimate. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We've always had them, and I've never even thought about them being a problem. WP:RAUL is 15 years old. Cross-namespace redirect are not a problem, and you don't own your userspace, so there is no real issue here. —Kusma (t·c) 16:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally, these redirects are uncontentious. Sometimes, there is contention, for which the correct remedy is WP:RFD. I do agree with what Geo Swan has pointed out on your talk page, and that it is possible someone will come along and assume that your page is a Wikipedia-space essay when it is not, because Wikipedia- and user-space essays do have different retention requirements. --Izno (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * edit conflict
 * Category:Wikipedia essays says "Essays in the Wikipedia namespace may be edited by anyone. Essays in the User namespace are normally edited only by the user that hosts the page and are categorized with Category:User essays"
 * It is one of the places that makes clear there are important distinction between essays in userspace and essays in the wikipedia namespace.
 * I think Wikipedia essays also makes clear there are important distinctions between essays in userspace and essays in the wikipedia namespace.  It says:
 * "Essays placed in User namespace (i.e., user essays) are often – though not always – meant to represent the viewpoint of one user only. The author of a personal essay located in his or her user space has the right to revert any changes made to it by any other user."
 * "The Wikipedia community has historically tolerated a wide range of subjects and viewpoints on essay pages. However, there are a handful of "essay" pages that tend to get deleted or transferred to user space."
 * and, in a list of material generally not tolerated... "Writings that contradict or subvert policy (or other pages with established consensus), especially if they are intended to undermine, not just disagree with, those pages. Such oppositional views are, however, generally tolerated within user essays."
 * Essays says
 * {| class="wikitable"

 * ''""Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace..."
 * ''""Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace..."

and
 * "...Writings that contradict policy are somewhat tolerated within the User namespace. The author of a personal essay located in his or her user space has the prerogative to revert any changes made to it by any other user, within reason."

 * }
 * I think the preceding passages strongly suggest we should maintain a distinction between user essays and the more widely accepted essays in the wikipedia namespace.

 * You may never have gotten a challenge over using user essays in ways that make them look they are essays in the wikipedia namespace. But I have.

 * I used to link to my essays with a pipe, so   would render as Pick one. Years ago, when I got some pushback from contributors who voiced concerns that I was implying my user essays were in the wikipedia space, I started to always state the essay I was linking to was a user essay.

 * My question to anyone who has been using a cross namespace redirect for their user essay -- would you consider taking whatever risks are involved in moving your whole essay to the wikipedia namespace? Geo Swan (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

 * I too followed a flawed practice, for a long time, without being challenged.

 * In 2006 I started four quasi-templates - entries in the template namespace that I started using in a series of closely related articles, that rendered an image, its caption, and a paragraph or two, that I wanted rendered in all those articles. Keeping one instance had the advantage that if I wanted to update the caption, it got updated everywhere I used that quasi template.

 * It had a bunch of disadvantages I was oblivious to.

 * I can't remember how long I followed this practice, before it was challenged. I thought the MfD was going to close as no consensus.  Several people who weighed in saw nothing wrong with this practice.  Those who challenged it advanced weak arguments.

 * I questioned the closing administrator for a closure justification no one had mentioned during the discussion. They were quite patient in their further explanation.  I didn't accept their arguments, right away.  I think I may even have considered DRV.  But, I spent some time thinking about it.  And, a few hours later, or a day later, I'd come around.  I decided they were 100 percent correct.  I excised the instances where I was misusing transclusion with the other quasi-templates, and requested speedy deletion of them.

 * The wikipedia's policies are complicated. They can be ambiguous, contradictory, and are in a constant state of flux.  Even our most experienced contributors may have been misinterpreting or overlooking some wrinkle in our policy.  There should be no shame in suddenly realizing this.  Geo Swan (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

 * I did a little poking around, starting from Category:User essays on notability, and found:
 * NBIZ
 * BAHAD
 * NTABLES, NCLUB, NFOOTYCLUB (all the same target)
 * Editorials
 * UNCLEG
 * Notability (uglyness) (also see RFD)
 * -- RoySmith (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also:
 * WP:CHEESE, WP:CHEESY, WP:GREENCHEESE, WP:Astronomer vs Amateur, WP:ASTRONOMER
 * WP:Best of and Top 100 lists, WP:ABT, WP:Awards, Best of and Top 100 lists - demoted to userspace following a discussion at WP:VPP in 2007
 * WP:Rant and WP:Rantstyle
 * WP:APANA
 * WP:CRATERS and WP:CRATERCAT
 * WP:OWB
 * WP:1AM, WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY,  WP:One Against Many,  WP:One against many
 * WP:GUTTING, WP:Gutting,  WP:GUT, WP:GUTTED, WP:Gutted, WP:Gut
 * WP:Re-target to search page, WP:Deleting redirects to facilitate searching, WP:DRFS
 * WP:NERCH
 * WP:NOMOVE, WP:Don't move articles at AfD
 * WP:RAJ, WP:RSCASTE
 * WP:CL-RULE
 * WP:MOSCHURN
 * WP:TR, WP:TTR, WP:Do template the regulars, WP:DoTTR, WP:Template the regulars
 * WP:Conciseness razor
 * WP:WIFC
 * WP:Wikipedia do's and dont's, WP:The rules of Wikipedia
 * A significant number of the contributors responsible for these essays are under indefinite blocks, or have retired. Geo Swan (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

 * The distinction between USER essays and COMMUNITY essays is one of acceptance. In some cases, a USER essay is one that was presented to the community, and rejected. Blueboar (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think the distinction between "Wikipedia essays" and "user essays" is all that helpful here. They both have no real weight, but can be surprisingly popular, so may need shortcuts for easy linking. WP: is our standard shortcut prefix (almost all other shortcuts are in the article namespace), used for links into all sorts of namespaces. WP:DISCUSS, for example, goes into the Help namespace and WP:DYKT into the Template talk namespace. That WP:THREE is a more widely accepted idea than many other essays is not caused by the existence of the redirect, but by the usefulness and simplicity of the concept. (In the past, we used to host many essays on Meta: some of the famous ones are DICK, POLE and m:GAY (the last one had its shortcut taken away at some point in the past). Essays from MeatballWiki were also commonly used, for example DefendEachOther or ForestFire). As Wikipedia is now so old, we have many essays that are outdated, lots of others that are contradicting each other or try to promote some particular point or Wikiphilosophy. Most of our essays are wrong or attack problems that are no longer important, with the exception of some timeless gems like WP:REICHSTAG or WP:VEGAN, the latter being an example of an essay that started on a userpage but was later duplicated into Wikipedia space. WP:THREE could also (of course) be moved or duplicated into Wikipedia space, but I disagree that it needs to be. The entire essay situation is a huge mess, but it is a wonderful creative mess, and I don't see rules about what types of essay deserve what classes of shortcut helping us one bit. —Kusma (t·c) 23:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you've written here. Earlier today I was going to comment that at this point if someone feels it should be deleted the conversation needs to be taken to RFD. Not really a VPM matter. There are a mixture of opinions here, but mostly seem to be leaning towards meh. Killiondude (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 * I don't have a problem with WP:THREE going to that essay; I'd have a bigger problem if it was deleted, given its high usage. I do think that the essay has gotten enough attention that it might be time to consider promoting it to WP-space rather than userspace, but that's ultimately RoySmith's decision to make. {{u| Sdkb  }}  talk 19:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think everyone recognizes that cross namespace links, from the wikipedia namespace, pointing to userspace essays, has been a long-standing practice. I think those who are concerned over this practice recognize that, while they think it is a mistake, and not entirely consistent with policy and guidelines, they were made in good faith.  My concern triggered this discussion, but I am not suggesting any of these essays be erased.  I have a simple suggestion to the authors of the user essays that have been linked from wikipedia namespace.  (1) Wean yourself away from being the sole author of your essay; (2) move it into wikipedia namespace, where it can take its chances of being challenged at MfD, under the more stringent inclusion standards there.  If every author agreed to do this, this problem would go away. What if the author of a userspace essay won't agree to promote it to a shared essay in the wikipedia namespace?  Would it make sense to have all those cross namespace redirects point to a list, with a name like List of user essays formerly cross namespace redirected to project space?  That list could have a schema, pointing to this discussion, that explained this kind of redirect had been employed, for years, but a discussion decided to deprecate this practice.  The essay would still be available to be read - without, however a direct link from  that implied they had survived the more stringent scrutiny applied to wikipedia space essays.  Geo Swan (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can really say that WP-space essays have been subjected to any kind of stringent standard. The Essay disclaimer notes that some represent only minority viewpoints, and I've certainly come across plenty of essays that haven't exactly been put through the ringer. Perhaps we'll get to a point someday where essay-space is developed enough to be held to some standard (that will require stronger efforts to resist duplication), but currently we're a long ways off. {{u| Sdkb  }}  talk 19:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t think most user essays are in userspace by preference of the “owner”. Most are there because the wider community strongly disagrees with (or outright rejected) the ideas expressed in the essay. We accept that the creator of the essay is entitled to express his/her opinion, but we are not going to give it our stamp of approval by moving it to Wikispace. Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , well, user essays the community rejected should not be moved into the wikipedia namespace. But they also shouldn't have a redirect in the wikipedia namespace, that makes it look like they underwent the greater scrutiny of being in the wikipedia namespace.  There seem to be dozens, or hundreds of these.  These are the ones we are discussing here. FWIW, none of the dozen or so I looked at since this discussion started show any obvious sign of being too controversial to take their chances in the wikipedia namespace.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thing is, many of them WERE originally created in Mainspace... and then moved to Userspace after being discussed and rejected (hence the redirect... since when a page is moved, a redirect is automatically created). Perhaps we shouldn’t automatically create such redirects, but that is why they exist. Blueboar (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Where to place tabular/auxiliary data represented otherwise by a graph
To use an example, Wii sales has a table built from Nintendo's reports of the sale of the system. It's great and all, but its clunky and for the general reader, I believe this is better done using a graph (like stacked bar). (This is anticipation of merging that into the Wii article itself) Replacing that is no problem, but an issue I see is that a reader may want to see the exact numbers in a tabular format like that, and I would like to still offer that tabular format somewhere. Unfortunately, I don't know of a good way to do this on en.wiki or any sister projects, as least as best as I can tell. Mainspace we're supposed to avoid subpages, and Wikisource doesn't not appropriate since we're not using PD sources here.

Any ideas of what's a good way to do this? --M asem (t) 14:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If the table is being used to create the image, put it in the file description. --Izno (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, my plan was to us the inline wikitools rather than a static image that would live in File: space (where that then would make sense). This could be achieved with page transclusion (wrapping the wikicode for the table in includeonly and the table outside that) but we don't allow mainspace subpages (where it would make to do that). --M asem (t) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Commons accepts tabular data sets, and there are graph templates that can use them directly. --Yair rand (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Perfect, that's a workable solution for this. --M asem (t) 17:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey 2021
The 2021 Community Wishlist Survey is now open! This survey is the process where communities decide what the Community Tech team should work on over the next year. We encourage everyone to submit proposals until the deadline on , or comment on other proposals to help make them better. The communities will vote on the proposals between and.

The Community Tech team is focused on tools for experienced Wikimedia editors. You can write proposals in any language, and we will translate them for you. Thank you, and we look forward to seeing your proposals!

SGrabarczuk (WMF) 05:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Thanks for giving us yet another platform on which we can put suggestions the WickedMedia Foundation will ignore :) Wikimedia Foundation may or may not use.   Please ping when replying . 04:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Suicide
Good afternoon Village Pump. A question. The phrase "commit/committed suicide" is discouraged these days. The phrase litters Wikipedia. I wondered if there is a policy here about using the phrase and whether we have a policy on rephrasing the term to something else? doktorb wordsdeeds 12:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * a quick search shows this has come up often, somewhat recently at Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_138 and Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_140; I'm not sure where you are ascertaining that the phrase "is discouraged these days", but it does not appear to be in the context of Wikipedia. When editing an article, a method that could help you decide what to write would be to use the same phrasing that your associated reliable source uses. —  xaosflux  Talk 12:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Cheers . I did a cursory search and couldn't see anything. If there is no hard and fast policy decision or community agreement I'll follow your advice. Sounds like best practice to me. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am working with a small group of admins on prepping an RFC to discuss this very issue and come to some resolution if there is a consensus to continue to use "committed" or to change it as to actually establish something in MOS for this. --M asem (t) 14:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . If I can help, I'll happily do so. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The drafting of this RFC has been on my talk page here User talk:Masem and in the final stages to get the easiest question to answer towards this. --M asem (t) 20:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * your pings are not working. You need to use a straight line "|" rather than a colon ":" like this . I'm pretty sure these editors will see your reply but I wanted to let you know for future reference. MarnetteD|Talk 18:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have never understood the objection to “committed suicide”... yes, one can “commit a crime”... but one can also “commit an act of kindness”. Blueboar (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, I think some people feel there is a moral judgment in the phrase. A person might commit homicide, suicide, genocide, violence, adultery.  Even the positive phrases have religious overtones, e.g., "We therefore commit his body to the deep..." (an old-fashioned line for burial at sea).  Bumper stickers that encourage people to commit random acts of kindness and senseless beauty haven't overshadowed the more solemn and moral feeling that some people get from the word.
 * For a different POV (and a discussion of different phrases that some people prefer), you might be interested in https://slate.com/technology/2018/01/why-the-ap-stylebooks-rules-on-how-to-talk-about-suicide-dont-work-for-me.html WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The verb “to commit” simply means “to do” or “to perform”... it is a completely neutral word. Any positive or negative connotations are due to WHAT is being “committed”, not the commitment itself. I agree that “suicide” that has a negative connotation... but that is not changed by getting rid of the word “commit”. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In the RFC workup, I have some sources from mental health professionals that describe why "commit suicide" is not a helpful phrase for those dealing with depression and suicidal tendencies and thus why there's a urge to move away in that area. Whether WP should as well will be a subject of this RFC, but there's a fair rational for the urge to move away from it. --M asem (t) 16:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have suffered from (another phrase that some people seem to try and avoid) depression for nearly twenty years. Because of this I know plenty of others with similar conditions, and I don't know of any who feel that the use of the word "commit" comes anywhere amongst the many problems that they have. I have also had two friends who have committed suicide, and am pretty sure that none of their loved ones feel that the use of this phrase is in any way stigmatising. I wish that mental health professionals would focus on the real problems faced by people with such conditions rather than made-up problems about language. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. ― Mandruss  ☎  21:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is why me and a few others have nearly finalized an RFC wording to prepare to present as to formalize something we can fix in a MOS and point to, as to whether to avoid "committed" or not based on what is used by sources. (I personally think there's no issue with "committed" either but recognize where the logic is coming from, but I'm on pages that see this language routinely changed out by drive-by IPs, hence the need to have a place in MOS to point to and thus the need for the RFC). --M asem (t) 21:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The larger and more important question for me is whether Wikipedia should be leading/driving language evolution or following it. It has been my understanding that we should follow, which should immediately invalidate even discussion about "commit suicide" – unless someone can make a compelling case that most of the English-speaking world has abandoned the phrase. No number of "experts" on the subject will ever constitute "most of the English-speaking world". So the RfC is inappropriate in my view; if someone wants to present said case in an RfC, they are free to do so, but we don't need to be encouraging debate that is inherently inconsistent with Wikipedia fundamentals. ― Mandruss  ☎  22:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We have a Manual of Style for a reason, and that is to restrict the phrasing used on Wikipedia to a portion of the English language. And it's not like no one uses any phrasing other than "committed" - according to Google Ngram, "killed himself" and "killed herself" together are close to as common to "committed suicide." Gbear605 (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're saying that it's ok to reach a community consensus that violates a bedrock Wikipedia principle, I strongly disagree. Some things are inviolable, at least until they are modified at that bedrock level. As for the rest of your comment, I think you're confused. I have not suggested that we should require "committed", only that we should not ban it as proposed in this thread and others that I've seen recently. Or even discourage it, which at Wikipedia is very close to banning it. ― Mandruss  ☎  23:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that Wikipedia already does ban a lot of normal English speech, to be consistent or to be more accurate. Banning certain phrasing around suicide isn't crossing any new line - just look at Manual of Style. Gbear605 (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Granted, there is some precedent for violating the inviolable bedrock principle. Those who know me know that I don't support the creation of bad stuff because of the existence of other bad stuff of the same kind (I've even had something to that effect on my user page for almost three years). If someone wants to take this discussion to a higher level and debate whether following language evolution is in fact a bedrock principle around here, or whether it should be one, I would be happy to participate in that. ― Mandruss  ☎  23:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Should template sandboxes have interlanguage links?
Why are there no interlanguage links for most template (and module) sandboxes? JsfasdF252 (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikidata does not take template/module subpages. If you need to navigate between them, you can use the main template/module page. --Izno (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * User in other language Wikipedias can easily copy the templates themselves into their wiki, but what if they don't know how to use them? JsfasdF252 (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case, they should translate the documentation. --Izno (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It turns out you can add interwiki links for template documentation by adding links in the format  in noinclude tags without using Wikidata. JsfasdF252 (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You can but should not. They are likely to be removed for being clutter and unnecessary. --Izno (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Izno, I wonder whether Special:Import brings across the subpages. I think that's what people use when importing the citation templates.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It does not appear so, though someone importing a citation template might review Special:Import and catch the templates invoked on the page, at least one of which is the documentation. (That's if you graciously assume that best practices for attribution are used offwiki. I can definitely assure you they are not as at least I have not done so, some long time ago. :) --Izno (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * AFAICT the point of Special:Import is that it brings across all the other sub-templates and Lua modules necessary to make the template work, so I know that at least some of them (at least within WP:SUL wikis) exhibit an excellent level of attribution for the templates. But perhaps the tool doesn't believe that a transcluded doc page is necessary to make the template work.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

BAG nomination
This is a procedural notification to note that I have requested to join the BAG. Your input is welcome at the the nomination page. – SD0001  (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Global bot policy proposal: invitation to a Meta discussion
!

I apologize for sending a message in English. . According to the list, your wiki project currently is opted in to the global bot policy. Under this policy, bots that fix double redirects or maintain interwiki links are allowed to operate under a global bot flag that is assigned directly by the stewards.

As the Wikimedia projects developed, the need for the current global bot policy decreased, and in the past years, no bots were appointed via that policy. That is mainly given Wikidata were estabilished in 2013, and it is no longer necessary to have dozens of bots that maintain interwiki links.

A proposal was made at Meta-Wiki, which proposes that the stewards will be authorized to determine whether an uncontroversial task may be assigned a global bot flag. The stewards already assign permissions that are more impactful on many wikis, namely, global sysops and global renamers, and I do not think that trust should be an issue. The stewards will assign the permission only to time-proven bots that are already approved at a number of projects, like ListeriaBot.

By this message, I would like to invite you to comment in the global RFC, to voice your opinion about this matter.

Thank you for your time.

Best regards,

Martin Urbanec (m:User talk:Martin Urbanec) 11:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

 * No need to apologize, we like English here. Did you mean to post this somewhere else? RudolfRed (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess the same message was mass-posted to a discussion page on every wiki. – SD0001  (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Heh, you're totally right, I massmessaged to all wikis that are in the list of global bot wikis, and didn't realize it has the English Wikipedia too. Striked the apology :-). --Martin Urbanec (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * English Wikipedia has never opted-in the global bot policy. Ruslik_ Zero 20:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is included in the list of wikis with active global bots through, so the group itself is active here. So perhaps the wikiset should be updated to reflect that? Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a limited approval for interwiki bots only. Ruslik_ Zero 20:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Virtual WikiConference North America CentralNotice for regional editors
I have put in a request for a geo-targeted CentralNotice for the Virtual WikiConference North America on December 11-13. See the request on meta at CentralNotice/Request/Virtual WikiConference North America.--Pharos (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Articles that should be renamed
SrpskiAnonimac (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Lietava, Slovakia → Lietava
 * Ravno, Bosnia and Herzegovina → Ravno
 * Milići, Republika Srpska → Milići
 * Please, see Requested_moves. Ruslik_ Zero 18:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I do not know English --SrpskiAnonimac (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm gonna take a wild guess from your userpage that you're Serbian, or at least understand the language, and another wild guess that Google Translate is decent:
 * Молим вас идите на WP:RM. Кад сте тамо, копирајте и залепите упутства у https://translate.google.com/?sl=en&tl=sr&op=translate њих и следите их. Хвала.  Squeeps10 Talk to meplease ping me 03:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The third one definitely makes sense. Waterthatisdry (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

A new addition to wikipedia
I propose a new idea, and though I'm sure long time users of wikipedia will be divided, I think it is in line with the times.

What I suggest is simple: The option to comment on any wikipedia page. This will not only allow editors to gain feedback but also supplement any existing knowledge. There may be information within a given community that could only be had by this setup. Let's say x article has a cult following. There is a very elementary page about it but none of the users are willing to edit it for themselves. Their commentary would allow a contributor to update the page with new information. etc.

I think this could easily be implemented through disqus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:743:4100:17A0:B879:3FB9:E430:8265 (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, we do have talk pages for discussing articles. I understand the idea behind this, but, as we can all see from reading the comments on news articles, sometimes making it easier for the public to add comments is not great. Killiondude (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We tried this. It mostly followed the 80-20 rule for garbage:goodness, and didn't interact well with our existing comment system, which is the article talk page. --Izno (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure how X's cult following is helpful in building articles in ways not already covered by talk pages. Allowing multiple "voices" to be seen also dilutes the effectiveness of the encyclopedia. We're already not reliable by our own standards; adding opinions and comments and in-jokes just makes that worse. Matt Deres (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

 * It is true that news article comments are...not good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterthatisdry (talk • contribs) 13:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

 * This sounds a bit like the Article Feedback Tool which had to be stopped in 2013/14. There was a difference of opinion between those who thought it wrong in practice and its main problem was that scattered among the expressions of love for Justin Bieber et al were some really vile things that had to be suppressed. So it put a big extra burden on the volunteer community - far greater than any benefit it brought; And those who thought it wrong in theory, and that it undermined our SoFixIt philosophy by diverting potential new editors from improving articles into creating extra work for our dwindling volunteer base. More details at Requests for comment/Article feedback  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  10:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Restoring from archives for close versus closing in the archive
Some of the closes requested at WP:AN/RFC recently have been RfC's that had lingered without resolution long enough to be archived. This is most likely to happen at centralized discussion boards such as WP:BLPN, WP:RSN, etc. I have recently done multiple NAC's on threads that were archived, on one I linked from the current noticeboard to the close that I posted in the archives. On the other I did the opposite ad returned the thread to the current noticeboard to close it there. In both cases, I have been contacted by at least one person suggesting the opposite procedure is preferable, always by experienced editors. I therefore do not believe that there are clear standards on this situation.

The only rule I'm aware of on this situation is WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE within the Talk Page Guidelines which says: If a thread has been archived prematurely, such as when it is still relevant to current work or was not concluded, unarchive it by copying it back to the talk page from the archive, and deleting it from the archive. This seems like an option that is available, not a directive of a best practice. It goes on to say: Do not unarchive a thread that was effectively closed; instead, start a new discussion and link to the archived prior discussion. That makes it seem that threads not "effectively closed" are likely to need to be unarchived but again is not very definitive.

I can see arguments for doing such closes either way. On the one hand, archives are supposed to preserve a record of discussions that are over so modifying a discussion in an archive is against that. On the other hand, restoring archived discussions to the current noticeboard clogs ongoing discussions. Either way, the archive is changed and something that was "over" is not really over. Do we know if there is a rule anywhere that explicitly covers this type of situation or a community preference for one type of closing procedure over the other? Thanks in advance. (courtesy pings:, ) [[User:Eggishorn|<span style="background-color:
 * 1) FF7400; color:
 * 2) FFFFFF;">Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 15:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the restoring approach is generally better. Very few people are monitoring archives, so restoring allows a close to be seen and (if needed) commented on.
 * We should note that there's a third option: pinning a section so that it does not get archived until it receives a close. Generally, I don't think this is a good idea, as it tends to lead to discussions sprawling beyond the point of usefulness. {{u| Sdkb  }}  talk 19:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I couldn't be more strongly opposed to modifying an archive page in any way, with two exceptions:
 * Removing a section that has been restored from archive.
 * Fixes to serious formatting issues that make it very difficult to use the archive for its intended purpose. I've seen perhaps two such cases in seven years.
 * Archive pages are not places to conduct talk page business of any kind, and a closure should be seen in the talk page's history, not the archive page's history.That leaves the question of whether a closer should be required to restore a discussion in order to close it. I would say no, their job is already very difficult, preventing many editors from taking it on, and the only "benefit" to doing that would be to prevent any further discussion before the closure. Correctly restoring a discussion is beyond the technical skill of many editors, anyway, particularly if it's too late for a double-undo. ― Mandruss  ☎  19:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with not continuing a discussion on an archive page, as I believe the vast majority of archive pages are unwatched. I've seen many cases of missing HTML closing tags, often from signatures, causing issues on archive pages (the version of MediaWiki at the time they were written would auto-close them). isaacl (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Re-reading myself, I now see that it might look as if I'm contradicting myself there (my comments always seem crystal clear to me at the time of writing). To avoid any confusion, I'll add that I support pinning the discussion until closure when a closure has been requested or is otherwise expected. Many closers will remove the pin when they close, and failing that any other editor may do so. ― Mandruss   ☎  03:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Eggishorn, in those situations, I think the first question is whether the discussion truly needs a summary added to it. (IMO "Closing" is technically putting a box around it to discourage further comments, which is pointless.)  If editors have moved on or already implemented the results, then I'd ignore it.  It'd be silly to say "25 November:  The result was agreement to make the edits that were made a few weeks ago", right?
 * I have, just once or twice in the last dozen-plus years, added a closing statement to something still in the archives. I could see the point, e.g., if there's a link that might be useful to someone reading it later.  However, outside unusual circumstances, the best practice is to un-archive it and add the summary statement on the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * and, I'm thinking particularly of RSN. With source deprecation RfC's now popping up seeming right and left, it is a disservice to everyone for these to remain unclosed, particularly long ones. If another editor wants to see what the status of a source is, there should be some definitive statement so they don't have to read the whole conversation and puzzle it out each and every time.  Hence closing archived threads has become a necessary thing now. [[User:Eggishorn|<span style="background-color:
 * and, I'm thinking particularly of RSN. With source deprecation RfC's now popping up seeming right and left, it is a disservice to everyone for these to remain unclosed, particularly long ones. If another editor wants to see what the status of a source is, there should be some definitive statement so they don't have to read the whole conversation and puzzle it out each and every time.  Hence closing archived threads has become a necessary thing now. [[User:Eggishorn|<span style="background-color:

 * 1) FF7400; color:
 * 2) FFFFFF;">Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 04:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't follow. Whether you archive and then close, or close and then archive, you end up with a closed, archived discussion. The differences are what I mentioned above: the integrity of the page history and the fact that the closure is plainly visible to editors watching that history (transparency, and the opportunity to challenge the closure – per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE – in a timely manner).If there are a few cases where you can't anticipate the need for closure before the discussion has been archived, there should be someone around who can do the restore. Heck, it should be a fairly trivial matter for a script-qualified editor to create a restore-from-archive script, which would open that up to a large majority of editors. It could operate exactly like the existing One-Click Archiver, except that instead of clicking an "Archive" link on the talk page, you would click a "Restore" link on the archive page. ― Mandruss  ☎  04:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Per direction at the help desk (permalink), I have suggested such a script at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject JavaScript, but there has been no response in 46 hours. ― Mandruss  ☎  20:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata descriptions changes to be included more often in Recent Changes and Watchlist
As you may know, you can include changes coming from Wikidata in your Watchlist and Recent Changes (in your preferences). Until now, this feature didn’t always include changes made on Wikidata descriptions due to the way Wikidata tracks the data used in a given article.

Starting on December 3rd, the Watchlist and Recent Changes will include changes on the descriptions of Wikidata Items that are used in the pages that you watch. This will only include descriptions in the language of your wiki to make sure that you’re only seeing changes that are relevant to your wiki.

If there is a local description in the article already a change to the description on Wikidata will not show up in Recent changes and Watchlist unless it is explicitly included via Lua.

This improvement was requested by many users from different projects. We hope that it can help you monitor the changes on Wikidata descriptions that affect your wiki and participate in the effort of improving the data quality on Wikidata for all Wikimedia wikis and beyond.

Note: if you didn’t use the Wikidata watchlist integration feature for a long time, feel free to give it another chance! The feature has been improved since the beginning and the content it displays is more precise and useful than at the beginning of the feature in 2015.

If you encounter any issue or want to provide feedback, feel free to use this Phabricator ticket. Thanks! Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

 * The English Wikipedia doesn't use the Wikidata description anywhere any longer (if everything works as it should). So for most enwiki editors and articles, seeing the changes in the Wikidata description will not have any use, as it won't change anything on Enwiki (unlike other changes which may affect things here, like coordinates or many other values which may be used from Wikidata in some cases). Adding these description changes will thus only add clutter here. Fram (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There's probably a reasonable phab task for "don't send description updates to local description clients". --Izno (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

2021 Ombuds Commission nomination process now open!
Hi everyone! It's coming close to time for annual appointments of community members to serve on the Ombudsman commission (OC). This commission works on all Wikimedia projects to investigate complaints about violations of the privacy policy, especially in use of CheckUser and Oversight tools, and to mediate between the complaining party and the individual whose work is being investigated. They may also assist the General Counsel, the Executive Director or the Board of Trustees in investigations of these issues. For more on their duties and roles, see Ombuds commission.

This is a call for community members interested in volunteering for appointment to this commission. Volunteers serving in this role should be experienced Wikimedians, active on any project, who have previously used the CheckUser/Oversight tools OR who have the technical ability to understand these tools and the willingness to learn them. They are expected to be able to engage neutrally in investigating these concerns and to know when to recuse when other roles and relationships may cause conflict.

Commissioners are required to comply with the appropriate Wikimedia Foundation board policies (such as the access to non-public data policy and the privacy policy) and to sign the required Non-disclosure Agreement. This is a position that requires a high degree of discretion and trust.

If you are interested in serving on this commission, please write me an email at to detail your experience on the projects, your thoughts on the commission and what you hope to bring to the role. The commission consists of ten members; all applications are appreciated and will be carefully considered. The deadline for applications is 31 December, 2020.

Please feel free to pass this invitation along to any users who you think may be qualified and interested. Thank you! Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Jeff Zients page
Normally I post only to relevant WikiProjects, but this may need attention from the Wikipedia community as a whole https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/03/wikipedia-page-bidens-new-covid-czar-scrubbed-442735

There are allegations of Jeff Zients being scrubbed of political info WhisperToMe (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Politico claims also brought up at ANI. Schazjmd   (talk)  23:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Starting radicalpedia
Wikipedia has a rival called Conservapedia for those who think Wikipedia has an anti-conservative bias. Would any one agree that at times, Wikipedia is TOO Conservative? I wrote comments on the talk page on the article on the Conservative Party of the U.K., but they were deleted. I was also accused of trolling the talk page of the article on Margaret Thatcher. Has the time come to start a rival to Wikipedia called "Radicalpedia"? Vorbee (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Let us know how it works out.  RudolfRed (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Or start a new country, a floating island made up of used plastic bottles. There are many ways to resolve disputes on Wikipedia. -- Green  C  01:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The far left already has websites like radtube and lefttube. Maybe someone could make a center-left one called liberalpedia explaining liberal and progressive philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnigornia (talk • contribs) 23:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

misspelling on donation page
Wikipedia Donor Feedback __________________________

Credit card, (Visa, MC, Amercian Express, Star, Diners, Pulse, Discover)

Debit Card (Visa, MC, Amercian Express, Star, Diners, Pulse, Discover)

--Thnidu (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you for letting us know about this, and we can try to get the right people to fix it. I'm having a little trouble finding the page you are seeing though - would you mind letting us know the steps you took to get there and if it is on a mobile device or a computer? Thank you, —  xaosflux  Talk 20:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You can also report problems to donate (at) wikimedia.org, but please include the URL of the page with the error and any other information that could be helpful. RudolfRed (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

2020 Coolest Tool Award Ceremony on December 11th
Hello all,

The ceremony of the 2020 Wikimedia Coolest Tool Award will take place virtually on Friday, December 11th, at 17:00 GMT. This award is highlighting tools that have been nominated by contributors to the Wikimedia projects, and the ceremony will be a nice moment to show appreciation to the tools developers and maybe discover new tools!

You will find more information here about the livestream and the discussions channels. Thanks for your attention, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) 10:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey 2021
'''We invite all registered users to vote on the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. You can vote from now until for as many different wishes as you want.'''

In the Survey, wishes for new and improved tools for experienced editors are collected. After the voting, we will do our best to grant your wishes. We will start with the most popular ones.

We, the Community Tech, are one of the Wikimedia Foundation teams. We create and improve editing and wiki moderation tools. What we work on is decided based on results of the Community Wishlist Survey. Once a year, you can submit wishes. After two weeks, you can vote on the ones that you're most interested in. Next, we choose wishes from the survey to work on. Some of the wishes may be granted by volunteer developers or other teams.

We are waiting for your votes. Thank you! SGrabarczuk (WMF)

15:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

WMF Fundraising on en.wiki
Hey All

Later today we will be launching our upcoming annual fundraising campaigns in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the USA, and the United Kingdom. It's a critical campaign and during this quarter we raise approximately half of the annual funds for the Wikimedia movement. The banners form just one component and since October, our E-mail fundraising programme has already been running in these countries.

Banners will be starting at approximately 1600UTC. For non-urgent feedback you’ll find me in real time:
 * on the English Wikimedia discord server
 * on #wikipedia-en on IRC
 * on the [Wikimedia General Chat https://t.me/WikimediaGeneral] on telegram
 * via electronic snail mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>)
 * or add any ideas to our fundraising ideas page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising/2020-21_Fundraising_ideas)

If you see a donor on a talk page, OTRS, or social media having difficulties in the donation process, please refer them to: donate @undefined wikimedia.org.

To report any technical issues with the banners or payments systems you can:
 * Report it on phabricator: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/task/create/?template=118862
 * Or if its an urgent technical issue then try the fundraising IRC channel #wikimedia-fundraising

From myself and on behalf of my colleagues, can I thank everyone for the patience and support fundraising is given from across the movement both throughout the year and especially over the coming weeks.

Many thanks. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC),
 * Lots of questions again this year at WP:HD and WP:THQ about the fundraiser. I hope next year you or someone else from WMF will spend some time monitoring those boards and answering the questions directly, rather than leaving it to the en wiki volunteers to do it or to refer users to the email address.  Thanks.  RudolfRed (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Fundraising feedback from Lemon Gras
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdkb (talk • contribs) 19:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Requesting volunteering for Compendium and Encyclopedia
Greetings,

Wikipedia was launched on January 15, 2001 and coming January 15 will be of 20 years. Even after 20 years articles Encyclopedia and Compendium are still incomplete and not at their best.

Some of the issues and sources are shared @ Talk:Encyclopedia & Talk:Compendium.

I am already busy on multiple articles, I wish and request some volunteer supports in expanding and updating articles Encyclopedia and Compendium.

Thanks

Bookku (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Hiring a full-time facilitator in this community
Hi. Board elections and governance conversations are expected in the next months. In order to be ready when they happen, the Wikimedia Foundation is forming a team of facilitators to ensure good communication and representative participation across Wikimedia. We are hiring a full-time contractor focusing on English speaking projects and affiliates. We are looking for someone who is a good communicator and understands the peculiarities of Wikimedia. We need someone motivated by equity, diversity and inclusion, the drivers behind these conversations. Check the job description for more details and to apply. Please help us share this opportunity with your contacts and groups. If you have questions, you can ping me here or you can contact me at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Qgil-WMF (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 * How do these differ from the old Community liaisons?©Geni (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ©Geni, the roles are similar but these are six month contracts focusing on a single area. This model has been used recently for Movement Strategy and the Universal Code of Conduct. Is this what you were asking? Qgil-WMF (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, unlike when my team was created in 2013, the focus for these people is on the non-technical aspects of the movement. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Having admitted, to Wikipedia, that Wikimedia has difficult-to-understand peculiarities, shouldn't the next step be to soften these peculiarities, not to create an intermediary to protect the peculiarities from the frictions they cause the Wikipedia-Wikimedia relationship? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe: This facilitator role is justified by the complexity of the English-speaking community. We are not trying to prevent direct participation of Wikipedians in Wikimedia-wide conversations. English Wikipedia contributors are very fortunate, you don't have a language barrier on Meta. :) With or without a facilitator, if you want to participate in global conversations directly, you have the choice. We are hiring a full-time contractor to focus on English-speaking projects and affiliates. This means English Wikipedia but also its sister projects, plus chapters and user groups communicating in English (except when covered by regional facilitators). These many entities may have different peculiarities in their opinions and preferences. As mentioned above, equity, diversity and inclusion will drive the facilitation work. These entities may have underrepresented groups within, with even more peculiarities. The facilitator will promote conversations to inform everyone, understand priorities and peculiarities. They will share this feedback through reports on Meta and wherever appropriate. This is a lot of work that is unlikely to happen organically, hence the hiring. Qgil-WMF (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we be involved in the selection process? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe: You can encourage candidates to apply and you can send me recommendations. The selection itself follows a standard hiring process. The privacy of candidates is very important. Only a few staff members are involved and we gather additional references for promising candidates. Also, we are hiring nine roles in total (3 full-time, 6 part-time) and the process needs to be agile. Qgil-WMF (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, privacy, especially when HR are involved. Pity, if the communities can’t have even symbolic input. You could invite the shortlisted to present something, and then invite comments to be sent to the selection committee. It could create some community excitement, and generate useful broad awareness for the appointees. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Although the idea of community review might sound nice in theory, I don't think it would work as desired in practice. This is not a community role, it's a job. Candidates might have other jobs and their managers / colleagues might not know they are applying. Candidates might not feel comfortable exposing themselves to a public assessment open to anonymous feedback (including potential trolling). The public feedback might suffer the same systemic problems of bias and under-representation. If the person selected was not considered the most popular by the participants in this public review, that would create a strange situation from the start. I think this is a process very different than i.e. admins selecting admins. Qgil-WMF (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Alphabetically sort bots
Hi guys. Is there any bots that can help in sorting list in alphabet order? CyberTroopers (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * a "bot" would really only be needed if this was something that had to happen over and over again - if so should first discuss if this is needed at the talk page related to the content, then you can request at WP:RFBOT. — xaosflux  Talk 19:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a one-time thing, where is the list - someone can probably help. — xaosflux  Talk 19:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Xaosflux You mean WP:BOTREQ, not WP:RFBOT.   Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just post links here and maybe somebody will sort them for you? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 23:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. It's not a one time list but it's ones that is going to be updates quite frequent. BTW, this bot is not going to be used in the English Wikipedia. I think I've found one before but I can't remember where it was. Is there any that you guys know who the bot is? CyberTroopers (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

If it's a list of things on a wikipedia page, there is a Lua module that will sort it alphabetically: --  Green  C  04:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The list is here. Can you help me with that? CyberTroopers (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Module:List is incorrect. It is . I installed it and sorted the list. -- Green  C  05:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If I add new article title which is not in a sort way, is it going to be automatically sorted? CyberTroopers (talk) 07:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. On display it will sort, not in the wiki source itself. -- Green  C  15:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Saving a link before the site closes
On Max Crabtree, I have added a link from Questia (this one) but I have noticed the site is about to close from tomorrow. Can I ask if someone can archive it at Wayback Machine/Internet Archive and put the link in the article please? I ask as I have tried to do that but my computer won't access the site and I don't want this to deadlink.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 08:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I took an archive capture with the Wayback Machine, but it's only the free sample, since a Questia membership is required to view the whole article. Is the sample still suitable as a citation? It doesn't include any mention of Joint Promotions. Hydrothermal (talk) 08:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Last day: Community Wishlist Survey 2021
'''We invite all registered users to vote on the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. You can vote until, 6pm UTC for as many different wishes as you want.'''

In the Survey, wishes for new and improved tools for experienced editors are collected. After the voting, we will do our best to grant your wishes. We will start with the most popular ones.

We, the Community Tech, are one of the Wikimedia Foundation teams. We create and improve editing and wiki moderation tools. What we work on is decided based on results of the Community Wishlist Survey. Once a year, you can submit wishes. After two weeks, you can vote on the ones that you're most interested in. Next, we choose wishes from the survey to work on. Some of the wishes may be granted by volunteer developers or other teams.

We are waiting for your votes. Thank you!

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Entering the public domain soon
A good set of lists of what movies and books - published in 1925 - will become public domain in the United States come January 1, 2021 and thus fair game to be used as free media/content. , --M asem  (t) 18:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Difference between Muslim .... and Islamic .... ?

 * Issue of normativity

Whenever any topic related to Muslim, Islam and Islamic comes for discussion on Wikipedia, one comes across 2 refrains frequently; First I/We don't have understanding on the topic, pl. go over to WP talk:WikiProject Islam, the second is even when topic is critical of Islam that is categorized Islamic project pl. go over to WP talk:WikiProject Islam. Here comes concept of normative. It's true that Wikipedians working on WikiProject Islam need to have a say, second side of the same coin is it risks throwing in and enforcing a sided normative.

Quick google search of term Normative gives definition as "...establishing, relating to, or deriving from a standard or norm, especially of behaviour...."

So when some thing does  not fits in well with fixed normative still do we force the things there only ? The things I will be discussing here I will be discussing at WP talk:WikiProject Islam separately but reason of discussing here is to cross limiting normativity and become more inclusive in seeking inputs.

Difference between Muslim .... and Islamic ....?

An average tendency on Wikipedia seems to be of transforming word Muslim into Islam or Islamic wherever possible without visiting nuanced aspects. As a small example title Islamic feminism is nuanced and correct since it specifically refers to theory of Islam. But is it correct to redirect title Muslim women to Women in Islam those who are not exposed to nuances might think so. Some might take refuge to fallacy of Appeal to popularity, but nuanced view suggests otherwise. Pl. do read on below given copy pasted discussion from Talk:Islamic literature

Nuanced differences and other Wikipedia articles Please see below given table.

What do you think ?
Thanks Bookku (talk) 11:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

 * "Muslim" is a noun, meaning a person of that faith; and an adjective, applied to people of that faith. Inanimate things have no faith, but may be described as "Islamic". "Muslim architecture" is clearly wrong, buildings have no faith. Some cases, such as "Islamic culture", are borderline. "Women in Islam" and "Muslim women" are both valid, and have entirely different meanings. The former refers to the teachings of Islam about women, the latter refers to women who are Muslim. Maproom (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems you do have a valid point here.
 * You rightly say ".."Women in Islam" and "Muslim women" are both valid, and have entirely different meanings..."
 * But do you think, if at all content is to be kept together then "Muslim women" will be better one because it can cover  both aspects i.e. women who are just Cultural Muslims they or their socio cultural life does not subscribe to the dogma, term "Muslim women" can take note of Islamic point of view about Muslim women. Of course I would me more for splitting the articles.
 * Can we draw a parallel, In between Your point differentiating between "Women in Islam" and "Muslim women" and Apostasy in Islam and Former muslims being both valid, and have entirely different normative directions?
 * Would term Muslim culture represent cultural diversity among Muslim communities over time and places reflect better than monolithic representation in term "Islamic culture"?
 * Thanks and warm regards Bookku (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "if at all content is to be kept together". I believe that content appropriate for "Women in Islam" and for "Muslim women" should not be kept together.
 * Thank you for drawing my attention to the article "Cultural Muslims". I had not come across the term before. I'll probably do some copy-editing there, just changing the punctuation etc., I've no wish to change any of the content.
 * I agree with what you say about Apostasy in Islam and Former muslims – there is a parallel.
 * I've no view on whether "Muslim culture" or "Islamic culture" is the better title.
 * Warm regards, Maproom (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I wish/hope this discussion continues a little after holidays.Bookku (talk) 07:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "whether "Muslim culture" or "Islamic culture" is the better title". Islamic art is appropriate not only because the phrase "Muslim art" is very rare in English usage, but also because many features of Islamic art have a connection to Islamic doctrine or in the case of architecture to places of religion (decoration of mosques, rug design -- rugs being used in prayer, arabesque to compensate for ban of depiction of animate beings, etc.) But "culture" is sometimes connected to religion and sometimes not so much, so a case can be made for both "Muslim culture" or "Islamic culture" IMHO. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

 * In the case of Muslim women vs. Women in Islam... I would expect the first to be an article listing the individual notable women who were Muslim... while the second would be an article discussing how the religion of Islam (and its various factions) views women in general. Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with Blueboar --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Netflix Inc.
Article Netflix should be called Netflix Inc., and Netflix, the streaming service, should be spun off into the new article. — HoneymoonAve27 (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's very little about the company itself that is separate from the streaming service. (It is not like, for example, NBC which also runs the Peacock streaming service in addition to numerous other divisions). But this is something you should discuss on the article's talk page. --M asem  (t) 01:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * But still, the article is too long for both company and streaming service. — HoneymoonAve27 (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That is still a discussion for the article's talk page, not here. Matt Deres (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Opinion on this old edit
See Sparring

See under "names and types"

In boxing, sparring is commonly called sparring.

If that is allowed, then perhaps the United States article should have a sentence "In the United States, the United States is called the United States". Crazy. Suggestions? Vowvo (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

 * In the wider context of that article the sentence makes perfect sense. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Article is an uncited mess. Perhaps that section would be better served with a chart that list the discipline, contact training name and any brief descriptors required. Slywriter (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Yes, you're crazy. My suggestion is that if you want to not appear so, when you find a problem, instead of making snide comments at VPM, you just fix it instead.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Some categories are spinning!
Hi guys. greetings from fawiki community. :) I found loops in some categories in our wiki which are sorted based on category sorting in enwiki. category:Data laws → category:Data security → category:Information governance → and oops! you are again at category:Data laws! this can cause problems while using the WP:AWB (the list never comes out). some subcategories of Category:Library science also have this problem. i found this when i was trying to make a list using AWB and the tool stopped working. any solutions would be appreciated. --Jeeputer (talk) 07:18, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please give precise steps to reproduce problems. I guess you selected "Category (recursive)" in the Source field of AWB. You can select "Category (recurse user-defined level)" instead to limit it. Categorization says: "Category chains formed by parent–child relationships should never form closed loops". FAQ/Categorization says: "It is possible to construct loops in the category space, but this is discouraged." But we do have many category loops. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for your answer. no matter if i select (recurse user-defined level) option, it freezes anyways. because i need to list all the articles in subcategories and it gets stuck at the loop. i'm pointing to that closed category loop which i think needs to be resolved. WP:SUBCAT says "no category should be contained as a subcategory of one of its own subcategories". however, there is always a exception. is this one a exception or can we solve it and break the loop? --Jeeputer (talk) 15:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Which recursion depth do you choose? 3 works for me and gives 5812 pages. It takes a while. Just break a category loop if you can think of a reasonable way to do it. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * i chose 6 and applied a filter to remove duplicates. i broke the loop locally and it still doesn't work. there might be more loops. my changes will be reverted as we have a bot which sorts categories based on enwiki on a daily basis. i'll check all these categories and subcategories later to see how can they be rearranged. thank you sir. --Jeeputer (talk) 16:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 6 worked for me here and gave 35694 pages. I didn't monitor the window to see how long it took but it may have been quite long. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you. so i have to wait much longer. it can't get longer than 2 hours (time o f this discussion). right? :D i will try. --Jeeputer (talk) 17:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It took less than the 18 minutes between your 16:02 post and my 16:20 post. I did it here at enwiki and not fawiki. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes i know. categorization in fawiki is based on enwiki. it worked for me and gave about 6k pages of which 1k was duplicates. it can be caused by the breakage of the loop on fawiki. job done, thank you. :) --Jeeputer (talk) 17:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a case for making a fix to AWB, so that it doesn't run down alleys it's already been down while recursively searching category trees. BD2412  T 15:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 65


text:
Bagh Jahan

Bagh Jahan (, also Romanized as Bāgh Jahān; also known as Bāgh Jān) is a village in Eshqabad Rural District, Miyan Jolgeh District, Nishapur County, Razavi Khorasan Province, Iran. At the 2006 census, its population was 281, in 74 families.

title: Bagh Jahan


text:
Argentina at the 2019 World Athletics Championships

Argentina will compete at the 2019 World Athletics Championships in Doha, Qatar, from 27 September to 6 October 2019. Argentina will be represented by 3 athletes.

Men

 * Field events

Women

 * Track and road events


text:
náði

Noun

 * 1)  mercy, grace, charity
 * 2) * Náði Harrans Jesu veri við øllum
 * The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all (Revelation 22,21)

title: náði


text:
User:Btrebilco

Current Woring Position: Civil Engineer

Company: SunWater

Location: Brisbane Australia

Qualifications:
 * Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) Major Environmental, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, 1998
 * Masters of Engineering Science Major Environmental, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, 2000

Key Skills / Proficiencies:
 * Steel and Concrete design
 * Hydraulic and Hydrodynamic Modelling
 * Resource Operation Planning
 * Spillway Adequacy Assessment / Comprehensive Risk Assessment
 * Civil Site Inspections
 * Standard Operating Procedures
 * Emergency Action Plans

Water Industry – Areas of Expertise:
 * Bulk Water Supply
 * Dams and Hydro Structures

title: User:Btrebilco


text:
Wikiversity talk:Wikiversity the Movie/Script outline

Is there some other way to do this? Perhaps not Seinfeld? I am thinking of ideas, but others may have more!

Hold on!
Um, maybe we should star with what we want the movie to say (via vote?), then move on to how make it say it, then focus on writing the script, eh? Of course, in wikiworld, the script gets written *before* the movie's topic is defined--Rayc | (Talk) 05:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "we should run small experiments, tests, see what works, what doesn't, and be prepared to be flexible and change, and not be too locked into stone about how things should work." (source) --JWSchmidt 14:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. But, what is the movie going to be about?--Rayc | (Talk) 17:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

--- Hey everyone, hoping to get involved with this.

Not sure about Seinfeld. We do need to be very clear about what this DVD is! What are we trying to get across with the film?

I would put it as...
 * 1. What Wikiversity is - its unique strengths over standard studies (ie. free, new styles of learning etc)
 * 2. Why is this a valid learning source? (ie. give confidence to 'students' that this is accurate, useful information!)
 * 3. Collaborative nature. Appealling not only to potential students but to potential authors.

Those are the three main things I can think of. This is, after all, surely an advertisement?

Personaljesus 12:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree that the three points listed above include the kinds of concepts that the movie should communicate. In addition to the serious content, I think the movie should be entertaining. Wikiversity Reports. --JWSchmidt 14:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That podcast was good. How do you make it?--Rayc 18:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * See: Podcast creation with Garageband. --JWSchmidt 18:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

 * There are some parts of that Seinfeld idea that could work - and some parts are funny - but I honestly think that, on the whole, it's more confusing than anything else. I think we could come up with something better - punchier (ie. shorter), more focussed, and funnier. However, the timeline for doing this is pretty tight if production really is the end of January... Cormaggio talk 12:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Archdeacon of Westminster

Before the mid-19th century
I'm trying to cover 150-odd years before Bentinck. Before that, I have added Widmore's list to the article, though given the age and acknowledged incompleteness of the source, this was perhaps not a good idea. I have found the following sources. Grateful for input from, and anyone else who might make a useful contribution. Is this information usable? LookLook36 (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

 * 1640 - Thomas Wilson
 * 1660 - John Sudbury (resigned prebend 1662)
 * 1664 - Henry Killigrew
 * 1672, 1689 - Richard Busby (†1695)
 * 1701, 1704, 1710 - Peter Birch (†1710)
 * 1710, 1711, 1712 James Sartre (†1713 - Alum.Oxon. Westminster Abbey)
 * 1713, 1716 - Robert South (†1716)
 * 1728 - John Herbert (†1729 - Alum.Oxon.)
 * 1751 - Scawen Kenrick (†1753; I haven't sourced the 1734 given on Dean and Chapter of Westminster)
 * 1807 Samuel Smith (†1808)
 * 1823, 1832 - Joseph Allen (resigned prebend 1836)
 * 1841, 1842 - Thomas Causton (†1842; not Thomas Causton the Tudor composer)
 * 1843, 1846, 1849 - William Bentinck (His tenure as Archdeacon was previously backdated to 1809, when he was appointed to the prebend. I have used 1854, which is supported by sources but otherwise dubious (see his page, note B).
 * Oh wow. I don't think it occurred to me there were Archdeacons of Westminster before Bentinck. Alas they aren't listed in fasti ecclesiae Anglicanae (though the Canons are! ). I wonder if can think of a great source. The Clergy List (from 1861) and Crockford (and 1888) might be helpful; but I only have access to most of those in the flesh what Lampeth Palace Library reopens. I'll keep thinking on it. Good work. DBD 09:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Archdeacon of Westminster


text:
Uunartoq Qeqertaq

Etymology
(from ) + ; compare 🇨🇬.

Proper noun

 * 1) Warming Island, island off the east coast of Greenland.

title: Uunartoq Qeqertaq


text:
Talk:N. Ramani

Doctorate
What is Ramani's doctorate in and what degree does he hold? Badagnani 05:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Issues
A few too many superlatives in this article to be NPOV. Powers 16:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I'll refrain from adding a SOFIXIT tag, but, all right, let's work to improve it. Badagnani 18:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Well I wanted to see if anyone agreed, and I'm also completely unfamiliar with the subject matter. =)  Powers 21:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Cleaned up pov. I know nothing of the facts on this article so some of the facts need verification.I already forgot 20:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

 * It's much better now. Except that the "trinity" mentioned in the article is discussed as such -- those three composers are considered as saints and founders of the tradition.  Badagnani 20:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Doctorates of Music
http://www.chennaionline.com/musicseason99/interview/ramani.asp

In the industry of music, especially in India, awards do not merely refer to academic citations and even in countries like the USA, France and Britain, honorary doctorates are valued and prized much higher than academic doctorates in the field of music. For Dr. Ramani, he received his doctorate of music in the Arizona, USA.

Please do further read up on Indian websites of music and government websites of India on music awards and also understand that interpreting Indian music as a whole is beyond the scope of academic pursuit alone and one which transcends to a spritual realm in order to completely comprehend and achieve proficiency.

Thank you very much for your detailed interrogation of this work. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harryl (talk • contribs)

 * Many Indian musicians hold doctorates in other, non-music fields (such as the sciences). From which institution in Arizona did he obtain his music degree?  I was unaware that one could major in Carnatic music in Arizona, as I have never heard of a Carnatic music program at any university there.  Badagnani 15:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

 * To what are you referring? The source does not state where, when, or how he received his doctorate. If you know, please respond here so we may add this important information to the article. Badagnani 16:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, you do not seem to get the picture, the doctorate of Dr. Ramani is a honorary doctorate for his tremendous contribution to music. Though there is no doubt, that he possesses a doctorate throughtout the entire world, there are just not enough sources to prove more on the origin of his doctorate in whichever college or university of arizona.

Also understand the fact that, not all or most of carnatic musicians possess doctorates of other fields with the exception of Dr. L. Subramaniam, the world famous carnatic violinist who is a registered general practioner in India, I mean a registered medical doctor.

You do have a lot of homework to do and read up on both the life of Carnatic musicians and Carnatic music before you make any logical assertions.

From your words, I do not believe that you have a sound understanding of both Carnatic music and its musicians. Please do a lot of research on this. Thank you and kindly remove the neutrality tab, to question on the source of the doctorate of Dr. Ramani. There are just too many websites and places in the world to prove that the doctorate he has is not fake. Look up on world music sites like Sony music. You will only see the same words. "Dr Ramani." -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harryl (talk • contribs)

 * There's no necessity to be rude or make incorrect assertions about the extent of one's knowledge of Carnatic music. I watch Dr. Ramani perform each year at the St. Thyagaraja Aradhana in Cleveland, Ohio, where I live and he is my favorite Carnatic flutist.  Asking questions about details of people's lives, on the "discussion" pages of biographical articles, is normal here.  No dramatics are needed, just actual facts.  In the case of Dr. N. Ramani's doctorate and its source, little information is available online other than the U.S. state where he received it.  Thus, I asked here, because you seemed knowledgeable.  Badagnani 16:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

 * The "neutrality" tag was added early on (not by me) following the writing of this article, properly, I believe, as the article was full of statements like "this magnificent artist has reached the pinnacle of the arts" -- NPOV statements more suitable for a magazine or the bio on his own website. I fixed some of that, but I think it might still need a bit of work to conform to Wikipedia's policy in this regard.  Badagnani 16:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I added it a while back, and was kind of waiting for someone to agree with me before I undertook any changes. I agree that it still needs a bit of work.  Powers 16:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

 * The use of "burnished" on more than one occasion also seems confusing and idiosyncratic. Badagnani 16:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I am now amazed from the factual information up here. Firstly, as an American citizen, finding out the university and college that he received his doctorate should be easier to you than myself in Asia. Claiming Dr. Ramani as your favourite flautist, your actions must speak with your words as well. Contribute and churn a better article out of this.

There is no exaggeration on the style of content up here, all information up here are factual and not based on commercialising the true talent of the artist, it is not a commercial segment, but if wikipedia rules prohbit, kindly make it little gentler and suitable so that it conforms to the rules of Wikipedia. As an American speaking fan of Dr. Ramani, and as a British English trained Asian, the use of language may vary, but if it is upsetting, I feel that your command and patronage of the language would be better in editing the contents appropriately.

Thank you once again. Please contribute and make this article better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harryl (talk • contribs).

 * Please sign your talk page comments with ~ . Thanks.  Powers 15:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not think the tone is formal for an encylopedia article, it has a tone more like that of a brochure advertising a concert. Particularly -

1. "He perfected the Carnatic flute to achieving all the seven swaras of Carnatic music that is proven to great accuracy by both scientific and musical notations." - I do not understand what that means, does that mean he figured out the exact lengths of the flute or positions of the holes. And how is the seven swaras of carnatic music any different from the hindustani music. If what you claim is right, is that also the time when the bansuri was perfected.

2. "other national and international disciples of Mali." unclear reference, references necessary.

3. "The "Mali" bani encompassed facial expressions", What has facial expressions got to do with the transverse movement of the flute, this statement seems to convey the wrong idea.

4. "Ramani's distinctive style is the transformation of the Carnatic flute into the voice of a proficient Carnatic vocalist." Not meeting the neutral tone of an encyclopedia article.

5. "so impressed and mesmerised with Ramani's unique and brilliant control of sruthi and laya made a personal visit all the way to Ramani's home in South India the very next day to praise Ramani and requested Ramani to stage the world's first Carnatic flute" - Citation required or the statement has to go.

6. "Ramani is considered the world's greatest master of the Carnatic flute and a burnished exponent in the field of Carnatic music" - Thats as much personal as an opinion can get. Not at all in encyclopedia standards. "Greatest" and "Master" - how can that be neutral.

7. "As a result, Ramani Academy of Flute does not offer certificates to students except with the rare opportunity to learn under the tutelage of Ramani. This learning policy has made his students well versed in the proficiency of the Carnatic flute and some of them being famed individuals and teachers located around the world." - Disconnected conclusion.

8. "Ramani's son, flautist Thiagarajan Ramani, is also a noted flautist. He has equally performed with his father and has delivered a record of more than 2000 concerts all over the world. He has a large student following in India." - Citation needed.

Please look into these issues - Supradeepa

T. R. Mahalingam (flautist)
The T. R. Mahalingam (flautist) article is in a pretty sorry state... Some of the contributors to this page might be able to help improve it? I've changed it quite a bit from the old version: current version, but I don't know much about Mali myself, and people here might be more knowledgeable, know more refs (and there is more in the linked refs themselves that could be included...). Regards, --Shreevatsa (talk) 04:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:N. Ramani


text:
Dan McCarney

Patrick Daniel McCarney (born July 28, 1953) is a former American football coach. He served as the head football coach at Iowa State University from 1995 to 2006 and the University of North Texas from 2011 to 2015, compiling a career college football coaching record of 78–117.

Playing career
McCarney played football at Iowa City High School, and was an offensive lineman at the University of Iowa from 1972 to 1974 and was named team captain in 1974.

Iowa
McCarney returned to Iowa as a graduate assistant from 1977 to 1978 under Bob Commings. When Hayden Fry arrived at Iowa in 1979, he named McCarney as defensive line coach, a post he held for 10 years—during which Iowa made two appearances in the Rose Bowl.

Wisconsin
McCarney served as the defensive coordinator and defensive line coach at the University of Wisconsin–Madison under Barry Alvarez from 1990 to 1994.

Iowa State
McCarney served as head coach at Iowa State University from 1995 to 2006. During that span, McCarney led the Cyclones to five bowl games, second to Matt Campbell for the most in Iowa State history. The Cyclones had been to only three bowl games in their entire history before his arrival. In their first bowl appearance under McCarney, the 2000 Insight.com Bowl, the Cyclones notched their first bowl win in school history. His 56 wins and 85 losses are both school records.

At the time of his resignation in November 2006, he was the longest tenured head football coach in the Big 12 Conference.

South Florida
In February 2007, McCarney accepted a position as the defensive line coach and assistant head coach at the University of South Florida.

Florida
The next year, McCarney accepted the same position at the University of Florida. He coached the defensive line at Florida for two years. During his tenure, the Gators produced NFL draft picks Carlos Dunlap and Jermaine Cunningham.

North Texas
In November 2010, McCarney was offered and accepted the position of head coach at the University of North Texas.

At North Texas, McCarney inherited a team that had endured six consecutive losing seasons, and had not won more than three games in any of those seasons. He won five games his first season, and four the next season; then, in 2013, led the Mean Green to their first winning season since 2004.

In 2013, McCarney led the Mean Green to its third bowl win, posting a 36–14 win over UNLV in the Heart of Dallas Bowl.

McCarney was unable to duplicate his 2013 success in 2014, as the North Texas football team posted a 4-8 record. In October 2015, following a loss to Portland State University, McCarney was fired. The loss had dropped the Mean Green to an 0-5 record to open the 2015 season.

Despite having an overall losing record at North Texas, McCarney managed some highlights in addition to the school's third of three all-time bowl wins. In 2011, he led the Mean Green to its first win over a Big Ten Conference opponent with a 24–21 victory against Indiana. The win was also the school's first at their new stadium, Apogee Stadium, which had opened that year.

The 2011 team set a record for home attendance, drawing 113,186 fans to six games.

His 2013 bowl winning team's nine wins were the most since 2004. To that point, it was only the fifth nine-win season in North Texas football history. The other nine win seasons occurred in 2004, 1978, 1977, and 1959. As North Texas State University, the Eagles had their only 10 win season in 1947.

In 2014, McCarney led North Texas to the most lopsided win in the school's history versus Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex rival SMU, 43–6. To that point, the win was only the fifth by North Texas versus SMU against 28 losses and a tie.

On October 10, 2015, McCarney was fired following a 66–7 loss to Portland State of the NCAA Division I Football Championship Subdivision (FCS). The 59-point margin is the biggest win by an FCS over an NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) team since NCAA Division I football was divided into subdivisions in 1978.

title: Dan McCarney


text:
Talk:Spanish/Typing Spanish Characters

 * I use Windows 98SE, and I've noticed that, instead of typing in Alt+a to get á, I have to type in Ctrl+a. Is this version-specific? Internet Explorer users who have Microsoft Word 2000 installed can consult mk:@MSITStore:c:\Program%20Files\Microsoft%20Office\Office\1033\wdmain9.chm::/html/wohowTypeInternationalLetters.htm. -- Minh Nguyen 2003-09-18 22:15 (EDT)

title: Talk:Spanish/Typing Spanish Characters


text:
Talk:David Fox (footballer)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David Fox (footballer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140715071246/http://home.gethome.no/redstat/?PlayerNo=364 to http://home.gethome.no/redstat/?PlayerNo=364
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140715071246/http://home.gethome.no/redstat/?PlayerNo=364 to http://home.gethome.no/redstat/?PlayerNo=364

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Dfox.png

title: Talk:David Fox (footballer)


text:
Uładzimir Hančaryk

Uładzimir Ivanavič Hančaryk or Vladimir Ivanovich Goncharik (Уладзімір Іванавіч Ганчарык, Владимир Иванович Гончарик; born 29 April 1940 in Lahojsk, Soviet Union), is a Belarusian politician.

He was the candidate from united opposition forces that stood against Alexander Lukashenko in the 2001 elections for the office of President of Belarus. As he was the candidate from united opposition, he was supported by a fellow opposition candidate Siamion Domash, who withdrew his candidacy and urged his supporters to vote for Hančaryk. Hančaryk failed to become the president, when the electoral committee announced official results, according to which he lost the vote to Lukashenko by a 60 percent margin. The elections were considered fraudulent by independent observers.

Before the elections, he was a chairman of the official Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus.

title: Uładzimir Hančaryk


text:
Talk:Davey Porter

Fair use rationale for Image:DaveyPorter.jpg
Image:DaveyPorter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Award - from "Lake Arrowhead Film Festival"
The Festival appears to be a very local affair - not a significant award conferring Notability. Springnuts (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Davey Porter


text:
User:Wipermanjoe

My name is Toby. I became a police officer in December of 1995 for a small town in southern Colorado. I did what cops do and really enjoyed my job at times. I'm gonna skip to September 28, 2001 to the day that would change mine and my families lives forever. I am gonna keep it short. I heard that a Sheriffs Deputy has been brutally murdered. Twin brothers were in the Deputies car and managed to get the guns that were not found on their person out of their pants. They shot the Deputy numerous times all over his body killing him. Then they fled to my town where they were staying in a trailer. I knew this so I did drive by their address just to verify the exact space. I was then gonna just watch for them possibly to come home and hide. Well they beat me there and was waiting outside behind the neighbors truck. As I drove by I heard, "POP,POP,POPPOPPOP! I then drove out of the trailer park and hit a tree going really fast as I was in shock at that point.  I was shot a total of 4 times with an AK-47.  Twice in my back leaving me a paraplegic for life.  The twins were caught two days later and are now serving a life sentence with 896 years added and no possibility of parole so is said.  As you can imagine there is a whole bunch more but that is the short and sweet part.          As for me I am now a Chaplain for my Police Department.  I am married and have been for 30 years.  I have 4 kids with 11 grandkids and my life is AWESOME!!!!!  I thank God for allowing this tragic event to happen.  Since then I have given my life to Jesus Christ and made him my King and Lord of all.         We are now getting to the end of days and people need to really examine themselves so they won't be left behind in the end when Jesus comes to Rapture the Church out of here. If you would want to you can read what happened in its entirety by just googling Toby Bethel. Thank you and God Bless, toby003

title: User:Wipermanjoe


text:
Samoa First Party

Samoa First (Faamuamua Samoa), officially the Samoa First Political Party, is a political party in Samoa. The party is nationalist, supporting the protection of customary lands and opposing Chinese immigration. It is led by Unasa Iuni Sapolu.

The party was registered in July 2018. In March 2019 the party unsuccessfully contested the Fa'asalelega No. 2 byelection. Following the by-election the party's candidate, Lema'i Faioso Sione, was banished from his village for not supporting the candidate backed by the village council.

The party held its official launch in February 2020. It then began to prepare to contest the 2021 Samoan general election.

In May 2020 the party joined other opposition parties in calling for the Land and Titles Bill to be delayed.

The party launched its manifesto in October 2020, promising to repeal the Land Titles Registration Act 2008. It initially endorsed 10 candidates for the 2021 election. but ultimately only nominated 6. On 11 December 2020 the party announced an electoral alliance with the Tautua Samoa Party and Sovereign Independent Samoa Party, under which the parties would support each other's candidates in seats where they are not running against one another.

During the 2021 election the party did not win any seats and earned a total of 207 votes nationwide.

title: Samoa First Party


text:
User:UBX/User were

Rules

 * DO NOT copy the source of this userbox. Otherwise you risk putting your userpage in a miscategorization.

Usage

 * Put this Userbox on your userpage like this:

title: User:UBX/User were