Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  Policy   Technical   Proposals   Idea lab   Miscellaneous  
The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.
« Older discussions, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58

Page Previews


Page Previews is a software feature that allows readers to read an excerpt of a linked article’s lead section without leaving the page they’re currently on, by hovering their mouse over the link. It has been activated by default for logged-out users on all Wikipedias except German and English since August 2017, and numerous further bug fixes and technical improvements have been implemented since. A few weeks ago we announced some updates to Page Previews, published the results of our latest round of A/B testing, and asked for your feedback. These updates resolved all of the issues identified in the discussion held at the English Wikipedia last year. In our A/B tests we found – as expected – that when the feature is enabled, readers will open pages in their browser slightly less often (a decrease of around 3–5% in regular pageviews). But on the other hand, they interact with a lot more different pages when one counts both the seen page previews and the regular pageviews (an increase of around 20–22% in the number of distinct pages interacted with via either method). In addition, the option to deactivate the feature was used very rarely (disable rates were around 0.01%). This leads us to believe that Page Previews is a welcomed feature that is helping readers learn more during their visits.

Based on these results and on feedback we’ve heard so far, we plan on continuing with the next step of rollout here on the English Wikipedia, which is turning the feature on by default for logged-out users.  This will mean no changes for logged-in users. The feature will be off by default for logged-in editors, unless currently enabled. If you would like to enable it, it is available in your Preferences under “Appearance”. If you have the feature enabled already, it will stay on.  We plan on implementing these changes within the next couple of weeks.

In terms of future changes for logged-in users, we have a few options we’d like to request some feedback on:

  • Keep the feature off by default for logged-in users.  
  • Turn the feature on by default for new accounts only. Currently, when users move from being readers to contributors and create an account, the feature will seem to vanish, and that would be confusing.  As a further step in the feature rollout, we plan to change this configuration and enable the feature for all new accounts.
  • Turn the feature on by default for existing logged-in users (Even if it were enabled for everyone, it would still be automatically suppressed for anyone who uses NAVPOPS.)

What do you think the next step should be in terms of behavior for existing logged-in users?

Yours, OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC) (Product manager, Readers web team, Wikimedia Foundation)

Fantastic, glad to hear it! 20% is huge, that's really great to see, readers must love. In fact, just the other day my wife (who doesn't edit but sees me) said she wanted it turned on for readers; she'll be thrilled. Regarding the next step, I think option 2 is the way to go, it should provide a seamless transition for everybody. I don't use them because I like the advanced features of the Navigation Popups gadget, which is our most popular gadget; as such, given the conflict with popups, option 3 isn't really an option. but I imagine there are people with neither on who like it that way. And, I know from when I'm not editing, having these tools is the #1 reason to stay logged in, so I think keeping it off for all logged-in users will, as you say, be jarring and surprising for them, and in the end, counterproductive. Thanks again for all the work! ~ Amory (utc) 12:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for a very good product! Sounds like you guys really want to roll this out for all new accounts (option 2). Go for it! I find no fault with option 3 either, but I think it's wise to hear what the community thinks. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 14:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Amory and Finnusertop that option #2 is a good idea and should be uncontroversial. I'm neutral on option #3. Kaldari (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Option 2 seems best. It will be nice to finally see it launched. Hope that soon we can add reference popups into it, so we can get rid of the other gadgets that do that. Might be wise to give the documentation page another look over, and make sure that people can find how to change the content of the popups, how to turn it off etc. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 09:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
There's currently a consensus against enabling previews by default. Of course consensus can change, so a new proposal on Pump Proposals would be needed. It should contain prominent link to the previous RFC, and of course it should not exclude the status-quo consensus from the list of options. Previews are a very love-it-or-hate-it feature, and for logged-out users it's infuriatingly-hopeless to even attempt to opt out. You know the default is just going keep coming back until up give up anyway. Alsee (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • It looks as though the OP is aware of that discussion, since they obliquely cite it above, but I agree that any new feature needs community input before enacting. There is the possibility that the community would be against any default enabling (even for logged-out or new users) of this new tool. I'm not sure where I stand as yet, but I do agree that it is not the sort of thing that should be just dropped in, without asking for community input on how it is enabled. --Jayron32 15:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@Jayron32: we're open to getting as much feedback here as possible. We cross-posted to VPT yesterday, but would welcome a wider audience as well. Could I suggest that this discussion be added to the centralized discussion template to get more participation? OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@Alsee: you say, "There's currently a consensus against". It is my understanding that the result of that conversation from 2016 was "no consensus". A large number of the users voting oppose stated that they were voting oppose explicitly for the behavior for logged-in users. This is why we're here asking on what the preferred behavior for editors would be, as we understand that this needs further input towards consensus. You also say, "for logged-out users it's infuriatingly-hopeless to even attempt to opt out.". The results of the linked research show that folks can find the opt-out feature without difficulty and that the opt-out rates are remarkably low. See above where I mentioned, "disable rates were around 0.01%". That being said, we’re happy to have more discussion about the feature, in any format that people think is appropriate. OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that any large change to the operation of en.wikipedia, such as this, should be subject to community consensus. I understand you feel that the objections of the April discussion have been largely ammeliorated, but the only way to know if they have been ammeliorated is to actually seek community input and hold another discussion. Your expectation that those who had voted "oppose" last time have been satisfied could only be determined by actually asking them. --Jayron32 16:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Jayron32: I agree with you, that's why we're talking about it here. Do you have a suggestion for what else we can do? As I mentioned previously, we cross-posted to VPT yesterday. Our suggestion from here would be to add this discussion to the centralized discussion template so that we can reach a wider audience OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
No, no, you're fine. I just wanted clarification that this was a request for input and not an announcement of a pending feature. There's often some confusion between the two; I wanted to make sure you were asking for comments, and not just telling us this was coming down the pike regardless. I'm good. --Jayron32 16:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Jayron if you check the text here carefully, or check the post at,[1] the WMF position is (or was) that this feature is being rolled out as a new default. They were only asking for input on who should be included in that default.
OVasileva (WMF) I see two possible disconnects in the conversation. One possible issue is that we're viewing the last RFC as a standing result. Laws, executive orders, and RFC results, are all generally expected to stand as valid until they are actually superseded by a new one. If you think the last RFC result is obsolete, sure, we can have a new proposal which may reach a positive result. If we make it a new proposal and it passes, great, we build a track record of WMF-Community engagement reaching success on a product. There is important value in WMF-Community engagement even if such a proposal were to fail... there is huge value in collaboratively-preempting the same result manifesting from a hostile contra-proposal.
The other possible disconnect may be a lack of clarity on how we view Pump pages and processes? Pump(technical) is for tech-announcements and immediate tech-problems. Pump(miscellaneous) is for random crap, chuckle. Pump(proposals) is for serious decision making. Also the post here essentially declared that the rollout was happening, and your post excluded the status-quo result from the list of options. So it's not on the proposals page, it doesn't look like a proposal, and we're not viewing it as a proposal.
You asked for suggestion for what else we can do. If you're agreeable that this is a proposed-rollout rather than an announced-rollout, I'd be happy to try drafting it more like a proposal. If you like the result then you/I/we can post it to the Pump Proposals page with an RFC|proposal template. Alsee (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Hey @Alsee: thanks for your concerns. I went ahead and posted a link to this discussion at VPP as well. We’d like to avoid duplicating conversation and forking the existing comments from here. We do want to get as many eyes on this as possible - this is why we posted on VPT asking for feedback yesterday as well as a couple of weeks ago. This is the same sort of conversation we had back in 2016 where we listened to the feedback and acted on it to remove any identified concerns (including the ability to turn the feature off easily which you were asking about earlier). We’d like to highlight that none of our plans are set in stone. We appreciate the enthusiasm for the feature we’ve seen so far, but if major concerns arise in this conversation, we’ll pause and make sure we address them. OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Next Steps

Thank you for your feedback!  It seems the preferred way forward is to deploy Page Previews as on by default for logged-out users and new accounts and off for current editors (the feature can be enabled via user preferences).  As a result, we plan on making the following changes:

  • Deploy as on for logged-out users (off for all logged-in users) now
  • Deploy as on for new accounts in May, 2018

Since we haven’t had any comments over the past few days, we’re planning for making the first change next week.  Let us know if you would like more time for discussion. OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I am late to this discussion, but a point to consider: opt-in for logged in users is least likely to ignite an explosion, but how much feedback do you actually have from the people who will be most affected - the logged out users? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
@Pbsouthwood: - thank you for asking! This is actually something that we’ve put a lot of focus on over the development of the feature. We have quite a large amount of feedback from readers - all positive. As it’s difficult to find ways to communicate with logged-out users on-wiki, we’ve been gathering alternatives in gauging their feelings towards the feature. First, we did a series of qualitative tests in which almost all participants reported very positive experiences with Page previews. We also tested whether previews were a nuisance or annoying (they were not), and whether readers could turn the feature on and off with ease (they could). We also performed a thorough quantitative test on English Wikipedia. The results of this test showed that logged-out readers used the feature at fairly high frequencies which resulted in them interacting with significantly more pages over the course of their session (we saw an increase of more than 20% of distinct pages interacted with despite a drop in classical pageviews). Also, we looked at disable rates - a high disable rate would indicate people didn't like the feature. These rates were actually negligibly low (less than 0.01%). In addition, we’ve been monitoring mentions of the Page previews on social media and other platforms where we have received overwhelmingly positive reception - it seems a lot of people are excited for this release. OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
As long as your methods are robust: I suspect that a large number of readers do not know that it is possible to set preferences, but have no idea what proportion of them. That group would just have to tolerate anything that was thrust upon them, but most readers are probably used to internet sites arbitrarily changing features all the time anyway. If it is what I think it is I use it all the time, and have been opted in since I first found out it was an option. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Yup - we tested exactly for this case actually. Since the disable rates were so low, we were worried that this was due to people not being able to find the disable option. To verify, we tested this ability qualitatively. Users were asked “can you show how you would disable the feature that you see appearing when you place your mouse over links”. All but one of the tested users were able to disable the feature immediately from the settings cog. The other user was actually logged-in and disabled the feature via their beta preferences. OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Your conclusion is incorrect. There is no consensus for deploying Page Previews as on by default for logged-out users. Frankly, the above lack of response doesn't show consensus in favor of turning it on for new accounts either. (Even if this thread wasn't started with an announcement of intention to ignore relevant consensus, three users isn't sufficient for this kind of decision.) You can't just announce a change opposed by prior consensus and expect there to be reasonable discussion about what kind of violations should occur. If you want there to be an actual discussion of whether and how it should be deployed, many contributors here (myself included) would be glad to start a proper RfC on it, assuming the result will be respected. --Yair rand (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
To be clear: The community considered this feature, and rejected it. A future RfC may yield different results, but present consensus is to reject this feature. --Yair rand (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Yair - thanks for writing -- we haven’t seen as much discussion here as we expected, so it’s good to hear more views.
I don’t believe that we have been ignoring community consensus here. The conversation of April 2016 was closed with no consensus, with a recommendation to open the discussion again later, with more data: “I'm sure this issue will resurface, and when it does, we'll have more data to look at, so it might be easier to deal with next time.” Over the last two years of development, we’ve made a lot of changes to the feature based on the comments in that discussion. We’ve also  run a number of tests to evaluate the impact of the feature.
We’ve come back to the Village Pump a couple times in order to share the new data and feature progress and to request new feedback. We’re here now to have further discussion on next steps. We posted links to this conversation in VPT and VPP to make sure that we can let as many people know the conversation was taking place as possible.
So far, all of the feedback that directly referenced the feature has been positive; we haven’t heard from anyone who thinks that turning the feature on for logged-out users is a bad idea. The folks who have posted here with concerns, like you, have been concerned about process, rather than the feature itself. In terms of process, we think we have been transparent about this conversation taking place in as many forums as we could possibly think of. We are confident that the editors that care about this feature have already seen this discussion and have had ample time to comment.
We suggested wrapping up the discussion now because it’s been a while since we’ve received any feedback. That being said, we’re happy to have more discussion about the feature, in any forum that folks feel is appropriate. This conversation we’re having right now is a request for comments, just with a small r and c. What do you think would be different, in a conversation with a capital RfC? OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
@OVasileva (WMF): Thank you for allowing more time for discussion. I'm confident that if we have a more open-ended discussion there will be much more participation. This is the kind of topic that tends to generates lots of interest; the last discussion on it had about fifty participants. However, presenting the outcome as a fait-accompli makes it very difficult to have a serious broad discussion on what steps to take. --Yair rand (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply! It seems we’re on the same page. We want this discussion to be as open-ended as possible. We framed the beginning of the conversation based on feedback we received in the past (from the previous conversation as well as from readers). I would just like to confirm that “none of the above options sound like a good idea because X” is also a valid response here. If anybody reading along feels this way - let us know! OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone! Once again it’s been quiet here for the past few days. As we haven’t heard any concerns with the planned configuration so far, we’re beginning to make the first change as I identified above. Once again, we’d like to highlight that no change is permanent and this discussion is still open for any feedback about the feature and its configuration that you may have. OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
As a "logged-out user" who had no idea that this feature existed before it was imposed, and who is now experiencing it for the first time, I can only say that I find it utterly distracting and annoying. Have you considered that people who don't log in may be looking for a "bare bones" experience, without undesired options? (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Google vs Wikipedia

I have no idea as to where I should report this, but try googling:

....and you get the exact same picture for all three. Lol, so all Arab historians look the same?

It is also pictured on the Iraqi dinar, and according to the Iraqi dinar article it is Ibn al-Haytham.

This is outside "Wikipedia jurisdiction", so to speak, but does anyone know how can this be fixed? Huldra (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Help desk posters often blame us for such Google errors. See Template:HD/GKG. Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

WMF goes Tel Aviv?

What is that Tel Aviv / Wikipedia (WMF) link currently going about? - DePiep (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I haven't seen it but I guess it's about meta:GLAMTLV2018. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit wars in several Catalan politics articles

Discussion has been moved to WP:ANI. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 15:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Filiprino has been constantly deleting information and modifying information without any reliable reference, he has had edit wars with other users, arguing that politicians and organizations against the Catalan independence process have very close affiliations with the far-right, without adding reliable sources, I'm not sure but I think he also used another pet account who did the same edit in the moment of the edit war These edits can be seen in the (1) Tabarnia: Revision history, (2) Societat Civil Catalana:Revision history, (3) Somatemps: Revision history and (4) Jaume Vives: Revision history. What I'm saying is that if he want to hold something like that in these articles that is with reliable sources.

He has already been blocked two times for the same (see User talk:Filiprino).--ILoveCaracas (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I have used reliable sources but you say they are pro catalan independence. I could say that your sources are pro unionism :S In the article Jaume Vives I have removed unsourced material and added information of his news program. I left a message in the talk page of that article. I don't want to incriminate you. I have just described what I have done, which forms part of Wikipedia encouragement of bold editing. Additionally, another Wikipedia recommendation is to not revert and instead modify or edit the parts of a revision. That is what I have done by removing the unsourced material. I have had to read it and check if it is available or if it is reflecting what the article says. Jaume Vives article did not comply with that. The links I removed are this and this and this. The first one does not talk about Jaume Vives but about TV3. It says that the TV TV3 channel has a campaign against Jaume Vives (questionable). The second link returns a 404 Not Found error. The third link is a redirect to without any related information. Because of that, I removed the line of text which used those sources. Additionally I have used this link and this link as source for the El Prisma collaborations and brings information about Jaume Vives and its relation with Tabarnia as promoter of it. I hope these explanations disipate your worries. Filiprino (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

He just added controversial information again with an unreliable source, excusing himself in this above response. Now adding a source with i see a complete radical position, read that url he just post [2]. in the comments of the same page, readers demystify the information of this "media" by saying that the same link that references that page says the opposite. the reference of that link is a blog, which coincidentally ensures otherwise. in summary nothing reliable this source--ILoveCaracas (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The link you refer to is this one, right? Well, "El Triangle" is a known hard paper weekly publication which costs 5 euros in a kiosk and has been under investigation by Mossos d'Esquadra due to El Triangle contacts with Método 3 in their journalistic investigation. Filiprino (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
"El Salto Diario" is again a hard paper publication, of monthly cadence and is not linked at all with independentism. It is not controversial. The article just states the unknown origin of Jaume Vives and Albert Boadella positions in Tabarnia. You accepted that same link in Tabarnia's article. See this diff. In that edit you added the article from the digital "El Catalan" which focuses on TV3 rather than Jaume Vives, the same article you wanted to use in Jaume Vives article. Filiprino (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

that link is not the page of El Triangle, it is a mask, a false page, there is no any link in the site that move you to the main page of the real one, you click anywhere and it takes you to dead links. This is the real website of that media [3] (of which I did not know)--ILoveCaracas (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

El Salto Diario only shows articles of opinion clearly independentists, I have looked at some and nothing else because their titles are radical, I read them and do not show some kind of criticism on the other side, just to one side--ILoveCaracas (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC) is a website which saves snapshots of web pages for archiving purposes. Allows to preserve references. "El Salto Diario" is a well known journal and that article (analysis) in particular summarizes all what has happened with Tabarnia until their first demonstration, including the roles of Jaume Vives and Albert Boadella. Includes events and analyses from other journalists. Filiprino (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not it is a reliable source that I leave to the neutral administrators that can contribute to this discussion. I only see in the links that you pass me a radical opinion and away from reality, based on references that say the opposite when you access it, and fact is based on references that are mere blogs where fans write to various topics--ILoveCaracas (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

the other link is another opinion biased and radical from beginning to end, of a dubious verifiability if it is of that (unkonw by me) newspaper, remember that there are also current newspapers in Catalonia as "vila-web" and hundreds others that behave as a propaganda archive towards the Catalan independence, and who are not interested in their reputation, and not behave like a newspaper that gives neutral information--ILoveCaracas (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion

Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request:
I removed this entry because 3O is for single article disputes. But this isn't the correct venue for this discussion either; if you feel that there is inappropriate behavior across different articles, the discussion belongs at WP:ANI. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 15:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Avicii deceased

Please edit, see WWW & other wiki language versions.-- (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

What exactly are you asking? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 20:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
The request was probably to have the biography updated. Reports of his death were being removed by editors during the half hour or so before this request; depending upon which version the user saw, the article might not have mentioned it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Empty language link

At National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, there are, I believe, three other-language Wikipedia articles's links. However, the simple English one is a tiny bit paler. When I clicked on it, instead of being sent to a Simple English article, I got a notice that I was agreeing to something in translating the English article. What's going on? Kdammers (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

That's the Wikipedia:Content translation tool. The agreement is at MediaWiki:cx-license-agreement (which should look pretty familiar, since it's very similar to the text you see when you save an edit on this page). The paler link means that the page doesn't exist at that language's Wikipedia. Not everyone will see a link to the Simple English Wikipedia there, by the way; you probably see that because you recently clicked a link to that wiki. I see German, Greek, and Czech at the moment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

May I ask a full investigation to a zhwiki administrator?

This zhwiki administrator @AT (his username is AT) recently deleted over 20 wikipages I translated, pages like "Lists of Portuguese people", "Lists of Russian people" and so on, I tried to translate these pages into chinese, and @AT deleted them.

From January 15 to April 15, I post a lot in the zhwiki community, I tried to disscuss with @at but it didn't help. From what I see @AT just make some excuse and pretend to disscuss but actually did not care at all. And @AT got some followers to justify the whole thing for him. In this post[4] I list all the reasons @AT and his followers mentioned, I explain every single reason, but @AT change subject all the time, anyone could see that from that post.

I then post in the zhwiki community ask to remove @AT's administrator job, that pissed off his followers, I got mocked and bullied, my words got twisted, I got blocked 3 times, none is with right reason. @AT and his followers acted like a dictator and his musclemen.

Another thing is this user @Dingruogu, i consider him one of @AT's followers. He is the guy put "Lists of Portuguese people" and "List of Swiss people" and about 20 other pages into the 'Wikipedia:Articles for deletion' then @AT deleted them all. Most recently he tried to delete my another page "Igor Pavlov", known as the creater of the file archiver 7-Zip, I translated "Igor Pavlov" into chinese and he wants to delete it. And just to fit his need, he also changed the enwiki page of "Igor Pavlov" [5]

I know the whole thing happened in zhwiki, and it is indepent to enwiki. but with all the post I did not got much help from othe zhwiki administrators, they remain silence about the deletion, that makes me no choice but ask help from the enwiki and WMF.

If a administrator could delete fine wikipedia pages he doesn't like and other administrators remain silence and the one against him got mocked got bullied got blocked. Then it is not worth editing wikipedia or donate to wikipedia.

With all above, for the good of wikipedia, May I ask a full investigation to this zhwiki administrator?--Jasonnn~zhwiki (talk) 05:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The English-language Wikipedia and Chinese-language Wikipedia are completely separate projects with different communities and standards; asking for help with zh.wp matters here is a waste of time. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 06:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
As Jeremy indicates above, each Wikipedia-language functions as an independent community with local policies and guidelines. Out of curiosity I did view some of the discussions via machine translation. I didn't attempt to follow any policy&guideline issues, but I see no indication that any administrator acted improperly. This is a questionable type of list, and there is nothing unusual in a Wikipedia community deciding that these lists do not qualify as acceptable. Any new article, whether via translation or not, is subject to local policies and criteria for acceptable articles. Alsee (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
acted like a dictator - those types exist in every language Wikipedia but it will depend on the local culture how well they can handle keeping them in check. If they can't be reigned in that is a problem. You may also be followed in hounded. In which case consider change your user ID, work on different types of articles and try to avoid them. Focus on your intent to build Wikipedia and bypass the blockages. -- GreenC 13:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion.--Jasonnn~zhwiki (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I believe that these questions are usually taken to m:Wikimedia Forum – possibly with just as little practical result in the end. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


hi why dump of enwiki is 12 gb but last dump is 13 9 gb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 (talkcontribs) 14:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Por que hay una gran diferencia de articulos entre Wikipedia ingles y Wikipedia Aleman, Español , Polaco, Portugues y Frances?

Denoto que entre las distintas paginas principales de wikipedia hay una diferencia entre la informacion entre ingles y español , ademas de una gran diferencia de cantidad de articulos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kritical Strike (talkcontribs) 17:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Each Wikipedia is independent of every other Wikipedia and sets its own policies, procedures, and standards. The results will, naturally, vary. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles in other languages are not like a book which has been translated. Sometimes it looks as though the English language Wikipedia article has been translated, but people are under no obligation to do this. They can write a completely separate and different article if they want to.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Article life cycle description?

Do we have something which describes the article life cycle? I'm thinking sandbox -> draft -> article -> AfD -> DRV, with lots of loops for editing and discussion at each stage. I can't find such a description, but it seems like we must have one somewhere. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA