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, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56

Multiple English articles should link to one German article

The German Primetals Technologies links to the English Primetals Technologies. However, Voest-Alpine Industrieanlagenbau links to a German article which redirects to the German Primetals article. The content in the German article is essentially the same as the content of both English articles, but there was a discussion of sorts that led to most of the information being moved from the English Siemens VAI article to Voest-Alpine Industrieanlagenbau. For the German Siemens Vai article there was a redirect to Primetals instead. I don't believe the Primetals article in English should have the historical information because it's essentially a merger of two companies. Is there some way to link to the English Voest-Alpine Industrieanlagenbau from German?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't entirely understand what you're trying to do, but if you mean you want to insert a link here that goes to German Wikipedia, the way to do that (for example) is [[:de:Primetals Technologies]], which produces de:Primetals Technologies. You can pipe that link like so: [[:de:Primetals Technologies|Primetals Technologies]] = Primetals Technologies. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
My objective is to link a German article on the left side of the page and vice versa. It's sort of misleading when German Wikipedia has one article on a topic where English Wikipedia has two.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay, no one seems interested in helping. I do know that the content which appears in the German article is divided between two English articles and the English article that the German article links to directly has a link to the other article because I removed content that was duplicated and replaced it with a link.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I can't even do it manually. It asks me for the language but then it never lets me enter the name of the article I am linking to. And the box to click on when I am finished doesn't work.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah, they've changed the interlanguage links menu again. In order for it to work you have to enter the language as "Deutsch" or "dewiki". Then the article box should populate with articles that you can link to, or maybe you have to start typing the name of the article before it will populate. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Now my real question is how to have a German article link to Voest-Alpine Industrieanlagenbau, because at this time no article does. From the English article, there is a link to a redirect resulting from a move. The redirect target links back to its English equivalent, as I mentioned above.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I'm starting to see your issue. Our Voest-Alpine Industrieanlagenbau interlinks to German de:Siemens VAI, which is a redirect to de:Primetals Technologies, which itself is interlinked to our Primetals Technologies. I think what you want to do is go to the German article that you want to interlink to Voest-Alpine Industrieanlagenbau and then create a new interlink from there which will overwrite the interlink to de:Siemens VAI. That should be fine, nobody will be trying to use the interlink from the redirect, and you'll be making an improvement.
If you want the German article to interlink to two English articles, I don't think there is a way to do that, unfortunately, the links are 1:1. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The problem, of course, is that de:Primetals Technologies has all the content in Voest-Alpine Industrieanlagenbau and the German article with the name closest to that also redirects to the same German article.

I don't think we really want that in English and I question whether it was the right way to go in German, because Primetals is a new company that combined two other companies. Someone who is now blocked (leading me to wonder if I did the right thing) suggested all the history from Siemens VAI go to the other article, and then Siemens VAI merged with the other company to form Primetals. I made the change, which means the Siemens article has very little actual content. I proposed a merger which would supposedly solve the problem, but I'm not sure what is the right thing to do.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The one way to get to the English article is from the "History" section of the Primetals article. It consists entirely of a link to the other article for now. Someone repeated nearly all the content, but that's probably because they used the same source. By the way, I did this in German. I don't know that it's really meaningful, but the name is spelled differently there.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I did something wrong. The box let me enter an English article to link to from the German redirect I just created. Then it wouldn't complete the change.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Editing Archives

When did Wikipedia change to allow editors to post in Archives? What was the rationale for this? Is there a protocol or etiquette to follow when adding to or editing archived discussions???--Jack Upland (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Do you have examples? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I meant Talk page archives; for example, recently at Talk:Joseph Stalin. I don't have a great problem with what the other editor did, but (unless I'm mistaken) it wasn't possible for editors like me to do that until recently (???) but now it is... There seems to have been a change with the permissions, and I was wondering if anyone could enlighten me when and why???--Jack Upland (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
It's possible that some archives are protected, or that there's an edit filter for new editors which checks for that, but I reverted edits to archives multiple times and have sometimes unarchived discussions. —PaleoNeonate – 20:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
As far as I know, there's no policy or guideline which restricts editing archives per se. The {{aan}} archive page header template says not to do so, but neither templates nor template documentation create policy. It is, of course, a idea which varies from bad to futile for several different reasons but to my knowledge there's nothing that authoritatively says that you can't do it. That doesn't mean, on the other hand, that it couldn't be seen as being disruptive depending on the apparent intent and circumstances and, of course, it could also violate the talk page guidelines depending on what is done. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
And if you're talking about the edits here, I'd say that they fall in the futile category, that is, edits by a newcomer who doesn't realize that they'll probably never be seen since they're on an archive page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I've undone those edits and left a message on that user's talk page. That's generally the best way to deal with it (at least in my experience). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
The usual protocol is to un-archive the discussion, and then reply. (Cut the old discussion out of the archive, paste it onto the regular talk page, and then reply as you normally would.)
There's never been a technical restriction beyond suppressing the section editing links, and sometimes edits are very helpful. For example, I've corrected links to other discussions (e.g., Archived Discussion #1 links to the now-archived Discussion #2) and added links to Phab tasks. It's not usually worth it, but sometimes the archived discussion is being actively discussed (e.g., at WP:DRV or in an WP:ARBCOM case). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
The Teahouse archives don't have section links, which makes it harder for me, but the Help Desk archives do. Every now and then I see a link to a section on the Teahouse and because everything was archived, the link doesn't work, so given that there is a chance someone will find the discussion, I make sure the link works. There are other times when information just has to be corrected, or perhaps there was a response on a talk page and I just want to make clear the question was resolved.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for all those responses. It appears that I naively assumed that editing archives was undoable, not just "not done" (inappropriate). You learn a new thing every day! I want to stress that I did not object to what Sein und Zeit did; I was just surprised that it was possible. Clearly it's better to post your comments in live discussions rather than comment in archived ones that other people are unlikely to read... The previous and more serious example I saw was that Sagecandour had peppered the archives of Talk:Whataboutism with comments re-asserting the opinion that he amply explained on the current Talk page. Putting this together with the Stalin edits by Sein und Zeit, I wrongly assumed that there'd been a change in policy... Evidently, I was wrong... Thanks once again to all who have responded.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

AFD nominations of "Sport at X games" and "Country at X games" articles

Lately, I have noticed an increased number of such articles being nominated for deletion, mostly for failing WP:GNG (examples include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denmark at the 2017 World Championships in Athletics, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tennis at the 2017 Commonwealth Youth Games and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three-cushion billiards at the 2017 World Games – men's singles). While I personally have no strong feeling about such articles, I think such nominations are possibly problematic, since we literally have thousands of articles, all of them in the same format and usually with the same amount of sources (or lack thereof). There is WP:NOLY as a guideline already but it only applies to Olympic Games, not others. Should we have an RFC on whether such articles should exist? Again, no real interest, just bringing it to wider attention to avoid a potential overwhelming of AFD. Regards SoWhy 11:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Such "event/team at multi-nation multi-sport tourament" articles only exist because it is impractical to cover every aspect of the entire tournament in a single article. An Olympic, Paralympic or Commonwealth Games spawns several hundred such articles - merged into one it would probably end up several megabytes long. Similarly, continental or world athletics championships result in dozens of articles. If the tournament as a whole is notable then every team, medallist, race/match at such a tournament is almost by default also notable because the media of every participating country will report on their team's performance. How often do such AFDs end in deletion? Excessive subdivision of articles should be avoided - sometimes a separate stubby article for every permutation of men's/women's singles/doubles heavy/middle/light is not justified, then merging is a solution. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
"If the tournament as a whole is notable then every team, medallist, race/match at such a tournament is almost by default also notable because the media of every participating country will report on their team's performance." Not at all. While this is true for the major things like the Olympics, it is not true at all for small tournaments (like many youth tournaments or regional tournaments), where there are e.g. some articles about the tournament in the press of the organizing country ("Belgium welcomes young athletes from 12 countries in the 2017 U-17 Korfbal tournament"-style articles), but not enough coverage by far to warrant more detailed articles on "Luxemburg at the 2017 U-17 Korfbal tournament" or some such.
The above example is imaginary, but we have e.g. Gibraltar at the 2011 Commonwealth Youth Games, which is a "Good Article" but one that should be deleted anyway. It has at the moment "zero" independent sources (and yet it is a Good Article? GA assessment is an area in serious trouble...). Fram (talk) 10:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I have started the GAR process for that article. The user listing it should be investigated to see if he made similar errors in judgement with other pages. --Izno (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Here are sampled articles deleted per AfD: Hockey at the 2013 East Asian Games, Aquatics at the 1983 Southeast Asian Games, Lists of soccer matches at <venue>, Weightlifting at the 2015 Commonwealth Youth Games (redirected), etc. More at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sports/archive or Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Events/archive; type Ctrl+F (i.e. use your browser's "Find" tool) and then type " at " to narrow down results. Seems to me that such topics are subject to notability rules. --George Ho (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Renaming

Should be renamed articles:

--SrpskiAnonimac (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@SrpskiAnonimac: This is the wrong venue for requesting renaming. WP:RM has instructions for requesting page moves (and these move are not uncontroversial and need discussion to establish consensus to change the existing primary topic redirect arrangements. olderwiser 14:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
@Bkonrad: If they are similar articles (English, Spanish, Scandinavian, German, etc) why the debate is needed?--SrpskiAnonimac (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
@SrpskiAnonimac: While superficially similar, the context is quite different. For example, English and German have never been anything other than a disambiguation page while Spanish and Scandinavian have been disambiguation pages since 2001 and 2002 respectively. Putting aside that both Scandinavian and Spanish are currently pretty poor examples of a disambiguation page, English, Spanish, and German are inherently ambiguous in that they may refer to the language or to the people. Scandinavian arguably should be a redirect to Scandinavia as nearly all the entries are partial title matches, but that would be a separate matter. Español, at least as used in English, pretty unambiguously refers to the language. Even in Spanish, the term for people is Españoles, not Español. Except for relatively short periods, Español has consistently and mostly uncontroversially been a redirect to Spanish language. Old German is perhaps a weaker case. It was first created in 2004 as a redirect to Old High German, then almost immediately changed to be a disambiguation page. Then in 2006 it was moved to Old German (disambiguation) with the edit summary This title should redirect to "Old High German." The other usages are far less common and Old German has been a redirect to Old High German until your recent edit. Looking at the page, I'm inclined to agree with the edit summary for the 2006 move, but perhaps there is some evidence to indicate otherwise. Similarly, Aramaic (disambiguation) is nothing but a list of partial title matches and the Aramaic language article is clearly the primary topic. olderwiser 15:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Card platform

The Wikipedia Library team are happy to announce the migration of our free research access signups to the Library Card platform! The Library Card is a centralised location for signing up to all of the free resources available through the library - now totalling over 60 publishers and databases offering access to more than 80,000 paywalled periodicals to help you research and find citations for Wikipedia articles. On-wiki signup pages have been archived, and all future signups will be coordinated on the platform.

Log in directly with your Wikipedia account via OAuth, and if you find resources that would be useful to you, please sign up! Ongoing development will be occurring for the site, so please let us know if you run into any error messages or unexpected behaviour. You can flag bugs directly on Phabricator.

Later this year we'll be integrating an authentication system, enabling direct access to resources using your Wikipedia login. No more need to remember separate logins for each website! We'll also be using this system to allow automated no-application-required access to a subset of partners, and integrating it with a search tool to make it easier to figure out which aggregator or publisher has the content you need! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&oldid=795787151"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)
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