Made a proposal at here for a concise edition of wikipedia which is formatted much like an old book encyclopedia with the bare main facts and a smallish word limit for articles as a reference point. Can't imagine all would support, but any input from anybody would be warmly welcome.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld20:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea but why should it be formatted like an old book? Maybe the first priority would be to define volume in terms of both length of individual articles and overall length of the publication. Maybe max. 500 words per article and 100,000 articles for the enterprise. --Ipigott (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiGeograph (or perhaps WikiGeophotograph) seems a better name. I was not aware of the existence of the UK Geograph and have just been playing around with it. I found the navigation very easy and discovered lots of photos of places I know well. Yes, it would indeed be great to have the same approach for Denmark - and of course for Luxembourg too. But maybe it would be more manageable to take it one continent or country at a time, starting with Europe, at least to assist project management. --Ipigott (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that already kinda what Simple Wikipedia does? The articles are shorter, simpler and don't have all the details of the WP ones and if the person wants a longer one they can come here. Kumioko (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I am fairly new to it but have been editing there quite a bit this month and it seems that the general attitude there is that the article should be simply written and short, lacking many of the deep in the weeds details that would be required for an article here to make it to FA. The general attitude seems to be that if the reader wants to get more details then they can simply go to the larger more complete article (presumably) here if they want more info. Kumioko (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, I am thrilled to see that you are still active, Kumioko. I have been thinking for some years about trying to do something there, but bloody things keep popping up on an almost daily basis here. Basically, my own impression, for what little that might be worth, is that a lot of the content there is, more or less, a bit longer than the lede sections in the main wikipedia are supposed to be. That is in no way bad, but I myself think, maybe, it might not be a bad goal to have most of the articles for a possible "concise wikipedia" to be basically about as long as our ledes here, with maybe some of the more involved articles, like United States, Christianity, Physics, and others a bit longer, serving as sort of an equivalent to the Britannica macropedia articles. Maybe. Anyway, Kumioko, if you ever deal with any content relating to Christianity over there, and think that maybe some discussion of it in the Christianity newsletter here would help, let me know, or, if you want, maybe even write out what you want to include in it. John Carter (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, technically every wikipedia article should have a book encyclopedia type lead summary. Unfortunately the vast majority don't have a decent lead...
Not likely much, the response has been a little underwhelming. When 10 times as many people comment on an RFA than a new encyclopedia proposal it makes you wonder why you bother...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld16:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still think this is an excellent proposal. The only reason for my hesitation in becoming actively involved is that I tend to commit myself to too many things at the same time. But I am nevertheless a strong supporter of the idea. --Ipigott (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think we all have the same thoughts about commitment to such a project. but its just those who are interested in the concept initially I guess. Such a project would pick up contributors anyway if it was created.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld16:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we do have enough support, but just not clarity in them. Maybe a plan on the issue might help. Everyone has different ideas about everything else. So a point-by-point discussion might help. (P.S. I dont check the meta much so it might help if you just tell me when something happens there) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting idea; did you have something like Britannica’s micropedia in mind?
If the content would be similar to the introductory section WP articles are supposed to have, the project could get a head start by copying over the lead passages from all our FA and GA standard articles ( about 20,000 so far) and I suppose a push to fix the leads on our other articles, and adding to the concise collection could go hand in hand. Is that what you had in mind?
On a practical note, did you envisage having it open for anybody to edit, or having some kind of protection/semi-protection? If you did use FA leads, they should be about as good as we can get them already; the danger of unrestricted editing would be the quality would only go down. Another aspect to that question (by comparison with Simple WP, which has been mentioned) is that with a (probably) smaller group of committed editors, the proportion of crazies/editors-with-an-agenda is likely to go up; you don’t want it to become another refuge for dodgy opinions.
Anyway, good luck with it. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody reading this, his Evilness says hello! I noticed yesterday that World Gazetteer, a highly valuable population resource website by country has announced its closure in July. I feel it would be very important to try to salvage the data and process it into wikidata before the website is shutdown and we can continue to build it and eventually try to provide population data for most settlements in the world which is there for every wikipedia to use at their fingertips. Please comment at my proposal here if you see potential in this to get the ball rolling.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld10:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Liu-Wang Liming
On 1 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Liu-Wang Liming, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Liu-Wang Liming, a Chinese feminist, was imprisoned after being accused of being a spy of the CIA in 1966? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Liu-Wang Liming. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 1 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wang Huiwu, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Wang Huiwu has a memorial in Wuzhen, extolling her contribution to the cause of women in 20th century China? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wang Huiwu. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Ankit MaityTalkContribs12:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have declined the above deletion, as it was a BLPprod for someone who died in the 1970s. However, I moved the page to User:Dr. Blofeld/Gottfried Grote as it was a poor, machine-translated article with near-incomprehensible results. "He arranged in his fields Wupper the 3rd time Heinricht contactor festival in Germany." should be something like "He arranged during his time at Wuppertal the 3rd Heinrich Schütz festival in Germany". Most of the rest of the article suffers from the same problems. Although something like "the Wupper fields Kantorei Choir at the Old Fields Church in Wuppertal Wupper." is rather funny, it isn't useful. Any reason why you didn't copy the one source the original German article had? Creating unsourced articles isn't really beneficial either. Fram (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This obviously works both ways. Couldn't you wait a few minutes before bringing an article to the mainspace? First get it up to a minimum level of correctness perhaps? Fram (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it matter if within 30 minutes the article is fully translated and sourced properly? You should know that "Creating unsourced articles isn't really beneficial either." is a dopey statement to make. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld13:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dopey actions get dopey replies I suppose. Any indication what the notability of things like Amelia's Incline is supposed to be? This isn't some major tunnel, but this. Not every hole dug through a rock by the military (presumably) is a notable "road"; it is part of the "streets in Gibraltar" template, but clearly isn't a street. Your selection of which tunnels to include and which to exclude seems entirely random, some like the Fosse Way, Molesend Way or Dockyard tunnel are missing (perhaps correctly, but they seem at first glance more worthy of an article than this incline). Tripura Road Transport Corporation, by the way, is an unsourced article; it's almost a week old, I hope that's old enough to be allowed to mention it? Oh, and Gandhigram, Tripura. And Tripura Medical College. And Kherchi puja (which should be at Kharchi puja). And Garia puja... Fram (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes that's right you're our resident expert on content building and sourcing. In that case you'll be happy to expand my new Gibraltar road stubs using your superior researching and wikipedia building prowess to produce further Good articles like Flat Bastion Road.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld16:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't even a road. Have you even looked at what you created, or just blindly created it from some list without checking anything? Seems to be a habit. I don't get it, you are quite capable of creating good and great articles, you do it often enough, but inbetween, you produce total crap ones, filled with errors or devoid of any information, without any interest in establishing even the most basic claims to importance, and without any indication why such often quasi-identical articles weren't better of in a list. Fram (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thinking of going to back to only creating total crap articles devoid of any information. Maybe if people started paying me for the time I put in here I'd come up with all good articles.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld18:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked a few of your new road articles. I corrected the most blatant problems. Perhaps you need to slow down a bit, as it is not helpful at all if you introduce such basic errors with such frequency. Fram (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So instead of replying to anything, at all, in a relevant manner, you go off on a tangent time after time, ignoring the real problems I highlighted? You feel that because you do loads of good work here, the real problems some of your other work has shouldn't be mentioned? You may freely mock my researching skills or mention the Flat Bastion Road GA (where I did more to get it to GA than you did, if only by pointing out all the rubbish that others had introduced in it but which you didn't seem to care about), but I hope that the research you put into your DYKs and your GAs is significantly better than what you did for those Gibraltar roads articles you invited me to, as these wouldn't even get accepted at AfC. Fram (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You forget who you're speaking to Fram, if you stay away from me for a while I think you forget this. I don't tolerate haughty editors hounding me and my articles, you know this. I can be one of the most difficult assholes on here if I feel like it and right now I feel like it because of your attitude. I don't have to edit bugger all here, it would be different if this was my job but I'm under absolutely no obligation to contribute anything of quality or worth to the project which is essentially a charity. Why time and time again you think you're in a position to give orders to others and ransack every edit people make to get off your high horse and bully people baffles me. This isn't a workplace or law court, we're free individuals contributing whatever we feel like to wikipedia. You disappoint me Fram, I thought we'd clarified this between us but it seems you still don't get it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld19:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't forget, I just don't care about your attitude. You have the same reaction every time again, you can't stand it when someone points out real problems and get all evasive about it and use the tired old "the attack is the best defense" tactic. "I'm under absolutely no obligation to contribute anything of quality or worth to the project " is true, but there is also no obligation for the project to accept work without any quality or worth. "we're free individuals contributing whatever we feel like to wikipedia." is hardly correct: people get in trouble for contributing things which are not in line with Wikipedia standards. If you contribute utter rubbish, you'll get a reaction about it. It seems that you only want to get praise when you deserve it, but don't want criticism when you deserve it as well. Perhaps some people turn a blind eye to your many problematic edits, because of the many very constructive ones you make; but that is not the way it is supposed to work here. Usually you calm down after one or a few days, and can ignore the user name that causes this initial reaction and look at the content of the message instead. I suppose the same will happen now as well. Fram (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between constructive, friendly criticism and downright rudeness and stalking of edits and contributions. The way you initially turned up here was fairly constructive in offering advice on how to construct articles which was fair enough, but you couldn't help yourself but to ransack through my articles and scoff at them to make your point. That's what made this turn nasty and your comments since have been rather impertinent haven't they? OK Fram, change of approach, thou art my master, Lord of all things Wiki. Thankyou master for pointing out my treachery and misconduct. Please give me a few cane whips on my bottom and put me in detention and I will return to Belgium and establish a wiki academy in your name for cultivating perfect editors Fram's Academy of Perfect Wikipedia Editors. This is what your goal on wikipedia is of course? ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld19:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your first reply (to my "fairly constructive" comment"; "Can't you wait a few minutes??". Your second comment indicated that that "fairly constructive" comment was actually a "dopey statement". Perhaps consider whether you had anything to do with the negative turn this conversation had, instead of blaming it all on me. Fram (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, your advice for creating articles with sources and properly translated before creating was fine, I just thought you'd have been aware of mine and Gerda's approach to building German-related article and that the outcome is usually good and that I generally almost always sources my articles nowadays. That was why I said it was a dopey statement because of my work with Gerda, like that palace article, always gets sourced and proofed, see how many article on her user page have been produced in such a way. The Tripura stubs were created quickly as a fill in for red links on an article at FAC. On the day they were created I was heavily sidetracked with other things I had to do off wikipedia and haven't been all that focused on wikipedia of late so you digging those up to infer that I never source my articles I found rather irritating. Perhaps I shouldn't have created them without having the time to make them half decent.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld20:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, not aware of that approach (I don't follow your actions normally, I just noted that one of your articles was nominated for deletion due to your talk page being on my watchlist, and that's how I ended here). I never understood why having inadequate bluelinks would be better than having redlinks on a FA, but that's not something you have chosen either. And please, tomorrow or so, reread my comments here; I never tried to infer that you never source your articles or anything similar, I tried to include the respect I have for many of your contributions, which are exemplary (and better than most of mine); but they only make the relatively regular lapses (no sourcing, poor sourcing, lack of notability) more baffling. Note that KW finds pleasure in inserting himself in discussions which involve me in some capacity, to oppose my position no matter whether he knows or cares anything about the actual diszcussion. Probably a remnant of me having blocked im once. Feel free to deal with him as you see fit, I'll just ignore him. Fram (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is though you have a tendency to turn up to my talk page and alert me of errors, mistakes or prompt me for creating total crap. If once in a while you turned up here with some kind words about a GA or DYK I contributed to (or just for some friendly banter, I am open to all in that respect) instead of only turning up here in a negative situation I might think differently about your intentions.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld20:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the most social person, I try to only comment when I have something Wikipedia-related to say. There are usually more than enough people spreading praise (everywhere, I don't mean here especially), but most people tend to ignore problems and seem to be afraid to utter criticism. I am a bit of the opposite. Doesn't make me very popular, but I am not on Wikipedia to be popular or to make friends (nor to make enemies, but for some people, it comes across that if you don't try to be friends, you are an enemy apparently). Like I said above, I have great respect for the quality and quantity of most of your work here. Fram (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but yes, the impression I and a lot of editors have of you is that you are here to only point out errors in other people's work. When I see the name Fram I almost always know it is going to be related to an error or complaint of somebody's editing. In a way I'm glad there are editors about like you who do a remarkable job of scrutinizing the work of others and identifying problems with articles, but at times it does look as if you have nothing but contempt for others and their contributions mostly by the way you dig out errors in people's work to get across your points. As I say it wasn't the fact you moved the article to the user space or your suggestion to create once translated here but the way you dug up one of my contributions and used it to get your point across. It made it look as if you watch everything I do and was a little creepy in all honesty that you are able to dig up just about anything like that in any given situation. That you are aware of seemingly everything I do here is impressive but at times a little irritating! I suppose the quality of my edits is often a reflection of my concentration on wikipedia. Some days I'm pretty busy and have wikipedia on in the background while doing something else so I might pop up and make some sporadic edits or some stubs which I haven't the time to properly research at the time of creation. But I've generally always tried to balance my contributions between proper writing and stub building which I think is important for growth on wikipedia and a lot of my work does encourage others to build on what I start which I see as a positive thing. Some days I scoff at anything less than a GA, other days I feel it is acceptable to create some rather poor stubs, I'm inconsistent, I know.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld20:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(written before your expansion, will look at that tomorrow) For some reason I'm quite good at finding errors and problems. Rest assured that I don't keep lists of errors handy; everything I posted here, I found between one post and the next. It's some sleuth ability that makes it possible to swiftly find hoaxes and so on (remember the first time you encountered me on your talk page? Way, waaaaaay back?). I can imagine that it can be annoying though. It is not intentional, but intentions and results don't always match. I'm calling it a day now, good night! Fram (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On 2 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article COMINAK, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Akokan is one of Niger's two "uranium towns" located nearby the COMINAK and SOMAIRuranium mines? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 2 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SOMAIR, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Akokan is one of Niger's two "uranium towns" located nearby the COMINAK and SOMAIRuranium mines? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 2 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Akokan, Niger, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Akokan is one of Niger's two "uranium towns" located nearby the COMINAK and SOMAIRuranium mines? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
A to Z done. Please make link pages to USA (Alaska), [China]], Denmark (churches galore) and UK as we have done too many articles for these countries.NVV
Cheers Doc! I actually remember telling you when we started this project that I preferred it when people worked on articles in their sandbox to at least a start class before moving to mainspace but I now recognise how useful it is to have someone like yourself creating all of these little stubs. It's the first step and can attract various contributors to expand them. Otherwise it can literally take years before they appear - hell, just look at my own sandbox! :/ So much to do but so little time! Anyway, I'll add some bits to them as I go along. Thanks again! --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me11:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will add to the navbox this evening (I'm just on my work lunch break at the moment!). As you know my main focus is on Gib; it's what I'm most knowledgeable in but I'm of course happy to lend a hand. Algeciras is a classic example that's just sat in my sandbox untouched as others have taken priority. I did promise to help though so do let me know when you make a start please. --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me11:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On 4 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wildlife of Mali, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the threat due to deforestation in the wildlife of Mali(pictured) resulted in economic damage of an estimated 5.35 per cent of GDP, in 1997? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wildlife of Mali. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 5 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Pascoe, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Fremont Hotel, originally managed by Thomas Pascoe, appeared in the background near the end of Charlie Chaplin's debut film, Making a Living, in 1914? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Alright, sure, but I never meant to sound oh all critical... Take your example, I didn't mean to criticize you, but the source did say March 8, which I assumed you misread so I helped you fix that.... Which is what a team should do! Like, you know, help one another. If my edit summaries come across as "snarky" to you, I apologise and I hope there will not be any hard feelings. ☯ BonkersThe Clown\(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FAC
Are you going to review Ra.One for FAC? You said you would do so about a week ago, and I've had no response. The FAC has slipped out of the current list and is now in a backlog. I would appreciate it if some progress could be seen. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Your submission of Pieter Goos at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! NinaGreen (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
