From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Extended content
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Red links

Hi Dan. Any features that are likely to ever have their own articles should be left as red links. See WP:REDLINK. — kwami ( talk) 21:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply

It isn't likely. Editors aren't interested in Pluto any more. There's been one new article for a Pluto region in the last five years. Dan Bloch ( talk) 04:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Red links are also bot-collected, with a list of priority articles for creation based on how many incoming links there are. This one has only 2, so pretty low, but if red links are deleted that number can't increase. — kwami ( talk) 08:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm still not convinced. The New Horizons flyby was in 2015. The data is back, the papers have been written, and people have already created all the Pluto articles they care about. Also for features without a lot of science or a lot of PR, the USGS Planetary Names website entries, e.g., WGPSN, which are linked from the List of geological features on Pluto tables, probably have more information than a Wikipedia article would have. Dan Bloch ( talk) 05:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
True. But we created articles for named features, and these were named only recently. Are they less deserving of articles?
But you're right: interest has diminished, and we're less likely to get new articles than we were. Or at least they'll be created at a slower pace. Maybe this is a question for the REDLINKS talk page. — kwami ( talk) 06:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
How about if we put in the redlink for six months, and remove it some time after that? Dan Bloch ( talk) 21:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Hardly worth it, I think. Unlikely to happen that quickly. There are also all the other unlinked features; this one's only different in that it would have a second incoming link. — kwami ( talk) 23:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
I had an epiphany and realized that this has come up before and there's already a standard solution in place for many of these features. The What links here? page shows features which are redirects to the appropriate section of the features list article. Unless you have an objection I'll add a redirect for the Safronov Regio (which will turn the redlink in the Viktor Safronov article blue). Dan Bloch ( talk) 01:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply
That should work. — kwami ( talk) 02:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Images cohort articles

Sorry I did not see the image because in mobile view the infobox isnt shown. Thanks for pointing it out. Nsae Comp ( talk) 18:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Orphaned non-free image File:American Ultimate Disc League Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:American Ultimate Disc League Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 03:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I want your opinion...

Hey man. I always thought you were a clear-minded logical person. So I ask; With the March trial delayed, Trump is practically guaranteed to be the president again, right? Joe Biden is widely considered too old and A great majority (3/4) of America loves Trump Say he will fix the economy, solve Israel/Ukraine.

So does Democracy still have a chance? Or will Trump return? Or do you see that as a good thing? Orastor ( talk) 05:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply

In my opinion? There are still too many unknowns. Trump has three other criminal cases which could come to trial, and he seems to be getting more incoherent which could affect people's opinion of him. And I don't think three quarters of America loves Trump. I think about 40% love him and the rest think of him as a compromise. A reputable nationwide poll a couple of days ago has Biden up 50-44, though you can't draw too many conclusions from that either, both since what really matters is per-state polls and because no one knows how third-party candidates will affect this.
So IMHO, things are still way too close to call. Dan Bloch ( talk) 17:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks! Orastor ( talk) 19:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Wikitext article additions overnight

Some very dubious-looking edits from user:Wikideas1 have appeared on help:wikitext: a statement that the language is called WML, the addition of a "WML logo" in the form of a jigsaw piece, etc. Also an addition to the WML disambiguation page. Am I right in assuming they're just vandalism and need reverting? Musiconeologist ( talk) 13:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm still assuming good faith. Technically, even arbitrarily bad edits aren't vandalism if the editor believes them to be true. I'll revert these edits for now. Feel free to join in if it keeps happening. Dan Bloch ( talk) 01:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks. I don't always have the energy, but if I have I may well do. In that section at least—the sentence about lowercase is my addition from several years ago, after a talk page discussion about not capitalising the terms (and after checking the whole page for instances of them). Musiconeologist ( talk) 02:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Most legitimate markup languages have a logo. Wikipedia's logo Has morphed a lot over the years and is probobly one of the best logos out there. Maybe the Wikimedia Foundation should host a competition for a letter logo and symbol logo for their markup language. It has to start somewhere. -- Wikideas1 ( talk) 15:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Hi. I don't necessarily disagree with this, and I'd be interested to see where it goes, but it would be hard to get consensus on it. I'm not even sure where you'd start. Help:Wikitext's talk page might be a place, but only if you frame it in terms of a change to the page. The editors there are unlikely to be interested in creating a logo. Dan Bloch ( talk) 07:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

  • Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
  • Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
  • Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
  • Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
  • Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
  • Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
  • Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
  • Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
  • Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
  • Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
  • Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
  • Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
  • Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
  • Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
  • Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
  • Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
  • Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply