Does cannabis extract obtained from cannabis flowers with maximum allowed residual level of aflatoxins and ochratoxin A have an impact on human safety and health?

Posted on March 8, 2022 By LabLynx Journal articles

Change links
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


Vandal Warner

I put on Vandal Warner, but I can't find it when I'm editing talk pages. Why? Magnolioideae (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolioideae What do you mean 'Vandal Warner'. I suggest using twinkle as it is easier. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 09:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme: Vandal Warner is a gadget you can enable in preferences. @Magnolioideae: I tried using it when I started editing here, and I believe in a certain theme it appears in the sidebar but the buttons have never seemed to work for me. I just use Twinkle or do it manually instead. --Ferien (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme Okay. I'll just stick to using Twinkle instead. @Ferien Thank you! Maggie🌺 talk edit 15:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferien, You're a life saver thank you!, The buttons have never worked for me either and I just assumed it was somehow related to Twinkle, Never knew I had Vandal Warner enabled so thank you :), –Davey2010Talk 15:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferien One question though: How do you install Vandal Warner in manually? Maggie🌺 talk edit 15:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Magnolioideae, when I meant "do it manually", I meant applying the user warn templates manually by adding {{subst:uw-vand1}} (for example) to talk pages, rather than using Vandal Warner to apply them. --Ferien (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Thank you for explaining this misunderstanding :) Maggie🌺 talk edit 16:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same here! Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it works here anyways. (for most people) Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 02:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you've enabled the "Vandal Warner" tool but can't find it while editing talk pages, here are a few things to check:
  1. Compatibility: Ensure that the Vandal Warner tool is compatible with the current version of the platform you're using (e.g., Wikipedia). Sometimes, updates to the platform can cause issues with older tools.
  2. Correct Setup: Verify that you've correctly installed or activated the tool in your preferences or user scripts. Double-check the installation instructions to make sure everything is set up properly.
  3. Script Conflicts: Other user scripts or gadgets might conflict with Vandal Warner, preventing it from displaying. Try disabling other scripts temporarily to see if that resolves the issue.
  4. Page Type: Vandal Warner may only be visible or active on specific types of pages. Ensure you’re on a talk page or a page where the tool is designed to function.
  5. Browser Issues: Clear your browser cache or try a different browser to see if the tool appears.
Rizwan867 (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rizwan867 Does it work for you?, I'm curious now, –Davey2010Talk 17:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rizwan867 was this comment LLM generated? Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images

See the main page: Non-free content proposals

I know this was brought up fairly recently but I missed it due to being on vacation. The old-timers can tell you I would start a discussion every year about this. This time I'm proposing that we would solely allow those pictures that are already being used on enwiki. No other non-free images would be allowed under any condition. This would solve a lot of the time and effort issues that have already been brought up many times before. Any image that doesn't appear of the enwiki version of the page would be forbidden to use here. I think this would solve the effort problems and also allow non-free images for TV shows, comic books, and other cases where having an image would add clarification to articles. Thoughts? fr33kman 20:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts:
  • I assume this means we would be hosting images here. How much administrative burden would this add?
  • What if a non-free image being used on enwiki stops being used there? Would we remove it here, or keep it on the grounds that it used to be used on enwiki?
For convenience, here are some relevant policy/guideline pages I found on enwiki:
-- Auntof6 (talk) 08:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isnt that what wikimedia is for? [1] Rathfelder (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder: In general, yes. But there are some images that Commons doesn't allow. Some of those can be uploaded at enwiki, following certain requirements, and this proposal is that we also allow it here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a non-free images stops being used on enwiki then I would think we would stop using it here. As for admin burden this is why I'm suggesting that we only permit images that are already on enwiki. This way they will have already gone through the burden for us, we'd simply follow what they do. We'd let them hash out the rationale, copyright concerns etc and we'd use the image after enwiki has addressed all those issues and simply use the end product. fr33kman 21:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend that only still images being allowed and that non-free video clips, text, and the like be banned. There will be a brief amount of initial overhead as we create the appropriate guidelines and usage templates for local usage but that would be a one-time only thing and that day-to-day use of non-free images would be easy to implement and that the local upload of the image would be simple to enact. fr33kman 21:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fr33kman: If a non-free image stops being used on enwiki, how would we know? -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bot could be made to monitor the situation and then inform the project or remove the image. Then manual deletion would need to be performed. I don't see it as something that would need to happen often. Enwiki doesn't often delete non-free images very often. fr33kman 20:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I ment to say that it would not be a problem that would come up much. fr33kman 09:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: see Bart Simpson vs w:Bart Simpson as a simple example of article improvements offered by a rigorous non-free policy.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure if Mediawiki offers interwiki file embedding into pages (other than from Commons), so that might need to be a feature request to avoid rehosting every en.wiki file. - Tule-hog (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing the global file usage between the first and second hints the non-free use policy is a broad issue in the Mediawiki ecosystem. Tule-hog (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Each image would need to be hosted locally, commons can't host them. fr33kman 20:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting interlinking from en.wiki not commons, hence hosted there (not commons). My comment is in reference to that not being possible as of now (as far as I'm aware). Tule-hog (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no precedent for this within Wikimedia. I'm not sure how feasible such a technical exception compared to the other wikis would be. TheDJ (talk) 11:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I've said it in a past discussion but it's never made sense to me as to why we don't either host images ourselves or somehow piggyback off of the English Wikipedia as strictly speaking we're kinda the same ...., Anyway and to my knowledge all other local Wikipedias host their own images so why shouldn't we ?, I don't see a reason why we can't host images if I'm being completely honest. –Davey2010Talk 21:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See the Media Statistics for Wikipedia for why re-hosting is probably not preferable if it can be avoided. 300GB isn't huge huge though, certainly not in comparison to Common's stats. Tule-hog (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree I dont think we can use enwiki images directly but using extra bytes won't be a problem right away. It'll take time for images to be uploaded locally and used locally. Plus we are only talking about images which by default will be lo-res as using higher Res pics would be against the non-free rationale. fr33kman 09:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe a phabricator task can be started to see if we could link to and use enwiki images? fr33kman 09:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of the non-free content that exists on enwiki can only be used on specific articles on enwiki. I think it'd be very unlikely that a phab task would let us just link to enwiki articles. I imagine we would have to import them on a case-by-case basis. Non-free content not used in any articles on enwiki are sorted into categories and deleted, and we may have to track our non-free files here in a similar way. --Ferien (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral - Simple English Wikipedia, like any other independent project, should have the autonomy to host its own non-free images. This would definitely enhance the quality of TV shows, comic books, and movie related articles. Also, using non-free images from English Wikipedia seems like a feasible and effective approach. So, why not? – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 06:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: Based on the feedback from other admins, it appears that implementing this proposal would demand significant manpower, which we may not currently have on SimpleWiki. While I personally appreciate the idea of hosting our own images, I lack the experience to fully understand the implications. Therefore, I will defer to the judgment of those with more experience in this matter. I am changing my vote to neutral, as I neither support nor oppose the proposal at this time. – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 17:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, i guess this is a comment now; this wiki does not have 'neutral votes'... Eptalon (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Using {{Neutralvote}} works? – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 17:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And as to counting: not counting towards support, not counting towards oppose,not counting towards the total number of votes? Eptalon (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, Got it. I guess my comment works as feedback instead of a vote. – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 17:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The main reason why we don't allow image uploads, and take the images from commons is that handling the formalitiers associated with it is likely too much for our small community. Yes, it might be thrilling to say that to illustrate an article about a movie you can now use a scaled-down movie poster. I also think that the content of this Wikipedia should stay free. For the last 20 years, this wikipedia was able to survive with the images/media it had from commons. So, from my side, this is a clear oppose.--Eptalon (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I haven't made a !vote on this either way but reading into this further now, I think Djsasso's comment, albeit the one he made on a past proposal on this same issue in 2011(!), says it best: A> We don't have the manpower to deal with it. (not even en can deal with it) B> It takes away from this wiki being a simple wiki. ie by adding complicated licensing issues into the mix. Doing this leads directly into us being a copy of en. We are supposed to not be en. One of our major differences is that we don't use non-free images because they complicate the editing of the wiki with complex licensing issues. To be frank I don't think many people here I can't actually think of a single editor here who has the knowledge necessary to police this. Now this isn't a knock against them its simple fact that fair-use image law is very very very complicated. I really don't think much has changed since that comment was made in 2011. If anything, I believe we now have fewer active editors than this wiki did in 2011. The non-free content criteria as it exists on en right now is very complex and it is the type of thing we would have to transfer to protect us from a legal perspective. It isn't something we could simplify any further. I really don't think it is worth the work on our end when a reader can just go to enwiki and find it instantly. --Ferien (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The suggestions about importing from the English Wikipedia or transcluding the images through linking to the English Wikipedia also do not appear to be technically feasible. There are 500,000 non-free images linked to articles on enwiki, mostly images already, with almost 400 orphaned files due for deletion. Editors on the English Wikipedia have done their job to make the non-free images valid for use on their articles and are not intended for use cross-wiki. As stated above, each file needs to pass numerous criteria to simply exist and one of those is that it needs a valid article to link to and an explanation on why it's needed on that article. And realistically, the justifications for using the articles on en's articles and our articles will have to be completely different because our articles are not the same. It is not going to be something we can do en masse, it is going to be a lot of work simply to bring the non-free content here – as each one will have to be worked on one-by-one – let alone maintain it and ensure the justifications continue to remain valid. --Ferien (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which non-free use criteria would be invalidated by the 'simple english' version of the same article? I think that question is the crux for this particular proposal. Tule-hog (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm focusing on point 8 of the non-free content criteria, contextual significance. Would the lack of a poster be "detrimental" to the understanding to the article of Furiosa (movie), as one local example? I personally don't think so. On the enwiki article, w:Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga, I think the need is greater, but honestly, I'm not confident it would be "detrimental" if it were not there.
    I find that specific criterion to probably be the broadest and most complex one because it just depends on how a certain person views the need, ie it is a subjective criterion and not objective. Copied here for the benefit of other readers: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. With quick deletion criteria, that we would likely have to expand to allow for non-free content should we go ahead with this, we are looking for things that can be checked easily so a deletion request can easily be accepted or declined. With non-free content, that'd definitely be more challenging. I should note, that criterion can be simplified, perhaps to something like Non-free content can only be used if it would really help readers understand a topic and not having it would stop them from understanding it., but the issue with how subjective it is remains. --Ferien (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My idea is that only images that pass enwiki's criteria would be used. Enwiki would do the work, we'd reap the benefits. We'd also likely only be talking about using a couple of thousand images in total. fr33kman 12:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Enwiki's criteria is dependent on their articles and need in given articles. Continuing on from the example above, the associated file for this article is w:en:File:Furiosa A Mad Max Saga.jpg. I do now recognise this is a template, so it would not be as much work as I had initially expected for some articles, however the template uses the following default response to "Purpose of use": Main infobox. The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work, product or service for which it serves as poster art. (bolding mine). I find it extremely difficult to say our local article, Furiosa (movie), offers sufficient critical commentary to the work to use non-free material, because it is a basic description at best. This would also be the case for many movie articles. Enwiki's work alone will not allow us to use non-free content, because our articles are different and non-free images have to be imported/uploaded for specific articles. --Ferien (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I see why it would beneficial, but I also see how much of a burden it could be on the admins' shoulders. If this is approved, I will not be helping, not because I don't like the idea, but because I am very afraid of copyright and similar issues (same reason why I have never uploaded anything on Commons). So, as a non-admin who won't be helping much, I vote  Neutral. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 15:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was originally going to stay out of this discussion but the more I think about it, the more I realise the problems. If we had the editor numbers we used to have in the late 2000s / early 2010s I believe this proposal would be a no-brainer. However, as Djasso states in their !vote, we do not have the manpower nowadays to sustain such a system. And while thinking about the proposal of using bots, such a system would be difficult to maintain and be generally unreliable. There is also the problems of enforcing fair use criterion which because of our low editor numbers would be a problem (a legal problem at that).
TLDR: Non-free images are too dependent on manpower that we just don't have, so I Oppose.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 17:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If not handled properly, this could be one of the biggest problems we might have to deal with here. I'd also like to Oppose this. However, if there is an actual means to automatically import, evaluate, license and update image based on enwiki is in place, I will be happy to change to support.-BRP ever 16:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly here to seek approval

I recently created a category for pages tagged as {{historical}} (Category:Historical pages) but wanted to see if there was any opposition to me making it so any transclusion of the template would automatically add it to the cat.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 13:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No opposition from me. --Ferien (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 12:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 02:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good fr33kman 12:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objections after a week,  Done.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 11:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will *your* talk page, *host* a new thread?

Alternative literature (see
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_literature
). Is there any wikipedia-user that will let their Talk page, host the creation of a stub? (That stub would be the start of the title, Alternative literature.) Regards from IP-for-all-of-2024's-third-quarter: 2001:2020:359:8904:8167:8349:1882:33F4 (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, You're more than welcome to use WP:SANDBOX, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You (or anyone) can start that article at Sandbox.--I will not (start that article there).--If this reply is regarded as simple and polite, then fine. Thank you. 2001:2020:359:8904:298A:C4BA:BD57:D0DC (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:359:8904:8167:8349:1882:33F4[reply]

QD of non-offensive redirects (and justification for such)

When a redirect is bad (without being offensive), can QD be justified? How then would one justify the following QD (without saying more than that it is a bad redirect)? Please see

simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geothermal_power&action=history
, which shows the bad redirect for Geothermal_power. 2001:2020:359:8904:298A:C4BA:BD57:D0DC (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see m:DDR, w:WP:CHEAP. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 01:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme Yes, but this redirect is clearly bad, as it redirects from a type of energy source to a specific power plant. 2601:644:9083:5730:488:19E9:B97E:CC52 (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not it redirect it to geysers, which are geothermal power sources Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 02:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The target page isn't about geysers in general, it's just about one particular group of geysers in California. 2601:644:9083:5730:488:19E9:B97E:CC52 (talk) 03:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then change the redirect to Geothermal energy Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 03:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, thanks! 2601:644:9083:5730:488:19E9:B97E:CC52 (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red flags of science (popping up again)

Ambipolar electric field - please consider de-publishing or USERFY.

(This article makes me about as uncomfortable as the one that i wrote about in July: That thread was 'Please remove a false statement (about Chemistry) from an article'.)--Justification: thousands of hours studying science, gives me a feeling that something (or much) in the Ambipolar electric field article is not right.--FWIW - I doubt that our article will be regarded as having redeeming qualities, if one asks En-wiki if that article could be of interest to them (and they do not have that title). 2001:2020:341:BA4B:8456:85DD:62AF:8765 (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that most of the sources that talks about it came about recently and the fact that this was just recent discovery (the NASA article as of writing is just one day ago), I highly doubt that this article will be suitable for English Wikipedia as per the lack of in-depth coverage of the subject. Maybe giving it more time to have more coverage? But as of now, it's best to just de-publish the article given that it has no article yet in en-wiki. AsianStuff03 (talk) 06:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:AsianStuff03 brings up some excellent points.--For now, i do not think it would be enough to tag the article (with any number of tags).--Perhaps we could move the mention, to the relevant article about the blah-blah-sphere of the atmosphere (the one which is at one hundred and umpteen km/miles above the Earth's surface).--With the current article, i think that we are running the risk of it becoming a milestone in a negative way. Perhaps not unlike, The Emperor's New Clothes.--Anyone has my support in nominating the article for Delete (while i fix other articles). 2001:2020:30B:CC99:61FD:DB12:D4B2:6879 (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:341:BA4B:8456:85DD:62AF:8765[reply]
Hi, have you thought about starting a WP:RfD? ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 16:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that another Wikipedia (English or any other Wik) does not have an article on this topic is irrelevant. We are an separate Wik and not some sort of daughter of the English Wikipedia. Kdammers (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, anyone is welcome to suggest the contents of our article, to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics .--Not even their "ten-foot pole cabinet", will be opened in connection with that. At least not this month.--Me? I will be busy fixing other articles, and sniffing out other dubious (or even not-yet-ready-to-be-wikiPublished) stuff. Good luck! 2001:2020:30B:CC99:61FD:DB12:D4B2:6879 (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This change in electric potential energy [sic] is just the right amount to explain the supersonic solar wind."--This sentence has at least two areas that ('might') need work (and at some point one would also have to make wiki-links).--Suggestion: Anyone can write an article about the rocket taking off and splashing down (and then anyone can fill in (or dabble) about the scientific observations done while the rocket was underway). That article would quite possibly be a 'keeper'.--As for our (bad-science article or) 'science' article, one would need a nomination for Delete, before I 'can' 'bus in' more science experts to also look at why we should not keep the article (and likely not keep the title, either).--Good luck (while i am working on other articles, and looking out for nomination for Delete). 2001:2020:335:9888:29BA:2379:7311:EB0B (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:341:BA4B:8456:85DD:62AF:8765[reply]

    Clarification: Suggestion: Anyone can write a new article about the rocket taking off and ... .--Another thing: canvassing is not permitted, of course. 2001:2020:335:9888:C5F3:A2A:1C92:A271 (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC) //2001:2020:341:BA4B:8456:85DD:62AF:8765[reply]
    Hello IP, with very few exception, anyone can write an article on anything they like, in Wikipedia. As to the article:
    • there is a site of NASA, explaining it; it also has a nicve (fairly recent) explanation video, see here
    • I find scientific artilces about the effect, the oldest one from 1955, see here
    The article itself is in simple language, so what reason is there to delete or userify it?
    So if you think it should be deleted, make a request; but in my vew, this is a legitimate, simple article Eptalon (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I try to check, once every week, if the article has been nominated for Delete.--Taking it from that point (a prospective nomination), will be fine.--Chances are, the article will then crash and burn.--Then the (de-published) article will become a benchmark of sorts, and will serve as a warning of sorts, about one way we might not be taking care of things, in the future.--Train wrecks reach a point, when it is too late to stop (one might say).--It would be possible to take the article (verbatim), and put the title as a section, in some existing article; As a last section in the Arctic area article, will not make the situation go from bad to worse, one might claim.--However, the money shot (so to speak) will be the results from the (prospective) Delete discussion. 2001:2020:351:A342:D51B:FEDC:4A2A:7B37 (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

To move Category:Pokémon monsters to Category:Pokémon species? It is a more relevant title related to the game.

Wikipedia users mind-blown after finding hidden function they never knew about

I just thought you people should know. It'll be interesting if it increases traffic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to say the same thing. It's comical how wrong they are about exactly what Simple is, as it is obviously not a "function" but an entirely different website, but even reliable journalists often get the finer points wrong when writing about WP. Just Step Sideways (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its kinds funny how they confused it. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 03:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would really be interesting is to see if the number of editors increases. Eptalon (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here comes some more: People only just learning hidden Wikipedia function that makes site easier to read. Well, it's not like this wiki has been around since 2001 or something like that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was expecting this to be some sort of button or feature that no one knew existed .... but yeah Simple is more than just a "function", Surprised these aren't DailyFail news pieces to be honest, –Davey2010Talk 18:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same thought, like am I missing something. But yes, definately more than a function; they got this idea from a viral TikTok, interesting. – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 19:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These things typically don't increase the number of editors we get, from what I have seen. This one came up on my YouTube Shorts a couple years back, as a hack for "beating teachers" :O (but didn't end up in any increase in editors) --Ferien (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's so weird how they write about this Wikipedia as if it was some "hacker tip" and how they tell you to change the URL instead of, you know, checking the languages or simply coming to this site. It really shows how little they know about how Wikimedia projects work. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 22:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two new good articles

Hello, Nestor Makhno and Temple of Confucius are now good articles. I promoted them earlier today. Thank you to all who contributed, good work. Eptalon (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eptalon Remember to move them, I did it for you. Thanks Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 07:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special character sort keys

Hi, I proposed two changes regarding special character sort keys. Please, join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories#Special character sort keys. Thank you :) ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 23:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject under vanished user name

We have WikiProject Paralympicsat User:Vanished user adhmfdfmykrdyr/WikiProject Paralympics. This seems to be the only page for this WikiProject (no userbox template, for example). It seems to me that WikiProjects should be under active users. Does anyone want to adopt this project? If not, maybe we should close the project. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 Can I adopt? I don't want to let a Wiki project die. Can you move for me? Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 01:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme: I can, but I'm in the middle of something right now. I'd want to take time to make sure I get all the pieces and change the old user name, so hold on until I can get to it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I will work on the template. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 01:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme: If you work on any part of it, it will make it harder for me to change everything over. Can you wait until I get to it? It won't be long. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay sure. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 01:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme: Your comment on User talk:Cactusisme/Wikiproject Paralympics Barnstar says that the original was made by me. What original? -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From User talk:Vanished user adhmfdfmykrdyr Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 02:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6 Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 02:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme: I didn't make that. I just used the generic barnstar template. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it still a good design for the wikiproject. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 02:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the topicon for? -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a icon Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 02:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme: "Just an icon"? A WikiProject here doesn't really need a top icon. But if you're going to have one, make sure it's set up for the project that's using it. Look closely at what's in it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 05:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme: You still need to look closely at what you have in the icon code. I'm going to let you figure it out so you get some practice debugging. :D -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6 I'm not really good, but let me see. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 06:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme: It's pretty obvious. I'm sure you'll find it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6 Check now :D Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 06:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its a really funny and dumb error I made. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 06:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably check before I post next time. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 06:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme: Yep, it was the name of the project. :D Not sure the gold medal makes a good image for it, but whatevs. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now you figured out how I got the code. Don't tell anyone. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 06:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme: Why not? Plagiarism is an old and respected technique in coding. I made good use of it during my career, and others copied code from me. Why reinvent the wheel? -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.. Really, wow. :D I don't really know this decade old code so maybe it fine. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 06:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a CS student, couldn't agree more. That's how coding evolves. – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 07:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idea — Admin coaching/mentorship

Considering that we've lost 3 sysops this year and the active request for de-adminship, and the ever increasing stress on our dwindling number of admins, I think it would be a good idea to incorporate a version of enwiki's old admin coaching system to help prevent misuse of the admin tools in the first place and familiarize new admins with how to use them. This would also decrease the need for intervention from existing admins to address issues. It does not need to be a fully fledged course, instead being a flexible system where admins that choose to participate can help coach new admins and address their specific needs when they're available. With any system there's going to be some cracks so what are your thoughts on this? FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  12:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, with recent discussion relating to the misuse of tools, I think this is very necessary, so that the admin tools won't be abused. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 06:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we unofficially have a system like this already. When I first joined the sysop team just over three years ago now, I think I was given a warm welcome and other admins told me if I needed help with anything I could ask them. I don't see the need for an introduction of a flexible system, I think many admins are just happy to answer questions about using admin tools whenever they'd like – I certainly am at least.. --Ferien (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferien How about coaching if you are planning to be admin. You could ask any questions you have to experienced admins. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 10:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that can be good, I just don't see a need for a new venue for it. If anyone has any questions they want to ask admins, they can just ask us through our talk pages without having to go through a course :) --Ferien (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 10:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good :D FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  11:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we do have this in principle anyway. As an admin, if you don't know something, you are free to ask. I was never a fan of the coachinh system on enwiki, it gives a high level of scrutiny over what could be a daft question. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am of the same opinion. If things are difficult onwiki, there's IRC to make things easier. BRP ever 16:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cactusisme/WikiProject Paralympics

Anyone interested? Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 06:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Announcing the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee

Original message at wikimedia-l. You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

The scrutineers have finished reviewing the vote and the Elections Committee have certified the results for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) special election.

I am pleased to announce the following individual as regional members of the U4C, who will fulfill a term until 15 June 2026:

  • North America (USA and Canada)
    • Ajraddatz

The following seats were not filled during this special election:

  • Latin America and Caribbean
  • Central and East Europe (CEE)
  • Sub-Saharan Africa
  • South Asia
  • The four remaining Community-At-Large seats

Thank you again to everyone who participated in this process and much appreciation to the candidates for your leadership and dedication to the Wikimedia movement and community.

Over the next few weeks, the U4C will begin meeting and planning the 2024-25 year in supporting the implementation and review of the UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines. You can follow their work on Meta-Wiki.

On behalf of the U4C and the Elections Committee,

RamzyM (WMF) 14:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who wants to bet on another "special election" happening?- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 14:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is going to happen. However, it seems this charter and the committee is by far one of the most unpopular one to exist. BRP ever 16:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question is, how much of this percieved unpopularity is due to voter fatigue and how much of it is because people aren't a fan of the U4C and UCoC.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 13:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's latter. There was large participation in first election and the results were similar.--BRP ever 13:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have your say: Vote for the 2024 Board of Trustees!

Hello all,

The voting period for the 2024 Board of Trustees election is now open. There are twelve (12) candidates running for four (4) seats on the Board.

Learn more about the candidates by reading their statements and their answers to community questions.

When you are ready, go to the SecurePoll voting page to vote. The vote is open from September 3rd at 00:00 UTC to September 17th at 23:59 UTC.

To check your voter eligibility, please visit the voter eligibility page.

Best regards,

The Elections Committee and Board Selection Working Group

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hell yeah!! XXBlackburnXx (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
12 to 4. – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 17:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted earlier (but not easy to prove (?) as of September)

WikiProjects

Unlike the English Wikipedia, where WikiProjects are managed on dedicated pages, our WikiProjects are hosted in user spaces. By default, this means that all related content, including templates, also resides in the user space. However, could we create templates that, while remaining in user space, can be added to the talk pages of articles to indicate that they are part of a WikiProject? – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 16:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no. The projects are in userspace because they are not official. They are really more like workgroups for people to work together on something. No article (or category or whatever) is really part of a WikiProject, or officially managed or controlled by one, or anything like that. Using the kind of banner templates you describe would contradict that. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 09:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WMF ignoring or just not responding to my emails??????

Is there a reason behind that????? 14.192.209.182 (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop proxying to evade blocks! The block is meant for YOU, not an individual account or IP, as I said before. Plus, try to communicate with the people on the Wikipedia IRC channel. You might get a better and faster response. 🪐 Haumeon the Adventurer 🪐 17:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given this comment about their editing, I'm not surprised that they're not getting any responses. Ravensfire (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The stewards have banned the user now. 🪐 Haumeon the Adventurer 🪐 19:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Haumeon I suppose I'm a bit late to this but please, just ignore the user. Do not reply to them, do not engage with them, report to WP:VIP on sight, and ignore. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 05:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
or global block, its better Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 12:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^ this. Stewards will probably act on it faster than our local admins can.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 13:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If blah-blah, then (also) nominate for QD ('notability not shown' as of September)

If no one can find mention at En-wiki, then also please nominate for QD ('notability not shown in article').--That the second thing has c. nothing to do with the first thing, is an idea that i have no problem with.
This linked article.--(I will not be checking En-wiki for this type, of articles this week. However, I will be busy fixing other articles.)2001:2020:301:C66D:9156:C155:9D04:B262 (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC) / 2001:2020:301:C66D:9156:C155:9D04:B262 (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting essay to read in the meantime. :) ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 14:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not wrong, this is a version of en:Green children of Woolpit. However, I agree with Dream Indigo above. 2001:2020, You keep asking other people to do things like nominate pages for deletion, when you could do that yourself. 12.190.177.187 (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions - when an article sucks (and seem unencyclopedic) then there will be suggestions et cetera.--I hope it makes things better for ya, when suggestions will come the way - of talk pages. So good luck (while i fix other articles). 2001:2020:345:A089:709D:FE93:EFAF:22A3 (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only your requests are always difficult to understand (what does If blah-blah, then (also) nominate for QD even mean?), but you are also pretty rude about it. I see no "please", no "thank you"s, but I read words like "sucks". You are talking about articles written by volunteers, be kind, thank you. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 17:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the article you want to delete due to its apparent lack of notability, Green-skinned children of "St. Martin's Land", is a featured article in 3 languages. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 17:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


If you (too) are a volunteer, who fixes articles (that individuals choose 'for themselves'), then good for you.--I don't care if an article has 50 blue ribbons and medals of honor, and Best in show, on other wikipedia versions. If an article comes along (here) with green men on Mars, or in a field in England one thousand year ago, then it 'better' have at least one source (or perhaps be a famous story). Or QD is a tool that can come in handy.--For the word "please", then count eleven words after the title. (Note to self: The article seems not to be a hoax (or a tall tale) about green men in an English field. Other wikipedia-users are sort-of vouching for the topic of the article.)--I might miss this thread (while i am busy fixing other articles). Bye. 2001:2020:31B:AD3C:5D1A:B118:5B6A:10C (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:301:C66D:9156:C155:9D04:B262[reply]

Bye bye ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 18:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronism

Continuing discussion from User talk:Davey2010
Hello @Davey2010, I need a secondary opinion about an issue. User:Gotitbro recently removed many categories from a number of articles, citing them as anachronistic in the edit summaries. Could you review these diffs and let me know if you find these categories problematic? I’d appreciate it. I don’t think User:Gotitbro wants to follow my advice and build consensus on the talk pages, and my continued reverts would only lead to edit warring. Here are the diffs: (Special:Diff/9750197, Special:Diff/9750186, Special:Diff/9750208, Special:Diff/9750209, Special:Diff/9750246, Special:Diff/9750250, Special:Diff/9750253, Special:Diff/9750257, Special:Diff/9750263, Special:Diff/9750276, Special:Diff/9750289 (Somehow Category:Monarchs of Afghanistan was left alone, but Pakistani monarchs was removed as "anachronistic"), Special:Diff/9750295, there are still lots more, as they spent a significant amount of time removing my contributions. – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 14:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The issues with nationalistic POV and anachronistic editing were originally notified at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Chronic sockpuppeteer and further discussed at User talk:Gotitbro. I am brining these issues to a larger audience here.
A specific reply to the above: Remove Afghan as well if need be, I was more focused on clearly recent introduction of anachronistic POV. Also most of these diffs have nothing to do with cats.
Coming to the diffs themselves in order, the first one is not mine; "Indus Publications" is not RS and neither is "Indus Greek kingdom" used in any scholarly or historical RS; limiting the Sikh Empire anachronistcally largely to Pakistan is obvious POV, the term "Indo-Pak subcontinent" is very uncommon and largely not used in scholarly literature, Tibetan control was very transitory and barely of note listing that is dubious; removing every term related to India is obvious POV; lisitng any of these monarchs as Pakistani is obviously supported by none of the sources and is clearly anachronistic and ahistoric as is lisiting centuries under that appelation.
You would know that these are larely your own OR and synthesis, since none of this is supported by actual RS. I have not spent my time removing your contributions, merely reducing on the face POV is not a bar on your contributions. That you continue with the same edits [2], [3] is also telling.

Gotitbro (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The effort here is to introduce the anachronistic and ahistoric terms as "ancient Pakistan/Pakistani" and the like (no accepted scholarly source uses these terms), listing/categorizing Mughal and other emperors as "Pakistani" (akin to lisiting Mesopotamians as ancient Iraqis and Roman emperors as ancient Italians) and the like; no other wiki accepts this. I am not the only one who has noticed this POV and anachronistic disruption, enwiki users when the user's recent unblock appeal also did (after being blocked for socking); with blatant POV and SYNTH articles such as Ancient Pakistan (says something when the user completely redirected Ancient India to India naming dispute - another dubious article created to serve as a proxy for "Ancient Pakistan"), Middle kingdoms of Pakistan, Hellenic Pakistan (the latter two terms are entirely OR) being noted as reasons to deny that appeal.
The goal here is to render anything within the history of South Asia no matter how remotely connected to modern-day Pakistan to be entirely within the domain of "Ancient Pakistan" and the like. Similar efforts at historic distortions at the Polish (WW2) and Macedonian Wikipedias (Alexander the Great/Macedon) were undertaken by various POVPUSHing disrupters and took a great deal of effort to put an end to. The faster this is nipped in the bud the better, ahistoricism is not going to serve our projects any good. Gotitbro (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not unique to Pakistan. There are categories on English Wikipedia, such as en:Category:16th century in Bolivia, although the country was named after Simón Bolívar who was born in 1783. The borders of Bolivia didn't exist at that time either. There is en:Category:10th century in Ukraine, although there seems to be no evidence that the name "Ukraine" was used at that time. Also it was part of Kievan Rus', which is the progenitor of both Ukraine and Russia. 12.190.177.187 (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to the IP's response, there is also en:Category:Ancient Slovakia, en:Category:Ancient Bosnia and Herzogovania, en:Category:Ancient Croatia, en:Category:Hellenistic Croatia, and en:Category:Ancient Turkey; all of which, based on the reasoning in the above discussion, too could arguably be considered "anachronistic." – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 16:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That other anachronistic stuff may or may not exist is of no concern to us for the present topic at hand, our concern is South Asia which I know enough about to see the blatant ahistoric POV issues that are being purveyed here on simplewiki. There is a reason anachronistic "ancient Pakistan" related edits find no space in any wiki (as clearly witnessed in the discussion linked above) or any scholarly literature. The issue is not limited to cats it extends to in article content where nationalistic disruption of a whole slew of articles in the South Asia space has rendered them barely comprehensible to anyone familiar with that topic area. That you simply refuse to see how these edits are problematic is worrying.
PS: I took a look at the "ancient" cats listed above, most of them barely populated and Ancient Turkey actually redirects to :Category:Ancient history of Turkey. None of them exist as articles (not even as redirects), none of them are labelling ancient peoples and entities with modern appelations in articles et. al. Not that any of this should matter, the issue at hand is that your edits in the South Asia are untenable. Gotitbro (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that "Ancient Pakistan" lacks a basis in scholarly literature or that the term "Pakistan" cannot be used in an ancient context (prior to the modern country's creation) is certainly incorrect. Numerous reputable works have utilized this term in relation to the region’s history. Mukhtar Ahmed, a well-regarded author on South Asian archaeology whose works are also cited on English Wikipedia, has produced the multi-volume series Ancient Pakistan: An Archaeological History (Volume I, Volume II, Volume III, Volume IV, Volume V). He writes, "...archaeologists often call the whole area the Greater Indus Region or the Greater Indus Valley. Thus, Ancient Pakistan is essentially the Greater Indus Valley; it is more a cultural and geographic unit than a political one." Five Thousand Years of Pakistan ("anachronistic?") by Mortimer Wheeler. Temples of the Indus - Studies in the Hindu Architecture of Ancient Pakistan by Michael W. Meister. The Greeks of Ancient Pakistan by Rafi U. Samad originally published in 2002 by the University of Michigan. Ancient Pakistan by the Bulletin of the Department of Archaeology and University of Peshawar 1964 (Has upto VII volumes). Ancient and Contemporary Pakistan ISBN 9789699837029, 9699837020 by Afrasiab. The rise of civilization in India and Pakistan ("anachron"?) by Bridget Allchin, Raymond Allchin. The Ancient Martial Arts of Indo-Pakistan By Robert G. Zepecki. Early Civilization in Pakistan from the 8th to the 2nd Millennium BC ("anachronic?") published by Oxford University Press. Ancient, medieval & recent history and coins of Pakistan by Sohail A. Khan. The Indus saga and the making of Pakistan (talks about "ancient pakistan") by Aitzaz Ahsan published by Oxford University Press. The region of Pakistan is often referred to as the "Greater Indus Region" or "Greater Indus Valley" in archaeological and historical contexts, which is also mentioned in the above quoted sources. – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 05:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly the problem with uncritical source dumping I was talking about. Robert G. Zepecki (self-published/non-RS); Aitzaz Ahsan (politician, not a historian or scholar); Afrasiab (self-published/non-RS); Mukhtar Ahmed (self-published/non-RS), can find nothing about him being a historian (or who he is really), some enwiki articles using non-RS not withstanding; interestingly enough this what is Wheeler's article on enwiki (an FA) has to say about this book "He also wrote a work of archaeological propaganda for the newly formed state, Five Thousand Years of Pakistan (1950)", the same can be said about the bulletin; Rafi U. Samad's book is from Indus Publications (non-RS), the "Original from" label in Google Books is for which libraries supplied it to Google Books for digital scanning. Allchin's book does not even use the term neither does "Forgotten Cities on the Indus", Meister's book also does not use the term beyond the book's title. "Greater Indus Region" or "Greater Indus Valley" are used for the Indus Valley Civilization and should not be seen as alternatives for anachronistic terms, neither should modern appelations for be retrofitted to become historic regions.
You are not going to find a single journal of repute in South Asian studies or any international university department (specializing in the same) using the term or being termed as such, most scholarship prefers South Asia and the like. Misrepresentation of sources and selective sourcing is simply not going to change the fact. A seach for almost any nationalistic and anachronistic term on Google Books is going to lead to some results ("Ancient Turkey", "Ancient United States", "Ancient Germany", "Ancient Switzerland"), that would not legitimize them and make their use any more appropriate especially not on NPOV wiki projects. Gotitbro (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The intersection of geography and history creates plenty of problems for categorisation, and there isnt a simple answer. It requires judgement. So although Germany as a state didnt exist until 1870 the concept of Germany certainly did, and we use it. But as far as I can see the concept of Pakistan did not arise until the 20th century and was not articulated until 1933. Rathfelder (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many diffs being brought up here alleging anachronistic editing. I haven't managed to review all of them because each of them is a research effort in its own right, but I have seen enough to be concerned, and I am inclined to agree with Gotitbro at this point of time.
I will start by noting that the MOS is very clear regarding anachronisms. The Simple English Wikipedia does not have Simple English versions of all MOS pages, but it is a well-established guideline that we follow EN where local guidelines/policy do not exist. Per en:MOS:GEO, anachronisms are to be avoided. en:Wikipedia:Presentism clarifies this a bit more - For example, a person born in what is now Germany should not be said to have been born in Germany if the birth was before 1870, when Germany was formed. en:MOS:LDS (while not the same subject matter as what is being discussed here) also explains anachronisms - ...terminology that would be out-of-place or meaningless in the time period being discussed (emphasis mine).
So now the issue here is, when did the concept of "Pakistan" as a place first existed? And more importantly, is that alleged starting time period a view that has gained consensus among academics and historians? In the case of the monarch categorizations above, if a person who was alive back then were to call the relevant subjects a/the "Pakistani monarch", would that person have made sense during that era?
About sources: as pointed out above, just because some sources assert the existence of an "Ancient Pakistan" does not necessarily mean that said concept exists (and to write articles as such is also a violation of en:WP:UNDUE). Sources also need to be examined critically. Concerns about the credibility/reliability of the sources/authors aside, I would like to know from where Ancient Pakistan: An Archaeological History gains its authority in asserting the term "Ancient Pakistan", because I find this quote from the book problematic (emphasis mine):

...archaeologists often call the whole area the Greater Indus Region or the Greater Indus Valley. Thus, Ancient Pakistan is essentially the Greater Indus Valley

The use of "thus" implies that the author was advancing a viewpoint/argument at that point in the book i.e. they were making the claim/drawing the conclusion that Ancient Pakistan is therefore essentially the Greater Indus Valley, because of some reasons/premises mentioned earlier in the book. I don't have a copy of the book, but I would like to see in what context the author made the above statement in the book. As it is, I am not willing to outright accept such a quote as evidence of Ancient Pakistan's existence.
And more importantly, I don't see the EN Wikipedia making such similar claims either. Now, I am not saying that EN is always correct in its content, but if we do deviate from EN systematically (as those above edits are showing), then we had better have a very good reason to do so. Chenzw  Talk  18:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chenzw Here is the online copy of the book from which I quoted, in case you'd like to review the context. That being said, what do you think would be a more suitable title per WP:MOS if we're discussing the ancient history of the land that is now Pakistan? Could "Ancient history of Pakistan" be a better alternative? – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 18:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the context of the statement (and it's from volume 2, not volume 1 as earlier linked), and don't find the book's claim acceptable. First, the argument leading to the asserted conclusion that "Ancient Pakistan is essentially the Greater Indus Valley" is a non sequitur - earlier statements do not logically lead to the conclusion. Second, the assertion being made contradicts what the book also claims a few paragraphs earlier - that the term 'Indian subcontinent' as an ecological unit is of questionable utility in the study of prehistory of the region: thus, Pakistan has little in common with the rest of the Indian subcontinent, geographically and ecologically, historically or culturally, beyond a superficial proximity of the terrain. (emphasis mine). What I am seeing here is, on pages 20-21 of the book, the book is simultaneously claiming:
  • Pakistan is a distinctive part of, and has little in common with the Indian subcontinent (the book calls South Asia the Indian subcontinent).
  • Ancient Pakistan is essentially the Greater Indus Valley (which also comprises parts of the Indian subcontinent).
And really, whether "Ancient Pakistan" exists or not, and whether we should call it "Ancient history of Pakistan", misses the larger point, and I don't wish to have a discussion about the ideal title convention right now. The issue is about the anachronistic editing, not just the Ancient Pakistan matter. Chenzw  Talk  01:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand your concerns about the contradictions in Mukhtar Ahmed's work, inconsistencies or nuanced statements within a scholarly text don't necessarily undermine its overall reliability?
Also, the use of the term "Ancient Pakistan" by Mukhtar Ahmed is not isolated. Other scholars, including Michael W. Meister in Temples of the Indus - Studies in the Hindu Architecture of Ancient Pakistan, Rafi U. Samad in The Greeks of Ancient Pakistan and The Indus Saga, and the University of Peshawar's multi-volume series Ancient Pakistan (Vol. I-VII) 1964 by the Bulletin of the Department of Archaeology, also use this terminology to describe the region's ancient history. Mortimer Wheeler's Five Thousand Years of Pakistan is another example where "Pakistan" is used to discuss the region's long-standing historical and archaeological context.
That said, I agree with you that we need to be cautious about potential anachronism. If the term "Ancient Pakistan" is indeed problematic, we can certainly discuss alternative titles. However, it is worth considering that this term has been used in scholarly works, and we might want to weigh its relevance carefully before dismissing it outright. – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 06:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a no started if AI responses such as the one above are going to be dishonestly inserted into discussions.
These non-RS and non-mainstream sources have already been discussed above. A search for any double quotation term is going to find titles even fringe ones, that does not mean we will streamline those fringe views here on wiki projects. Gotitbro (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussed? You collectively labeled all the sources as self-published and non-reliable without really looking into them. The only one we've actually discussed so far (and still are discussing) is Mukhtar's work. Shouldn't we analyze each source individually? That's what a discussion should be. – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 18:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the actual issue is about individual sources. In either case, what I am seeing here is the cherry-picking of sources to support a comparatively minority view that has not gained traction among mainstream research and literature. See en:WP:UNDUE. The real issue is about the anachronistic editing, and I haven't seen a response or acknowledgement yet regarding my questions about the Pakistani monarchy categorizations. Chenzw  Talk  02:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The intention isn’t to push a minority view. I wrote an article the ancient history of "Pakistan" focusing on the geographic region. I used the term "Ancient Pakistan" because I noticed it had traction in academic circles (at least in some). Regarding the Pakistani monarchy categorization, I apologize if my earlier responses didn’t fully address it. Categorizing monarchs based on the regions they ruled—whether Indus Valley, Gandhara, or Punjab—has historical relevance and gives a more accurate framework. These regions are now part of modern Pakistan, so the idea of "Pakistani monarchs" is about grouping rulers by the territory that now constitutes Pakistan, not implying they had a modern identity. Of course, using the term Pakistani monarch back then wouldn’t have made sense, but the same applies to terms like "Chinese monarchs" or "Indian monarchs". Also, we do have "Pakistani monarchs," like the rulers of the princely states and kingdoms? – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 03:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is your own OR and SYNTH justification for anachronism none of which is not supported by any RS. The existence of other extant stuff is not going vindicate the attempts being made here. Roman and Byzantine emperors are not categorized as Italian or Turkish either and Mughal emperors and the like are also not going to be labelled under anachronistic demonyms and labels. Modern territory-related anachronisms based on personal analysis are not accepted on any wiki project and are not going especially excepted here as well. Gotitbro (talk) 05:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was no collective labelling, the merit and demerit of every source has been individually given. The only RS of merit within all of them were Allchin and Forgotten Cities on the Indus (which do not support your anachronism at all) and Meister (which does not even use the term beyond its choice of book title). We should not be going around in circles discussing every fringe source and view that exists on the internet or has managed to get self-published. Even if a trawling of the internet leads to some sources here and there that would still not impute mainstream scholarship which obviously does not support this. Gotitbro (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While planets may have a lot of patience, mine is running out.
What should we call it then? You said yourself Indus Valley is not a replacement for this so-called "anachronism". We can't call it Ancient India, that would also be very wrong, like calling something in Mongolia "Chinese". 🪐●Haumeon 16:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change topic code

change topic code 166.181.82.179 (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify what you want. 142.54.84.29 (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Stewart

Can I request protection for this? Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 12:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This would've been better requested at WP:AN, but I'm going to decline this one. It's easier to keep track of the sockpuppeteer this way. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 12:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fehufanga What do you mean 'keep track of the sockpuppeteer'? Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 12:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme If the target article is left unprotected, it's easier to monitor it because the sockpuppeteer doesn't tend to go anywhere else. That's all I can say. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 12:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fehufanga But its proxies now Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 12:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme Then report the IPs to m:SRG and revert the edits if they haven't reverted it themselves.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 13:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but still don't get the point of waiting for people to vandalise it. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 06:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme en:Honeypot (computing). That's the end of this conversation unless an admin wants to protect it. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 06:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 06:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simple_talk

by LabLynx

Website

Related Posts