Template:Archive box collapsible

Template:Album ratings

Is there any page where I can find all known rating publishers like AllMusic? I'm interested in these non-english publishers especially. Eurohunter (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eurohunter: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. I suggest that you try WT:ALBUMS. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how I entered here but I wanted to add thread to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. Thanks for notification, it's moved now. Eurohunter (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

@Alsee: ((Shortcut)) broke the list formatting because it contains line breaks. I've removed the line breaks from Module:Shortcut, so either type of list should be fine now (I think). Jc86035 (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jc86035 I had pretty much figured out what was going on, but then I got confused as heck when I viewed my edit in page-history and suddenly the problem was gone! Hahaha. Looks like it's all solved. Thanx. Alsee (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes in talk and Template:Reflist-talk

Once or twice a month, plus/minus, I encounter a topic in an article's Talk page that is footnoted. The footnote is at the page bottom, though the section footnoted is mid-point in the article. I asked about this a couple of months ago and got the right fix on my specific request, inserting: {Reflist-talk} (with double braces -- one brace omitted for discussion's sake).

This is a minor yet regular Talk pages problem and might be worthy of added instructions or even a template adjustment. Probably this is more a problem for us mid-level editors, conscientious enough to cite our references, ignorant enough to not stick them in place. I'll strive to fix what I find from here out. But, if any of you highly capable Wikipedians can figure out where one might insert a fix regarding this... .

Thanks, GeeBee60 (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. I deal with this often in science and climate pages. Bold attempt How does that look? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To quote a template without invoking it, use the ((t)) template, for example you can talk about ((reflist-talk)) this way; I changed it in the section header. Another useful template is ((sources-talk)) which produces a collapsed list of sources, that is less distracting to the conversation when many sources are cited. — JFG talk 17:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I didn't know about either of those.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
References are displayed at the next <references /> tag in the page, or at the bottom of the page if there is no <references /> tag after the point where the ref is used. Templates like ((reflist)) and ((reflist-talk)) contain a <references /> tag with some extra styling. So since the only issue is the absence of such a tag or template, there is really nothing that can be fixed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I pictured one of two fixes: Either modify the talk template, which you convince me (by the above) may be impractical. OR, append the talk information page so that what you have said here is more readily known there. Many people do not know that footnotes on a Talkpage are (ought to be) approached differently than footnotes in an Article.
Anyway thanks very much, Glen Buschmann

Offensive Heading?

Am I Wrong in Finding This an Offensive Heading to Be in a Talk Section? Or Anywhere Else in Wikipedia, for That Matter

I read the article about the British military commander Alan Brooke with interest. Among many other things, I learned that he was an Ulsterman from Northern Ireland. I then went to the talk page to see if there was anything of interest there. I was startled to see this heading somewhat down the page: "Why does Alan Booke look so swarthy? Moreso looks a sub-Loirean Frenchman or a cryto-Jew."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alan_Brooke,_1st_Viscount_Alanbrooke#Why_does_Alan_Booke_look_so_swarthy?_Moreso_looks_a_sub-Loirean_Frenchman_or_a_cryto-Jew.

That seems to me to be an extremely offensive remark, based solely on what appears to me to be racial or racist prejudice. I have just gone through the "talk page guidelines" and don't see anything that pertains specifically to something like this.

Am I being overly "politically correct" about this, or do others find it as offensive as I do? Further, I note that the person who created this section did it anonymously. What, if anything, can/should be done about it? Hayford Peirce (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Hayford Peirce. Changed to "Identity or ethnicity". Bus stop (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! It is still an absurd question to pose (ie, should every WP article identify the ethnicity of every person for whom there is an article?), but at least now it is no longer patently racist or offensive. Hayford Peirce (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for raising the issue! In my opinion various attributes of identity such as ethnicity and religion may be included or omitted. I don't think there can be a rule for this—just consensus on an article-by-article basis. That was a ridiculous "Section heading" that you brought to our attention, and I think there are some guidelines at WP:TALKNEW that are semi-applicable, such as "Make the heading clear and specific as to the article topic discussed" and "Keep headings neutral". They don't really address the problem but I don't think there can be policy and guidelines for everything. Bus stop (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a big rise in trolling like that in Britain recently with the Brexit vote and the immigration problem and the antisemitism in the Labour party. And in Northern Ireland they divide so loyalists support Israel and republicans support the Palestinians. So I think your feelings about the title were quite justifiable. Dmcq (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you, Hayford Peirce. The header was created by IP 92.5.91.155 in December 2017, along also with this charming edit. I suppose nobody with a block button noticed at the time, and it's a little late to block the troll now. Bishonen | talk 12:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Got me thinking

Crypto-Jew... Crypto-currency... MORE THAN A COINCIDENCE???[FBDB] EEng 11:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nah... just subtle marketing for Krypto. Blueboar (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not the right venue, really

Personally, had I seen this post right away I would have moved it to user talk, and directed the OP to DR, HELPDESK, TEAHOUSE, and ANI. WIthout studying it, my gut says there's been an uptick in people complaining about specific disputes on this page, and it is not the right place to do that. I wish regular page watchers would help bar the gates or we'll be doing ANI like stuff everywhere eventually. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WikiMedia PolicyMakers: Talk page banner directs editor to bottom of page

My idea.. not sure this will reach the policymakers/decisionmakers and actual hard-coders behind the wiki website properties.. Why not near the top of EVERY Talk (discussions) page, once someone enters into editing mode, display a red or yellow background rectangular banner at the top reminding commenters to add to the BOTTOM of the wiki text/code, and not to the top? My two cents. :) Vid2vid (talk) 05:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:CREEP. Careful new users will already find out about the WP:TPG and read it anyway, and the other type of new editors won't bother reading banner notes. I sometimes see this particular problem, but rarely NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vid2vid: If you use the "New section" tab, it will automatically: (i) add the new thread at the bottom of the page; (ii) use the correct level 2 heading, rather than the level 3 heading that you used here; (iii) use an edit summary that includes the title of the new thread, plus the words "new section". See for example this posting. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TPG#Non-free images

It might be a good idea to change the name of WP:TPG#Non-free images to WP:TPG#Non-free content or WP:TPG#Non-free files. While the majority of non-free files uploaded to Wikipedia is probably image files, there are audio files as well. This change would make it clear that this sub-section applies to all non-free content, not just image files. The relevant content would also need to be tweaked accordingly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea, as quoting non-free content is something allowed per policy, as is limited use of other non-free content, at least in namespace. Thinker78 (talk) 06:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC) Edited 19:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting copyrighted content on a talk page is fine, but I’m referring to cases where people have added non-free files to talk pages as part of a discussion. Usually it’s a file being used in the article that’s being discussed, but other times people have uploaded something non-free just to support a position they’re taking on the talk page as some sort of visual/audio proof. — Marchjuly (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think now after reading the policy more that your suggestion is very valid. I suggest replacing with this text, "Non-free content: Non-free content should not be displayed on talk pages. If images are being discussed, they must be hidden by linking them with a colon—as described in 'Hiding or resizing images', above. If they are included for decorative purposes, they must be removed. Other non-free content should be removed." Thinker78 (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I wonder is if the guideline regarding images cover all images or just non-free images. Thinker78 (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The restrictions apply to nonfree images only, obviously. Non-nonfree images are, um, free. EEng 20:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to a talk page discussion

It seems that a section link to a talk page discussion (be it user talk, article talk, project talk or whatever) gets broken once that discussion is archived. If so this is a fundamental flaw as it should be easy to refer back to a discussion if needed and such links in edit summaries can't be corrected. Is there any solution or workaround to this? A way to create a permalink perhaps? --Jameboy (talk) 10:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More