Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page

The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

« Archives, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64

Centralized discussion

Proposals:policy•otherDiscussions:tech•ideas•misc

• Delete the MOS:JOBTITLES guideline?
• Source deprecation and blacklisting process
• Allowing political activism in geonotices/watchlist notices

---

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk

Request for Information: Public Access to Peer-Reviewed Scholarly Publications

• "Request for Information: Public Access to Peer-Reviewed Scholarly Publications, Data and Code Resulting From Federally Funded Research". Federal Register. 19 February 2020. Please note the bolded portions below for instructions on the deadline, email address, and question/answer format in which comments are requested.

For those who are in the US, the Office of Science and Technology Policy is taking public comment on making unclassified published research, digital scientific data, and code supported by the U.S. Government open to the public. Email to comment please. This aligns with our mission. GMG^talk 23:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

This is profoundly important, so I am quoting the (public domain US federal) solicitation in full:

“ Request for Information: Public Access to Peer-Reviewed Scholarly Publications, Data, and Code Resulting From Federally Funded Research

A Notice by the Science and Technology Policy Office on 02/19/2020

DOCUMENT DETAILS Printed version: PDF Publication Date: 02/19/2020 Agency: Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Document Citation: 85 FR 9488 Page: 9488-9489 (2 pages) Document Number: 2020-03189 DOCUMENT STATISTICS Page views: 8,397 as of 03/02/2020 at 4:15 am EST

ACTION: Notice of request for information (RFI).

SUMMARY: OSTP, and the National Science and Technology Council's (NSTC) Subcommittee on Open Science (SOS), are engaged in ongoing efforts to facilitate implementation and compliance with the 2013 memorandum Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research [1] and to address recommended actions made by the Government Accountability Office in a November 2019 report.[2] OSTP and the SOS continue to explore opportunities to increase access to unclassified published research, digital scientific data, and code supported by the U.S. Government. This RFI aims to provide all interested individuals and organizations with the opportunity to provide recommendations on approaches for ensuring broad public access to the peer-reviewed scholarly publications, data, and code that result from federally funded scientific research.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before 5:00 p.m. ET on March 16, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Comments submitted in response to this notice may be submitted online to Lisa Nichols, Assistant Director for Academic Engagement, OSTP, at publicaccess@ostp.eop.gov. Email submissions should be machine-readable [pdf, doc, txt] and not copy-protected. Submissions should include “RFI Response: Public Access” in the subject line of the message.

Instructions: Response to this RFI is voluntary. Each individual or institution is requested to submit only one response. Submission must not exceed 5 pages in 12 points or larger font, with a page number provided on each page. Responses should include the name of the person(s) or organization(s) filing the comment. Comments containing references, studies, research, and other empirical data that are not widely published should include copies or electronic links of the referenced materials. No business proprietary information, copyrighted information, or personally identifiable information should be submitted in response to this RFI.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information, please direct your questions to Lisa Nichols at publicaccess@ostp.eop.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In February of 2013, OSTP issued the memorandum Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research. The memorandum directed Federal agencies with more than $100M in research and development (R&D) expenditures to develop plans to make the results of federally funded unclassified research that are published in peer-reviewed publications, and digitally formatted scientific data, publicly available. The federal agency plans required that published work be made available following a twelve-month post-publication embargo period.

OSTP and the NSTC SOS continue to explore opportunities to make the knowledge, information and data generated by federally funded research more readily accessible to students, clinicians, businesses, entrepreneurs, researchers, technologists, and the general public who support these investments as a means to accelerate knowledge and innovation. Over the course of the last two years, OSTP has had nearly 100 meetings with stakeholders on open science, the current policy on public access to the results of federally funded research, the evolution of scholarly communications, and access to data and code associated with published results. This RFI aims to expand on these consultations and provide all interested individuals and organizations with the opportunity to provide recommendations on approaches for ensuring broad public access to the peer-reviewed scholarly publications, data, and code that result from federally funded scientific research. OSTP is interested in perspectives on the following topics:

What current limitations exist to the effective communication of research outputs (publications, data, and code) and how might communications evolve to accelerate public access while advancing the quality of scientific research? What are the barriers to and opportunities for change? What more can Federal agencies do to make tax-payer funded research results, including peer-reviewed author manuscripts, data, and code funded by the Federal Government, freely and publicly accessible in a way that minimizes delay, maximizes access, and enhances usability? How can the Federal Government engage with other sectors to achieve these goals? How would American science leadership and American competitiveness benefit from immediate access to these resources? What are the potential challenges and effective approaches for overcoming them? Analyses that weigh the trade-offs of different approaches and models, especially those that provide data, will be particularly helpful. Any additional information that might be considered for Federal policies related to the public access to peer-reviewed author manuscripts, data, and code resulting from federally supported research.

Dated: February 12, 2020.

Sean Bonyun,

Chief of Staff, Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Footnotes

1.  Retrieved from: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​microsites/​ostp/​ostp_​public_​access_​memo_​2013.pdf

2.  Retrieved from: https://www.gao.gov/​assets/​710/​702847.pdf

[FR Doc. 2020-03189 Filed 2-18-20; 8:45 am]

”

Please comment by March 16! EllenCT (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: is there any way to get the Wikimedia Foundation and/or board to make an official comment (ideally in support)? — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Sending responses as individual Wikipedians I believe would be helpful as well. User:Katherine (WMF) would be the one to make the call on it from a WMF perspective. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll be the no-fun brigade here, but two points:

• I question how much this will matter. I suppose if nobody comments at all, that'd be bad, but we shouldn't delude ourselves these requests for comment are susceptible to such campaigns. See the 2017 Net Neutrality debate with the FCC for example: https://www.wired.com/story/bots-broke-fcc-public-comment-system/ , where the site crashed with legitimate complaints from people who watched John Oliver, as well as having a ton of bot and bot-aided comments. None of it mattered, Ajit Pai & co. smashed up net neutrality anyway.
• With the current administration... be careful what you wish for. See the article Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation for a taste of what this proposal is actually likely to accomplish (usual disclaimer: some Wikipedians may be happy with an outcome like this, of course). If this proposal does go through, I'd fully expect that it'll be less about funding scientists to help them post data in easily accessible web databases, and more about threatening to defund any federal research that doesn't send over every single email sent ever so that the most embarrassing / blunt ones can be sent over to the Washington Examiner and made into tabloidy headlines about how scientists are biased and making up a climate change hoax.

I would be happy to be wrong on both counts, of course, but realistically the prospect of the above two scenarios should be considered - your emails might be ignored, and if they aren't and succeed, they might not have the impact you're expecting. SnowFire (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Maxvals & inverted

Hi, I have two question :

First question :

{{#invoke:wd|properties|normal+|Q55|P1082}} display :"17,181,084, 16,829,289, 16,779,575, 10,026,773, 17,000,000, 17,132,854",

how can I display just three first number for to have just : "17,181,084, 16,829,289, 16,779,575" ?

I have unsuccessfully tested "maxvals" and "numval" :

{{#invoke:wd|properties|normal+|Q55|P1082|maxvals=3}} (display ever :"17,181,084, 16,829,289, 16,779,575, 10,026,773, 17,000,000, 17,132,854")

and

{{#invoke:wd|properties|normal+|Q55|P1082|numval=3}} (display ever :"17,181,084, 16,829,289, 16,779,575, 10,026,773, 17,000,000, 17,132,854")

Second question :

{{#invoke:wd|properties|normal+|Q55|P1082}} display :"17,181,084, 16,829,289, 16,779,575, 10,026,773, 17,000,000, 17,132,854",

how can I to reverse the chronological order for to display : "17,132,854 17,000,000, 10,026,773, 16,779,575, 16,829,289, 17,181,084" ?

I have unsuccessfully tested "sorttype = inverted" :

{{#invoke:wd|properties|normal+|Q55|P1082|sorttype = inverted}} (display ever :"17,181,084, 16,829,289, 16,779,575, 10,026,773, 17,000,000, 17,132,854")

Thanks, Viruscorona2020 (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Viruscorona2020, you might have better success asking this question at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Expect people to want to know why you want to do this. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Whatamidoing (WMF), I'm gonna try over there. Viruscorona2020 (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Internet Archive Bot and archive.org

Recently, InternetArchiveBot has replaced a few links to sources at Google Books in articles I created with links to the same sources at archive.org. The Google Books links were for publications that are free full-text online, and the links currently work. What's the reason for this? Should I preferentially search archive.org to find sources instead of Googling the information? RobDuch (talk·contribs) 06:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@RobDuch: For works in the public domain due to age, some assholes like to spam Google with claims that the book Google scanned was really one of their reprints and then sell (sometimes corrupted) copies of Google's PDF (or just selections thereof!) at jacked up prices. Archive.org don't play that shit, they know better. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

New Counties

Hi these districts are now county:Zarqan District, Beyza District, Evaz District, Khafr District, Sarchehan District, Abadeh Tashk District And Chenar Shahijan District[1] (Islamic Republic News Agency) Please move articles. Thank you M.k.m2003 (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:RM details how you can request page moves. Iffy★Chat -- 14:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Iffy: It's a little difficult for me, You can apply? M.k.m2003 (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Done, see Talk:Zarqan District. Iffy★Chat -- 15:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Statistics of Lsjbot

How can I see the global contibutions of user:Lsjbot?

I tried https://xtools.wmflabs.org/sc/ceb.wikipedia.org/Lsjbot but it seem there are too many to display... Thanks,--Javiermes (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Medical (best) practices of countries during the COVID-19 outbreak

Hello,

I have an idea for a new article. I would like to see a single article outlining the different lessons medical practitioners and the system have learned during the COVID-19 outbreak with sections for each affected country and region where information is available. This could include hospital triage systems, unique practices (like drive-thru testing in South Korea), and country-specific medical research on vaccines, etc. For example, BBC has good coverage on South Korea: At least two patients died waiting for a hospital bed in Daegu, the worst affected city. The initial reaction was to quarantine everyone infected with the virus in a hospital bed, but now the doctors have learned to treat those with mild symptoms in residential centres and leave the clinical beds for those needing critical care.

I propose one distinct article for this because:

• The main article on the outbreak will get too long if all this detailed information is included there.
• The medical advances are in and of themselves, notable and interest worthy.
• The country-specific articles are full of statistics and someone would have to click on each article to compare and contrast.
• The article would make a good addition to the template we have at the bottom of all COVID-19-related articles.

2607:FEA8:1DDF:FEE1:81AE:8E3C:BF30:D275 (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Anyone can start a new article at anytime. There's no requirement to propose it first. I'd advise you to make use of WP:YFA and start a draft, or you can request it at Wikipedia:Requested articles if you prefer someone else to write it. The latter way is notably slower though. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@2607:FEA8:1DDF:FEE1:81AE:8E3C:BF30:D275: - I'd suggest asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine - medical articles have extra rules, and many of the pros at handling them can be found there. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

About EISP redirecting to Orgasm

While editing Orgasm, I noticed EISP somehow redicts to it. I can understand why it would do so, historically, because there they were probably talking about exercise induced orgasm in females, at one time. Fine. But however it may lie, the current redirection structure is not conducive to a readable encyclopedia. EISP in that sense is peripheral enough to not even warrant its own Wikipedia page under a different name, yet now for some reason the page on The Big O—of all things, amongst us sexually reproducing animals, motivated by the very thing—brings in disambiguation words relating to English International School Prague.

Please somebody mop up that mess, because I don't know how. While disambiguation with regard to "orgasm" is probably going to be necessary till the end of days, it's completely frivolous and counter-productive wrt "EISP" in the orgasmic context. Decoy (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It would be enough to change a redirect to the school and move the explaining {{redirect}} there to expand EISP and link to the article about orgasm. --CiaPan (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It's being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 16#EISP. --CiaPan (talk) 12:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 map in Main Page

Hi, could the current coronavirus map in the main page (File:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map.svg) be replaced for now by File:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map (33).svg or any version suitable? File:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map.svg is cascade protected by the main page, and it is affecting users at Commons who want to update the map. Thanks, Pandakekok9 (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Map image on main page has been switched so the protections can be removed. --Masem (t) 10:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Pandakekok9 In the future, this kind of request is suitable for Talk:Main page and WP:AN. --Izno (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, noted just in case I need to start a request like this again. :) Pandakekok9 (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Pandakekok9: Is there a centralized discussion on Commons about this? Trying to figure out if there are maps for individual days and if there are any that are continuously being updated. For ITN here it might be best if we just add a cascade protected copy of the previous day's map. Kees08 (Talk) 17:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kees08: Discussion started at commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#Downgrade protection request.. Now that you said it, I realize we haven't uploaded an individual map showing the most current one. I made a 17 March copy here. Pandakekok9 (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Downloading the topo names plus geocoordinates

Hello Wikimakers,

How can I download a geographical names with their coordinates ?

I have something like this for example. This is a list of summits in one mountain group. Their coordinates are in subpages:

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategoria:Szczyty_Tatr_Bielskich — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.101.26.52 (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

You might first check to see whether what you want has been uploaded to Wikidata. If it has, then you can run a pretty easy query to extract the information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Linking to off-wiki photos

There's a historical photo I want to use that's on another website. I don't know the exact date, but I'm guessing it's not old enough to be PD yet, so I can't upload it to Commons, and for the sake of argument, I'm going to assume it wouldn't pass the WP:FAIRUSE requirements. Is there any reason I can't link to it in a footnote, and discuss it in the text of the article. Any stylistic recommendations for how one would phrase that? The goal is to support the statement, The area to the west of the press building, along Tiffany Street and Garrison Avenue, originally had manicured lawns, a curved driveway, and a pedestrian walk flanked by lampposts. The lawns have since been turned into a paved parking lot -- RoySmith (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

See Template:External media as an option. As Template:External media/doc#Where to use says, "This template is normally placed in the main body of the article, in the same place that you would normally have placed the image". Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I had in mind. Unfortunately, reading the docs, I've come to the conclusion that this would probably violate WP:ELNEVER. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why WP:ELNEVER would be a problem, although some like to remove all possible external links. However, that image cannot be used to verify the statement in the OP. Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

ELNEVER would be a problem if the other website doesn't have a license to post the copyrighted material. WP:LINKVIO is banned on all pages, including this one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Sad news

As a rule, I never post messages here, at the Village Pump, as I am mostly active on the French WP. However, I felt appropriate to mourn here the death of Robert Ferrieux, a long-standing and notable French WP editor, holder of an Agrégation degree in English, and who, as such, contributed to many featured articles on English litterature on the French WP.

Robert died day before yesterday in Perpignan, aged 89. We had first met on WP some twelve years ago, when trying to improve the article about Robert Browning. He had been married for some sixty years to Helen, his British wife. Many years ago, he had been a French resident at Eton College, and retained an interest for all things British ever since. Beyond his deep knowledge of British litterature, Robert was warm and friendly, always ready to help along.

We mourn for him, Cédric Boissière, Eymery, myself, and many others on the French WP; we will never forget our happy collaboration for all these years. Azurfrog (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

We made the big-time!

Today's NY Times Crossword. 50A clue: "Dispute between Wikipedia page updaters". -- RoySmith (talk) 13:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Four letters, starts with L? – Teratix ₵ 13:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The impending doom of Wikipedia GMG^talk 13:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Please note that Betty Williams died on 18 march according to sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Her death is already in Betty Williams (Nobel laureate). PrimeHunter (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)