Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative views/Archive 3

Popular pages tool update
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at ~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man ) 04:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

List peer review for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!
I've started a list peer review for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, feedback to further along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Peer review/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1

Featured List nomination for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!
I've started a Featured List nomination for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!.
 * 1) List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!
 * 2) Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1

Participation would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_24#Category:Pseudoscience
You are invited to join the discussion at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_24. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories
We are discussing what to rename this article and I hope for input on what words to use/not use in titles and subtitles of such articles. Please come and give your opinions. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Alternative Views at Wikimania 2014
Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014 For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to: Project leaflets Adikhajuria (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * fixed broken formatting Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

"Anarchy"
FYI, the scope and purpose of the anarchy article is under discussion, see talk:anarchy where it is proposed to be merged to stateless society -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The merge proposal was rejected. bobrayner (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Rescuing non-notable articles
There are places for Wikipedia deletia, particularly from this project. I've rescued a few AFD victims (noncontroversial deletions) to RationalWiki recently under CC by-sa 3.0:   If you've worked hard on a fringe-ish article for Wikipedia and it's about to get zapped, this may work for you ... though RW is a skeptical wiki and may be unsympathetic - David Gerard (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Lately I have removed
several pages from Category:Pseudoscience; on the grounds that ‘pseudoscience’ is a judgmental epithet; also it is, IMO, a very stigmatizing label, so it should be used sparingly. Spanish Wikipedia says it eloquently: “No olvide que para utilizar esta categoría debe de haber una referencia verificable, fiable en la materia y sólida que especifique que la disciplina categorizada es una pseudociencia.” Rough translation: “In order for a page to be placed in this category, there must be reliable sources specifying that said subject is pseudoscience.” I strongly support this policy; subjects should only be categorized as pseudoscience if a preponderance of reliable sources (as I pointed out on my User page, a source with a conflict of interest is not reliable) say they are such. In other words, the burden of proof should be on those who claim a subject is pseudoscience, not on those who claim it is not.

Some of the pages I removed: Continental drip, Steatopygia.

Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Not okay. :: Solomonfromfinland, not so fast. You're removing the meta-category for many things which are obvious pseudoscience (like astrology), and which are in subcategories of Pseudoscience (like Alternative medicine). It's best to leave them as they are. You risk being seen as a vandal. I suggest you do some fast backpedaling and undo a lot of what you're doing. Keep in mind that we don't care whether something is a pejorative or judgmental epithet, although with BLPs were are more careful. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I left Category:Astrology as well as the article Astrology itself in the ‘metacategory’ pseudoscience. However, a number of pages in the various subcategories of Category:Pseudoscience are placed in said category directly. To what extent should this be done? (Same applies to any other category; e.g. should New Horizons be placed directly in Category:Pluto? [Probably not, IMO].) Indeed, the heading of Category:Pseudoscience says, “Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable. This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should directly contain very few, if any, articles and should mainly contain subcategories.”


 * As a particular case, do you approve of the removal of articles Continental drip, Steatopygia, Meme and Macrobiotic diet from Category:Pseudoscience? Other Wikipedians, any opinions on the matter?


 * Words to watch says, “With regard to the term "pseudoscience": per the policy Neutral point of view, pseudoscientific views "should be clearly described as such". Per the content guideline, fringe theories, the term "pseudoscience" may be used to distinguish fringe theories from mainstream science, supported by reliable sources.” A reasonable interpretation of this passage is that subjects should only be categorized as pseudoscience if (a) they are "clearly described as such" by said article; (b) such a description is supported by (a preponderance of) reliable sources. (Some sources consider psychoanalysis a pseudoscience, but this may be a minority view.)


 * A slight mistake, for which I’ll forgive you, is that you apparently said Category:Alternative medicine is a subcategory of Pseudoscience. As of now, it is not, though the article Alternative medicine is placed in Category:Pseudoscience.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that Obiwan removed it some time ago. Odd. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Btw, BullRangifer, not so fast about calling me a vandal. Cutting the number of articles included directly in a specific category, which I’ve done before, isn’t necessarily vandalism; especially when the category page requests it. For a highly contentious label like “pseudo-”, articles that don’t belong should be speedily removed. Btw, I am not angry at you. Wikitalk pages (say nothing of Arbitration cases, Noticeboards, and RfC) are full of disputes; and I barely consider this a dispute, even.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. I know you're not a vandal. You definitely mean well. I just wouldn't want you to be "seen as a vandal" by someone not familiar with the situation or with you.
 * I just feel that in some situations you're being hasty and also putting your efforts in the wrong place. Better to actually add the sources, or put a tag, or request that the needed refs are provided when the subject is obviously pseudoscientific. Most of these aren't BLPs, so there is no rush. BLPs are obviously handled differently. Otherwise I do understand your concerns. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Scope of project?
There's been a bit of ambiguity as to what the scope of your Wikiproject is over at. I explained what I was seeing as the scope you all state focusing on significant minority views rather than fringe views. If my read is correct, I'm not seeing where the scope for this project would be in that article, so it would be nice for folks involved in this project to give insight as to what the intent would be while tagging articles. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I answered this already on Talk:Vani Hari - relevant for notable advocacy of highly non-mainstream scientific views, and that the tag on the talk page was useful for project purposes, e.g. article alerts. Apparently this isn't sufficient - David Gerard (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Holocaust denial
I added the “Contentious label” template to a number of Holocaust denial -related categories. This template was removed; a removal to which I do not object and which I currently do not intend to revert. I am by no means a Holocaust denier. I agree, the Holocaust is a fact in the same sense as any number of other historical events. However I enjoy editing Wikipedia, and I thought the “contentious label” template would be appropriate, given that the term “denialist” is listed as a contentious label.

I apologize for my potentially inappropriate edit.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Category rename
I created Category:Anti-conspiracy theorists. It is about “Persons who have criticized or tried to debunk conspiracy theories.” It should be re-titled “Critics of conspiracy theories”. Btw, I placed it in Category:Criticisms, which I changed to Category:Critics. (When I created Category:Anti-conspiracy theorists, I didn’t know that Category:Critics existed.)--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mass killings in capitalist regimes

 * Discussion

This issue seems to me to be a very obvious violation of the Second Pillar. I am a little surprised that the prevailing Wikipedia culture isn't more politically acute and fair-minded. Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Alternative_theories_of_the_location_of_Great_Moravia
Need some editors to have an eye out on this article. It is new and was created as part of a compromise between two users on the NPOV noticeboard. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)