Talk:The Wikipedia Library/1Lib1Ref

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Volunteer help[edit]

We need GLAM-Wiki and TWL coordinators to help achieve broad impact with the campaign. We are looking for help with the following:

  • Feedback/improvements to the main campaign page
  • Signing up to be a help contact in the "Contact a library leader" section
  • Help with internationalization (i.e. adding translation tags, ensuring instructions for language-specific community policies, adding links to maintenance categories or tools for language editions not yet represented, etc)
  • Sharing the campaign with Library or Archive partners in your community, and asking them to support it (We can include them as official partners during the week, if their social media team help share the campaign)
  • Preparing or encouraging others to write blog posts and social media for the Wikipedia 15 conversation focused on libraries and Wikipedia
  • Update GLAM-Wiki Contact pages like https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Contact_us
  • Tweeting, lots of tweeting (and retweeting) and sharing on other social media platforms

Please let us know if you plan to do any of these. Thanks!Astinson (WMF) (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Top Ikram mhd (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

RefToolbar Guide[edit]

Hi there -- I created this RefToolbar presentation for WikiDay 2015 here in NYC. Folks are welcome to use it. There can never be too many beautifully curated citations!

2015-07-08-RefToolbar

- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@BrillLyle: Per Phoebe's comment below, we are trying to keep the instructions as simple as possible, so it takes ~15-20 minutes to complete the activity. As of right now, I am questioning that speed of learning-> implement. What would be useful, is tweaks for spead/clarification of the existing story. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
@Astinson (WMF): If this is a quick training then the PowerPoint I created is obviously too detailed, but if there is a resources section it might be a helpful tool. I don't have any other materials or suggestions -- was only providing this as a resource for editors who might need a quick brushup on the RefToolbar implementation. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

GLAM External Link Templates[edit]

Also, these might possibly of interest to Librarians....

GLAM external link templates

Example:

{{LoC-MSS|ID|link label}}
An example:
{{LoC-MSS|98084318|Ruth Bader Ginsburg papers}}
displays
Template:LoC-MSS

-- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@BrillLyle: The audience for this event might be a bit too broad. This seems like a great thing to be sharing with the cultural-partners list: people who are more active on Wiki, in organizing these kinds of tools. Do you have a documentation page other than the category? It would be great to have both a process, and some sample outcomes sharable with WIRs and other volunteers and professionals coordinating impact for GLAMs, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
@Astinson (WMF): Agree this is not the audience for this tool; however, again, if there are librarians at GLAM institutions who would like to create these templates, that connection would be invaluable. Each template has a really good set of documentation built into it. I was going to do a Lightning Talk PowerPoint summarizing the typical steps -- although each template can be very different. And as you said above, this is too detailed for this project, so I'm not sure if it would be helpful at this point. I have not had much engagement from other editors in creating these templates although I have tried to reach out to fellow editors and institutional stakeholders. Once the template is made the institutions seem happy but I'm sure the templates are under-deployed. As we have held Wikipedia editathons here in New York City, I've been creating them for each institution, with the only constraint being if their digital assets are set up with unique identifiers in the URLs. As far as event outcomes I don't have sample outcomes beyond listing them in the outcomes of the event pages. I listed this here because it's very library/institution/GLAM friendly and this project seems to dovetail a bit to the templates. Agree it would be great to increase engagement as the templates are very powerful. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

so great[edit]

I love this! We might want a slightly slimmed down set of directions to link to on social media -- perhaps a 1-pager with pictures. The other thing that would be useful is a "what makes a good source" section -- I can work on this. -- phoebe | talk 18:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Phoebe: This is very first drafty, I would welcome a one pager before the push in January (feel free to use the TWL OWL liberally). Let me know if you have any other thoughts/ideas, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Seriously, a big page with 1, 2, 3 and some social media stuff and a lot less "watch our video" and a lot less "here is the history of this initiative and Wikipedia generally". I feel like you're trying to do a lot of things with this page and your hearts are in the right place but if you want people to help, reduce the friction considerably and make it fun. Maybe you need two pages? I'm happy to help (not just shoot my mouth off) but wanted to make sure I ran it by everyone first. Jessamyn (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Jessamyn and Phoebe: I would be happy to see these design changes: that is part of the reason we started sharing it a month out! Please do make the design changes! Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Help contact[edit]

What does "Signing up to be a help contact in the "Contact a library leader" section" entail? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Sorry for the slow response: we are just trying to get some community members, who can answer questions or respond to queries in their local region. We aren't putting firm rules on what this means, so feel free to forward anything you don't think is appropriate onto our central contact tools (me, the wikipedialibrary@wikimedia adress, or twitter). I imagining we might get some press from this, so that might be useful, or I will use that list to refer to people for guest blog posts -- we have gotten a half dozen asks so far.

Hello! We are holding an editathon at Johns Hopkins Today for #1Lib1Ref and our IP addresses and Usernames are being blocked. Help!

Template:Translatable template[edit]

Hi, can someone prepare the page for multilingual translations? I've never used the TNT template and don't know how to manage it, but I do want to translate this page into Catalan language. Thanks in advance!--Kippelboy (talk) 11:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Kippelboy, I can set it up, but we should get the text locked down before we make a translatable version. Jessamyn and others have made some improvements, so I think we're close. The Interior (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Translations[edit]

Quiddity and I have gone through the pages to set them up for translation, they should be mostly good to go. Careful with links, there's a lot of them!

However, we had trouble with the template - it was transcluding all the translation markup, and we couldn't figure out why. We've taken it out for now, but here's the version that was breaking: [1]. Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Patrick Earley (WMF) and Quiddity,
Thank you for doing the translating template, it seems like I messed up with the sidebar template, I want to make the chinese version to have the zh sidebar however I can only edit the english version's sidebar and it makes the translated version remains in english sidebar... --Liang(WMTW) (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Patrick Earley (WMF) and Liang, we finally determined that the template just needed TNT and dummy-edits. It appears to now be working correctly in The_Wikipedia_Library/1Lib1Ref/zh and The_Wikipedia_Library/1Lib1Ref/fr and etc. Thanks to all who helped.
Everyone else: Please take a look at translating the sidebar, Template:The Wikipedia Library/1Lib1Ref/Sidebar, and the latest updates to the main page. Thanks! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
@Quiddity (WMF), PEarley (WMF), Guillaume (WMF), Trizek (WMF), and Shangkuanlc:, could you please also wrap the screenshot (or, at the very least, the caption) for translation? Halibutt (talk) 11:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Can you be more specific, Halibutt? Thanks, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
@Trizek (WMF):, on The_Wikipedia_Library/1Lib1Ref/Participate and The Wikipedia Library/1Lib1Ref/Help there are screenshots posted as illustration. All three are in English, with English subtitles. Ideally, the pictures themselves should be swappable for some other language version, and the captions should be translatable. See The_Wikipedia_Library/1Lib1Ref/Help/pl#Dodawanie_przypisów to know what I mean. Halibutt (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Also, the project's title: it's localisable on the main page, but it's in English on subpages (Help and Participate). Halibutt (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Done for both, concerning captions and page titles. Concerning the image itself, it is a little bit more complicated. If you have any idea about how to deal with that, please ping me Halibutt. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
@Trizek (WMF):, thanks!. As to the images, well, technically in wiki code an image is a link just like any other, so you can simply wrap the entire image code in translate tags, with file name, size in px, caption and whatnot. Say, <translate>[[Image:Somethingsomething.jpg|thumb|right|English caption]]</translate>. Wouldn't this work? I'm pretty sure I did it once on Outreach, or somewhere... Halibutt (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Halibutt, that would work, but that's confusing for a translator. I've seen some people translating everything: <translate>[[Image:Quelquechosequqelquechose.jpg|pouce|droit|Légende en anglais]]</translate> will not work :D
If you think that's fine and you will watch it, let's do that. You can move the tags yourself, I'll then mark the page for translation. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, all is fine and dandy now. Halibutt (talk) 12:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Reworking of main page[edit]

I broke the main page down into four pages and did some chunking of the content and added design elements. All the text should be there with the exception of a few sentences I edited. Please feel free to add in anything you notice is off of missing. Query: is this ilib1ref 2015 or 2016 since we're working on it now but it's taking place in 2016? Jessamyn (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Its 2016! This looks great! I did a bunch of tweaks, and we will probably do some more as we move forward :) Astinson (WMF) (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Excellent, let me know if we should move the userbox somewhere. I don't really know how they work but you saw the one that I made. Jessamyn (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

facebook event creation?[edit]

Is it worth it having a facebook event that people can rsvp to? I could make one but it might be better if it came from the actual Library account (if there is one) Jessamyn (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we have a WikiLibrary account, and I will make it :) Great idea. Jake Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done https://www.facebook.com/events/975178119187954/ Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

What makes a good source?[edit]

Drafting up a "What makes a good source" section, to potentially add... -- phoebe | talk 21:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC) --

  • What makes a source good to add as a reference in Wikipedia?
  • Published: and peer-reviewed if possible.
  • Available: can readers potentially access the source?
  • Reliable: it's a source you'd point a patron to if they wanted to know more.
  • Secondary: usually secondary sources are better to cite than primary material, except in cases like official census figures.
  • Actually supports the claim made in the text: the source should back up what is stated. If it doesn't, but is a good general resource for the topic (such as a specialty encyclopedia), consider adding the source to a "further reading" section. If you can't find any supporting source for a claim, remove the claim from the article and add a note to the article talk page about what you removed and your research.

Read more at the Wikipedia guideline Identifying reliable sources.

would make a great addition to the Participate page! 64.223.125.239 00:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Debrief?[edit]

Would love to be part of a debrief, hear what worked and what worked less well. I think it would be good to have some stats assembled that we can use to write summary posts about this. Jessamyn (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Great idea Jessamyn. We're going to work with WMF Communications to use their analytics software for social media stats. Then we need to get the edit summary hashtag search working on non-English languages. After that we will definitely have a debrief. Hopefully in 1 week, but possibly in 2. Meanwhile, there's lots of posts and tweets that would make an excellent "storify-ed" post. Jake Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The debrief we had scheduled was cancelled. I'd still like to be a part of a discussion about how to do something like this in the future Jessamyn (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Notification for coordinators[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library– #1Lib1Ref

#1Lib1Ref (One Librarian, One Reference) – January 15 - February 3, 2017.
It's that time of the year again!

Last year's #1Lib1Ref was a great success. More than 2000 citations were added, thanks to all our coordinators' efforts. We are looking forward to another even bigger event with all of your help.

What you can do to help[edit]

Please contact User:Astinson (WMF) with your ideas and questions. To unsubscribe or stop receiving notifications, please remove your names from the mass message list and template.

@TWL coordinators:

Pinging coordinators to share their thoughts or plans! Cheers, Jake Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@TWL coordinators: Ping—UY Scuti Talk 03:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Just a note the ping doesn't seem to work. Cameron11598 (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@TWL coordinators:

Pinging Coordinators from list 1—UY Scuti Talk 16:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@TWL coordinators:

Pinging Coordinators from list 2—UY Scuti Talk 16:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I was just pinged. --Benoît Prieur (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
It pinged me :D Cameron11598 (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Ocaasi (WMF). I got pinged, but I have been snowed by pings and did not notice it until now. I believe a massmessage directly to my talk page would get quicker notice from me. I am a massmessage sender if I can assist. Some of these prosposals look fun and viable. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Translate Dutch manual into English?[edit]

Hi, two weeks ago I created a 1Lib1Ref manual & call-to-action in Dutch. I tried to keep this manual as simple, to-the-point, visual and instructive as possible. The main reason was that I found the Dutch 1Lib1Ref info page rather confusing. I'm afraid that if I show this 'incrowd' page to un-initiated (into the Wikip/media world) librarians, they would be discouraged to take part in the action. I think it's already difficult enough for most 'normal' people to add a reference to WP

Although I'm primarily focusing on the participation of Dutch librarians, I'm willing to translate 'my simple' manual into English. Would that be helpful? Would it be (re-)used?

--OlafJanssen (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@OlafJanssen: Thanks for your interest! But will it be simpler than this guide? Regards—UY Scuti Talk 16:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Getting statistics[edit]

A question that has come up in the libraries we engage with is about getting regional statistics, as libraries participating in an initiative generally need to report on it (to justify participation) and would like to know how many 1lib1ref updates occurred in their "local area". What statistics will be available and when will they be available? Thanks Kerry Raymond (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kerry Raymond: Unfortunately, for regional questions: people have to opt in to a tracking tool, or creating some kind of recording page on wiki (or use a secondary hashtag for example, you could support folks using the #queensland hashtag if you are trying to track contributions in that region/topic area). Our privacy policy doesn't allow for exposing that kind of user information, especially when folks are signed in (IP addresses are exposed for not logged in users). Astinson (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't believe they are looking for user names or statistics at the user level. It would be nice to be able to provide simple counts at the Australian and Australian state levels. If we want partnerships with the GLAM sector, we need to take their needs into account and being able to report on some kind of KPI is important part of that. Kerry Raymond (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Can you point me at the tracking tools? I suspect many of those involved would be willing if it helped provide the stats. Kerry Raymond (talk) 08:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@Astinson (WMF): I have a 1Lib1Ref session in 2 hours. Can I please get an answer to the question about tracking tools? We are now in Week 2. If this is the only way to gather data, I need to start promulgating it now. Kerry Raymond (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Hey Kerry. Sorry was gone over the weekend. You could use the Programs and events dashboard: https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/ . That would provide sufficient support for if you have a known cohort of folks (and you can add their names retroactively). However, its not very useful when you have folks who are also hardcore Wikimedians (because all of their other contributions get lost). That is why we are using the hashtags tracking for the campaign: tools.wmflabs.org/hashtags/search/1lib1ref . Astinson (WMF) (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
We do not have a known cohort. When you do outreach to a room of people and blog posts and the like, you have no idea what the user names are. Hence the desire for regional data. We do not need data on a user-level so there is no privacy issue. Alternatively, can we get data on edit summaries with the 1lib1ref tag AND which are on articles within Category:Australia (and its closure) and for Category:Queensland (and its closure). Ditto for other states. That must be do-able. Then at least we can report improvements to Australian/Queensland content as a statistic. I note that WMF is always asking us for KPIs; please help us get them. Kerry Raymond (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

"Warning: Template:Tnavbar/en is..." seen in preview[edit]

I'm in the middle of making very minor edits to this page (starting with fixing a missing period). This error appeared at the top of the first preview:

Warning: Template:Tnavbar/en is calling Template:Tnavbar/layout with more than one value for the "" parameter. Only the last value provided will be used.

Just to be cautious, I manually reverted my edit then previewed the page again, and the error persisted. Sorry all I can do is point this out. Hope this is helpful, and thank you for all your hard work! —Geekdiva (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Symbol[edit]

Why this one symbol? --Munja (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Munja: Which symbol? Astinson (WMF) (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

publicity[edit]

Not sure if anyone is collecting this kind of media for the project, but this is the blog post that went out from the State Library of Queensland. Kerry Raymond (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kerry Raymond: Thx, blogs and press go at: The_Wikipedia_Library/1Lib1Ref/Press. I added this one today! Astinson (WMF) (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Un asunto en cuanto al idioma[edit]

Recién me estoy informando respecto de esta iniciativa, que me parece muy interesante y por lo que tengo interés en participar, y en el relatorio en español que he estado leyendo, observé un link que me llevó aquí, y dicho enlace decía que si tengo una pregunta, que aquí la podría plantear.

En realidad tengo preguntas que hacer, pero aquí observo todo lo planteado en idioma inglés, y no sé si este espacio también está previsto para preguntas formuladas en otro idioma, siendo yo el primero en intentar este planteo, o si debo formular mi duda en otra página de discusión.

Y una de mis dudas es simple de expresar, por lo que la planteo a continuación.

Muy cierto, hay wikibibliotecarios u otro tipo de wikipedistas que señalan con una plantilla en un determinado artículo, los lugares donde sería importante sustituir esa marca por referencias pertinentes a fuentes fiables, pero también hay otras afirmaciones e informaciones presentes en un wikiartículo, donde esa plantilla no ha sido insertada, y que a todas luces también requerirían referencias a fuentes fiables. Supongo yo que ambos casos podrían participar en esta campaña, pero bueno, creo sería interesante que este punto se aclarara a título expreso.

Y otra cuestión, en base a lo que he estado leyendo en la presentación de esta campaña, nada se dice sobre las fotos o ilustraciones que podría ser interesante agregar a un determinado artículo. Cierto, hay cuestiones que poco se prestan para allí insertar una imagen o una foto, o algún otro archivo presente ya en WikiCommons o subido expresamente a Commons para esta instancia, pero por el contrario, hay otros artículos sobre lugares o hechos acaecidos, o biografías de personalidades, en que una o varias ilustraciones serían muy bienvenidas. Y mi pregunta es: ¿Estos agregados de ilustraciones también podrían participar en esta campaña?

Gracias anticipadamente por orientarme a través de algún tipo de retorno.

--Sol de Mayo de la Libertad.gif AnselmiJuan (discusión) 10:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@AnselmiJuan: Hola, en relación a tus dudas sobre el idioma, puedes plantear cualquier cuestión en español, no hay problema en ello. Sobre las referencias, la campaña busca añadirlas allí donde una plantilla las solicita pero pienso que cualquier otra referencia no solicitada también es bienvenida, cuanto más referenciado esté un artículo, mayor será su fiabilidad. En cuanto a insertar imágenes, queda fuera del objetivo de la campaña, pero es una tarea que puedes llevar a cabo en cualquier momento, sin necesidad de una campaña específica. Un cordial saludo. --Rodelar (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Muchas gracias usuario Rodelar por tu respuesta, muy clara además. En relación a insertar imágenes, claro que sé que puedo agregar las que me parezca, siempre que sean pertinentes, y esto naturalmente queda fuera de la presente edición 2017 de la campaña. Pero bueno, en lo personal creo que las imágenes mucho pueden aportar al contenido de un artículo, a la par de las referencias claro, estas últimas indispensables, y pensaba que al planificar la campaña 1Lib1Ref del año 2018, tal vez se podría estudiar si se podrían incluir también las imágenes, pues esto sería un muy buen incentivo para los wikipedistas novatos, para también aprender a manejarse con las imágenes y con otros archivos presentes en Commons. --Sol de Mayo de la Libertad.gif AnselmiJuan (discusión) 02:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

He seguido pensando en este asunto, y particularmente en las referencias gráficas[edit]

Mil disculpas usuario Rodelar, pero he seguido pensando en todo este asunto, y particularmente en los gráficos, porque desde el punto de vista de lo que aporta una referencia externa, pienso no hay mucha diferencia entre un link a un documento externo, y un link a una imagen.

Mira el siguiente caso, que tomo como ejemplo (imagen de la izquierda):

Claro, los enlaces a documentos externos se numeran, y se ubican en una sección especial, casi al final del artículo, mientras que las imágenes se insertan todo a lo largo del texto del artículo, pero en otros aspectos son muy similares.

Por ejemplo, una referencia a documento externo, debe ser acompañada de información adicional, como ser autor o autores, fecha, fuente. Pero al hacer clic sobre una imagen, también se accede a una página digital, donde también se encuentran informaciones adicionales. Además, en ambos casos es posible incluir comentarios, citas, o advertencias.

Obviamente, no es mi objetivo plantear para la campaña 2017 que también se consideren computar los agregados de imágenes. Sería absurdo, pues esta campaña ya está llegando a su fin. Pero bueno, al organizar la campaña del 2018 (pues espero que el año próximo también se organice una), bien se podría considerar esta modificación en las bases.

Aquí abajo, muestro el texto de edición, que me permitió configurar la imagen anterior.

[[File:Garrote vil, de Ramón Casas.jpg|thumb|250px|left|''[[w:es:El garrote vil|El garrote vil]]'' (1894).]]

Felicidades.

--Sol de Mayo de la Libertad.gif AnselmiJuan (discusión) 16:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@AnselmiJuan: Hola, este tema se debería plantear al equipo organizador pero ya de cara al año que viene, la campaña actual está a punto de acabar. De todas formas, a efectos de verificabilidad una imagen no es comparable a una referencia, es decir no se debe justificar o referenciar un determinado contenido con una imagen; esta sirve para ilustrar ese contenido, para enriquecer su lectura, pero la verificabilidad vendrá gracias a la referencia a un libro, un artículo, una noticia, etc. Todo ello no quita para que se puedan plantear acciones en las que se promueva la inserción de imágenes en los artículos. Un saludo. --Rodelar (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Perfecto, muy razonable lo que dices, usuario Rodelar. Ciertamente, si se hace algo en este sentido, quedará para el 2018, en el marco de esta misma campaña ampliada, o en el marco eventualmente de una iniciativa diferente e independiente.
Desde mi punto de vista, tanto una imagen como una referencia ilustran y aclaran, y pienso que el contenido de una referencia también ilustra y aclara y permite ampliar conocimientos. Obvio, es bien claro que una referencia con texto permite verificar la información textual contenida en un wikiartículo, mientras que una imagen puede llegar a ilustrar muy bien un pasaje de texto, pero no permite verificar la información textual generalmente resumida que contiene un wikiartículo.
No obstante, pienso que puede ser muy interesante promocionar que se ilusren con fotos o figuras, en la medida de lo posible, los distintos artículos de wikipedia. Yo he intentado hacer algo en este sentido, y las imágenes que agrego en muchos casos las copio de las wikientradas hermanas en otros idiomas, lo que me lleva a pensar que en este aspecto estamos retrasados, y lo que me hace pensar que deberíamos promocionar esta cuestión.
Felicidades.
--Sol de Mayo de la Libertad.gif AnselmiJuan (discusión) 22:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Obsolete code in the banner[edit]

See phab:T151480. Helder 12:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Localization of statistics[edit]

As of now, these sentences have been translated to several languages, but still refer to the English Wikipedia and show statistics relevant to the English Wikipedia:

English Wikipedia alone has over 380,000 citation needed statements.
Thousands of articles need more references; 210,000 articles on English Wikipedia have no references at all.

However, I believe that someone reading the page in another language will likely be more interested in knowing how many "citation needed" statements and how many articles don't have any references... in Wikipedia in that language, not in English. Likewise, the link to w:Category:Articles lacking sources should also be changed to the corresponding category in Wikipedia in the target language.

Is there a general policy on the translation of statistics? Should the (Anglo-centric) information on statistics in pages in English be merely translated (maintaining its Anglo-centrism, just in another language), or should it be fully adapted to the target language? Sabbut (talk) 10:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sabbut: Sorry for not responding to this sooner. Yes, please do adapt it for the target language in the translation layer. We want each language/geographic community to . I will make sure that that is shared more thoroughly with campaign organizers next year, when we do it again. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, I just changed the relevant part in the Spanish translation. Sabbut (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Ampliación de las estadísticas: muy interesante planteamiento[edit]

Cierto, las campañas de 2016 y 2017 comenzaron ambas el 15 de enero, fecha aniversario del comienzo de Wikipedia, que naturalmente comenzó exclusivamente con la Wikipedia en inglés (ese mismo año de 2001 comenzaron varias otras Wikipedia en otros idiomas).

Para wikipedistas que no tengan al inglés como lengua materna, creo sería muy interesante para ellos también conocer las estadísticas desglosadas, de lo que pasó con el agregado de referencias en otras lenguas.

En la campaña del año 2016, se sabe al menos que hubo 327 participantes, 1.232 revisiones, y 9 idiomas involucrados. Creo no sería muy complicado plantear un cuadro de 9 líneas, donde al menos se desglosaran los datos de revisiones y de usuarios participantes, para cada idioma.

--Sol de Mayo de la Libertad.gif AnselmiJuan (discusión) 16:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Project outcomes[edit]

When do we have any project outcomes? I'm gonna be nagged very soon for the GLAMwiki newsletter for February amongst other things and I want to have something to say. What was final count? Can we please at least get the list of edits with the hashtag? Kerry Raymond (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kerry Raymond: 4,171 edits from 741 contributors to 2,588 pages[1]. And for the list of edits, please visit the Wikipedia social search tool on labs. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 14:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Kerry Raymond (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I downloaded the CSV of the edits, but I am a bit confused. The CSV seems to have one edit per row, but there appear to be 5642 rows in the CSV file, which seems to suggest more than 4,171 edits. What am I missing here? Kerry Raymond (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
@Kerry Raymond: Yeah, it can be confusing. The CSV and the tool includes hashtags from last year's campaign and hashtags after the campaign. But the results (4,171) were the edits made from 3 January 2017 to 3 February 2017, not including edits made before or after the time frame. Hope that helps. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 17:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
OK. I see a problem though in the date fields, there appear to be two different formats which is making sorting by date difficult. Why is that? I'm trying to find the edits made in certain date/time ranges corresponding to specific events we held. Also, did the query that collected these edits search for #1lib1ref or did it also allow 1lib1ref (without the #)? I ask because I saw some edit summaries on my watchlist that did not include the #. Kerry Raymond (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
@Kerry Raymond: I'm not sure why they are in different formats. Maybe Astinson (WMF) or Ocaasi (WMF) can help? And about the hashtag '#', the tool indexes only the edits that include '#'. Also, I'm not sure if there's a tool to search for edits with a particular phrase/word i.e. without the hashtag. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 14:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Increasing yield[edit]

How about listing ideas for identifying or new-building some tools that could speed up this sort of thing? Some starters below:LeadSongDog (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

  1. Each edition page found on the Open Library has a "Download catalog record" list that shows a "Wikipedia citation" link (as well as RDF, JSON, ond OPDS formats). A tool (perhaps a bookmarklet?) could conceivably be built to feed that information into a search of WP for articles on matching subjects, where they contain either unlinked "Bibliography" sections or "citation needed" and "unreferenced" tags. This would be particularly beneficial for long-stable topic areas, as any available PD fulltext could then be just clicks away for content editors.
  2. Within a WP article, the pool of cited books will tend to have a cluster of similar Dewey- and LC-classes, so tagging the article accordingly could help source hunters to find other (perhaps better) books on the same topic. Likewise it would help someone with a specific book in hand to find articles that could benefit from citing that book.
  3. Many works, or even editions, are cited in many articles, but often incompletely. Very often there is no linked catalogue entry (no ISBN, OCLC, OL, or any other identifier), making it one notch harder for a reader to know if the source even exists. A tool able to list all WP articles where a specific work is cited would facilitate diffusion of such more-complete metadata out to the articles.
  4. Wikidata gathers metadata on cited works which could be used by a tool to fill in missing parameters in incomplete templated citations
  5. ...