Help desk
< June 27	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 29 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

June 28

Request: Journalist wanting to know number of Daily Mail references in 2016

I am a journalist, Stephen Harrison, who regularly writes about Wikipedia for Slate. I am trying to figure out how many times the Daily Mail was referenced as a source on Wikipedia in December 2016 before the Jan 2017 RfC determining that the Daily Mail was a generally unreliable source. This would be a one-time report, basically a snapshot of Dec 2016. Could anyone help me with producing that database or report? Many thanks for any help you can provide.

Note: I also posted this request at WP:Database reports and have not heard back just yet. Stephenbharrison (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard JzG Any wisdom on this? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I thought you had the WP:SSfWJ status already? ;-) (very obscure attempt at humor) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The SSfWJ joke is funny, actually. Thanks for flagging. Stephenbharrison (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where this number would be!

I have noted numbers at times - 21,768 uses as of 13 January 2020. I think the highest I know of was 26,000 or so uses? That's from memory - David Gerard (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

aha, here we go: 27,336 in Q3 2018. (Ping SashiRolls, who posted that number. Source is this PDF, which SashiRolls made.) That's the highest number that I recall for DM usages. For comparison, we currently have 15 in article space? - David Gerard (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SashiRolls is sitebanned unfortunately. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ah well! *cough* anyway, their data seems pretty plausible - David Gerard (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this helps, but really trying to get a datapoint from 2016 before the 2017 RfC. Stephenbharrison (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF only publishes dumps going about three months back and the Wayback Machine doesn't seem to archive them, so any new analysis is going to be difficult. —Cryptic 14:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This [1] has dumps going back to early 2017, if I am reading it correctly. RudolfRed (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grabbing the 20 Feb 2017 dump to see if that can be made to give usable info. It's a month after the RFC started and a couple of weeks after the RFC concluded, but it may be the best we can do - David Gerard (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ooh, archive.org has this dump from 01 Jan 2017 - seeing if I can do anything with that - David Gerard (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a December 1, 2016 dump if you want something earlier. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a result!

I took this file from the archive.org dump for 20170101 - https://archive.org/download/enwiki-20170101/enwiki-20170101-pages-articles.xml.bz2 - the dump of pages from all namespaces, 13GB compressed and about 60GB uncompressed. Then I ran it through the following, 'cos parsing XML with regexps is cruise control for cool:

egrep -o 'dailymail.co.uk|<ns>0</ns>' Downloads/enwiki-20170101-pages-articles.xml |uniq | grep dailymail.co.uk | wc -l

This gives only one dailymail.co.uk per article in namespace 0. Total: 30,772.

So we can state with confidence that just before the RFC was called, there were over 30,000 articles using dailymail.co.uk as a reference.

This doesn't count any using other DM domains - David Gerard (talk) 23:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh btw Stephenbharrison is this about your piece? Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Upcoming_magazine_article_on_this_noticeboard_and_The_Daily_Mail - David Gerard (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard First, many thanks for finding that figure of over 30,000 articles on Jan 1, 2017. Very helpful! Second, you are correct that the discussion you linked to is related to my piece. Stephenbharrison (talk) 01:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephenbharrison Hopefully the final article will include focus on the benefits of crowdsourcing and consensus building, rather than attempting to manufacture a censorship scandal where there isn't one. Here's a great page to read for some more background: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this suggestion. I am trying to dedicate a lot space in the article to the benefits of consensus building and describe how that process works on Wikipedia because I do not think that it is well known. Stephenbharrison (talk) 01:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I use multiple tools at the same time?

Currently I'm using Twinkle. I want to use some more tools like RedWarn. I used it at once and I copy-paste script to my sub-userpage. But I think at one time, I can use only one tool. I want to know, can I create some more pages-- username/common.js, username/common2.js and username/common3.js It will work? Dinesh | Talk 10:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dineshswamiin: To start using both Twinkle and RedWarn, just install RedWarn in your common.js (like you had in a previous version). You will then see the buttons and menus for both, and they will both work. In theory, you can use as many gadgets (enabled through preferences) and user scripts (installed through common.js) as you want at the same time. You don't need multiple common.js files – just install all your user scripts in the same one, one per line. – Rummskartoffel 11:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Create page

FYI

– Heading added by Tenryuu.

My name is NIKITO ZHIMO please create a page for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NIKITO ZHIMO (talk • contribs) 14:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NIKITO ZHIMO: If you are notable someone might start writing an article about you. Do not spam other users' talk pages or Wikipedia portal pages with content about you or stuff that is meaningless. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to collapse personal attacks?

Someone made a personal attack based on age to me. Am I allowed to "collapse" the attack to make it less prominent? I feel sad/offended to see it. Thanks! Félix An (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably better for an independent editor to do that sort of thing. But given the whole section has been removed,[2] this specific instance is moot. DMacks (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading images for a fan page.

If you are creating page as a fan, what is the rules about the images I can use.

Please note I have verbal permission, from the image owner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twilliams ca (talk • contribs) 17:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal permission is of no use to Wikipedia. Please read WP:Donating copyrighted materials. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Twilliams ca: There is only one absolute requirement for a new article: the subject of the article must be notable by our definition: see WP:N. If the subject is not notable, any attempt to create an article will ultimately fail, frustrating you and wasting our time: see WP:AMOUNT. If you are certain that your can show that your subject will meet our notability requirements after reading WP:CSMN, then you can worry about a picture. -Arch dude (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be better off making a fan page somewhere else; Wikipedia is not the place for that. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 02:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]