Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive A

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Village pump (proposals) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215

Editing templates

How does one edit a template? I'll need to update {{CurrentLCOTW}} in the temporary absence of User:Ludraman, who usually does it. Thanks in ignorance. Filiocht 13:17, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC) Worked it out by trial and error. Filiocht 13:37, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Wikidebate

The skibidi rizzler ate Kim Kardashian's gyatt like a 5 star buffet. Also skibidi skibidi hawk tuah hawk

keyboard shortcuts

Is there a page on wikipedia showing useful keyboard shortcuts for editing. e.g ALT-S saves the page. Would like to find more shortcuts. ~

I don't know of a page(although you should check meta). However, you can find them via tooltips, or looking for accesskey in the HTML code of pages. Once you find them, make a page, like Wikipedia:Keyboard_shortcuts, and add them there. That way other people will be able to find such a page, because you wrote it! JesseW 00:24, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See m:MediaWiki User's Guide:Shortcuts for the full list of keyboard shortcuts. Angela. 07:19, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

New York articles

A user named Enchanter has suggested a page move of New York to New York State because he thinks that a link to New York could mean either the state or the city. Several other registered Wikipedians have responded, all of which disagree. See Talk:New York for details. Any more opinions on this?? 66.245.102.77 17:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(sections above this (and below the previous tag) were archived on 18:19, Nov 15, 2004 (by User:Violetriga 04:06, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC))'

Proposed changes to the Manual of Style

Currently the MOS says: 'For the English Wikipedia, there is no preference among the major national varieties of English.'

But there are two exceptions to this rule in the manual. There is a poll on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style on whether these exceptions should be removed. The poll will end on 20:00 UTC on 8 November.jguk 19:02, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Australian Soccer Club

I am just wondering whether it would be OK to make a page on a now-defunct Australian soccer club, the Northern Spirit. They existed for around 10 years in the National Soccer League. Also, there is a new league in Australia starting, called the A-League, since the National Soccer League was taken down. Would it be ok to write one about this? Australian soccer is not big outside Australia, and it doesn't have that many supporters within Australia - but it is a national competition...--AlbinoMonkey 04:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
By the way, it gets 15,900 Google hits just for "Northern Spirit", over 9,000 for "Northern Spirit", soccer OR football. AlbinoMonkey 04:30, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 04:32, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
You might want to call the article Northern Spirit F.C. or similar; Northern Spirit is (or was!) also the name of a British train company. AdorableRuffian 14:57, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kobe Bryant's Accuser

I hope this is the right place to put this. There is currently a vote going on at Talk:Kobe Bryant's Accuser discussing whether the article should now be moved to the woman's real name. RickK 23:55, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Add direct search function to "article does not exist" page

Currently, if an article does not exist, the visitor gets a message with three options:

  • Edit this page
  • Look into the Wiktionairy
  • Look at the candidates for speedy deletion.

I propose to add an option "search for this". When I want to know something about a certain subject, I type it directly into the address bar. Recently, I typed "w are you being served", and received the Article does not exist page. It turned out to be called "Are You Being Served?". I had to paste the text I was looking for into the search form to search for it. If the 'does not exist' message would have had an option "search for this", it would not have been neceserry to do the latter. I'm sure it would be a useful feature, the only minor disadvantage being that the 'does not exist' message would grow. Gerritholl 14:29, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've added a link to the search from the "noarticletext" page. See MediaWiki talk:Noarticletext. Angela. 13:18, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Alternate versions proposal

I have drafted a proposal about allowing and encouraging authors of media files to make the source material used for their production available. This is needed to encourage wiki collaboration and modification of images and other material and to facilitate future migration towards new technologies and print.

The proposal is in my namespace: User:Chmod007/Alternate_version_proposal. Please discuss it on the talk page. — David Remahl 13:30, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Protecting the pump

Since we are expected to post to individual pump sections rather than to the pump, it should probably be protected. That way, people like me who've bookmarked the link to add a new section to the village pump would also come to know of the new policy of posting to individual sections. -- Paddu 21:10, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Moved that from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). -- Paddu 19:27, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree this would seem a reasonable reason for protection. Angela. 13:20, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

The cheat from home star runner.

The cheat has a gold tooth. Can someone add that? Clownfish 19:21, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It seems that you've figured out that you can do it yourself. (although you misspelled "gold" as "good") -- Cyrius|✎ 04:19, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia to create a respository of Common Sense.

Hi,

I have a suggestion for a method of using Wikipedia to create a respository of Common Sense which can complement the knowledge bases produced by OpenCyc and OpenMind and help in making further progress towards artificial intellignce.

Wikipedia can be used as a harbour for closer collaboration between AI researchers and the general public as well as for mining common sense. I wish to know your opinion about this.

Please have a look at

Again, I used a list as a random choice. I guess using categories is better. But what is more important is whether the Wiki community likes or dislikes this from happening to Wikipedia. Please let me know on the discussion page.

It's a small thing, but these links at the top of "User Contributions"? 

View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500).

Could we have them on the bottom, too? It'd make it much easier to peruse someone's contribution list.... Catherine | talk 21:38, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As this requires a (fairly minor) change to the software, I suggest you submit a "bug" to MediaZilla, marking its "severity" as "enhancement". This makes it easy for developers to see and keep track of your request. - IMSoP 16:44, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How about adding dates to subpages for easier archival/removal of old discussions & smaller pump subpages?

How about not worrying too much about archiving/removal of old discussions from the pump by having pages like Village pump (proposals) (Oct 29, 2004)? At any time two such pages would be transcluded, with the "add new discussion" links pointing to the more recent one. Once the older one grows old, we just have to remove the old links, create a new Village pump (''section name'') (''date'') page and transclude that. We can have a redirect from Village pump (''section name'') to the latest Village pump (''section name'') (''date''), so that only that redirect needs to be updated.

This would hopefully make it easier to restrict the pump sections to editable limits. -- Paddu 21:16, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That sounds really smart! I like the idea. Catherine | talk 21:38, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The big problem with this is watchlists: if you are watching "x (October)", and "x (november)" is created from fresh, you will not be watching it. Whereas a moved page leaves you with both on your watchlist, and a manually archived page leaves you with the one that is actually changing. I, for one, use the watchlist as a convenient way of accessing pages like the VP (since they're bound to be somewhere at the top of it). - IMSoP 21:55, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
To access pages like VP you could use the Community portal. I thought that's what it is for. -- Paddu 08:28, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess I could get used to not being able to do that trick (it broke for a bit when the pump was split recently, anyway, cos I didn't have each section watched). Personally, I tend towards the view that nothing should end up in a "village pump archive", except a list of links to where things were actually archived / discussed, but that's a lot of maintenance. My reasoning being that finding anything in such an archive is an absolute. But actually, one advantage of this particular suggestion is that unlike with other archiving systems, links to a particular discussion will be ever-lasting: a link to [[Wikipedia:Village pump (section) (date)#header]] can be created as soon as the header is, and will still take you to the right place years later! Basically, we need a better discussion structure in the software, but I won't hold my breath... *shrug* I guess I'll cope with whatever form things take for now, but this idea does actually make some sense. - IMSoP 16:38, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

BTW old discussions could also be removed. I'm neutral on whether they should be archived (since AFAICT archiving is done irregularly -- some discussions are archived & some deleted, I always rely on the history section in case I'm ever interested in what I said in the pump years ago), but I suppose my suggestion would lead to smaller pages. That was my main intention, but my fingers typed an unrelated title in a hurry.

Also what could be done is that the subpages a few months old need not be linked to from the main Village pump, but they need not be deleted until they're several months old. -- Paddu 18:52, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, there's no real reason to delete them ever, is there? Wiki is not paper, after all, and if they're date-based pages, they don't even clog the DB up with page history... - IMSoP 23:26, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

CSS based tooltips

Based on some experimenting on the Dutch wikipedia, i came up with a partial solution for using tooltips in the wikipedia. It works in Mozilla/Firefox, but not in Internet Explorer, and it requires an adaption to your personal stylesheet. See User:Taka/Tooltips. --Taka 20:30, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Temperance Fountain

Moved to Wikipedia:Reference Desk

Easy access to User Contributions

On all of my Wikimedia User pages, I have included a link to Special:Contributions/PhilHibbs because I think it is important to be able to see what a user has contributed, especially if there is a suspicion of bias, vandalism, or spamming. I would like to see this available on all User pages with a single click, much as History, Discussion, etc. are. PhilHibbs 16:37, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is available in all user pages. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:43, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, in the "Toolbox"! Cheers. PhilHibbs 11:50, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Actually, it does not seem to be available (at least using the default skin) on user subpages--see User:Niteowlneils/music. Niteowlneils 17:33, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Citing Wikipedia" link, or Citation Box, on every page

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Citing Wikipedia

Search Disabled Behavior

When search is disabled on Wikipedia (for performance reasons), would it be expensive to redirect to the search query if there is an exact match on the title of an article? (ie, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/SearchString) My guess is no, and this would make WP a lot more useful from, for instance, the firefox search box. Searching seems to be disabled frequently these days.

A lot of people find the Google/Yahoo search boxes that are on the search page when search is disabled useful. So, redirecting to an article instead would remove this when it might still be more helpful than going to an article with the word you were searching for. Angela. 13:24, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Only locally relevant entries

It may be that something like this has already been suggested but: Occasionally anons enter articles about local features - locally prominent landmarks, restaurants, schools, etc - that usually end up being nominated for deletion. At the same time there are numerous articles about small towns that contain mainly numerical census data. If some things have mainly local significance, maybe we could encourage people to add them to articles about that locality? - Skysmith 09:22, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we could encourage people not to delete factual, verifiable and interesting articles? Mark Richards 19:42, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Plenty of things are factual, interesting, and not encyclopedic, certainly not at the level of meriting articles of their own. Yes, I agree competely with Skysmith: if, for example, you want to write about your high school, which virtually no one outside of your town has heard of, write it in the context of the article of your town or (if it's a big city) do an article on the city's public school system. See for example [[1]] or Seattle Public Schools; either of these could do with some expansion -- in particular, both figured interestingly in the history of school integration -- but these are examples, in my view, of handling this appropriately. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:22, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
I really like Skysmith's idea of just integrating these things into articles about the locality. It makes complete sense. Obviously we shouldn't get down to the barbershop-on-the-corner level, but there is another level of information that could be in those article. —siroχo 10:13, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

I like this idea. It would certainly be a lot less time we have to waste on VFD. And we wouldn't be as reliant on admins. Anyone can merge and redirect. anthony 警告 01:12, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, it's the best way to do things to have The Big Pickle in Pickletown, rather than as a separate article. There are a few things that gather notice outside of their towns (Peachoid, e.g.), but most of these are empty calories. As for "no one should delete verifiable information," remember that there are more facts than things in the world. Encyclopedias are not the reference equivalent of a person with Tourette's compulsively trying to touch every tree in the park. It is a work designed for use, not just vaccuuming up. At any rate, where I have seen bad local-only articles come in SCHOOLS (all hail the local 5 & Dime and the hallowed halls of Peabody Primary for Preteens!) and neighborhoods. In particular, most of the latter have come in the cases of places where Rambot doesn't go -- Australia, in particular -- and in places that are too big for such narrow focus -- Seattle, in particular. So a New Page shows up called Merrylake. You find out that it's a park in Canberra. Not the park, just a park. Ok. Or you see a new page, and it's called Valleydown. You find out that it is a subdivision in Seattle. You can't merge that in and have any end to the article, and so you can either speedy delete it or VfD it or, of course, say that it's a verifiable fact and therefore is sacred and that anyone who thinks otherwise is deletionist scum. Geogre 17:24, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think there's a reasonable home for just about anything. Merges can be done, and when things get too crowded in the parent, splits can be made. When there are too many subdivisions in a seattle article, you move all but the most important to Subdivisions of Seattle. When too many parks are listed in Canberra, you start Parks in Canberra. I do think we need to distinguish between facts and knowledge, though, as there are an infinite number of facts. We wouldn't keep the facts "1002 is a number, 1003 is a number, 1004 is a number, etc." What we'd do instead is explain the concept on the number article. Finally, we should consider that Wikipedia is part of a larger project, Wikimedia. Some detail (e.g. the latitude and longitude of every single fire hydrant in a certain city) might go beyond that which is reasonable to include in an encyclopedia. But that doesn't mean we should delete it, rather it should be preserved somewhere so it can be used in future projects. In the example of the fire hydrant locations, this would be great information for a detailed interactive map of the world, which is one of the things I'd like to see in my proposed project meta:Wikiteer. anthony 警告 13:22, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Auto-generated Special Interest Groups

One of the main motives for contributing to a wiki is discussing your interests with other people who share them. It seems to me that there is a need for discussion areas somewhere between article talk pages and the Village Pump. With the various regional notice boards, and such initiatives as Project Crossbow, it looks like a few people agree with me. Here's an idea for auto-generating discussion groups based on subject matter. I'm not proposing that the Wikipedia adopt the idea, I'm just polling for opinions on the matter.

I think the optimum size for a discussion group is between 20-200 members. Below 20, there isn't enough variety of opinion, and groupthink might set in. Above 200, the signal-to-noise ratio drops, although discussion is still possible up to about the 400 mark. As a sanity check, I checked out number of members of various legislatures at List_of_state_legislatures_of_the_United_States. The results agreed with this hypothesis:

Higher House Highest: 67 Lowest: 20 Mean: 38.7 Median: 38

Lower House Highest: 400 Lowest: 40 Mean: 108.3 Median: 100

It should be noted that the second largest body, Pennsylvania's lower house, has only 203 members. Note the difference between the mean and median figures on the Lower House table.

To start, take a list of contributor logins. Throw out any known bots. Throw out any inactive contributors. What “inactive” means is a bit arbitrary, I would suggest no edits for the last 30 (or possibly 90) days as a definition.

It might also be a good idea to limit the list to “elder” contributors, those with 100 or more edits to their name. Before I get flamed on this point, I'd like to point out that I'm currently under 100 edits myself. “Younger” and anon contributors would of course be allowed to participate in these groups, but it might be wise not to assign a contributor to a group until they reach the 100 edit mark. (It is, of course, not possible to assign an anon to such a group.) In addition to cutting down on sock puppets, a contributor might be assigned to an inappropriate group based on too small of a sample size of their edits. If “younger” contributors are to be assigned to groups, they should be re-evaluated for group assignment fairly often, perhaps as often as every 5 edits. (Reassignments would take place during off-peak hours, so no more than one reassignment a day.) Incidentally, any idea how many active “elder” contributors there are?

Anyway, you take the resulting list, and sort it by number of edits. Take the top x contributors. (20 might be a good value for x.) These contributors are the first members of their own groups. Starting at the bottom of the list (to help slow down how fast a group's subject area spreads), compare what articles each contributor has edited, and assign them to the group which has the most overlap. (Limit this to main namespace articles, of course.)

When a group reaches the 200 member mark, split off the two most senior (in terms of edits) members. Starting with the most junior member of the group, assign members to one of the two daughter groups. Since the results will be a lot closer than the general assigning, might want to weight based on number of edits on each article.

After all contributors have been assigned, disband any group at or below the 20 member mark, and disperse its members among the other groups. Again, split up any group that hits the 200 mark.

Auto-generate a page for each group in a separate name space, say, “Special Interest:”. Since it would be hard to write a script to determine the nature of the group, assign a serial number to each group. (Or name the group after the most shared article, and give groups with the same article a number.) This page would have a list of the members, and a list of articles, sorted by the number of group members who have edited the article. The group's discussions would take place in the associated talk page.

After the initial setup, the group system ought to be maintained on a daily basis, during offpeak hours. Assigning new contributors, splitting maxed out groups, delisting inactive contributors, and disbanding minimum-ed out groups. Since you probably don't want to be with the same group your entire Wikipedian career, if this doesn't produce enough churn, then “elder” contributors' group memberships could be reevaluated at 100, 50, or even 25 edit intervals.

Comments? crazyeddie 21:29, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It would be really cool, IMO, if it was possible to implement this on an outside site (i.e. crazyeddie's if you're interested); that way, those Wikipedians who wanted to use the system to find BOAFs could, but it would not burden the main site. If it became wildly popular, of course, it could me moved over. I don't know if it's possible to implement this in this offsite way, but I think it should be doable, since the cur and old tables are downloadable... JesseW 12:27, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have a site or the coding skills to pull this off by myself. If someone likes the idea and wants to run with it, you have my blessing. I'm not sure how much of a load this would put on the main site, since all the work would be done on off-peak hours. Also, if server loads got too high, updating could be put off temporarily. But it might take an off-site trial to prove the idea.

This idea does have some tie-ins with some other ideas on the page. Somebody got pointed to a "Wikipedians by interest" list. It seems to me that this method would be a more accurate version of the same thing. Another person suggested a "catagory maintainer". Each interest group could elect a maintainer. Slightly different, but same result.

I'm personally now leaning away from making the groups "elders" only. Does anybody have any guesses on the current number of active contributors, elder or otherwise? crazyeddie 17:45, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also, it might not be good to limit the groups to main namespace articles - there might be a Village Pump BOAF Group (good name by the way). crazyeddie 17:48, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

One last thought - it seems to me that this system would be a possible supplement or even replacement for the catagory system, with lots of room for interesting, serendipitous results. crazyeddie 17:51, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Add a "Go to Top"/ something similar link at the bottom of every page

Hi, I think it would be pretty convenient for everyone to have a "Go to top of page" link on every Wikipedia article/ talk page - especially on long pages (perhaps the link can appear automatically if the page exceeds a certain size). -- Simonides 23:40, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As someone pointed out in #wikipedia, Ctrl+Home, in most browsers, goes to the top of the page. Is this really necessary? --Slowking Man 00:01, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
I'm sure this comes as a rude shock to the browser savvy, but I doubt the majority of people reading Wikipedia (apart from Wikipedians) are aware of the Ctrl+M command. -- Simonides 00:40, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
But every keyboard I've seen has a "Home" key, which certainly takes you to the top of the page. (And, more useful on a lot of Wikipedia: pages, an "End" key.) --jpgordon{gab} 00:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's good to have as many ways of doing a task as possible. Let the user decide which one they want to use. Even if a user knows to use "Home" or Ctrl+M keys, which is a very small minority of users, they might prefer to use the mouse instead. I know I do. crazyeddie 21:32, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes. I don't understand the resistance to a minor addition that covers more possibilities and is a convenience to most users. -- Simonides 13:07, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, in defense of the conservative viewpoint, this minor addition would take up valuable screen real estate and coder time. However, it looks to me like it wouldn't add too much clutter to the bottom of the screen, and this minor addition shouldn't be too bothersome to code. While this change isn't necessary, it would greatly increase convenience. crazyeddie 18:03, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't see it as being a particular problem to have such a line, if it's warranted. Most articles are barely a screen long (depending on resolution, of course, font, etc.), but for those articles that are very long, it might be worthwhile to put a nav box in. The TOC at the top of the article could be repeated. However, I would like to say that it should not be a command that all articles have them, only that it's a nice thing to do if you find yourself working on a very long article (like that full length discussion of Harry Potter's wand or whatever). Geogre 17:29, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Maybe some sort of script that adds the "go to top of page" and the toc is the article is over a certain length? crazyeddie 19:54, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just what I suggested at the beginning. -- Simonides 20:09, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A TOC link next too each section edit link would be better. --mav 22:59, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe. But I'd think that would clutter up the page too much. I think our best bet is a script that adds a "home" link and second toc if the page is over a certain length. I guess Simonides agrees with me. So what's the next step in getting this idea to the powers that be? crazyeddie 07:09, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind having some better intra-page navigation help either, to help people reading long articles to find their way around. —siroχo 08:27, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Deletion log

I have another deletion related proposal, hopefully less controversial than the one on the other part of the pump.

I strongly support increasing the number of articles that can be speedy deleted. As policies get more complicated it inevitably makes it more necessary to check the deletion log to ensure admins are complying with policy. To make checking the deletion log easier why not replace the link on recent changes to Special:Ancient Pages? Old pages seems to not be functioning most of the time, and I see no reason why old pages are more of a priority than short, deadened, or orphaned pages all of which get by with only being linked to from Special:Special Pages. For symmetry's sake the deletion log is also much closer companion to the new pages log than is old pages. - SimonP 05:18, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Can I take this silence to mean there are no objections? - SimonP 19:06, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps a section for links to all the administrative logs could be created (Deletion, Block, Protection, etc.)? It might be a good feature to increase the visibility of administrator actions. --Slowking Man 00:03, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

As good as an Article can be

We have a large number of articles that I believe are in a state where they represent a state of 'as good as it can get'. This might be because the article is an enhanced dictionary definition or because the finest word-smithing has now been done and further change might probably detract.

I would propose that such articles are identified, listed and voted into some sort of protected status whereby change could only be carried out provided proper debate had taken place. This would remove lots of articles from possible vandalism, reduces the review of changes to what were finished articles still being fine tuned etc.

I further propose that changes would be done by making a revised draft and that draft be voted on to replace the previously 'frozen' version.

I accept that this is a major change to policy and welcome views of every one. --Rjstott 06:36, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Warning: this next posting contains irony.
I agree, if you let me pick the articles to be protected. Filiocht 08:05, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
No. See Nupedia. -- Cyrius|✎ 13:20, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Aargh. Please. No. Mark Richards 17:56, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
End of irony ;-)
I think many of the articles you mention are already in a something close to that state. If you try changing them, most of the time your changes will be reverted quite quickly unless they have been already subject to "proper debate" on the Talk page. The only difference between the staus quo and your proposal is that articles could be in this state without having someone "guarding", i.e., regularly checking, them for changes. That that new state would be better is what you need to argue for; please do.
A related possible change could be to make this state of "semi-frozen" more formally clear, by a template that could be added to Talk pages, etc. This has been discussed some in various places(I don't remember where right now) but no consensus has been reached AFAIK. JesseW 03:39, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
These are good points made above. One is that effort is going into watching for changes to articles, which at the current rate of change can be very time consuming, secondly the watchers are self-appointed and it's easy to fall foul of this, certainly notification of the status would help. I read the Nupedia intro and certainly don't want that but I strongly believe if we could impose a form of protection it would help. This same protection might also be applied in cases of dispute to prevent revert wars. --Rjstott 10:53, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If an article is as good as it can get, you should nominate it as a featured article. anthony (see warning) 12:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps this would be one mechanism whereby such protection could be obtained? --Rjstott 11:07, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Irony warning ctd.
At which point it will promptly be improved. Filiocht 12:59, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
Articles that have matured, have good facts, and have been well reviewed deserve to be baselined and made safe from vandals. But I don't think Wikipedia is the right place to do that. Better would be the proposed Wikipedia Version 1.0, placed in a physical medium. If that proposal was moving forward, of which I've seen no sign.
OT - I've just discovered my home system requires 20 minutes to load the Village Pump, so this is probably the only time I'll ever contribute to it. Glenn6502 01:58, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
OT reply: Use the Village pump sections instead of loading the whole page. Angela. 10:52, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

I'm a moderator for http://wiki.linuxquestions.org , and I've been pondering this same question. We don't yet have featured articles implemented yet, but when we do, I think we'll upload new featured articles to the Linux Documentation Project, which is a traditional peer-reviewed documentation repository. We would make changes based on their recommendations until the article is approved. We would then periodically submit updated versions of the article. The Wikipedia could do the same thing (but you'd have to go through the backlog of featured articles), but first you'd have to create a peer-review setup, since there isn't an existing one in place. crazyeddie 21:46, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A stable version will be created for offline distribution. If you have ideas for how that should be used for the online version, please comment at User:Jimbo Wales/Pushing To 1.0. Angela. 10:52, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

New Proposed Footnote format

I've come up with, IMO, a better format for handling footnotes. The current guidelines are confusing and unnessarily ugly and difficult. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Footnotes and let me know what you think! JesseW 06:01, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Note that there is some (oldish) discussion of a software feature for footnotes at meta:Footnotes - IMSoP 21:48, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Indigo Moving

I want to see if anyone has opinions on the following page move I suggest:

I have no objection to moving it, but I have no objections to the way it is. Why do you want to move it? Was someone confused? JesseW 06:03, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I say it should be moved for reasons primarily relating to the information on Talk:Indigo. 66.32.245.70 20:00, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I disagree. The colour article should be at Indigo (colour) :-) Seriously though, surely the colour should be at Indigo if that's not to be a disambiguation page? zoney ♣ talk 09:24, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Vastly enhance wiki through newsgoups?

If there were a tabs on article pages that led to a newsgroup provider, offering to host discussions of the articles topic, many wiki functions could be vastly enhanced and some difficulties avoided and article developement spurred forward. Discuss at wblakesxWblakesx 17:15, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) to dialogue.

Allowing non-sysops to view deleted pages

Should deleted articles still be visible?

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Viewing deleted articles.

September 11 (revisited)

The previous poll at Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks has ended, with varying support and opposition for the different options. Based on the response (which was spread across many proposed titles), a runoff between the two most voted on options has been proposed.

There is now a vote on which of the following should be the article title:

  • September 11, 2001 attacks (the current location)
  • Attacks of September 11, 2001

Please vote and express your preference. A wider response than previously would be appreciated.

zoney ♣ talk 16:09, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contacting Academics about Possible Contributions

I think it would be cool to contact academics asking them to contribute to articles that as of yet nobody else editing wikipedia seems to have a clue about. Maybe this could become an established project with suggested items and a template email. There are obviously problems with this: each academic would have to agree to be merciless edited like the rest of us(although obviously there contributions would be generally respected by people)... but it could be valuable for filling in gaps.

What do people think? dpen2000 15:32, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not likely to hurt, but I seriously doubt it will help. As wikipedia's profile rises, interested academics will start to contribute. I'm confident my academic friends would not respond to a cold contact asking for free labor on a web site they've never heard of. On the other hand, some have contributed after discovering it themselves. Wolfman 17:53, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I do think, however, that it is useful to contact academics about the possibility of involving their classes in structured projects related to Wikipedia, or about urging them -- and their stronger students -- to release good papers under GFDL. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:12, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
Asking them to encourage students is a good thought. Also possibly lecture notes which could be turned into an article easily. Or good survey articles, which they happen to have already written and posted on the web. I suspect success would be most likely through personal contact, particularly by students of a professor who are involved in wikipedia. Asking directly for the professors to write articles is unlikely to work, in my opinion (i'm a professor). But encouraging low-cost contributions like those mentioned above, might get some immediate response and possibly some direct contributions in the longer run. Wolfman 00:06, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Boolean categories

Is there any chance that categories could one day be combined with boolean operators? If so, then one could look up categories "Medicine AND Law NOT Psychiatry" to obtain a defined area of knowledge. --CloudSurfer 08:33, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Women's colleges categories and list

We have:

and

Talk:Women's college (the only one with a Talk page) has some discussion about the proliferation and overlap of lists, but it's a bit dated, there's no consensus, and since there are so many different articles I thought I'd ask around here instead of just the one place.

There actually are some meaningful differences among all those pages. I think the two "women's colleges" categories make perfect sense and match the hierarchy for other universities and colleges. Seven Sisters is a subcategory of these two, except that many of the Seven Sisters have been co-ed since the 1960s and 70s and the category doesn't reflect this. The freestanding U.S. list page sorts the women's colleges by state, and the list on the Women's colleges page gives some city locations, both of which are helpful, but the page names don't indicate what's different or what each different list provides.

I am thinking we could improve things a bit:

  • Keep Category:Women's universities and colleges and Category:Women's universities and colleges in the U.S. as-is, and add a note that they are intended only for colleges and universities that are currently women-only.
  • Keep Seven Sisters schools and Template:Seven Sisters schools, but eliminate Category:Seven Sisters schools. It isn't needed, and I think burying some of the best-known U.S. women's colleges under a subcategory (along with others which are now co-ed) is confusing. So, move the Seven Sisters colleges that are still women-only up to the U.S. subcategory.
  • Move List of women's colleges in the United States to List of historical women's universities and colleges. Sort by country and state on this page, add specific location info for each entry, note which ones are currently co-ed, retain notes for the Seven Sisters and any other women's college alliances.
  • Move/merge the list off of Women's college into the abovementioned article.
  • Even though I just said the category and U.S. subcategory should be limited to current women's schools only, it seems to me it would be useful to continue to include the list page itself on the U.S. subcategory, and it would be useful to include the Seven Sisters article on the U.S. subcategory also, just like the Women's college article is on the category now. So I guess limit individual institution listings to current women's schools only and then also articles related to women's colleges in general?

(I swear I'm going to have to change my user name to "Overthink".)

I am totally willing to do the legwork on all of this, but as the proposed changes are sort of significant, I thought I'd better solicit some opinions first. Does this seem like a reasonable plan? My thinking is that if prospective women's college students or other interested parties are browsing wikipedia, I'd really like to make it easier for them to find the info they are looking for. Thanks for any feedback! —Bsktcase 03:39, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How long do y'all suppose I should wait for objections before I assume there aren't any and proceed?  :) —Bsktcase 20:49, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
All of these proposed changes seem reasonable to me. The lists are currently proliferating out of hand, and this sounds like a good scheme for merging them. Women's college and coeducation should be expanded with historical information (whether timelines or narrative), but not more and more lists. -- Rbellin 22:07, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Done!

Thanks for the support or at least the lack of opposition.  :) —Bsktcase 22:04, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Elective image filtering?

Some images, while appropriate and informative in the articles they reside in, nonetheless can be awkward to have on one's screen in a public computing environment. It would be nice in some circumstances to flag such images, and then have a user preference to be able to browse the Wikipedia in "PG mode" where the images would not display unless affirmatively clicked on. Shimmin 13:59, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. Random page worries me slightly, although I haven't happened upon anything untoward as yet, no doubt there is the potential for goodness knows what to load up! zoney ♣ talk 14:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No. No. No. No. No. A setting in Wikipedia to hide all images would be reasonable (for use in environments where it would not be acceptable to change the browser settings). A preference setting to add a command to the page display to hide images or display images would be acceptable. But a feature where individuals are encouraged to mark particular images as possibly offensive begs for misuse (and for use by any kid wanting to find all the "good stuff"). Jallan 15:52, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I second Jallan. While it sounds like a good idea, simply turning off images in public computing enviroments, then turning them on for specific images is quite sufficient, AFAIK. Shimmin, if this would not work for you, please explain further. JesseW 06:09, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Turning off all images would be effective, if all images were equipped with good alt text, so that one would not be surprised by what one elected to see. Shimmin 17:34, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Pictures needing attention

I've just created Wikipedia:Pictures needing attention as a place to ask questions about unknown images which could probably find a place on a Wiki article. The idea is that it should be a visual analogue of Pages Needing Attention with a dash of the Reference desk. Part of the idea is to encourage people to contribute images that they had been holding back because they couldn't remember exactly what they were of and where they could be used.

Precedents for this are the occaisional images that pop-up for comment on the Reference Desk, such as the discussion for Image_talk:Wfm_monument_valley_annotated.jpg.

It could also be used for Wikipedia:Requests for image manipulation discussed above.

One problem is that you need to give an image a filename before you can upload it. It isn't easy to get a relevant filename if you don't know exactly what the subject is. -- Solipsist 20:01, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedians by interest

It has become quite difficult to find Wikipedians interested in certain things; e.g. when creating or expanding on articles. Maybe there should be a list (preferably at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by interest) for just this purpose. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 15:37, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by fields of interest already exists. Hope that helps! zoney ♣ talk 15:45, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm surprised. That list should be more prominent. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 15:49, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Articles with 'offensive' information, foul language, etc.

I have noticed that some articles feature strong language and offensive content. An example of this is Shock site. In order to let users know that the article that they are about to view falls into one of these categories, I would propose a template displaying the following notice:

Notice: This article may contain offensive language and/or information.

I think it is important that people who are 'sensitive' know what type of article they will be reading, beforehand.

Please, let me know if you agree or disagree with the creation of such a template (or if you believe the notice should be modified).--Logariasmo 07:44, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with this for many reasons. First off, its just asking for edit wars (both on how the template should look and where it should be placed). Secondly its far too much of a judgement call, and will end up violating NPOV to some degree. I could give several examples of how it would be "abused" and cause arguments, but that would take forever, i'll let you use your imagination. Lastly, it isn't Wikipedia's place to police itself. We're all adults here, and if we're not its up to our parents and guardians to police us, not Wikipedia. In the cases of articles like shock site, the introduction should give ample warning to the contents of the article, and we shouldn't plaster warning signs on it. —siroχo 08:29, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
Seconded, on every point. • Benc • 11:12, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the range of what people might find offensive is huge. For a strict Muslim, a woman's face might be offensive. Should we tag all the articles that contain a picture of one? Intrigue 23:38, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I wonder where the notice would go on the Fuck article? Before you linked to it perhaps? --CloudSurfer 11:15, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There far too many ugly templates in Wikipedia now that stick inane, boiler-plate announcements onto articles. (I don't need a template to tell me that an article is short or that a plot discussion may contain spoilers.) And a rating system for level of offensiveness is something I woudld find offensive. Jallan 16:00, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I would rather not see any more tags like this added to articles. We already have a General disclaimer linked to from every page (twice on every page in some skins). Also, see mav's comments at Wikipedia talk:Risk disclaimer about the legal risks associated with adding warnings selectively to pages. Angela. 02:16, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

I agree - get rid of nearly all the tags. People know that an article about a novel will discuss the plot, or an article about genitals will be about genitals, or that a short article is short. The Recycling Troll 21:27, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

well said! let's get rid of the silly "spoiler warnings" already! dab 17:20, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

US cities without articles

Every so often, I run across a US city that apparently has no article. This could be for various reasons, including that the Census Bureau uses quirky definitions of what qualifies, spelling issues, town no longer exists, etc... Next time I see one, I'm going to make a list of such towns so that they can be redirected/written/fixed by someone who knows the area and can determine what can be meant. I'm just leaving this here because I can't remember where I've seen any such links. If someone else does, I suggest using the title Wikipedia:US cities without articles; change the title if you prefer, just please leave a note on my talk page. Tuf-Kat 04:16, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

One I've found is Milwaukee, Oregon. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 04:27, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC) It was just a misspelled version of Milwaukie, Oregon. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 04:56, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
Often the quirky reason is that the city is unincorporated and therefore doesn't exist as an actual legal entity. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:40, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Indeed, the Census Bureau data identifies every incorporated municipality as of 2000. However, articles may not be where expected because of ambiguity in naming (or alternative spellings). I'll grant that there may be cases where the Census Bureau got it wrong, but I suspect these are few and far between. The more likely explanation for "missing" localities is that they are unincorporated, which means the Census Bureau includes them within a larger surrounding entity. If and/or when you create articles for such "missing" localities, please do not use names such as "city" , "town", or "village" which indicate legally incorporated municipalities. older≠wiser 13:04, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
The Census Bereau does list some unincorporated populated places, and the Geographic Names Information System [2] lists a whole bunch more. The GNIS list of populated places is available at http://geonames.usgs.gov/stategaz/POP_PLACES_DECI.TXT. One could take the list at Wikipedia:US cities without articles and then match it up with that list, and for all the matches you'd have the latitude and longitude which could then be run against the polygon data for the census list [3] to find the containing location. However, I'd argue against creating a redirect, because that would discourage actual articles on these populated places from being created. If you want more information on this or can provide me with more, leave a message on my talk page, because there's a good chance I'll miss it if you just leave it here. anthony (see warning) 18:09, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, the census does include some unincorporated places. My comment concerned this section's heading "US cities without articles" and the comment about "unincorporated" cities, which is something of an oxymoron. Of the supposed "cities" on Wikipedia:US cities without articles, nearly all of these are in fact unincorporated. I don't know of anywhere in the U.S. where cities are unincorporated. There are many populated places that are unincorporated, but they are not cities. Also, before anyone gets any ideas about automatically creating articles based on the USGS list of populated places, be EXTREMELY cautious--the list includes many "places" that are nothing more than a road-crossing and a few houses--certainly not much to write about in an article. Unlike Anthony, I would STRONGLY encourage these places to be redirects to the containing locations which could easily contain the few lines of information that the majority of these would consist of. For those places where someone has enough information to write more than a few lines, the redirect can easily be converted into an article. older≠wiser 19:03, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
My comment concerned this section's heading "US cities without articles" and the comment about "unincorporated" cities, which is something of an oxymoron. The term city is commonly used to refer to unincoporated populated places. In fact, according to dictionary.com [4], this is the more common use of the term. Also, before anyone gets any ideas about automatically creating articles based on the USGS list of populated places, be EXTREMELY cautious--the list includes many "places" that are nothing more than a road-crossing and a few houses--certainly not much to write about in an article. The incorporated places and census designated places for which we already have articles are also not much to write about in an article, but we have a consensus that they should be written about anyway. anthony (see warning) 19:31, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In the U.S., cities are a specific type of incorporated municipality. The term is sometimes used informally to refer to large urban population centers regardless of municipal status. Even so, I suspect that there are extremely few entries on Wikipedia:US cities without articles that most people would refer to as a city--more likely they'd be called "towns" or "villages". BTW, the dictionary you cite does not specifically say that city is "commonly used to refer to unincoporated populated places" it simply makes no mention of incorporation status. The first entry, which I presume you mean as being the "most common use" says "A center of population, commerce, and culture; a town of significant size and importance", which I would argue would most definitely not apply to most of the unincorporated places on that list. The incorporated places and census designated places for which we already have articles are also not much to write about in an article, but we have a consensus that they should be written about anyway. There is a distinction between having an article with rambot-generated census data (which at least has some semblance of "thereness") vs. an article about an unincorporated place with nothing but the latitude/longitude and the enclosing state/county/township (which I'd consider worthless substubs). I think it is preferable to use redirects and place information about such unincorporated communities within articles about the enclosing entity, that is, to provide some context, rather than to produce yet more substubs that will likely never be expanded. If and when someone has more to say about one of these places, it is simple to replace the redirect with a more substantial article. older≠wiser 20:12, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
In the U.S., cities are a specific type of incorporated municipality. That is just your definition, and by no means reflects a consensus among Americans. The term is sometimes used informally to refer to large urban population centers regardless of municipal status. It's also used both formally and informally to represent any populated place important enough to have a zip code. Hence, when you fill out a document, and it asks you "city, state, zip", you don't put "but I don't live in a city", you put the name of your city, no matter how big it is. There is a distinction between having an article with rambot-generated census data (which at least has some semblance of "thereness") vs. an article about an unincorporated place with nothing but the latitude/longitude and the enclosing state/county/township (which I'd consider worthless substubs). I never suggest that we have articles about unincorporated places with nothing but the latitude/longitude and the enclosing state/county/township. The fact of the matter is we already have rambot articles on unincorporated places. For instance, Oak Valley, New Jersey is an unincorporated section of Deptford Township, New Jersey. Turnersville, New Jersey is an unincorporated section of Washington Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey. I'm sure there are thousands of other examples, because these are two just from the County where I happened to grow up. Now I agree with you that we shouldn't be automatically creating substubs. In fact, I would oppose rambot if it applied to be a bot today. I don't like the rambot articles. I think they put a bunch of useless information into an article which hinders the likelihood of the article becoming a well designed useful source of information in the future. But I would also oppose a bot which creates thousands of redirects for unincorporated populated places. And I would oppose someone systematically going through these places and manually adding redirects. I think it is preferable to use redirects and place information about such unincorporated communities within articles about the enclosing entity, that is, to provide some context, rather than to produce yet more substubs that will likely never be expanded. I think we should leave these blank until someone decides to fill them in with more than just a substub. Mention them in the parent entry, and leave the link red until someone stumbles upon it and is willing to manually create an article on it. anthony (see warning) 13:13, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That is just your definition, and by no means reflects a consensus among Americans. It is by no means "just my definition". It is in fact the #2 definition listed in the very dictionary that you cited. And it is a fact, not my opinion. I am not saying that that is the only use of the word--however, it is a very common use of the word, despite your intransigence. The fact of the matter is we already have rambot articles on unincorporated places. I never said that we don't or that we shouldn't have any articles about unicorporated places. But I would also oppose a bot which creates thousands of redirects for unincorporated populated places. I agree with you about this (and also that the general structure of the rambot articles is unsatisfactory). I would not want there to be automatic redirects without some indication in the article as to why the redirect goes there. And I would oppose someone systematically going through these places and manually adding redirects. Here I disagree with you. A redirect to an article which explains why the redirect goes there is, IMO, preferable to either nothing at all (red links) or to a stub with limited prospect for expansion. For example, Bark River and Schaffer are both tiny communities with little liklihood of expansion. Yet, they are localities that can be found on road atlases and Bark River is listed on List of cities, villages, and townships in Michigan (which was derived from a listing of localities on the Michigan state government web site). Both currently redirect to Bark River Township, Michigan, which mentions both places with a brief description. If someone should ever have more to say about either, place, it would be relatively simple to replace the redirect (and hopefully link to it in the township article). In contrast, Tuscarora Township, Michigan, mentions Burt Lake, Michigan in the same way, but also includes a link to the Indian River, Michigan CDP rambot article. Another example, Paradise, Michigan is an unincorporated place where there is already something marginally interesting to say about it that is worth an article apart from Whitefish Township, Michigan. I think we should leave these blank until someone decides to fill them in with more than just a substub. Mention them in the parent entry, and leave the link red until someone stumbles upon it and is willing to manually create an article on it. I disagree, but I don't really think there's much point to arguing about it. I see the red links and I want to know something about the place and rather than create an unlikely-to-be-expanded-anytime-soon-or-maybe-not-ever stub, I prefer to place the information where there is some context for it. BTW, I would suggest that Oak Valley, New Jersey and Turnersville, New Jersey should be edited to clarify that they are census-designated places and not "towns" in any official sense. older≠wiser 15:51, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
I am not saying that that is the only use of the word--however, it is a very common use of the word, despite your intransigence. I never denied that it is a common use of the word. However, calling unincorporated populated places cities is very common too. A redirect to an article which explains why the redirect goes there is, IMO, preferable to either nothing at all (red links) or to a stub with limited prospect for expansion. I don't think that's necessarily the case. I think sometimes a red link is preferable to a redirect. This is especially true when a redirect is rather arbitrary. You have listed some situations where it might make sense, but I don't think we should systematically go in and change all of them. BTW, I would suggest that Oak Valley, New Jersey and Turnersville, New Jersey should be edited to clarify that they are census-designated places and not "towns" in any official sense. I'd like to see a definition of what is and is not a "town", then (as well as what is and is not considered incorporated). Because, while I understand where you're coming from trying to restrict the use of the term "city" I've never heard of such a restriction on the term "town". According to town, In the United States of America, the meaning of the term town varies from state to state. In some states, a town is an incorporated municipality, that is, one with a charter received from the state, similar to a city. Typically, municipalities are classed as cities, towns, or villages in decreasing order of size, although not all states have all three. Many states do not use the term "town" for incoporated municipalities. In some states, for example Wisconsin, "town" is used in the same way that civil township is used in elsewhere. In other states, such as Michigan, the term "town" has no official meaning and is simply used informally to refer to a populated place, whether incorporated or not.. According to unincorporated, an unincorporated town is usually not subject to or taxed by a city government. I don't know what basis the census department had for calling Oak Valley a town, but as the original rambot page used that term I assume it did so. And I can tell you without a doubt that Oak Valley is part of Deptford Township. Maybe they used to be separate and then they merged? Would this qualify as a town? anthony (see warning) 18:30, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[5]. No, it doesn't seem Oak Valley was ever incorporated. I'd still like to see documentation as to how that makes it not a "town", though. anthony (see warning) 18:33, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't think we should systematically go in and change all of them. OK, but I think we may be working with different understandings of "sytematically". One of my ongoing projects is to "systematically" work through the entire List of cities, villages, and townships in Michigan and make sure there is "something" there for everything, whether it is a separate article or a redirect. I do not plan to do it mechanistically--but do a bit of research and exercise discretion about whether to create an article or a redirect. I think sometimes a red link is preferable to a redirect. I disagree, provided that the redirected article contains an indication as to why the redirect is appropriate. I would rather be able to learn something from an appropriate redirect with an explanation than not learn anything useful from a red link. I'd like to see a definition of what is and is not a "town" Good luck with that--I think it is one of the most ambiguous terms for human settlements around. BTW, I think you may have misunderstood me. I wasn't suggesting that the NJ CDPs should NOT be characterized as towns (although I prefer the less ambiguous term "unincorporated community" or simply "community"), just that the situation be clarified to indicate that they do not have any legal status as organized municipalities. The term "town" did not come from the Census Bureau, which refers to them as CDPs. Rambot used town to describe CDPS, which, IMO, was one of the biggest failures of Rambot and has been the cause of considerable confusion. older≠wiser 19:09, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
One of my ongoing projects is to "systematically" work through the entire List of cities, villages, and townships in Michigan and make sure there is "something" there for everything, whether it is a separate article or a redirect. I do not plan to do it mechanistically--but do a bit of research and exercise discretion about whether to create an article or a redirect. I guess that's fine. My main concern was that we'd be creating redirects out of laziness, because we know that the place is part of a larger place, but we don't even bother to check whether more than that can be said. I wasn't suggesting that the NJ CDPs should NOT be characterized as towns (although I prefer the less ambiguous term "unincorporated community" or simply "community"), just that the situation be clarified to indicate that they do not have any legal status as organized municipalities. If I could definitively say that about Oak Valley or Turnersville, I would. All I know for sure is that Oak Valley is located within Deptford Township, and that Turnersville is located within Washington Township. Incidently, it seems that wouldn't fall under unincorporated, as we have it defined, as the places are part of a municipality, they just (probably?) aren't municipalities themselves. I suppose I can change Oak Valley to "Oak Valley is a section of Deptford Township, located in Gloucester County..." That's what they always called it when they dispatched the fire department. "Deptford Township, the Oak Valley section". The term "town" did not come from the Census Bureau, which refers to them as CDPs. Hmm, I just looked it up, and you're right. But I have seen rambot use the term CDP before. anthony (see warning) 19:57, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think it is safe to say that Oak Valley itself is not incorporated as a separate municipality. Incorporation actually gets very confusing, as you've probably noticed, and I've seen where even official sites fudge the matter. There is an important distinction between entities such as Counties or Townships, which, at least initially, are defined, created and exist as municipal entities solely through acts of the state legislature. These are sometimes called "general law" municipalities. Strictly speaking, they are not incorporated in the same way as cities or villages, in which residents request to become incorporated. The former are more properly described as being "organized" rather than incorporated. And in some states the distinction is even further blurred, in that counties and townships may be granted "charter" status or "home rule" powers, in which case they are incorporated. General law entities typically have an extremely narrow range of options for administering governmental affairs prescribed and limited by law, while incorporated entities generally have much greater leeway in determining how to run their own affairs. BTW, I've not ever seen an unedited Rambot article use the term CDP (except in the title for disambiguation purposes). There are a number of editors who have edited Rambot CDP articles to either substitute a different term for "town" or try and make it clear that "town" is not a legal designation in those articles. older≠wiser 00:45, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, some of the "cities" listed on Wikipedia:US cities without articles, are there simply because that form of the name is not where the article (or any redirects) is. For example, we have an article on Mount Shasta, California and a redir at Mt. Shasta, California, but the list was looking for Mt Shasta, California, which didn't exist until I just created another redir. Niteowlneils 19:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I'm new to Wikipedia, but I feel compelled to note that most Wikipedia articles are entirely covered with distracting and unnecessary links..

I mean, it's generally pretty obvious which keywords might have articles associated with them. If I'm reading an article about Abraham Lincoln, do I really *need* to have blue underlined links to terms like "Illinois" or "Chicago"? Why?

Wouldn't anyone interested in a term from an article be able to use the search box and look it up?

At the very least, there should be an option to turn links off, or go to a "printable" version of the article that's not such a mess to look at or print.

If I want to print an article for use in a class, for example, I shouldn't have to go into word and manually edit out fifty pointless links.

If there is already a way to get to a clean article, free from distracting underlining, please let me know. Otherwise, I suggest that implementing a way to toggle off distracting links would be a significant enhancement to Wikipedia's functionality, and I strongly recommend it.

TF

A browser that properly supports CSS will automatically apply Wikipedia's "print" stylesheet when you try to print. Among other things, it turns off link underlining. It also removes the navigational elements that aren't useful on paper.
As to having the links in the browser-viewable version, we like it that way. It allows for easy navigation to articles on the topic, and enables the use of the "What links here" function. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:13, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There ought to be a link to the printable version of a page, on the sidebar. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 04:31, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Firstly Among other reasons, the links show that an article exists and the correct way of spelling it and helps duplucation of several articles on the same thing with different spellings. It is also a much more expedient way of browsing related aticles or being prompted that there is one.
  • Secondly It helps with random reading. Traditional Enyclopedias often taught what the reader stumbled accross without looking up and this draws one to do this on Wikipedia
  • Thirdly How did you survive in a precomputing age library? Editing the text of something that is already prepared by other people is hardly that onerous. Furthermore if it is for class, how about doing it in your own words you lazy little turd!

An old grumpy fart

I assumed TF was a teacher, and wanted to copy and distribute the text of one of our articles to his or her class. Paul August 18:13, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
Even more reason for me to despair about the youth of today when they have teachers like that grumble grumble.....Still an old grumpy fart
Generally links are one of the great things about an online encyclopedia. There are many benefits as Cyrius and Dainamo mentioned above. Experienced Wikipedians take them for granted and couldn't live without them. However there can be too many links (see: Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context), it's a judgment call, and editors disagree about specific cases. Paul August 18:13, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Paul, it's possible to overdo it, but the vast majority of articles I've seen seem to strike a good balance. One more thing -- if you create an account, you can also create your own user stylesheet at User:Username/monobook.css. See m:User Styles for information on how to do so; copying the relevant sections of the global "print" stylesheet (anyone know the proper name of it?) into your user stylesheet should remove all visible links from your (and only your) viewing experience. Catherine | talk 23:15, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Judging mainly by filenames, I'd guess the styles applied when printing come from commonPrint.css and/or wikiprintable.css - IMSoP 21:29, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Featured articles

I think a featured article and a featured article candidates category would both be very useful, and lessen the need for the big long (and about to become bigger and bigger...). It would also be very handy as an index. Do I need to gather community support to do this or should I just go ahead and do this? JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 23:29, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

They already exist at:
Wikipedia:Featured articles exists to keep track of which articles have already been featured on the main page, format the category nicely, etc. (This page should still continue to exist until and unless the chief FA maintainers (i.e., Raul654) decide that switching over to categories would reduce their workloads, not increase them.) • Benc • 04:31, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Limit moving to admins

The Portal is fun at the moment. Folks seem to be working on it, and that makes me happy, cuz I had no clue how to fix it. Someone moved it, possibly multiple times, to .. oddly named pages.

We don't let normal users delete pages. Why do we let them move pages? Ponder what it takes.

  1. To fix a deletion, you merely undelete. Right?
  2. To fix a move of this caliber, you seem to have to contact a dev.

We don't allow normal users to delete, so why do we allow them to move pages? I have no problem with creaing a "Requests for move" page, but this kind of activity could be absolutely destructive to the pedia.

I propose we limit access to "Move" to admins and above only.

--Golbez 08:51, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it seems some of the more persistant vandals discovered they can create more harm by moving a page than by simply vandalizing its content. I wouldn't go as far as prohibit moving for normal users completely, as that will only create many cut-and-copy moves with the inherent loss of editing history - but what we could need would be a move-protection, so we can prevent the malicious moving of those pages which create most harm. Especiall user pages should be move-protected by default, which would avoid vandals moving a user page to an insulting name. andy
and/or
  1. allow users to move-protect pages in their own user area (but probably not their user talk area), so only an administrator can move it. (To move it yourself, if you are not an admin, you would unprotect it).
  2. work out an easier way for admins to undo a move
I'm not sure I see the best answer to all of this, but I'd love to see a good worked-through idea. -- Jmabel 19:33, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
For an unrelated reason, a Wikipedia:Requested moves page is currently in the works. See: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#requested moves -- policy change? • Benc • 20:21, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Easter Eggs

I have just run across my first easter egg hiden in the Wikipedia. I wanted to report it like on WP:-) but it was neither in bad taste or incorrect. Someone had used the colours #fff666 and #ffdead as ligitamate hex colours for a table. I want to mention it somewhere, like Wikipedia:Easter Eggs. However the aforementioned page does not exist. Should I make it for one easter egg? --[[User:Sunborn|metta, The Sunborn ☸]] 19:56, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

#ffdead is very common. Happens to be an often appropriate color and easily remembered. I use it often. You'll find it all over the Internet, if you look. -- Jmabel 21:21, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
It's probably originally from the X11 color "NavajoWhite". Goplat 23:07, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

September 11

There is a proposal to move September 11, 2001 attacks to a new location. Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks currently has a poll/vote on the following names:

  • September 11, 2001 attacks
  • September 11, 2001, attacks
  • 9/11
  • September 11 attacks
  • September 11th attacks
  • Attacks of September 11, 2001

Feel free to express your preference(s) and help with any decision to move or not move the page.

zoney ♣ talk 13:16, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Associative Wiktionary

See wiktionary:Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Associative Wiktionary. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 16:45, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

CROSSBOW / Systemic bias

User:Xed, the creator of CROSSBOW, a project to eliminate Wikipedia's systemic bias, has apparently decided to leave Wikipedia indefinitely. Since I didn't want his excellent work to go to waste, I moved his project page (by request) to Wikipedia:CROSSBOW. Those involved should figure out what to do next. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 02:42, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

I'm back in on this. As some of you know, I thought this was generally a good idea, but wasn't happy with where Xed was taking it and decided I'd do best to stay out of his way. I've taken the liberty of starting two QuickPolls at Wikipedia:CROSSBOW to try to get consensus on where we should go from here:

  • Poll 1: whether to make this a Wikiproject, just maintain a tasklist, or do something else
  • Poll 2: what to call it.

Anyway, I'm ready to give some serious effort to this thing; I've rejoined and I hope some others will sign up as well. -- Jmabel 03:27, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

You could do worse than start by changing its name. Using a weapon as a name of a project is, at best, a little unfortunate. --Tagishsimon
Agreed; it will be Wikipedia:WikiProject countering systemic bias. We're still hammering out a few details, but it should be ready to go "live" in about another day. -- Jmabel 00:35, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Just to bring everyone up to date, he's back, the project is Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, and it's launched. -- Jmabel 21:23, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

The somewhat delayed Wikipedia:External links/temp seems to be ready to be adopted as a set of guidelines for including external links (and replace its parent page). I don't know if I should bring it to a vote or anything yet. Maybe a few people should give the page a once-over and then we'll decide if its ready. —siroχo 21:35, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

"city, state" without "city"

(I split up the discussion, since we are now talking about a slightly different topic. SirJective)

[...] Another such list that would be useful would be to take the <city>, <state> US placename format and find all those for which the base <city> article does not exist. —Morven
It should be quite easy for me to tweak my program so that it finds article "XXX, YYY" without article "XXX". The decision if it's a city could then be made manually, and perhaps by adding certain criterions to the search (I will first check how many such articles exist). Any suggestions how such a list should be called?
Addition: I found a total of 42000 such articles, thereof at most 30000 ending with a U.S. State name (in the form "AL" or "Alabama"). The search is not yet working as expected, but there will be lots of such articles. --SirJective 10:36, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Is here a dedicated page to ask for the semiautomatic creation of special lists (e.g. using SQL statements), or is the village pump used for that? And another question to the sysops: Is the Special:Asksql function deactivated here too (at de: it seems to be)? --SirJective 13:50, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
My impression is that this kind of report is best produced from a downloaded copy of the database. User:Topbanana sems to specialise in this kind of thing and has created Wikipedia:Offline reports which is probably helpful to you. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 11:58, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
Phil, thank you for your information. At de: we have de:Wikipedia:Datenbank-Abfragen where on the talk page one can request lists of articles meeting certain criteria and someone (lately me) will create and perform the request and upload the result. I liked to offer my help here :-) --SirJective 11:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The city list contains 28000 titles of the form "xxx, yyy" where "xxx" and "yyy" contain no ", " and "yyy" is one of the 50 U.S. state names in both forms "Alabama" or "AL". Additionally there are 5000 titles where "xxx" contains ", " itself, most of them are like Abington Township, Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, where there is no Abington Township. Should I upload these too?
In that latter case, the check would actually be whether there was an article for Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, the "containing entity" (in this case there is). HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 12:58, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand this--ideally, there should also be a redirect or disambiguation page at least at Abington Township, Pennsylvania. With so many locales in the U.S. (and with many already criticizing the huge number of articles about obscure places in the U.S.), I'm not sure if there is much value to having redirects or disambigs for every unqualified locale name (e.g., Abington Township). (Phil | Talk pp) User:Bkonrad
Sorry, I got confused again. Given an article named "town, county, state", as quoted above, if there is another similar article with "town" and "state" the same but with different "county", there probably ought to be an article named "town, state" listing all the towns with that name in that state. What (whoever the heck that was, oh it was User:Bkonrad, I'll take the liberty of signing it) is saying is that having an article named simply "town", and listing all the towns with that name in the entire US, is probably not helpful. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 14:18, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
Precisely, sorry about forgetting to sign. older≠wiser 15:07, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Let's unravel this...

  • I created a list of "city, state" and am waiting for suggestions on the title of that list.
  • Articles of the form "town, county, state" should have:
    1. always an article "county, state"
    2. in case of multiple countys an article "town, state"
    3. unless otherwise useful no article "town"

So my second list covers exactly the third, nonwanted case *g* I'll go check on the first case. --SirJective 14:44, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1) Yes, there should always exist a "County, State" for any article of the form "Town, County, State"
2) I think yes. For cases such as "Town, County1, State" and "Town, County2, State", there should always be an article of the form "Town, State"
3) Let me check on something here--If there are articles such as "Town, State1" and "Town, State2", there generally should be a disambiguation page "Town" for these. However, there is not, as a rule, articles of the form "Town" corresponding to every single "Town, State" article.
older≠wiser 15:07, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
I use "city" and "town" synonymously for the purpose of this discussion, I hope that's OK with all of you. So the "city, state" list will also find "Town, State1" and "Town, State2", and due to the lack of proper distinction also "Town, State1" without "Town, State2", as long as there is no "Town". The decision which articles should be created would therefore be left to the ones who work with the list. --SirJective 16:11, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I upload a part of the list for you to look over it, as User:SirJective/tmp_a. Please find a good name for the list. --SirJective 17:05, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This looks interesting. As for a name, how about User:SirJective/U.S. cities lacking redirects? About the report itself--two things:
  1. Many of the items listed appear be cases with two entries, such as "City, ST" and "City, State", where ST is the two letter abbreviation for State. The "City, ST" entry should always a redirect to "City, State", so if possible, it would be helpful to eliminate pairs where ST is same as State. What might be of some value to identify if there are any cases where there is an article (not a redirect) at "City, ST" and also at the equivalent "City, State".
  2. Thanks to Rambot, there are a lot of anomalous parenthetical disambiguations for U.S. cities. Thus there are a lot of instances such as "Place (City), State" and "Place (Town), State", with similar variations for CDPs and Villages. This can be quite confusing. Basically, we would never want anything at simply "Place (City)" or "Place (Town)". What might be helpful is to ignore the parenthesis after the Place name. So, for example, if there are articles of the form "Place (City), State" and "Place (Town), State" there should be something at "Place, State". Where this really gets messy, is that titles of the form "Place, County, State" should also figure in the comparison.
older≠wiser 14:55, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
Some of them need redirects, and some of them need disambiguation. So let's hold this title as a candidate.
I hope I can manage to automatically identify pairs "City, ST" / "City, State". Then I can check wether "City, ST" is a redirect to the article "City, State", and in this case suppess "City, ST" and otherwise add a remark to the entry.
It should be much easier to implement the removal of the parenthesis from "Adams (town), New York" to get Adams. BTW: That page also links to many "Adams Township". Sould there be a separate article Adams Township?
--SirJective 15:27, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Re: Adams Township -- I don't think it would be of great value, but it might be of some interest. Townships are minor civil divisions of a county. Even people who live in them are not always aware of what township they live in, and references to a township are almost always in the context of a county and state, so there is likely little value in making a general disambiguation page for them beyond the state level. However, within a state, there can be confusion between multiple townships and a city or village with the same name--so a Township disambig page at the state level is useful. In cases where there is a multi-state (or multi-country) disambig page for a place name, sometimes townships are also included, just for completeness. older≠wiser 15:58, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
That depends on what state. In New England, townships are more important than counties. Even in New York they are pretty important. Offhand, I don't think any of the West Coast states even have them. Township (United States) is currently a stub, could certainly use serious work. -- Jmabel 19:20, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
Aren't they called "Towns" in New York and New England? They are all those articles with "Place (town), State". While both terms have been used historically somewhat interchangeably, it seems that New York and New England settled on "Town" for an official designation, while Pennsylvania and midwestern states (except Wisconsin) settled on "Township" as the official designation. I quite agree that Towns are important designations in New England. I'm not so sure about New York, but Wisconsin uses Town in much the same way that other midwest states use Township. Beyond the midwest, Towns/Townships were surveyed, but were generally not used as civil divisions of government. Even in some midwestern states, there may be named townships used for Census statitistical purposes, but they are not organized units of government. Also, I'm not saying that townships in midwestern states are unimportant--its just that they are not nearly as distinct as incorporated municipalities like cities or villages. The townships provide important governmental functions in Michigan, especially in rural areas, but still, many people couldn't tell you what township they're in--while it would be extremely rare to find someone who did not know what city or village they lived in. older≠wiser 19:32, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
I upload another demo list, User:SirJective/tmp_b, which contains
  • "city, state" articles without "city, ST" or vice versa,
  • redirects "city, state",
  • non-redirects "city, ST"
  • redirects "city, ST" not linking to "city, state".
All this for the state of Alabama. I did not put all "city, state" without "city" into this list (I have now put it in), but some of them are nevertheless listed due to the other criteria.
I think, the title "U.S. cities lacking redirects" fits more to this list :-) --SirJective 19:01, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
tmp b is now almost done. All remaining red-links are handled at a different capitalization, except for two--I haven't mustered the courage to tackle disambs for Margaret and Theodore. I don't think all 150-200 people named Margaret and 100+ people named Theodore need to be listed, but the older ones that are like Margaret the whatsit, and Theodore of whereever probably should be. Oh, and Union probably needs stuff added to the list. Niteowlneils 02:55, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. There's so much to do that I think you won't have to create the pages strictly alphabetically :-) Some temporary gaps are IMHO acceptable.
I will continue uploading the list as soon as I have rewritten my (unfortunaly lost) program. --SirJective 11:52, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The list User:SirJective/tmp_a now contains the same type of list as tmp_b, but for all 50 states and all titles starting with "A - Am". Is it now in a format you can work with? --SirJective 11:56, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Parenthesis articles without disambiguation page

At the german WP, I created (following someone elses idea) a list of articles whose title has parenthesis, like "name (topic)", for which there is no article with the stripped title "name". The german list is here. I could create such a list for the english WP (it will contain 4000 articles). At the german WP the list is considered useful for creating missing disambiguation pages or removing the parenthesis where it is not needed.

demo list removed, please see the full list

So what do you think about such a list? --SirJective 19:03, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Useful. [...] —Morven
Then I will soon upload a new list. Any suggestions about the title? SirJective
I uploaded the parenthesis list as User:SirJective/Parenthesis. SirJective
Careful with the USS articles. The parens are the ship hull number and the proper title of the ship. Yes, they eventually should have index pages for the numerous ships that carry the same name. A strict removal of the paren is not a good idea in this case. Not a complaint, just a note of caution. Jinian 15:40, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Jinian, you're right. --SirJective 20:44, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From now on please use User_talk:SirJective/Parenthesis for discussion of articles that should be handled carefully. --SirJective 20:44, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cardiomelanosis

There is no listing in Wikipedia for this condition. It must be rare; I've worked in the medical field for 23 years and have never heard it, but it is in the medical dictionaries. They don't specify what it means, however. Gawaine --172.128.85.138 11:45, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Added to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences#Health Science. -- Paddu 20:37, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
My first guess would be something related to Joan Jett's band, but....the only relevant Google hit defined it as "melanosis of the heart." [6] (Webster's 1913, colorfully or not, describes melanosis as "The morbid deposition of black matter, often of a malignant character, causing pigmented tumors.") -- then again, I suspect it may be someone else's obscure joke... [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\talk]] 13:33, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category maintainers

I propose a "category maintainer" (feel free to suggest a better title) system. A person who is a maintainer of a category would basically have the job of caring for the articles in that category. There should be nothing formal or any obligation about this position; on the top of each category's talk page, there should be a box with a list of people have signed up to be maintainers for the category, and people should be able to simply add themselves at their own will there, at any time.

The only requirement for being a category maintainer would be having all pages in the category on one's watchlist (including articles in subcategories if the category sub-tree is manageable in size) to check for vandalism etc. This could solve our current problem of not knowing which pages are monitored sufficiently.

Though not necessary, a person who signs up for the position should be knowledgeable in the field. This is of course necessary for catching vandalism of the subtle kind. Additionally, instead of asking about esoteric topics at the help desk and hoping for someone who can answer to stroll by, we could look up the people who maintain the category on the topic and ask them. It would also give us a better overview of how much expertise we have in the respective areas of knowledge covered in Wikipedia.

Fredrik | talk 15:30, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am sure something like that is already happening inofficially - those interested in a field of knowledge monitor the related articles already, most commonly by watchlist. Categories aren't that handy for that task yet - often there are many small sub-categories, thus many single category pages to monitor. Maybe that will become better once it's possible to get all pages in a category including all subcategories listed at once. Yet in case the vandal removes the category tag the article will be no longer present in the category, and thus you won't see the vandalism anymore - and page blanking is still a popular way of vandalism. Another way I use for monitoring the changes in topics related to Thailand is the List of Thailand related topics, the link "Related changes" shows all the latest edits. However unlike categories that list have to be maintained manually. andy 12:51, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It would not let you see the removal of the category tag, but for other edits: An additional "related changes" function for the categorized articles. This way it would work like a manually maintained list. --SirJective 19:19, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Why not make this an optional thing for WikiProjects to do? Ideally, every article category should be covered by at least one WikiProject. • Benc • 20:17, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This has tie-in with the auto-generated special interest groups idea that I've posted further down the page. I was thinking that these Special Interest Groups might serve as administrative divisions, but I was waiting to see reactions to the general idea first before adding that complication. The Special Interest Groups and Categories wouldn't be one-to-one, but the effect would be the same. crazyeddie 21:55, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Need admin to help move page

I'd like to move "Thomas Lynch (disambiguation)" to "Thomas Lynch". I moved the previous article under Thomas Lynch to "Thomas Lynch (statesman)"; given that his son (Jr.) was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and that there are several other notables with the name, I didn't think it was reasonable to conclude he was clearly the best-known. I believe I've moved all the other links/redirects correctly. MisfitToys 21:09, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Done and done. :) (I wikied the names in your comment so I could leap to them easily) --Golbez 21:25, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
Many thanks! MisfitToys 22:13, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

If someone could move Raven-Symone (longer article, incorrect spelling) to Raven-Symoné (stub, correct spelling), that would be swell. (Not that I'm a fan; I just can't stand incorrect article titles...) —tregoweth 02:16, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Done -- Chris 73 Talk 02:21, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Wiki Syntax for Pronunciation

It would be enormously helpful to have a standardised Wiki syntax for pronunciations (i.e., phonetic transcriptions), in a similar spirit to the way dates are currently treated. Currently, pronunciations (of, for example, place names) are given in a haphazard and unsystematic way using a number of inconsistent systems (International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), SAMPA, X-SAMPA, Kirshenbaum, simplified English phonetics), each with different rationales and opposing intentions, or often just what an author makes up on the spot based on their own accent.

There was a lengthy debate at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (pronunciation) (which I discovered after writing up this proposal) about standardising pronunciation schemes which got nowhere for one fundamental reason: nobody could agree on one system because different people prefer different systems for different (sensible) reasons.

The idea would be to let users enter pronunciation in a number of systems, but that this would be wikified into a single wiki markup, which can then be rendered in various ways.

This is possible since there is a deterministic and straightforward translation between these formats (with the exception that you can only translate into simplified English pronunciation, since it contains less information).

I'm sure many wikipedians would happily weed articles to add the appropriate syntax.

There would be several advantages to this:

1. It would enable people to set a preference for how they prefer to see pronunciations. I, myself, prefer IPA, but some people don't have the necessary fonts so need to use SAMPA, and I'm sure many people would prefer simplified English phonetics.

Most people probably don't care, but this would allow the needs of those who prefer linguistically accurate transcriptions to be met along with those who want something more straightforward.

2. It would lead to more concise articles, since currently people often add pronunciations in more than one system.

3. It would make it easier to actually enter phonetics in the IPA. You could, for example, enter it in the ASCII-based SAMPA system, and after wikification, view it in the IPA. This would be easier than having to figure out the html markup for IPA symbols, and also more meaningful in the source.

4. Standardisation. A pronunciation system should be formalised and centralised in one location, rather than made up in an ad hoc way on an article by article basis. For example, there was a proposal for a simplified phonetic system based on English pronunciation which didn't get anywhere (naturally).

5. Extensibility. In principle, new phonetic systems could be added in future (this is not quite as nerdish as it sounds). Once the framework is up and running, we can add or modify systems, but the point is that this would only need to be done in one central place.

Eoghan 15:57, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is a system for entering IPA symbols current undergoing testing at Wikisophia. You might be particularly interested in this. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 17:10, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)


Cool. This still doesn't allow customisation like I suggested (and therefore will not help IPA-haters), but if tipa was adopted as a wiki syntax standard then we could do that. Eoghan 18:01, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(sections above this (and below the previous tag) were archived on 10:32, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC))'

Genealogy database

I notice several Wikipedia biographies link to my database of pedigrees. (freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jamesdow) Would there be interest in Wikipedia hosting the entire database? This might have many advantages.

Despite the open (anarchistic?) Wikipedia policies, this is not something I could just start doing myself. For one thing, Wikipedians should help decide the best format.

-- James D. Allen (e-mail: fabpedigree at yahoo or jamesdowallen at gmail.)

We are in the planning stages of developing just such a project. See meta:Wikipeople and meta:talk:Wikipeople. Your data would be most welcome in that project! --mav 18:38, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There are various specialised genealogies out there, which the wikipedia should subsume and improve on. Some of them are now moribund. See, for example, http://sigact.acm.org/genealogy/ (theoretical computer scientists) and http://www.genealogy.ams.org/ (mathematicians). Eoghan 17:53, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

T-Shirts/Apparel

We need Wikipedia gear. T-Shirts, Sweatshirts, HOODIES, Hats, etc. They'd help raise money and generate traffic/interest besides just being insanely cool. I'd buy one if good quality items were available; CaféPress sucks, but it's probably the fastest way for this to happen. Anyway, I'm sure you guys can figure out the technicalities. ^__^

Anybody with me?

http://www.cafepress.com/wikipedia But it never has brought in much money at all. --mav 18:36, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That's cool, thanks for showing me. It'd probably do a lot better if you guys used something besides CafePress...they always have real low-quality products. Just iron-ons. Try a place like CustomInk.com and put the links in a prominent place on the site and I think that will help out a lot. I'm not going to buy from CaféPress. !Cookiecaper 05:21, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I propose a 'Wikipedia is my television' or 'Alt-x is my remote control' bumper stickers, I would buy one. Libber
How about, "Real Men/Women Edit Wikipedia"? Or, "Vanity. Delete." Perhaps a little more obscurely, "{{pfd|person={{YOURNAME}}}}". And, of course, "Cabal Member Since (project join date)".

Dudes. I just want to say, that was one of the geekiest conversations I've ever read. Congratulations Sirs

Headers

Can we have the one-equals headers back for the Pump? Why do they exist at all if we're not supposed to use them? It muchly improves the look of the pump to have the little HRs under each heading, instead of headers floating in space, and this only happens if the section headers are ==, and the major sections are = or ==. But on another question, is there any use for = headers at all? --Golbez 15:59, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Actually no, look at Wikipedia:Village pump, the == headers are used to seperate the sections, === are for topics. -- Solitude 17:46, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
But that destroys the usefulness of the "start a new discussion" link, as that creates headings at the == level. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:59, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Star Trek Project

Star Trek information on Wikipedia can be characterized as mostly "barely okay" with the exception of a few stellar articles. My intention is to vastly increase the quality, quantity, and general goodness of all Star Trek related information. I should say that I am not a Trekkie and so I am not as well informed about all things Star Trek as some of you might be, but I am slowly but surely making improvements to related articles. You can too!

My specialties lie in DS9 and Voyager.

What needs to be done:

  • There is a serious lack of episode information. They should be fairly easy to create: everytime you watch a Star Trek episode, get on Wikipedia and create the related article. I tried to make one episode article that could be used as a general guide: In the Pale Moonlight. By all means it isn't perfect or anything, and I encourage you to improve it, but if every episode could be wikified as such, we'd be a long way towards our project goals. Many episodes are refered to in Star Trek articles... this would provide valuable background information. A true encyclopedia.
  • Images! There is a veritable infinite number of images that can be used under fair use copyright laws. Star Trek has been churning out images for decades.. Every Star Trek article should have at least one image. Images in some articles are rather weak and should be replaced (ie Bolian).
  • And much, much more. There is a large variety of types of articles one could work on, from technology to history to politics to popular culture.

How to get started:

  1. Go to United Federation of Planets or Star Trek and start clicking links. Most of them are shallow entries. Star improving them. Add pictures.
  2. A great resource is Memory Alpha. All the content there can be taken so long as you provide a link back to the source. Most empty articles here have write-ups there. Take and build upon them.

Go!

Simply put, we need to rekindle my proposed "take-over" of Memory Alpha. Currently, we try to get recent copies of their articles on our site, but that's falling through the cracks ever so quickly. They want to create a definitive guide to Trek, we want to create a definitive guide to the universe. What's to lose? Is there any objections to me contacting them again, and proposing a merger of sorts. -- user:zanimum
I don't oppose a complete take-over of the site, but I doubt they would agree to it. A more realistic option is to take advantage of their wiki-friendly copyright policy and just take articles that are better than ours and integrate them into this site (I have begun doing this.) So long as a link to Memory Alpha is included within the text, it is all perfectly legal. EDGE 22:44, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
Note that MA is actually not using a license compatible with Wikipedia, they use the Creative Commons no commercial usage license. Using a non-commercial license is prohibited. -- Solitude 18:20, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Since there already is Memory Alpha, would it not be more profitable to leave documenting Star Trek to them, and work on things that there is actually a shortage of knowledge on? DJ Clayworth 14:38, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can't say much for your 'template' episode; there's nothing in the first paragraph establishing that (1) we're discussing a TV episode; (2) that the events described are fictional ocurrences. Every article needs to have context established, no matter what it's about or where in the heirarchy it is. As well, the episode description seems to sound more like a review at times; try to keep it NPOV where possible. Radagast 16:25, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
I think you're completely right about the context. I will make appropriate corrections. Where, precisely, do you see POV text? Is it the part about it being considered a Star Trek classic? This is widely accepted among Trekkies. Check the Star Trek review websites or even the episode page on Startrek.com itself. If the POV is elsewhere, please list it so I can review your claim. Thanks, EDGE 22:42, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
It doesn't seem as POV on second reading; sorry about that criticism. Do please get that context in, as I feel like i'm reading an episode guide and not an article. Radagast 12:02, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
Does it look better now? --Phil | Talk 13:47, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
It does; I've also put quotes on the episode title and tialicized the name of the program, these are standard formatting. No further objections. Radagast 13:13, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
Original broadcast dates would be nice, as would the episode's writer and director. MK 03:55, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just a note, to expand on Radagast's idea of how the articles should work. I think a good idea when dealing with so-called "fancruft", which many of these articles are is to ensure that the articles are encyclopedic with relation to the real world. That is, each article should explain the significance of its topic to the plots, themes, and effect on the viewer, thus representing it as fiction of a certain significance. No article should just be a book-report, that is not an encyclopedic account of a topic. —siroχo 23:37, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Other uses

  • Alternate meaning 1...
  • Alternate meaning 2...
  • Etc...

I would like to suggest a formatting change where articles have one or more other uses appearing at the bottom. Current convention is to separate it from the preceding article with a horizontal rule, but this isn't the best formatting when dealing with longer articles. The alternate meaning does not show up in the table of contents, and it is easy to overlook a small blurb at the end of the article. Instead I suggest using one of two other methods: 1). Move the alternate meanings to a disambiguation page and include links between that new page and the current page. 2.) Create a new "Other uses" section at the bottom of the page (see example at right). (It would be "Other uses" only because many articles, including the new Template:otheruses, begin with the comment "For other uses, see ...") —Mike 16:56, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

People generally won't complain if you move the different meanings to their own page and create a disambiguation page. I find the horizontal rule method annoying too and I generally treat it as a vestage of the days before we figured out how to do disambiguation. anthony (see warning) 16:11, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See also

  • List of links

Other uses

Article text.

I suggest...

Let's make a 'Questions' section of the village pump. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 23:54, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be redundant with Wikipedia:Help desk? Maybe WP:HD the help desk be added to Template:Villagepumppages? And/or move the whole thing to Wikipedia:Village pump (questions)? • Benc • 00:33, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I say move it all to Village Pump (Questions) -- because I don't think anyone uses the HD, and the VP would be a more convenient place to do it. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:42, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Have you actually looked at Wikipedia:Help desk recently? It's huge! We do not want all that dropped in here as well! --Phil | Talk 10:59, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
Ilyanep, I can assure you that someone uses the Help Desk....a number of people, in fact. And the Village pump is so well-used that adding yet another function would be overwhelming. Help Desk was created to alleviate the problems here, as I recall. Jwrosenzweig 21:52, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Okay, then I am ignorant — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:36, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
See MediaZilla:192. I think this is the same as what you are asking for. It was also discussed at meta:footnotes. Angela. 03:49, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Reference list

Would it be possible to have a numbered reference list show up at the end of the article? For example, some of the more news oriented articles such as John Kerry have lots of citations in the text. These show up as numbered references. It would be nice to also have these show up at the bottom of the page with an actual name (e.g. New York Times Feb 12, 2003) so that one could see at a glance the references used in the article. One could do this by hand, but then the numbers would get thrown off every time a new reference is inserted. I have in mind some template like {reference:nytimes.com|New York Times, Feb 12, 2003} which inserts a numbered link as currently & adds a list to the bottom. Wolfman 22:17, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This feature would involve a change to the MediaWiki software. The software developers generally do not read the village pump, so I'd suggest using the Bugzilla site to submit a feature request. Interesting idea, though I don't know if it would be implemented any time soon (if at all) because it may be more trouble than its worth. • Benc • 23:56, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks much. Unfortunately, however, Bugzilla wants a real email address before it will take an entry. And I don't give my email out. Oh well, I had hoped it could be done with a template or some such. Wolfman 00:20, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

http://www.mailinator.com/ will give you a quick throwaway email address. anthony (see warning) 16:06, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Check out my propsed footnote format. You don't actally need numbers on the web. JesseW 06:44, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There has been discussion of solid programmatical approaches to this at meta:Footnotes (and meta:Talk:Footnotes); to my knowledge, it hasn't got far beyond theoretical considerations, but feel free to read and contribute there. - IMSoP 22:12, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WikiPiccy anyone?

I have wanted to add more images to small and medium sized articles.

Could a new Wiki, called WikiPiccy, be created, so that 5, 10 or more images could be uploaded and stored, and then some of them linked into WikiPedia? This would be a pictorial adjunct to WikiPedia.

N12345n 22:13, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)

That's what m:Wikimedia Commons is aiming to do. The wiki is in its infancy, though. Feel free to help out in any way you can. • Benc • 00:30, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Accessible Wikipedia

I was just reading what some have said about Wikipedia... like you can now plug a phone line in anywhere in the world and suddenly have a tremendous encyclopedia at your fingertips. (Harold Rhinegold, I think). But, that got me thinking.

There is a large amount of official HTML code that is rarely used and, I would wager, not entirely supported by the major browsers. This code deals mostly with accessibility - web browsing made easy for the blind and immobile.

I was wondering if anything could be done to assist this important segment of the population. I don't know anything about accessibility coding, so some of these questions may seem horribly naive:

  • Is the site itself designed with accessibility in mind? i.e. when a blind person navigates to a page, and he has a page reader, does it read off "Main Page, Community Portal, Current Events"... etc. on every page?
  • Many articles on here are formatted specifically for visual presentation, but may gum up accessible browsers. Like my congress tables, or any article that begins with a table of information, or what not. Do readers and such bypass these, or do they read every word?

I guess what I'm getting at here is maybe there should be an option for a blind-compatible alternate page in some cases. I don't know, maybe people would have to select that they're blind (or need an accessible copy no matter why) at the front page, or in their login, or maybe just give the option on appropriate pages. Like {{accessible}} could lead you to a more accessible copy of the page, but remain invisible if you are using a normal browser. It almost sounds worthy for an entire other wikipedia (and maybe this IS better suited for simple:, I don't know) but only a small portion of the pages would benefit from this.

Just some rambling thoughts. I'm sure there must be information on the web somewhere about all this. --Golbez 21:46, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

This is an important matter and could be discussed and written about endlessly (and often is amongst those of us who design websites). Here's a very brief reply. The site does appear to be designed with accessibility in mind, and a fair bit of thought seems to have gone into the XHTML and CSS used. This sort of thing is best achieved with CSS rather than creating alternate pages, and that's what Wikipedia does. If you view a Wikipedia page with stylesheets disabled, or in a text browser etc., you go straight into the main content and all the "edit this page" stuff is down the bottom out of the way. Consequently if you were to use a voice browser or an embossed braile display, for example, it shouldn't be too much of a mess. There is a problem on Wikipedia with people sticking deprecated HTML into pages to come up with some fancy effect. The evil <font> tag is often spotted. People also frequently fail to give images a good "alt" tag. Tables often pose an accessibility problem, but if well designed there is nothing inherently wrong with them, except that they should only be used when there's a tabular relationship between data, and not for layout purposes. Whether a Wikipedia table is a horrible mess or not varies from case to case. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:03, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Precisely. The MediaWiki developers have done a good job (a really good job!) of producing validating XHTML code with perfect CSS, but we Wikipedians tend to ruin it by forgetting to close tags or adding obsolete ones that the server can't improve. We'll need <span> (see Wikipedia:Span tag poll) and either a bot or an HTML corrector before all the Wikipedia pages truly validate. --Ardonik.talk()* 00:44, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
I voted against span. :) Because I wanted a pure wiki version of it. --Golbez 00:57, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

=It seems that this discussion has been inactive for over a week, but as a blind Wikipedian, I would definitely say that this website is accessible. The code makes it easy for my reading software to read the articles and navigate. It also helps that there are no graphical distractions like flash. Of course I cannot access images, but if the image has a name which basically describes what the picture is of, I know what it is about. It is sometimes difficult to learn the codes for editing, particularly for tables, but this is a minor problem which I am overcoming. Academic Challenger 08:28, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Interlinking with WikiTravel

I don't know just how closely Wikitravel and Wikipedia are linked (in terms of brainpool; I know why travel is separate, and the differences in license, etc.) but I thought it might be useful to maintain a policy of interlinking between the two. I.e. their WikiTravel page on Charlotte would extlink to Charlotte, North Carolina, and ours would extlink to their page on it. That way, the two projects complement each other without actually joining together. Are there any objections to this, or comments, or? --Golbez 01:01, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't hurt. Wikitravel already has a page on links to Wikipedia for the other direction. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:51, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Don't need an official policy, just be bold and do it. I'm sure many will thank you for it. --Phil | Talk 11:57, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
I've done a couple of these, but I'm no longer active in WikiTravel. Go for it, I'm sure virtually everyone will see this as a plus. -- Jmabel 21:47, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Enabling the instant revert button globally

I have been discussing with Angela the reasons behind disallowing normal users to use the instant revert button. Basically, there is no reason why an administrator can revert a page easily and a normal user is obligued to revert it by force (open > select history > click edit > save as). Angela's concern was that enabling it globally would allow vandals to revert fixes immediatly. However, this is an evitable situation:

We could simply have a timer that disallows simple users to use the revert button. Say that the timer is set for 5 minutes: if I revert a page, I can't use the revert button until 5 minutes have passed (as I'm not an admin, just a simple user). However, an admin is not constrained by this timer: he can use the revert button again and again and again without a time limit — just at it is now.

This can be achieved by comparing the timestamp of the user's last use of the revert() function on a certain page with the timestamp of the server; ie: user used revert() on X article at 14:00:00 09/20/2004 and the timestamp of the server is 16:00:00 09/21/2004: the user is allowed to use the revert() function. —Joseph | Talk 23:34, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Would you also disallow the use of &bot? Because if not, then they can hide their reversions from recent changes (if I understand how &bot works) and vandalism could occur completely unnoticed. --Golbez 23:37, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Very few people should be allowed to bot users, and nobody should ever be able to bot themself. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 02:26, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Isn't &bot available to admins only? Why would we disallow it then? —Joseph | Talk 03:46, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
I am totally against the idea, and after this timestamp thing I still am really uneasy against it. Sysops are trusted members of the community. If you want to be one, simply petition to be one. If you have done good for wikipedia and people know you, chances are you'll be accepted. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:27, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That's the problem Ilya, I don't want to be a sysop but I want to be able to revert a page without going back to Bedrock. It is absurd to have to revert manually when images themselves can be reverted. I don't understand why the timestamp approach bothers you, it is just that: an approach. There are other ways to do this, I just gave one suggestion for it. —Joseph | Talk 03:46, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
This seems reasonable. I'd like to point out that any delay at all would simply discourage malicious users from using the revert mechanism, instead vandalizing manually. Consider that automatic reverts are very clearly marked, while a normal user may use any summary they like and mark their revert a minor edit. Allowing all users to revert, without restriction, should generally be beneficial.
Some fair version of the three-revert rule should be implemented on the server, regardless. I'd suggest placing a limit of four consecutive reverts on a specific article, by any user, possibly comparing subsequent edits to the recent history for further protection. Unless manual reversion is a widespread problem currently, allowing all users to use the automated function would be harmless. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 02:23, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Incidentally, are MD5 checksums generated for pages upon editing? That might remove considerable load from comparing previous versions. If not, MD4 would be a better choice, as it's considerably faster (on the other hand, it might just slow the server more, since reverting isn't much of a problem). --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 02:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Considering some of the complaints I've seen on some image talk pages where people were accidentally reverting images, I would have to argue against any instant revert capabilities. For the average user there should always be some type of confirm asking if the user is sure they really want to revert. —Mike 02:39, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
A problem with the image pages is that (del), (cur), and (rev) are cryptic (surely there's no reason for chopping the words in half; they're only six characters). If there isn't a confirmation button for reverting, there should be. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 02:56, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Mike you said it yourself: ask users before reverting. Something like: "are you sure you want to revert this?" Once he answers yes then proceed to revert. —Joseph | Talk 03:46, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Then why give them the option at all, since that's the same number of clicks required for a regular non-admin revert? It would require recoding Mediawiki, I assume, to add this capability, and not merely a policy change. --Golbez 16:17, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
When you revert manually you have to do at least 3 clicks: select the version, click edit, click save. With automatic revert this can be short down to 1 or 2 clicks. The question of reverting could be a user preference: "do you want to be asked before reverting?" or simply "don't ask me again when reverting". —Joseph | Talk 22:41, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
I agree. At current server loads, each click means a wait of several seconds. The difference between one and three clicks is quite significant, and I like the idea of making the double-check question optional. The default should perhaps be to ask, so that only people who already know what they're doing can turn it off. Fpahl 09:49, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The revert is intended to eventually mean "this was vandalism". Admins aren't supposed to be using it for normal reverts either. Jamesday 14:41, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm against this. A User Interface should make it easy to to the things you want people to do, but it should also make it hard to do the things you don't want them to do. Reverting is one of the things that you want people to think about very hard before they do it. Even as an admin it's sometimes very easy to just push that revert button because you don't like the look of an entry. I have to make myself check it. I confess that sometimes I've even forgotten that 'revert' can undo multiple changes.

Whatever we do revert should not be made available to anons. Imagine the havoc when some newcomer finds they can screw up an article by just pressing one button, and that the summary automatically is filled in to look like it's a sensible change. DJ Clayworth 14:45, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd rather lose the ability to auto-revert as an admin than hand it out to anyone who feels like signing up for a username. Most of our widespread vandal attacks have been from registered accounts -- imagine if all Wik's vandalbot accounts had the power to auto-revert? DJ's reasoning is perfectly sound: let's not do this. Jwrosenzweig 22:11, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

imagine if all Wik's vandalbot accounts had the power to auto-revert That's a silly argument. Bots can revert in one step already anyway. Just set wpEdittime and upload the old text. anthony (see warning) 15:49, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Disclaimer?

I propose adding the following to the bottom of all article:

Disclaimer: All information provided on Wikipedia is presented 'as is'. No warranty is offered, express or implied.

or something like that. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:26, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is a link to Wikipedia:General disclaimer at the bottom of every page? -- Chuq 01:51, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There is? If not, there should be. If there is, I never noticed it in my 1 1/2 years here. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It just says, in rather small letters, Disclaimers - which maybe isn't obvious enough. OTOH, a label with a summary of the disclaimers wouldn't actually be any more noticeable, except that it would take up a bit more screen-width, so maybe this is more of a skin-design issue: how can we make it so that people will actually notice our disclaimer link, so that it's useful. - IMSoP 14:33, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
the rather small letters is a Monobook innovation. the link used to be/is quite visible in the old skin. --Hemanshu 03:34, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Shortcut icons

It would be very helpful if each wiki had a different shortcut icon. For example, with several wikis open in different tabs, they would have a different icon depending on which wiki is in the tab. I have made some for Meta, Wikibooks, and Wikiquote with Fennec's help, and they are here. What do people think of that? And would someone kindly put those icons on the wikis? --Yath 03:13, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like the idea. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:52, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The following line appears in the HTML for every page served from Wikipedia:
<link rel="shortcut icon" href="/favicon.ico" />
which provides an icon to be used when your system makes a shortcut. (I think Mozilla can use it to decorate tabs as well, although IE seems to be behind in that regard :-) It seems to work in my IE Favourites menu. I don't know whether the other examples in your list already have such an icon: maybe yours coud be used if not? HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 14:59, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
The problem is that all wikis in the Wikimedia foundation have the same icon, which is a capital W. I find it useful to have pages from several different wikis open at the same time. All of their tabs have the same icon. If they were different, well, life would be that much nicer. --Yath 03:03, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The logical way would be to add the appropriate language code to say the bottom-right of the Capital-W icon, which would likely be doable even if rather small. I did think of using a flag-type background, but struck out when trying to think which flag you'd use for :en: :-) I would have thought trying to come up with a distinct icon for each and every language wiki would be an impossible task, never mind the confusion of trying to recall which is which on your screen :-) --Phil | Talk 11:53, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
I also support this idea. Especially if someone already made icons. JesseW 07:11, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Idea

How about we do a permanent split (no posting on the main Vil Pump page) and then do something like:

Village Pump -- News

{{Wikipedia:Village Pump (News)}}

Village Pump -- Technical

{{Wikipedia:Village Pump (Technical)}}

and then every heading under the main headings would have an 'add to this discussion' link (like Vfd) and we keep the box with the different village pump links (so we can post). — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:01, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • I like this idea. The way it is now, it's sort of confusing whether to post to a subpage or to the main page, and when checking the Village Pump for new stuff, I often just check the main page and I don't bother clicking all of the links to the subpages, thus the posts on the subpages are probably getting less exposure. --Chessphoon 03:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for image manipulation --- Good or bad idea?

I was thinking of creating Wikipedia:Requests for image manipulation (WP:RFIM for short) as a place to handle requests to modify images. Any thoughts? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 20:58, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This was originally one of the things Cleanup was going to be for. Is there any advantage to splitting it away from there? Angela. 21:39, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
Things like this get lost on Cleanup, and the Cleanup page doesn't lend itself to discussion of images. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 21:41, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I was recently toying with idea of suggesting Wikipedia:Requests for assistance as a general "can someone fix this image/template/table/botched page move/whatever" page, given the number that appear on the pump. Never got around to it, though. Are there enough image manipulation requests to justify it's own page? - 22:01, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)
I think the Requests for assistance page is an excellent idea! RickK 00:07, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

What will make or break this idea, and also the split of the Village Pump, is whether a sufficient cadre of competent helpers read it and answer the questions posed. I'm not sure I know how to attract such cadre, but that's the trick. I think it's a good idea, but I'm not competent to say how to sell it or what to call it. Andrewa 11:12, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like the idea, I would add such a page to my watch list so that I might be able to lend help when I'm around. A note that such a page exists on the pump would be helpfull to creating popularity for it. Cavebear42 19:57, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I support this as it is something I, and I am sure many others, would be happy to do to spend a few mindless moments when you don't really want to think. It could also be a page where images are requested such as graphics to be drawn or pictures taken for a purpose. In the graphic manipulation section it could ask specifics of what the person wants done with the graphic, e.g. cropped to xxx or, "It needs to be brighter", or "Can you get rid of the goat on the left and still leave the sheep behind it?" There could be a paragraph or two and some sample images to show what can be done. As for the issue of creating the cadre, put a link to the page on selected pages to do with images, tutorials, and maybe on Village pump, create the page and see who comes looking for help with images and who comes to offer that help. If it falls flat, broaden the advertising. Anyone who takes responsibility for a task should then put their name and timestamp to the task with a projected completion date to prevent duplication of effort. If the job still isn't finished some time after the completion target date then at least you know who to contact to see if they have lost interest or it is too hard so the task can be freed for someone else to take it up.--CloudSurfer 09:05, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There are enough Wikipedians who can handle Photoshop or the Gimp, or any other imaging program at expert level or as a qualified amateur. There will always be someone willing to give a helping hand. Many of the images that I have uploaded, have been treated first with Photoshop, as to brighten or sharpen them. JoJan 18:37, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Splitting up the village pump

As a solution to the village pump regularly being 200kb or more, I propose a trial of splitting the pump into different areas. The five proposed sections are at Wikipedia:Village pump sections. If people want to still post on the main village pump, they can, but they find it easier to find replies to their questions on a more focused page. Angela. 22:46, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Good idea! My only reservation is that it might create redundancies, namely:
Fuzzy lines are generally a bad thing — we have hundreds of pages in the Wikipedia namespace. New Wikipedians are daunted by such a large menu — I know I was. We should minimize the amount of "I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but...". However, I do agree that 200kb is sinfully large, so some type of split is necessary. Splitting it as you suggest is an excellent idea, though it has a few kinks right now. • Benc • 23:24, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This is a nice idea. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 23:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ditto regarding the help page. It seems redundant with both the help desk and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 23:32, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps proposals should be developed on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) until suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia:Policy thinktank? --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 23:42, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sounds fine. I would argue that Wikipedia: Village Pump (help) could simply redirect to the Help Desk. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:43, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

I agree the Help one isn't needed. That leaves just four sections. Is that a good number? Or would further subdivision be useful? The Wikia:Forums are planned to have about 11 sections, as well as additional topic-related ones. Would this be too many for the village pump? Angela. 00:37, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
I am about to violate my own maxim that disagreeing with Angela probably means I'm wrong: I monitor Village Pump and Reference Desk trying to help people out. I'm not interested in monitoring half a dozen pages for this purpose. -- Jmabel 02:49, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
I see your point, but actually, couldn't this also make your job easier in a way? It allows you to filter out those people who don't need need help (e.g., proposals). You can just put whichever topics you want to monitor onto your watchlist, and leave the others off. • Benc • 03:12, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Maybe. I'm skeptical. -- Jmabel 03:33, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
Good idea - lets give it a trial and tweak as necessary in the light of experience Apwoolrich 07:24, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Personally, like Jmabel, I'm skeptical about the value of splitting the village pump. The Help page definitely is redundant and people should go to the Help Desk, that's why it's there. --Michael Snow 19:52, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I too think it sucks, so what if it's 200Kb? just scroll down a little longer, this is confusing, redundant and will just mean that there are fewer eyes looking at each question. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:58, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)
Why do we use wiki software for Village Pump at all, seems like something more along the lines of scoop or wordpress would be much more suited to what we're doing here. [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 05:54, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I like the idea. I particularly like the way these new pages can coexist alongside the existing Pump. Let's give them a go; If people like them they will prosper, if people don't like them, they'll just wither. Perhaps this particular split is not ideal, but that can be fine-tuned by creating further splits as they seem needed, and if a page is truly redundant, one of the two will wither and die. Very democratic, very Wiki. Andrewa 01:29, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For people who don't mind huge pages, and want to see the whole village pump on one page, there could be a page which included all the other ones via templates. See User:Angela/Sandbox for an example. Angela. 09:36, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't help with watchlisting, though. -- Jmabel 05:35, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)


Oh Angela, I had the exact same idea as you, except 12 hours later (see below). You brits always have a headstart on me. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 12:14, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I noticed that example had two tables of contents, since this page has a __TOC__. Since it was just where the TOC would be anyway I removed it. Goplat 15:30, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A new feature now lets you edit a page that is included in another one via section [edit] links. This means you can edit this section of this page directly from User:Angela/Sandbox, which makes inclusion of templates a lot more useful. I'm wondering now whether there is any reason not to split the village pump up since the subpages can all be included on one page, and people can edit those from that page. People who are only interested in one section can go straight there, and can watchlist that section, but those who want the whole pump still have that. Angela. 16:26, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now included on the main village pump, which hopefully is good for people who want the whole thing, and for people who only want to see sections. The next thing to do will be to move the "miscellaneous" section on the main village pump to a subpage, but I'll wait to see if there are objections to that first. Angela. 01:23, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

I was going to start categorising "miscellaneous" discussions into the existing subsections, and cut and paste one or two when I realised that screws up the edit history. Does that matter? Could I continue to get rid of the existing miscellaneous mess?
Also, I don't think we should have a miscellaneous section. Having clear sections should cut down on discussions not appropriate for village pump. Perhaps renaming the "news" section to "notices" would be better though? Do we need any other subsections?
Comments? zoney ♣ talk 15:29, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think it's perfectly acceptable (and helpful) to summarily move discussions to appropriate VP sections. Don't worry about the edit history issues: as long as you leave a good edit summary ("moved discussion from Wikipedia:Village pump to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)") on both pages, future Wikiarcheologists will be able to track changes easily. (Although I doubt that they'll be lining up out the door to track changes to the VP, though. :-))
As for whether we need a "miscellaneous" section in the first place: I'm not sure. Do our sections cover absolutely everything that should be posted to the VP? Even if they do, I'd wait another week or so to remove the misc section entirely. This would ease the transition into sections; people are still getting used to it. (Evidenced by the fact that we have so many posts still going into the misc section.)
If it turns out we do need a misc section, I agree with Angela that it should be made a subpage rather than be part of the main VP page. • Benc • 19:33, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The miscellaneous section is partly to stop those who don't like having to learn anything new from getting upset. This way, they can continue to post on one page without having to worry about which sections exist. I also think there are some sections that don't fit elsewhere. My recent request for a volunteer to be interviewed by the BBC, for example, didn't really fit anywhere else. Angela. 05:59, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Template:Notstub

Idea withdrawn for the time being

One minor thing that's always bugged me about how our stub system works is that there are some articles in existence that are stub-length, never likely to be significantly expanded, but certainly worthy of inclusion. Examples: Juturna, Fontus, Eanmund, and Setnakhte.

Putting the stub tag on articles like these is an eyesore for our readers. It's a futile cry for help — sources for these topics simply do not exist anymore. They're lost in the sands of time.

Despite this, well-meaning editors will inevitably mark these articles as stubs, no matter how many times it's reverted.

My solution to this (admittedly minor) problem is Template talk:Notstub, an "invisible" tag. Please read it over, and decide whether it's a good idea or not. Thanks, • Benc • 06:44, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay, thanks to everyone who's commented on Template talk:Notstub. I'm abandoning this idea for the time being in favor of increased visibility for Wikipedia:Stub categories. • Benc • 01:43, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Concise Needs Help

About a week after the 400,000th article was posted on Wikipedia, I created a page that aims to list links to the 10,000 to 20,000 "essential" articles that no "encyclopedia" could be without. I have set up some guidelines for what I would like this particular "categorization scheme" to become and put them on the Wikipedia:Concise discussion page and now I need help creating an alphabetical list of links to the "keystone" articles of the encyclopedia. In fact, I would appreciate whatever help I can get with this project. I think it is an important project, one designed to make Wikipedia even more accessible than it is today.N2lect2el 22:36, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


For Wiki News - Offering Email News Alert functionality

I read about the new Wiki News initiative and would like to contribute. Infobeing.net technology can be integrated into the site through Web Services so that users can create keyword-based Agents and receive Email Alerts when relevant news items are published.

Our message-routing engine is up and running and the integration wouldn't be too difficult. I'd offer this functionality for free. Please contact me at chad@infobeing.net if there is any interest. Thank you.

Chad Manney Infobeing Solutions, LLC

Ratings System

I am interested in knowing when that ratings system that was being tested is going to be implemented. I think its pretty essential that there is some form of a ratings system for these articles aside from the discussion board. Malcom-x-mass 22:35, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

New approach to newbie vanities

Crosspost - request fo comments Please read Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers#Newbie vanity and comment. --Wikimol 22:30, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How do I submit an article for consideration?

I'm sure I've overlooked it but I wasn't sure how to submit an article I'd like to have considered for posting on your website? It concerns an Irish priest, Father James Edwin Coyle, who served his priestly life in Alabama (USA)from 1896 to until he was assassinated on August 11, 1921 on the front porch of the old wooden rectory at St. Paul's Catholic Church in Birmingham, Alabama. Shortly before the murder, Father Coyle had presided at the marriage of a minister's daughter who had become Catholic to a dark-skinned Puerto Rican. The girl's father walked up on the porch where Father Coyle sat after supper, fired three shots, two missed but one struck Father below the left ear. He died forty minutes later at St. Vincent's Hospital. In a week-long trial two months later, the shooter was found not guilty by reason of temporary insanity. Father Coyle was 48 when he died. He was a native of Drum, Athlone, County Roscommon, Ireland. He is buried in Elmwood Cemetery in Birmingham. His grave is marked by a thick, ten-foot high Celtic cross. The murder took place during a years-long period of unfortunate public anti-Catholic economic and psychological persecution promoted by the Ku Klux Klan and a secret anti-Catholic political society called the True Americans. Their motto was "No Catholics in Public Office". During this tense period, Father Coyle was unwavering in his defense of the Catholic Faith and what Catholics believe. It is believed by Catholics in County Roscommon and in Birmingham that Father Coyle's life should be examined to determine if he was a Martyr for the Catholic Faith and if he is a candidate for canonization as a Saint... written by John Wright, Jr., Birmingham, AL. USA, e-mail: jlwjr1927@cs.com, phone 205-979-6745.

One way is to enter "James Edwin Coyle" in the search box, on the left of the page and click Go. Then click on the red "create article" link. Also read the help pages. See the link at the top left of page. You can register if you wish by clicking the blue "log in" link at the right top of the page. Welcome to this site.WikiUser 21:16, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Or edit a page (any page will do, if you don't save the first edit, but better to find an appropriate one to create link in to your new article), and add [[James Edwin Coyle]], and then preview and click on the red link. Here is a link for free: James Edwin Coyle. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:21, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Auto create edit summaries?

Hey, for certain types of edits (For example, all that is added is the stub message) maybe an auto edit summary should be made-so if somebody marks something as a stub and does nothing else, the edit summary says "Stub". Would save people time making edit summaries. -Cookiemobsta 05:16, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

a request to simplify the user watchlist

While going through the watch list looking for new edits and responses to posts on the "village pump" i've noticed that there is no easy way to verify what posts are new verses what are old. there appears to be very little in the way of advancement on that page at all. I say this due to the point i just brought up and another i've been meaning to bring up: as a whole the watchlist is difficult to read. Maybe not difficult, but it could be easier. I propose some sort of flag to recocnize additions to talk pages and reworking the format to which each entry on the list is presented. I feel that truncating information and adding columns (at least one were the posting user is the start of the new column) would make the page less of a hassle. I would make an example of my watch list, but i am unable to edit the format.

I apologize if this was brought up outside of the recent unarchived history. Yet i feel it is important. Ramius V. Schweitzer 22:29, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not a simple thing to implement. It would require quite a bit of code, and potentially break the "edit this page" function (or be broken by it). -- Cyrius|✎ 23:27, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
hmmmm, i see.Ramius V. Schweitzer 23:29, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

<HotKey>-Click to lookup any word on WikiPedia on Wiktionary?

<HotKey>-Click to lookup any word on WikiPedia on Wiktionary? andor on WikiPedia itself?

)b

Front page for all election announcements

I want to propose that the main page is used to announce the current arbitrators election. And also all elections for administrators etc. At the moment there are around a quarter of a million Wikipedia editors, and a recent "election" for an administrator had only about 50 votes for and 17 against. I know there's a mention on the Community Portal page for the arb-com election but most users/visitors won't see that.

Obviously the users aren't being properly represented and this leads to mainly activists and often unsuitable people dominating the running of The Wikipedia. I suggest a colourful click-able box on the front page. Like the ones that are being touted around various users' pages, (mainly, it seems to me, for the candidates' and their friends benefit rather than the Wikipedia "electorate".)WikiUser 19:01, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This might be better suited for the user page after login. though this is just an observation from a n00b.Ramius V. Schweitzer 19:44, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

That's a sensible suggestion, but I want to make sure anyone who visits The Wikipedia knows about elections and can be involved if they wish.217.204.65.186 20:46, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The above post "217.204.65.186 at 20:46, 26 Nov" was from me (the system told me I was logged in), but administrator Neutrality blocked me as I was trying to helpfully point out that. Fortunately another helpful Admin (I think it was Genteen) must've unblocked me.WikiUser 21:41, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think election announcements should go on the main page. The reason is simple: elections are only of interest to editors of Wikipedia, not readers. That's why talk pages exist: so that editors can discuss article content without disrupting the article itself for readers. The best place for election announcements is the watchlist. All editors have one and see it frequently. -- Avaragado 12:15, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, the watchlist is not used by everyone. I didn't start using it until after 1.5 months or so of very regular editing. Jimbo has suggested the Edit page, and it does seem the to be the logical page that every editor sees regularly. — David Remahl 12:22, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"The best place for election announcements is the watchlist. All editors have one and see it frequently."-- Avaragado. -I don't because I'm not sure I know what it is. Putting the announcement of elections on the main page is sound. What's more important to go on it than who runs The Wikipedia? If they have room for things like this: "Did you know...that some people in the BDSM community are sexually aroused by being gagged?", and a box asking for donations, then they could easily put a box like I suggested on. It's updated every day. I watch out for such matters but I didn't know about the 13th August elections until I came across a mention of them by chance about 3 weeks ago.
Admins have the power to block people permanently and drive away new people but I rarely see an announcement of an admin election, (unless I spot someone asking a friend to vote for them on their talk page). I also think some readers would be interested and then get involved.
"Jimbo has suggested the Edit page, and it does seem the to be the logical page that every editor sees regularly. " ? David Remahl - I haven't seen that, is this being discussed elsewhere?WikiUser 20:48, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Admins have the power but not the authority to unilaterally block people. An admin being "elected" is nearly a daily occurance — there are always nominations and votes ongoing on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. You're welcome to participate. Since anything that an admin does can be reverted by another admin (with one notable exception; image deletions), adminship is not that big a deal.
There has been a lot of discussion about election visibility on User talk:Jimbo Wales. I think it might have been on that page that he suggested that the edit page would be an appropriate place for election announcements (though he did not mean admin appointments, these are dealt with on RFA.) — David Remahl 12:32, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee Elections - December 4th-18th, 2004
Election Info — Candidates — Voting

In case it is not widely known, here is a banner publicising the election taken from here. Feel free to copy to appropriate places (User pages/User talk pages). -- ALoan (Talk) 18:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've seen that banner and it's a good idea. Can some Administrator, a helpful one like say Angela, put it on the main page. These elections are for arbitrators who'll be there for 1, 2 or 3 more years. Everyone ought to get a chance to know about it. From the endorsments and oppose/comments pages it seems that it's only the usual active people that are involved at the moment.WikiUser 21:47, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Users browsing / editing this page...

This might go under technical, but... this is an idea from a forum, where at the bottom of each thread or forum, it has a list of users looking at the page. (With the option to hide your username) Maybe this is a worth wild idea to implement to generate page stats on number of people viewing the page, and what not??? --[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 08:59, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See Finding out if anyone's reading your stuff Matt Stan 20:20, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

chalkboard

Similar to a clipboard, it would function as a place where editors could place things that they cut and paste often. Maybe even advancing the idea so far as to have three sections to a chalkboard: single session, multi-session, and functional. the atributes of the third section would include a tie in to the keyboard so that an editor only need to hold ctrl+1 or ctrl+2 (through zero for a total of ten 'hot keys') to paste an object listed as one through zero in that section. The object being a phrase or a word or internal/external link and the list being changable as the needs change. The 'advancing of this could go so far as to join the multi-session and the functional session by leaving a 'window' where the function number could be assigned. Though i can see how advancing this far could be a hinderance. Note: this feature would be saved on the Wiki servers, however when a user logs in they get transfered to the user's computer space, and saved back to the wiki servers only if there have been edits made to the list.

Ramius V. Schweitzer 01:52, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

draft pages

So as to decrease the amount of actual page edits, i propose the ability to flag revisions and/or page creations as drafts until kinks are worked out. I realize that there is a 'preview' button, yet things still can be over looked. The advantage that i see is for when someone (like myself with the clean up of the covenant page) is working with cleaning up an article through the restructuring of information, and distrobution of information to new 'files', they would be able to fine ttune their method without mucking up the 'edit history' page.

Ramius V. Schweitzer 01:52, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

  • Agree. Optionally, drafts can be recorded in page history, but when something is marked as final draft, all previous drafts are wrased 05:08, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
~reads up on 'sandbox'ing~ Ramius V. Schweitzer 05:46, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Proposal for draft pages and a 'chalkboard'

Ramius V. Schweitzer 01:51, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Mark users unlikely to perform vandalism?

Hey, if people are looking out on the RC page for vandalism, why not have an option to not notice registered users who have made more than (arbitrary numbers) 100 edits or created 10 articles and haven't recieved any warnings or anything? Such people are very unlikely to be vandals (or even make stupid but well-meant edits that need reverting) and it would save time to have an option to not show them. -Cookiemobsta 00:51, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We already have that, pretty much - click "Hide logged in users" on the recent changes page. Of course, logged-in users are occasionally vandals, and anons are not always vandals, so it's not perfect... Adam Bishop 05:26, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I know-I was hoping for a way to narrow it down even more and save time for people who are watching the RC page. -Cookiemobsta 19:35, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have noticed that links to objects in the "Media" namespace, e.g., Media:1000Hz.ogg, are marked with the same icon used to mark external links. That could be confusing for those users who have not customized their CSS to properly differentiate visually between media and external links, because the default shade of blue that marks external links is not quite different-looking from the default shade of blue used to mark media links. So, I drew a new icon () that I propose could be used to mark media links in MediaWiki. What do you think? Denelson83 04:03, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I like it, it's kind of cute. There would have to be controls, however, to allow individual users to suppress such an icon: I know many don't like the external link icon. --Phil | Talk 08:02, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
I like the external link icon. Helps to quickly determine possible off-site links. Although, I think some reinterruptation for internal links written as external links need to be looked at. --[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 09:02, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

New template another

I've noticed that several sysops enjoy leaving this message on vandals' talk pages:

Do not vandalize or you will be prevented from editing. Username, et al.

(without wiki)
Do not [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalize]] or you will be prevented from editing. ~~~~

I think that there should be a template for this, if there is not one already. Here is my contribution at {{ban}}.

See Template:Test, Template:Test2, Template:Test3, Template:Test4, and Template:Test5. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
we should also think of removing these messages from anonymous talk pages, since users tend to be confused by gripes on their talk that date back to some ancient vandalism that occurred on the same IP. dab 08:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Downline Clones&Snapshots

Is it a question or a proposal : Can wikipedia integrate as a requirement to down-line clones the acceptance as a condition of their free use that they accept a built in giant wiki RSS-like feed of updates/corrections/expansion? Is it hellish expensive /impossible though aren't Clones feeding from the source already ? Do they just add new pages (as opposed to editing within pages )at present or do they take snapshots at long intervals . Don't Clones who take snapshots and everybody already have to accept conditions for everything ? Clones just show me that they're very slow to renew/correct the data , and since really it isn't even clones but vast website populations referring to single pages that suit them , it means they can feed their own perhaps rubbish into Wikipedia and then get it back out, branded with the good name of Wikipedia as a PR plug for their site's stance. The solution would have to be a feed embedded on every page , so ,and leave with each uptake of data leaving . Yes, it sounds a bit controlling but I ask this as a reaction simply to abuse not use .The present situation means that wiki stuff goes down to a lower level that has no interaction,so no checks and balances beyond that moment of data withdrawal.Flamekeeper 22:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The only condition Wikipedia clones and mirrors must accept is the GFDL, under which (most) contributions are licensed. The Wikimedia Foundation does not have the authority to change the terms of the license, as it is not the copyright holder, the authors are. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The copyright holders don't have the authority to change the terms of the license either (is that correct?) — Matt 00:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That's correct. The GFDL is non-revokable. Copyright holders can choose to offer the material under a different license, in addition to the GFDL, though. — David Remahl 12:30, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So maybe Debian are right and it doesn't work 'cause it's not editable where I find clones/forks parading the brand. Does this mean the train rolls on forever with a wheel off? What I'm concerned about seems to creep inside and I understand is it that the rules accepted from foundation can't change so nothing can be done .Is everything locked up like making DRM look so yesterday ? So re-start another whole wiki is it that fixes the issue ? I'm sorry I don't get it -surely the wikipedia has to blaze a trail for us all . So otherwise - let me get this, the sum total of knowledge has to go in accord (effectively causing error as much as light) with a copyright that sits in a register as constituted by that body , of how many lines ,and wikipedia cannot develope a better solution . I thought pavlov had a problem...but if you're right, Matt ,still there could be an agreement between the two , given goodwill. These are all nice guys aren't they, there's no money is there, so why not? At this rate no one 's going to change anything , the conspiracy we maybe don't know about will always remain un-branded so the beneficiaries get off again. Flamekeeper 01:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What? -- Cyrius|✎ 01:31, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am told elsewhere(technical) that this proposal to stream-down corrected wikipedia articles would be technically feasible . Flamekeeper 09:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

um, what? It's really just the GFDL, we have no control on what they do with the stuff beyond that. The GFDL, however, may be problematic even for the WP editing process (?) dab 13:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
But the downstream users would always have the possibility and right to remove any techincal meassures put into articles. — David Remahl 12:30, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The GFDL is not set in stone. There is a migration clause in the version that Wikipedia requires. So if FSF creates GFDL 2.0 then we can choose to use its terms instead. And that goes for reusers too, of course. There is no risk that the GFDL would require RSS feeds, anyway. — David Remahl 12:30, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

keeping track of FAs

I propose that the Template:Featured put on FA's Talk pages be expanded to include

  • (edit) the date of the featuring
  • a link to the version of the article at the moment it was given FA status
  • a link to the archived WP:FAC discussion

This will make it much easier to screen FAs for deterioration (inspired by yesterday's FA-o-the-day, Talk:Indus Valley Civilization). This proposal is also related to the "WP 1.0" screening suggested above: we need some sort of handy record, what version of the article was screened (yes, the information can always be collected from page history, but apparently that's not good enough, as the version linked from WP:FA is the current version, not the original featured one). dab 11:35, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with this. I think currently the talk page flags when the article becomes featured; but there is no record on the article itself. The proper process ought to be to resave the version at that time with a edit summary of 'Featured'. :ChrisG 11:57, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
but we need some protection against fake FA's. I can easily "feature" my pet articles without anyone noticing. A link to the FAC discussion is needed to give it some credibility in any case. dab 12:04, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Agree that something needs to be done. Could we see a prototype? Filiocht 12:46, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
how about Template:Featuredpar? dab 13:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Works for me. Maurreen 17:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. — Matt 18:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. The example template is far too massive. Readers have little interest in the date an article was approved or the debate that lead it to its being featured. Such information is for editors and belongs on the talk page. If we must have such a template it should be something unobtrusive like:
However the example used above, from today's featured article, shows the disadvantages with this idea. The approved version contains a number of factual and grammatical errors that have since been fixed. - SimonP 19:01, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure readers would be disinterested. If you're looking to evaluate how trustworthy the page is, then how long ago it was featured, the actual "Featured version", and the associated discussion are of interest. For example, a reader might be following the advice of Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wikipedia#Look_for_comprehensive_review. — Matt 19:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The advice of "Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wikipedia#Look_for_comprehensive_review" is to read the article's talk page. Readers would be much better served by having all the article's process information listed on that one sub-page, rather than having some of it linked separately from the article itself. - SimonP 19:23, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
(Just to clarify, I think the proposal is to expand the tag which is included on the Talk: page, not add a new box to the actual article. — Matt 19:35, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC))
Sorry, I misunderstood completely. I read this proposal and the suggested template as a proposed solution to ChrisG's complaint that "there is no record on the article itself" of an article's featured status. - SimonP 20:41, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Version 1.0?

Sundar and I are discussing the idea of another Collaboration of the Week, or something roughly similar. The purpose would be essentially to find, screen, develop or maintain (or all of those) articles or article versions appropriate for a paper or "release" version of Wikipedia.

We'll probably start at top-level categories and branch out from there, but other options are open. If you're interested (whether in helping or just discussing), please join us at Wikipedia:Breadth and quality. Maurreen 08:54, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Personal Pages

I think it would be great if we could have more than one personal page. If we could have a main personal page and two or three other pages listed under our wiki ID, it would be great. --DoubleRing 19:53, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just create subpages. E.g. User:DoubleRing/Interests, User:DoubleRing/Contributions/Images. - Fredrik | talk 20:15, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

List(s) of canonical articles?

I am not an admin, and just a minor contributor. I'm aware of the debate in the media about Wikipedia and its utility. It was nice to see Wikipedia being mentioned, if not praised by Bamber Gascoigne on the UK's BBC Radio 4 channel recently.

My proposal is that those wishing to improve the quality and reliability of Wikipedia should form an editorial board (or perhaps several competing boards) and produce lists of versions of canonical articles - i.e. those that have been reviewed by the board and met with approval. Those who agree with the editorial stance of their preferred board or boards could then use the list of canonical articles produced by the board as a filter into Wikipedia. Articles would not then need to be 'locked' against further editing. Ideally, the Wikimedia software could be modified such that an individual could turn on such a filter (or filters) in their preferences i.e. only view or search articles listed by the 'Peer reviewed only' board, or the 'Child friendly' board, or the 'Creationist' board.

This approach does not impose a particular editoral board's view on all users of Wikipedia, and does not hinder the addition of information to articles.

The list of canonical versions of articles would have to be protected to be modifiable only by those authorised by the particular editorial board producing the list.

One possible approach might be to tag particular article versions with a tag indicating approval by a particular editorial board.

I'm not putting myself forward as wishing to set up or participate in such a board - it would be beyond my competence. I think the facility would be useful, and may help to cut down on edit wars.

WLD 10:13, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Its a good idea. In fact it sounds rather like Wikipedia 1.0. See also User:ChrisG's tagging proposal above. -- Solipsist 10:35, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the links to those proposals. The scope of the proposal is not a broad as Wikipedia 1.0 - it's not aiming for publication, simply (user chosen) filtering of the online version. It could be used to aid the Wikipedia 1.0 process 'though. I think, from my reading, that it slightly extends the tagging proposal, as I suggest the use of multiple tags, many of which could apply to any one article version e.g. a tag meaning 'checked for lack of copyright violations', a tag meaning 'approved by the Brobdignagian editorial board' and a tag meaning 'approved by the Lilliputian editorial board' could all be on a single article version. As an approach, it's rather close to 'forking' wikipedia, but if you browse with tag-filtering off, you get all articles - it up to you to set a preference saying you'll only view articles approved by the <whatever. editorial board. WLD 11:01, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The category "Editorial validation" has related material, such as the encyclopedic standards forum. Maurreen 11:13, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think that this is a suitable idea to raise at Wikipedia:Forum_for_Encyclopedic_Standards. I would point out that many of tools to accomplish this already exist:
  • You can link to a specific version of an article. So if any editorial group could recommend specific versions.
  • You could categorise articles that meet your groups standards using the category system.
If you did that you would only have to wait for the validation method chosen for Wikipedia 1.0, which inevitably allow some kind of tagging of article versions and the ability to restrict which version you see.
My difficulty with this idea is that it will produce competing schemes, because different boards will no doubt approve different versions of an article because they will have to edit the article till it meets their standards. You will thus create competing schemes and have no way to bring them together in one article, because the wiki process immediately will create a further versions which may no longer meet the standard of each board.
I could see this working if there was a holistic Wikipedia 1.0 standard which an editorial group worked towards. In effect featuring an article works to an somewhat implicit Featured Article Standard. :ChrisG
Thankyou for your feedback. Please (anyone) feel free to raise at Wikipedia:Forum_for_Encyclopedic_Standards - I'm not sure I know how to do this. I'm glad most of the tools exist as it confirms my understanding of how Wikimedia works, as well as the processes by which Wikipedia is built on Wikimedia. I agree that it would tend to produce competing schemes, but personally, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing - competition is often regarded as a good thing, and I think it would be wrong to try and impose a single editorial standard on the articles in Wikipedia. To my mind, the 'Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Board' could the first of many 'edits' of the Wikipedia resource - just as there are different interpretations of symphonies and plays, there is room for different editorial views of Wikipedia. It would also allow for 'sub-groups' e.g. an editorial team that qualifies medical articles, or legal articles, or engineering articles -producing respectively the Wiki Medical Cyclopaedia, the Wiki Legal Concordance and the Wiki Engineering Textbook. I know efforts do this are happening already - I just think (perhaps wrongly) that canonical lists/non-editable tags on particular version could help. Anyway, thanks for listening (reading?) - I have to prepare for my day job now. WLD 22:30, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Random page categories

Would it be possible to add a modifier to the random page tool so that it only selects from specific categories? Just a thought that would make my enjoyment of the random page tool even greater.

Bantman 00:17, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


I agree completely. Since I usually want science or history articles, the random page feature is often irritating as it gives for example, huge amounts of small towns in the US. I've been thinking this for some time actually, wierd that the day I choose to propose it, I find it has been proposed mere minutes before.

Harley peters 00:56, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not everything is categorized. The vast majority of Wikipedia articles would never appear. RickK 07:21, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, but those articles are implicitly in the category Category:Articles not in any category. Seriously, lack of membership of a particular category, or of any categories, would be useful search options if such a thing were implemented. -- Avaragado 14:32, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Approval mechanism for Wikipedia 1.0

I've had a bit of a brainwave after reading various approaches to approval mechanisms. My proposed solution is here. My overriding aim as been to produce a solution which is acceptable to the majority of Wikipedians. I look forward to comments. :ChrisG 19:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

New template

Hello, everyone. I don't know if this is the right place to post this, if it isn't please move and let me know on my talk page. I just wanted to make it generally known that I have created a template for user talk pages of users that change/remove the {{sandbox}} header. It is Template:Sbox, but when using it you must type {{sbox|123.456.78.90}}, but putting in the real IP address of the user. It comes out like this:

{{sbox|123.456.78.90}}

Please (on my talk page) criticize and comment on it. Sadly, it has been vandalised twice in the 10 minutes it's been in existance, so if it looks odd check its history. Thanks,--[[User:Gabriel Webber|Gabriel | talk]] 18:53, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Hello, 123.456.78.90" is a bit of a strange greeting, especially for some people who won't understand that this is their IP number. It's also worth noting that anons who are just editing the sandbox are probably not likely to stay around long enough to see messages left for them. Angela. 21:34, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
I made a new version at Template:Sbox2 so you don't need to put in the IP address. --Sgeo | Talk 13:04, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

A tour through math

What: A list page that would walk a reader through the math pages in a sensible order.

Why: Wikipedia has a lot of great math articles. But if you don't already know a lot about a term, you can't really learn it from Wikipedia. An article or category that would walk the reader from one article to the next would allow the neophyte to learn new concepts, then build on them by going on to more complex concepts.

Who: Someone who got further than AP Calculus.

Simple, but powerful. Chris vLS 20:48, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A project for Wikibooks rather than Wikipedia, I think. See wikibooks:Mathematics bookshelf for mathematical textbooks. Gdr 14:21, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
Or a Wikipedia:wikireader
Wikireader is close to, but not quite, what I'm talking about in that it leverages existing content. Wikibooks are separately written and thus often incomplete. But, unlike Wikireader, I'm not so interested in the printability and sale. Really I'm just trying to precipitate the current content into a useful form, since today it's pretty hard for a user who wants to learn to actually use our existing content. Chris vLS 20:12, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Actually what I'm looking for is a set of math series, like the New Imperialism series. Chris vLS 20:29, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thesean method or thread

I need help in finding a definition of the subject referenced above; Thesean method or thread. dlg

I would assume that it is a reference to Theseus in the labyrinth of Minos. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:53, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • If so, the idea was the Theseus went into the maze with a big spool of thread, with the end affixed to the door to the maze. After he killed the monstor, he escaped from the maze by following the thread (which allowed him to retrace his steps).

Some things are easier to find in a paper encyclopedia...

because there is a concept that certain things (which come together in alphabetical order) are adjacent in the encyclopedia.

For example: I want to look up information about a certain Mark Green. It turns out that the one I want is "Mark J. Green". On paper, the two Mark Greens would be together so it would be trivial to turn to the correct page in the "G" volume, and find the one I want.

Would it be possible and desirable to have some feature for finding articles which have consecutive titles? Maybe some menu that has the ten articles immediately before and after (in alphabetical order) the one that I'm currently looking at?

That would solve many of the problems of slight variations of middle initials or whatever that make it hard for me to find articles on people.

Other suggestions are of course welcome.

Morris 22:02, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Special:Allpages already does this (example), though it's not exactly the best-known page in Wikipedia. Otherwise there's always proper disambiguation. —No-One Jones (m) 22:05, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If you click "search" instead of "go", it will bring up all the pages with "Mark Green" in the title, which might help. If search is working. --Golbez 22:13, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
I see your point on Special:Allpages. It would somehow seem more logical to find all of the Green's, not all of the Mark's. Think of like Robert Oppenheimer (who is actually under J. Robert Oppenheimer. I feel like I'd like some way to find articles just keyed from the first few letters in someone's lastname. Think if you're thinking of adding an article about someone, you really have to think of every permutation of given names and initials to make sure it's not already there. That is frustrating.
Although it isn't kept current, there is the List of people by name: Gre. —Mike 04:51, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Well, we usually have redirects for most common versions of the names, there should not be too much problem finding all the Mark Greens. Typing Green, Mark Green or Mark J. Green will all get you there. Intrigue 04:21, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Homework: wikipedia

The creation and maintenience of wikipedia articles seems like the perfect term project for a college class. The wikipedia would benefit from high-quality, informed additions, guaranteed by the grading policy of the Professor, and the Professor and class would benefit from all the normal reasons associated with schoolwork, AND the warm+fuzzy feeling that comes from making the world a better place.

Assignments could be as small as requiring each student to make one update to one page, to having the whole class collectively create new topics.

To this end, I would like to create an informational document that would explain the concept of the wikipedia to my professors and would encourage them to have their class contribute. It might provide some general guidelines and suggestions for assignments, examples, etc.

What do you all think?

It's a good idea; I think it's been done once or twice already. Stuff has been written about it, try searching the Wikipedia namespace for "schools" or "homework"... Sorry I don't remeber where exactly. But it's a good idea. JesseW 04:19, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In some cases, the results have not been all good. Most recently, the Dartmouth students who created articles on the minutiae of Dartmouth college life. However, the same project did create a high number of valuable additions too. It's important to have a clear and well-thought-through policy for the homework, if possible focusing on the collaborative moment aspect. There may also be copyright concerns, as all content submitted to Wikipedia must be licensed under the GFDL. I'm sure all this is better explained in the link Jmabel provided, so I'll be quiet in class now. — David Remahl 07:33, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Dartmouth project completely ignored the guidelines at Wikipedia:School and university projects. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:58, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

List of pages to watch for POV

I think we need a List of pages to watch for POV. Teofilo Vargas Sein is a perfect example of why we need a page klike that; we could keep control over pages that outsiders commonly change to satisfy their own, personal needs. Another good example of a page that could go into that list would be Los Macheteros.

"Antonio Wikipedia Knight Martin"

There already is a Wikipedia:List of controversial issues. Probably this is sufficient. Does it need to be better linked to? zoney ♣ talk 16:24, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it probably does. See above topic on fixing up the Wikipedia namespace... JesseW 04:17, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposal to enforce the Three Revert Rule

There is a vote and discussion on whether and how to enforce the Wikipedia:Three revert rule on Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement and Wikipedia talk:Three revert rule enforcement. Please come and contribute your comments/votes. jguk 14:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone want to help clean up the Wikipedia namespace?

The Wikipedia tutorials, policies, guidelines, "clubs", etc. are terribly disorganized, and some of them (WP:NPOV) are plodding and hard to read. Some pages, also, are far more well-written and accurate than others. Some pages are long-dead for lack of incoming links! Shall we start a WikiProject for the Wikipedia namespace? Ashiibaka tlk 05:37, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd be happy to contribute. I'm already trying to streamline all the style guidance (as opposed to policy) on User:Jongarrettuk/Better writing guide (though I'll probably call it Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles). But there's a lot of other stuff to consolidate and organise too. jguk 14:19, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, making a WikiProject would be great. I've worked on cleaning up the Research resources, and the Collaboration resources templates, but it would be great to have a central place to share projects and get attention to them. Yes, yes, good idea! JesseW 04:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
OK, I'll make a WikiProject: Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Namespace. Wow, what a lot of copies of the word "wiki". ;-) Anyway, there's the page; I'll update this thread as I add information to it. JesseW 07:15, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Time and Date/Weight and measures.

Is it possible to handle wights and measures with a configurable approach like dates and time. Not just for Imperial v Metric but also to include switching between tonne, gramme and Gigagram. While I'm here is it possible to add DD/MM/YYYY to the date formats?--Jirate 02:01, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

I think that wikipedia needs some link back buttons so people who have web sites can advertise this one if they want.


~~Melissa~~

There are some Wikipedia:Banners and buttons but if there are any designers out there, we could do with some more. :) Angela. 18:17, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Product feedback

Please add some type of feedback possibility to pages so that we can say one or some of the following:

- confusing

- did not get it

- too difficult

- too technical

- written for those who already know it

- missing the simple intro paragraph

- excellent

- one of the best

- perfect

- very professional etc. etc.

such feedback would make it possible for the editors to see if they are on the right track. I see them discussing whether to do this or that on an article, but because there is no real feedback from masses, they are left alone with their own personal opinions. This is bad for articles and bad for the growth of the editors.

Quality can suffer if things are not based on quality, but rather than on opinion of how things should be.

these poll buttons could be simple, easy to click links, which do not bring you to another page. One click poll buttons. There can even be a single line of form field, where we can quickly write something.

One may argue "if you don't like it change it", but for many pages things are pretty well fixed, they have been working and discussing on every word of it for a long time, won't let anybody touch a single coma, justly.

One may argue, "add a discussion", but I don't have time to do that in most cases, like many other users. I would press a button, though. Speed matters here.

Interesting, but how could this be done in a way that is faster than pressing talk and edit and typing whatever you like? Actually we want to promote people taking a more active role in the development of the encyclopaedia. A simple popup labeled "feedback" doesn't send the "You can edit this page right now" message. Having a regular user edit a talk page may be an entry point for his/her future involvement as an editor. — David Remahl 22:01, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi David.
Not a popup labeled feedback. I did not mean that. Tiny buttons or links on the same page. These small differences matter.
I got the survival benefits of not having feedback buttons. This is a serious subject then. Good luck there.
Imagining that it is fine for survival, it is not true that pressing talk buttons and communicating is as easy as pressing passive feedback buttons. Most people will not press the talk button and say "I don't understand what you say here". Very few people can do that.
Another example of necessity of those feedback buttons: In my opinion, many scientific, mathematics, computing pages are written for those who already know it. Normal people can't benefit much from them. They are not encyclopedia articles, one can't read further than the second line. But am I right? If I could vote, and if others also voted in the same way, authors would know if I am right or not. This is an important piece of information for an author, if people are understanding his page or not. 23:44, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think I agree with David -- this is not merely a "product" but a collaboratively built resource. I think letting people cast "votes" about an article isn't all that helpful to me as an editor ("confusing" hardly tells me what confused you, and three votes for "confusing" may be 3 votes that one sentence is confusing, or people confused at 3 different points). I don't think it's too hard to use a talk page -- click "edit", type a little, press "save". I don't believe it's fair to say "very few people can do that" -- it may be fair to say that very few actually do, in which case I agree with you and I'm open to the possibility of making it more obvious and welcoming for people to do that. But I don't see a voting panel as doing anything but increasing confusion on the part of editors as to what needs to be done (as well as making "vote wars" a new tactic at Wikipedia). Our site is remarkable in that, if you're confused, you can actually fix the problem or leave an anonymous note for someone who can. I don't think we need to distract from that great ability with a more constrictive form of feedback. That's just my opinion, Jwrosenzweig 23:53, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I see. Let me tell you that I am not going to -talk- at each problem article and make a critical remark or seem like stupid by saying that I did not get it. That is a slightly disturbing experience for me, not part of looking something up in an encyclopedia, nor part of my usual internet browsing. Especially knowing that I would be resisted and resisted and proven wrong, the way you did here. But I would press a vote button, that's easy and comfortable, no stress. I guess others feel the same way on that, ask them if you don't believe. Would feedback cut down contributions or detailed criticisms? How much would it cut them down? How much benefit would it bring to articles, to wikipedia? These are sensitive calculations, I cannot solve them from where I am. May be one can use the voting panel as an emotional first step and encouragement to editing, or some other mix solution. But, if you don't want that feedback, then you won't have that feedback.
A note about contributing: I guess there is a problem on the contribution flow. People like contributing, it is fun. But there is a serious difficulty, getting the current editors to accept the new contributions to an article. I mean they are right about it, they have spend so much time. But poor new contributors, they also need to have some fun with things, isn't it? May be there can be multiple versions of an article, randomly shown to users, and people would vote for the best etc. 04:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There is a rating system being trialed at the Test Wikipedia. It lets users assign a rating for style, legality, completeness, factual correctness and suitability for publication. Angela. 18:19, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

WikiAdvice

Hi. I'm relatively new to the world of Wiki, and it's got my head buzzing. Wow! This is soo cool... I've been thinking about all the other great things can we apply this to...

Anyways, the idea I thought I'd throw out there for feedback is about the viability of having a WikiAdvice site. I was browsing around on the meta wiki, to see where to suggest my idea, and I think they said that if you want to get feedback on a proposal, to go here. The closest thing I could find on the meta wiki site was that some people proposed a WikiHowTo type concept... I think that WikiAdvice could be much more broader and yet compelling for people to post. After all, everybody loves to give out free advice, right?

Anyways, since I am relatively new, and haven't yet made acquaintances with any of the other members of the wikicommunity, I hope that this idea stands on its own, and isn't judged on who's proposing it... I remember that there's a commercial site called http://www.ehow.com/ ehow, this would be an opensource version...

As for examples, I think most people can come up with a plethora of advice areas at the drop of a hat. I know that since I'm a new father, new husband, have a new house, am in the business world, and I hear and seek advice all the time.

Here's my stream of consciousness list of ten advice articles that people would enjoy writing as well as reading

  • Children: Getting an infant to sleep
  • Homes: When your toilet stops working
  • Business: Using metrics to measure employee performance
  • Recreation: Planning a hike
  • Gifts: Women: 20-30: Good birthday presents
  • Financial: Setting up a retirement plan
  • Pets: Stopping a neighbor's barking dog
  • Law: Avoiding a traffic ticket
  • Relationships: Keeping your marriage strong
  • Addiction: Wikiposters Anonymous

So... comments? concerns? questions? would people contibute to such a site? Frogcat 20:04, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think these sort of how-to guides fit into Wikibooks:. See how to write an essay for an example similar to some of your suggestions. Angela. 18:23, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_A&oldid=1261916199"