This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (idea lab). 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: 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
Hi All,
We all love to read wikipedia pages. But it so happens that while reading wikipedia documents, we might want to understand a term or know something about the organization or person mentioned in the document. In most of the cases we don't click on them and read about terms mentioned in the wikipedia document as we need to navigate to that document.
Wikiest allows readers to read wikipedia pages faster. Hovering on any wikipedia reference which might be a term, person or organization, fetches the image and minimum description that allows us to know more or understand the reference without navigating to that page. Hence reader is not distracted to go to reference, read there come back and read original document. He/She can read the whole wikipedia page faster and gain more knowledge without even navigating to the page.
AddOn Available at :
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/wikiest/lpgcpphnfhdacphjhmgelappmfbhmhek
Please feel free to share your thought on the addon. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
122.171.120.120 (
talk) 13:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Can a type of protection be developed for user pages and subpages in user space so that the page can only be edited by the user, and can the user be given the right to turn this protection on or off? Turning the protection off would allow other users to edit the user page or user subpages. It would be especially useful if the protection could be turned on or off on a page basis, rather than a user basis, so that the user could enable collaborative editing of draft articles in user space (rather than moving them into draft space). Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
One common reason for an article to be deleted is because it's suspected that no reliable source exists for that article but probably on rare occasion, at least 3 reliable sources did exist and nobody on its article for deletion page knew how to find them. For example, I'm sure many people in the world have a job that requires many years of training of researching how to make software that can get rid of viruses and how to track down web pages that redirect to a page for downloading an unusually nasty virus and blocking the redirect so maybe there do exist reliable sources for Java update virus. If not, then maybe there exists reliable sources for a general topic of people being tricked into downloading viruses for which maybe there should be an article. I know Wikipedia is not a guide, but maybe there are notable pieces of information about how in the past, viruses may have caused many people to be less able to do their school work on their computer and get lower marks, just like there is an article Vandalism on Wikipedia even though it appears to be a guide teaching people how to stop other people from doing vandalism. I don't feel free to start a deletion review of Java update virus because I'm the one who created it and I don't have a reason to think other so many other people were so stupid for being so sure no reliable sources exist for it. Feel free to tell me ways to improve the ability to find sources for articles in general with so few reliable sources, not just Java update virus, including a WikiProject on finding references and what changes to make to that WikiProject once it already exists. Blackbombchu ( talk) 03:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I've seen many terrible user pages - mainly vanicruftispamtisments or incoherent junk. I've seem many more very ordinary user pages "Hi, I'm Randy from Boise. I like Wikipedia... yadda yadda, blah blah." Very occasionally I discover user pages that are well designed and contain a good mix of pertinent information about the editor, a little well-deserved bragging, and a variety of other bits and pieces that may be useful to other editors. I'm thinking that a mechanism to give a little recognition and "publicity" to such user pages may serve a few purposes - firstly it "congratulates" the page owner, then it is held up as an example of good use of a user page that other may follow, and ultimately may help with editor retention. A few examples of such good user pages that I've found are; User:HelenOnline, User:Anna Frodesiak, User: Kim Dent-Brown, and if you'll permit me a moment of immodesty, my page isn't too ugly either... Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
( moved from User talk:Jimbo Wales)
My heart usually sinks when I see that little red square telling me I have one or more notifications. I fear I've been reverted (or something similar) and that this may be the prelude to a distressing dispute. Yet it's actually usually nothing to worry about, such as a harmless disambiguation bot message, and sometimes it's actually a pleasant thank you note. The fact that I know that I may cause somebody unwarranted alarm (based on my own experience) causes me to hesitate before clicking on the Thanks button, which seems undesirable. Even if we only have one color, red hardly seems ideal, being psychologically associated with danger. But ideally we would have several colors, such as green for good news (thanks, etc), blue for harmless (disambiguation bot messages, etc), yellow (or orange?) for unknown type (such as messages posted on your Talk page, and also 'you've been mentioned in Topic X's Talk page', unless we let the message writer choose the notification colour, but defaulting to yellow), red for bad news (such as you have been reverted). If multiple notifications have different colours, either use green if notifications are all green or blue, yellow if there are yellow but no red present, or red if any red is present (or alternatively use more than one notification count square).
(By the way, if this is the wrong forum for this suggestion/request, please accept my apologies, and please let me know which is the right one). Tlhslobus ( talk) 08:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion about revert notifications - please discuss under another heading
|
---|
|
#pt-notifications .mw-echo-notifications-badge.mw-echo-unread-notifications {
background-color: #C00;
}
#C00
to another
colour value, then save. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 15:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
For the OP, I have created a script that can color the indicator based on count:
addOnloadHook(function () {
noteLink = document.getElementById( 'pt-notifications' ).childNodes0];
noteCount = noteLink.innerHTML;
color = { 0:'lightblue', 1:'green', 2:'orange', 3:'red' };
noteLink.style.backgroundColor = colornoteCount || 'gray';
});
Just add it to your javascript and away you go, customize colors as needed.
Basing it on the types of notifications may be possible but it would be unclear what color to use in many circumstances. It would be possible to replace the number with a longer string like "N1 R2" for "1 notification, 2 reverts". Chillum 07:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I realize someone has mentioned this before but I want to bring it up again... I do like the idea of Color Schemes for the Inbox.. Red makes me think... >>oh shit what did I mess up this time<< HealingNot 13:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm becoming more conscious of the corruption for-profit endeavors are prone to. E.g., the major SEs (search engines) are right now arguably pirating imagery. They bring up wonderful full-quality images scraped from websites in wispy efficient UIs that let's the user download whatever they want without needing to visit the original webpage. (Most people don't even tag their images with logos or include their site in the filename, so once it's saved to disc from the SE, there's no clue of where it came from.) They also allow purely image scraper sites to manipulate their systems, hence even when an SE displays a link back to the original webpage, that link might be back to a scraper site that already harvested your original image and may be even less likely to credit the original original page. Even further, there are actually fake anti-scam sites that come up when you investigate, giving the scraper sites A+ scores and listing no complaints.
The thing that really nags me is that it's not one but all 3 of the major SEs (Google, Bing, & Yahoo). It almost sounds like a conspiracy theory but really, they're all doing it. I keep wondering how the this could possibly be? The only answer I can think of is that the type of endeavor (for-profit search engine) is just prone to this type of corruption; however, SEs also provide an incredible service: they drive incredible traffic to your site. I've tried to play devil's advocate and say now wait, do the benefits they provide still outweigh these perceived violations? The answer may be yes (Google has the case well, without us, you'd barely be getting any traffic at all), but then again, it's a nasty theoretical, because things might have evolved differently if they had begun in the pattern of what they're doing now.
What if this unsaid contract with the SEs had begun way back as a nonprofit endeavor? What if we had said you know, why don't we build a way to search the whole internet for free!! Then the SEs wouldn't be prone to corruption, right? In other words, why aren't SEs like Wikipedia? Could we build such? Squish7 ( talk) 23:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
If you click here, you'll see a large list of edits that have tripped the "possible vandalism" tag. I've noticed that this tag is incredibly accurate. Almost every edit that it tags as vandalism is vandalism. Instead of going through the trouble of reverting these edits, why don't we just block them in the first place? If my memory serves me correctly, edit filters have the ability to do this. (Of course, edit count fanatics won't like this proposal, because they won't have as many edits to revert...) -- Writing Enthusiast ( talk | contribs) 21:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I was searching for a phrase in WP and it didn't come up and it occured to me it would be handy to have links at the top of the page, "Search Wiktionary for this query" and Commons and Wikisource and stuff like that, much in the same way we add the templates to articles linking categories on other sites. Probably been suggested before, not sure what it would be called in the archives, ~ R. T. G 15:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Rather long time ago I ran into a problem when a closer of RFC discounted some opinions about merger of an article, because he thought that some major changes of that article changed the situation significantly, while missing a discussion (that ended up in the archive) where those changes were discussed (the article has been deleted by now, and so is the RFC). After that I have prepared (without publishing) a "checklist" that would list some steps that might be worth considering while closing discussions (like looking at the discussion, article and its history, archives etc., making a list of participants, arguments etc. and the like). The obvious problem with that is that I have yet to close a single discussion... So, I'd like to ask: would such "checklist" actually have any use..? -- Martynas Patasius ( talk) 00:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
As a fun way of encouraging people to develop WP articles - the WP equivalent of Bingo (Commonwealth) - lists of (for example) 10-12 articles, possibly themed/category of improvement required. People can pick up one (or several if they have the inclination) - and those who have improved the most by a given date 'win' (Other versions can include getting one of the entries to GA/FA status etc). See the current mainpage talkpage discussion on MM for one variant. (Not all articles need be 'those sitting in improvement categories') Jackiespeel ( talk) 21:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, please also note my point on integrating with crypto currencies as per my proposal below. It could be a related idea. Thanks :) Willibs ( talk) 00:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello there,
I am a wikipedian with more than five years of activity and more than 10,000 edits. For some privacy reasons I decided to create a new user and to post my message with it. Since a long time ago I was thinking that I would like to live closer to other wikipedians. There are two proposals I have for Wikimedia Foundation (WMF):
1) Help the wikipedians to find apartments to share. Since many years, I live in a flat, where I rent a room. I pay 300 euros / month to the owner of the apartment for that room. But I would like to find other wikipedians in my city who are interested to share a flat. And then, three wikipedians for example can rent an apartment together. The advantage consists in sharing the house with people who share your passions and in feeling more comfortable and safe. It's less likely that you will have problems when you live with people who are trying to build a better world, than when you live with people you find in a newspaper. I know, I can contact the wikipedians in my country (I think such a group already exists), but WMF can better help people to find each other for such purpose. WMF can promote this so the people better get the idea, and it can involve a bit in some very big cities, where there are many wikipedians.
A group of six wikipedians can rent two apartments next to each other, making the situation even more interesting. Twenty wikipedians might be able to rent an entire small apartment building, and so on. For me, it would be very nice to live in a Wipedia community. And I dare to think that I'm not the only one who thinks like that.
2) Rent rooms/studios/apartments/houses to wikipedians - and not only to wikipedians. I know WMF is not a real estate agency, but there is an undeniable fact: people make donations to WMF, and in the future, before or after passing away, they will live their wealth and houses to Wikipedia. Maybe such things already happened. I am one of those people who will live a part of their wealth to Wikipedia at the end of my life - at least 20% but maybe even 50% or 90%. And then, Wikipedia can rent those houses to wikipedians, at the market price, having a steady source of income forever. Instead of renting to random people, WMF should try to rent it to wikipedians first (but no discounts for them), so they can be closer to each other, if that's what they wish.
I suggest that WMF should also try something like this to see how it goes: buy a house somewhere in the suburbs of a big city where there are many wikipedians (let's say New York or Los Angeles). A house that needs a bit of reforming (and which is cheaper because it needs reforming). Maybe some wikipedians will volunteer to help with reforming. Or maybe some wikipedians will convince their family or friends to volunteer. And then, after reforming it, WMF can rent it to wikipedians. It is a one-time investment but it generates income forever. Or WMF can raise a cheap building (open source plans, open source techology) with small studios and rent them. If WMF would start such a project, I am more than happy to put 300 euros to support buying or raising a building for renting it. Maybe I would put even 500 euros. I am quite sure that I am not the only one to support such an idea. Many people (will) realize the fact that renting housing can generate revenues forever and it's one of the best ideas for funding a foundation. The money for the building can be raised in a campaign anywhere, even on Kickstarter.
In case that renting to wikipedians can be problematic (like some of them asking for a free rent in return for their work on Wikipedia), then the flats should be rented to non-wikipedians, who don't create such problems. Or there can be strict rules in place, to make sure such problems can't rise.
Many times I wonder why big charities like Red Cross or World Vision are not doing things like that. Many people live their houses to such charities in their testaments. Why they refuse to rent those places to the people, to generate a steady revenue, it's a big question for me. The only answer I can imagine is that they struggle very hard to keep it fake. Instead of paying 30 euros / month to Red Cross as a supporting member, I would prefer to pay them 300 euros / month for a room that they already have. It would generate 10 times more revenue (from me) that can be used to help the poor. But in this world, the things are the way they are..
I would accept to pay the same money that I am paying now for renting a room, even if it's further from my work than the place where I live now, if I can share the flat with more interesting and safe people. And I'm quite sure I'm not the only one who thinks like that.
This kind of things should have been done a long time ago, by the charities who have millions of members worldwide. Therefore, the idea should be expanded to rent not only to wikipedians, but to all wikians in general, and even to members of charities who are (being misleaded into) trying to improve the world: Red Cross, Vorld Vision, Action Aid, World Food Programme, etc. Those members who participated for a minimum while, of course.
In the end, I would like to bring into your attention the fact that the Red Cross in Kenya owns a five star hotel, that is generating a constant revenue. So this idea is not completely new. And renting real estate is easier and safer than owning businesses like hotels, restaurants, shops or other kind of for-profit activities, which can go up but also can go down anytime. As an activist, I would feel much better to live close to other activists than living close to strangers.
I think WMF should definitely try those things out.
Thanks for reading all the words above. Yours sincerely, --- WikiHousing ( talk) 13:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I am an occasional contributor to Wikipedia, and I really think Wikipedia could use some sort of centralized geographic information system of it's own, that editors could enrich articles with, and could make information a lot more accessible and clear to the readers. Does such a product exist at the present? does the Wikimedia foundation consider to create such a solution in the future? or nobody has ever thought of it yet?
I would like to elaborate on the matter: imagine an article like religion in Africa (for example), this specific article contains at the moment some sort of map in picture format that displays the different religions in Africa by different colors. the map is not too easy to interact with, the data is extremely simplified, and readers who want to research the subject further will probably use another service like Google maps, that allows them to manipulate the geographic data more easily (but would require the reader to also use some other source for the actual information on the specific subject).
I imagine some sort of simple to use inter-Wikipedia application, that would allow users to use existing Rasters and polygonal Geo-referenced layers saved on Wikipedia's servers or some other free to use sites, and only manipulate the attributes of the data relevant to the specific article. I imagine the Wikimedia foundation could reach some sort of agreement with Google to use it's maps services, or if that involves too much complications, ask for help from it's vast bank of volunteers - some of which are inclined to be programmers. And as for the data and raster layers themselves, use open sourced data across the internet as a basis, and allow editors to link to free-to-use data themselves, or contribute their copyrighted data.
I would appreciate your reply on this subject, Bigtk ( talk) 11:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I have recently began observing developments in the cryptocurrency world and have determined several ideas of great import and potential relevance to the Wikimedia foundation.
Perhaps it would be useful to explore the idea of developing a crypto currency that integrates into the crowd sourced framework of Wikimedia foundation knowledge where contributors are compensated for their efforts - in effect, coins are created (mined) and distributed in accordance with user contributions. This way all contributing users will have the additional benefit of receiving economic compensation for their efforts, and thus contributors will have a greater incentive to contribute, and can even singularly dedicate their time to compiling their knowledge online with secure assurance that an income will also be generated. Perhaps the currency could be named WikimediaCoin, which will be one of the first knowledge backed currencies - literally, a first in decentralised knowledge based economies. For an example scenario, a user would be generate a coin for every 10000 words contributed. Administrative/Moderators/Peer review users could also be compensated in some way, say perhaps they are apportioned a flat percentage of 5% of the coins generated from every new contribution that is reviewed. In general, an appropriate coin distribution system needs to be implemented that acknowledges everyone's honest collaborative input, while also having some quality assurance systems in place that protect the wiki from being abused for personal gain and thus ensuring integrity in the value of the crypto currency and the knowledge which is contributed. This idea could also provide massive benefits to free education platforms such as Wikiversity, in enabling itself to propel forward the mass dissemination of knowledge for free, and also for a freely generated income.
Alternatively, it may be a hard sell to transform the established Wikimedia foundation in such a way, therefore perhaps a new start up may be essential which might go by something like "Cryptopedia", "Cryptoknowledge", or "Distribmedia" etc, which could also be stored on a decentralised crowd cloud computing network such as MaidSafe - which brings me to another point. Would Wikimedia's administrative costs benefit from adopting a decentralised crowd sourced cloud server platform? (Such as MaidSafe, once MaidSafe is launched and becomes a thriving platform) Could it even enhance Wikimedia's services?
I wish to leave you all with these stimulating thoughts and hope that they do provide some excitement in terms of prospective potential. Please, everyone contribute to the development of this idea, throw in your eggs of innovation whatever they may be, whether you're a total expert or only have an inkling, the more ideas we can link together, the greater, more effective, self-sustainable, and self-propagating the platform will be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willibs ( talk • contribs) 22:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Willibs ( talk) 23:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear editors: Often new users who don't know how to create user subpages write draft articles in their sandbox. In fact, they are encouraged to do so by Wikipedia talk:Simple guide to creating your first article and the video at WP:USERSUBPAGE, and likely other places.
Inevitable, the draft articles need to be moved out, either to Draft space or to article space, leaving a redirect, with one edit attributed to whoever did the move. The user will then delete the redirect and start a new article. This has unintended consequences; for example, today I was notified that a draft I had created, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mikiea Perkins, was about to be deleted. Not only had I not created the article, but I had never edited that article; my only contributions was to move a draft article that had at some time previously been in the same sandbox. This led to the actual creator of the draft not being notified.
This also leads to distorted article attribution in the contributions statistics. For example, XTools lists me as the creator of Sharmin Ali, Atacama B-Mode Search, Healey Silverstone and several others which I have never edited or even seen before.
Since new users are immediately able to create pages in their own userspaces, would it be appropriate to minimize the problem by changing various instruction pages, help videos, etc., to encourage new users to create their first article draft in a user subpage with the intended title rather than one called "sandbox"? Or would this cause other problems that haven't occurred to me? The only one that I can think of is that the user might forget what they had called the page. — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
–As as esperento and ido are closly similar contributions to one wikipedia should be added to the other wikipedia as well thru machine translation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.118.223 ( talk) 00:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I have a possible policy proposal and I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions on how to make it better.
Sometimes there are very contentious RfC's with lots of people on both sides of the issue. Sometimes the number of votes, for instance, comes down to 55% on one side and 45% on the other. Now a uninvolved editor trying to close this RfC lets say they could reasonably choose that there is a consensus (in favor of the 55%), or that there just is no consensus (its close enough between the two sides). The person making the decision on how to close the RfC in that case is very important, and they are unlikely to be overturned (as they could decide either way). So here is what I propose:
Any closure done after this requirement is added to the RfC and in violation of it would not be valid and could be overturned on review.
To help make this clear going forward, I created a sandboxed modification of the RfC template that has two additional options "admin=yes""panel=yes" turns on the requirement to close the RfC. And "days=x" turns on the requirement that it be closed after x days (this is incase maybe people don't need the full 30 days or everyone wants more then 30). Here is what it looks like:
{{Rfc/sandbox/Adminclose|bio|rfcid=580730E|panel=yes|days=30}}
Additionally I propose that for the most very complex cases, that a request can be made that a 3 administrator panel decide how to close the RfC. That accepting it be discretionary (the closing administrator can choose to get 3 or not), unless there is a consensus in favor of a 3 administrator panel.
The good things about this are 1) that admins area panel is much more likely to carefully review the closing decision then a normal editor. (Admins tend to have put in a lot of time and effort in establishing a good reputation of being fair and will not want to ruin that.) 2) the adminspanel are less likely to be advocating one side in the dispute or conflict of intrest, or otherwise not have a neutral point of view on the subject. 3) Its far too easy for an involved editor to create (or have) a sockpuppet close the RfC on their behalf without anyone finding out, this would prevent that. (Yes there are other ways to look and try to find who is a sock puppet but they are not full-proof if they use a different IP).
The disadvantages of such a system are that it increases the amount of work that admins have to do. Secondly that it increases the power of administrators over normal editors.
The disadvantages would be 1) that it would be harder to close some RfC's 2)that it would be difficult to figure out who should be on the panel (especially if there is not consensus).
What are your thoughts on this and how it might be improved?
-- Obsidi ( talk) 01:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
@
Jackmcbarn: Please read the top of this page, which is also emphasized at the top of the editing window:
I specifically urged Obsidi to post here, rather than Policy, because I thought the idea needed some work. My post specifically addressed the concern you have, identifying a way to use non-admins even in difficult closes. -- S Philbrick (Talk) 13:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I can understand that this process would be time consuming and difficult to figure out who the panel would be. One mitigating factor is that the closing panel does not need to get consensus first (although that would be nice), but as long as it is three uninvolved editors agreeing to close. The second thing we could consider is to have a minimum number of editors required to request it before it becomes mandatory. If a single editor would be too easy, how about 2? Or 5? How many editors agreeing the process is needed do you think to minimize the times that it occurs to the really important ones. What I don't want is just that it requires consensus (if you have that you can do whatever you want), it should be some fixed number, so if there are a lot of people in a big discussion then it should require the extra protections. -- Obsidi ( talk) 17:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
In my experience, these conflicts can run deeper and deeper into WP:DR processes, with things like RfCs being a process associated with the early stages of a dispute. That is to say, it's very rarely the case that an RfC which closes in a contentious area is definitive. It is impossible to resolve larger disputes with an RfC, and once it becomes clear that the problems are larger than that scope, other dispute resolution avenues are available, including third opinion, dispute resolution noticeboard, other noticeboards, mediation, and finally arbitration. This proposal seems to be trying to push RfC further down the pipe of dispute resolution processes. It's not clear that we need to burden the RfC with heavier processes when such a need indicates that other more formal dispute resolution may be needed. aprock ( talk) 19:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
How about the default/option to include the list of {{ X1}} · {{ X2}} · ... · {{ Template sandbox}} links (from Template:Template sandbox heading) along the top-right of an "Editing Template:..." page..? (Apologies if this already considered.) Sardanaphalus ( talk) 11:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Given the severe backlog of AfC submissions, I would like to know whether Wikipedia software alerts an editor who is about to create an article in mainspace with a name that already exists in the draft namespace. If I'm not mistaken, I currently have three pending submissions and it would be rather painful if another editor would go through the trouble of creating an article about one of those subjects unaware of the existence of my work. Obviously the same goes for other drafts. I think it's safe to say that not all editors check for drafts before they start bashing keys. -- 82.136.210.153 ( talk) 16:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
A small link to wikinews.org in the news today box (at the bottom of the box), so that people can peruse more news if they so desire. Alternatively a link on this page, at the top - /info/en/?search=Portal:Current_events. It would make it easier for people looking for a certain category of news like "Education";or "Central America" for news of their locality. 117.221.179.80 ( talk) 17:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)inkee
Bump JDgeek1729 ( talk) 06:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm working on a 'soft block' proposal that is to classic block what pending changes protection is to classic protection. My draft is located here and I welcome any input before going ahead with the proposal. This also involves a new usergroup, with the temporary name of 'moderator', although this is not strictly necessary for it to work. Cenarium ( talk) 20:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
In the right hand column where technical information is shown for TV series, I wish they would have the option to also say if the series died/was cancelled on a cliff hanger. People like myself would really like to know that the show ends this way, sort of similar that the book you're reading has had the final chapter torn from it. Gunnerclark ( talk) 10:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
{{
Infobox television}}
. Most templates have a discussion page specific to that template, the one for this infobox is at
Template talk:Infobox television. Your proposal is best discussed either there or at
WT:WikiProject Television, because this page is very much general. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 14:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)I am interested in becoming a much more active editor on Wikipedia now that I'm semi-retired and have time to devote to the job. Some of the subjects in which I am particularly interested are on the esoteric side of the ledger. I've spent a little time perusing some of these subjects and I have detected what seems to be a Wikpedia bias or informal policy toward subjects which lend themselves to academic scholarship. There is an accompanying disdain for subjects which do not lend themselves to such research.
Underlying some of the discussions of this issue that I've found sprinkled around the site is the assumption -- sometimes clearly stated -- that the mere inclusion of a topic in Wikipedia gives it a certain amount of credibility that ought perhaps be more closely guarded. I find that a particularly peculiar idea given the somewhat iconoclastic beginnings of Wikipedia and the overall tendency on the Internet to allow for more untested and unpopular ideas in the interest of allowing what I suppose might be called "crowdtalk" to sort things out.
In trying to figure out how to come up with a proposal to what I see as a bit of a dilemma here, I have begun to wonder whether there is a tagging or other categorization system that could be implemented that would allow content to be labeled as "not amenable to research" rather than either being dismissed or held to an impossible standard to qualify for inclusion in the main encyclopedia.
Fundamentally, I agree with the concepts of balanced coverage and Point of View as I understand them but I don't want to see Wikipedia become constrained by "Establishment" taboos and thinking that holds the viewpoint that *only* that which can be measured and physically sensed is "real" and worthy of either research or inclusion here.
Is this the proper forum to raise this idea? Is there somewhere else I should look to discuss it? Has it already been covered; if so, please point me to that source. I really want to understand the policy and its rationale.
Dshafer ( talk) 06:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I/we could use some additional input here. It's a proposal to deprecate {{ No footnotes}}, and replace it with - a somewhat differently worded - {{ No inline citations}}. -- 82.136.210.153 ( talk) 00:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
STOP HOOKING INTERNET BROWSER'S ALT-F COMMAND. BECAUSE NOBODY USES THE ALT-F FEATURE TO SEARCH IN WIKIPEDA. ASO IT APPEARS WIKIPEDIA CREATING DISPARAGEMENTS OF MICROSOFT INTERNET EXPLORER. A LIST INCLUDES NONE OF YOUR LINKS OR SUGGESTIONS TO XIPH.ORG FOR WINDOWS INTERNET EXPLORER TO PLAY YOUR EMBEDDED MOVIES WORK AT ALL, ANDSEEMS DECEIT CAUSING YEARS OF DYSFUNCTIONAL EXPERIENCES WITH WIKIPEDIA FOR AMERICANS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8B36:4750:64B2:EB7F:52E0:B1F0 ( talk) 07:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Four years ago, when constructing List of world records in masters athletics I was looking for a way to emulate html code placing a table within a table to force layout within a specific space; to cover multi-event competition (Decathlon, Heptathlon, Pentathlon) scores that get complex. For context, compare the poor way the same information is laid out in List of world records in athletics. Originally I created new articles and placed them into the layout, but articles are too public and because the articles looked weird as a stand alone, they generated a lot of trouble--proposed deletions. I finally was given the suggestion of creating templates, which eliminated the controversy. Template:Rolf Geese M60 World Record Score is the active example. That is until today. I have an editor seeking ways to harass me (we have a standing disagreement) and he has found a policy about single use templates. The concept has even been discussed here. As concluded in that discussion,
"that's a rule that we created and therefore a rule that we can change to accommodate this kind of sensible use."
But apparently the policy still exists (though I can't find it). If legit, then I will have situations that might violate that policy and this wikilawyer will use it to delete the content if I don't make an adjustment. So how would a single use get approved? Or would there be a better way, that is not violating policy, to insert this kind of layout? Trackinfo ( talk) 09:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
{{Rolf Geese M60 World Record Score}}
by:{{Decathlon score|13.01|5.15m|12.20m|1.54m|60.95|15.77|39.84m|3.40m|37.18m|5:33.42}}
{{Decathlon score|13.01|5.15m|12.20m|1.54m|60.95|15.77|39.84m|3.40m|37.18m|5:33.42}}
produces:100m (wind) | Long jump (wind) | Shot put | High jump | 400m | 110H (wind) | Discus | Pole vault | Javelin | 1500m |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
13.01 | 5.15m | 12.20m | 1.54m | 60.95 | 15.77 | 39.84m | 3.40m | 37.18m | 5:33.42 |
I want to propose the "readers first" rule, but I wonder if it's ever been done before. Policies and guidelines are no longer enough, and WP:five pillars... I don't know if editors will remember them anymore. -- George Ho ( talk) 17:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I would welcome input on User:Cenarium/Administrative Appointments Commission, an idea based on the recent discussions and suggestions on reforming RFA. A commission would appoint and reconfirm admins for six months terms, and after two reconfirmations, an admin could request permanent adminship to the community. Cenarium ( talk) 19:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it should be possible for any administrator to delete an individual revision of an article without deleting the whole article then restoring only some of the revisions. I think that in some cases, when an article is tagged for speedy deletion but looks like it could have been written in another way which belongs, when an administrator sees it, it should be up to the administrator's discretion whether to delete it or remove the nomination template and then nominate it for deletion to give a chance to fix the problem, once the problem in the article is fixed, it could be closed as keep, then the administrator wouldn't need to delete the whole article since they could instead delete the very disruptful history revisions. Same goes for when an administrator sees a restored article that was previously deleted. Wikipedia making this change might prevent articles in the future from being mistakenly deleted that didn't need to be like when Fram deleted Marine D3 possibly because it had the sentence "It's not even necessary for one to diet or exercise to lose weight if one eats Marine D3." in it according to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 110#Promotional articles. I'm not sure if it's worth starting a deletion review of Marine D3 to suggest that it be nominated for deletion instead of speedy deleted, then if it doesn't get edited into being non-promotional during the deletion discussion, it can be deleted. Blackbombchu ( talk) 22:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I have the idea of a bot which links automatically non-linked pages to a specific page by analysing what pages are visited after a specific page (which should be part of the same theme). Example: Many persons which were on the page tree visited after this the page plant to inform also about plants. Because there was no link in tree to plant they had to search for it in the searchbox. The bot would recognize that many persons visit plant after visting tree and turn the already, in the text of tree, existing word "plant" into a link. Is this possible? -- Impériale ( talk) 17:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I have an idea for a new category of rights that could be granted to non-Admin Users, Semi-Page Protection creation for limited amounts of time. This would be similar to granting Rollback rights to a User, an ability that an Admin has, but that is limited in scope. I don't know the technical feasibility of this, but a User with this right would only be able to apply or remove Semi-Protection to an article either with an expiration date/time or a fixed maximum period of time. Admins would still be the only personnel with the ability to apply/remove the higher levels of protection.
The benefit would be additional assistance for the Admins that patrol the Requests for Protection Noticeboard and those Users with the right who routinely patrol the Pending Changes list would be able to protect any article that is experiencing sudden and/or short term vandalism without posting a request at RfP. A secondary benefit could also eventually be that the Admins can spend more time addressing requests for higher levels of protection since most seem to result in short term semi-protection.
Your thoughts? -- SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
This template is so small and inconspicuous that it barely registers when viewing a page, yet it has a very important task -- letting new users know that the page is inactive! I've experienced now a few pages where new or IP users have continued to use a page despite the template being in place. I think a clearer template would be very useful. Do other users share this thought?
What would be thoughts on doing something such as either changing the image to give it more contrast, changing the text, or altering the background colour? As this is the idea lab, please do not just support/oppose. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 02:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Oiyarbepsy ( talk · contribs) has opened a new discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposed user right: Vandal fighter. Cunard ( talk) 00:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I've been looking at all the talk of unbundling admin rights lately, and I came up with the following idea: Create a user group for stopping vandals, with the rights to block and protect, but with the following restrictions to address concerns raised with ideas similar to this one:
Thoughts? Jackmcbarn ( talk) 21:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
"How would this toolset be granted or withdrawn?"I'm thinking something in between reviewer and abusefilter.
"Is it the intent that the only situation in which this class of editors will be allowed to use these tools is where there is clear-cut vandalism, as described by WP:VAND?"I don't really care, but I note that such a restriction would be unprecedented (for example, account creators are allowed to use their tboverride permission to edit editnotices, not just create forbidden accounts)
"Note that having blocks that expire on vandalism-only accounts may have undesirable and unwanted side effects."This isn't an issue at all. The limited duration of blocks I mentioned would only apply to IPs, not accounts.
"How useful would this privilege bundle actually be?"A large part of that is taken care of by the previous question, since there are a lot of account blocks. As for longer IP blocks, my intention is that a member of this new group sets a 24-hour block, then an admin going through the list would increase it if necessary.
"Looking at the last 50 entries in the protection log ... there's only a couple that run for 24 hours or less."Again, the idea here is that a short protection could be set as a stopgap, which an admin could then raise. This would be useful in cases like this one, where a page received nearly 100 edits in less than 2 hours, all of them either vandalism or reverting of vandalism.
"a bot immediately reporting all vandal stopper actions for approval. This way, there's no need for a special page". A special page is a better option than a bot, IMO. (Especially since it won't actually be its own page. It will just be an extra filter option on Special:ProtectedPages and Special:BlockList.)
Dear editors: I don't know about you, but I rarely use the generic sandbox associated with my user name. I often have a number of things going on at once in my user space, so I keep them on separately labelled subpages. Instead of the link to the Sandbox, wouldn't it be handy to have a link to a list of user subpages instead? I know that one is available by clicking on contributions, scrolling to the bottom, and then clicking on "Subpages", but it was a long time before I discovered this, and it's not as convenient. Out of sight, out of mind, you know. I realized recently that there were several incomplete projects that I had forgotten about. The sandbox is there on the list of subpages, so for those who really do use the generic sandbox a lot it's only one more step, or it could be bookmarked in their browser. Any opinions about this? — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
mw.util.addPortletLink ('p-tb', wgServer+wgArticlePath.replace("$1", "Special:PrefixIndex/"+wgPageName+"/"), 'Subpages');
mw.util.addPortletLink ('p-tb', '/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/User:Gadget850', 'My subpages');
mw.util.addPortletLink( 'p-personal', '/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/User:Anne Delong', 'Subpages', null, null, null, '#pt-preferences');
@ Anne Delong: You can achieve what you suggested in your initial proposal easily enough just by adding {{list subpages|Anne Delong|User}} to the top of your Sandbox page. That will turn your sandbox into a list of subpages in your user space. Waggers TALK 10:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
It is clear that piped links can be used so as to bypass Wikipedia definitions that have been developed by consensus and it would be advantages if a facility could be developed so that such links could be checked. Can/should "What links here" be developed so as to indicate which links have been piped? Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
This is a new draft proposal, available at Wikipedia:Deferred changes, combining Wikipedia:Deferred revisions and Wikipedia:Pending changes blocks, and superseding both. Comments are welcome. Cenarium ( talk) 11:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Previously, videos could function as stand alone illustrations in addition to being videos, which made them more useful, especially when a thumbnail was manually selected. See for example here [4], where it could show both a famous image, and a video of the event. But for some reason, the player icon has become big and dark, obscuring much of the thumb. I think the previous version was much more useful, for the reason mentioned above. See also here [5], where the icon pretty much destroys the thumbnail.
Perhaps the icon could be moved to one of the corners of the thumbs, instead of smack in the middle? And be smaller, too. Or maybe there could be a parameter for making the icon either dark or light, depending on the thumbnail, so where wouldn't have to be a huge, dark bar around it to make it discernible? Or maybe the play icon could be moved to the caption field? FunkMonk ( talk) 13:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I think each Wikipedia article should have a draft version whose title is "Draft:" followed by the name of the article and the link for it should be between the link titled "Article" and the link titles "Talk". The draft version should exist so that people will feel free to add in information they can't find a source for that they're not all that sure is true, then an experience person will add that information to the article itself if it turns out it belongs and a source exists for it. A draft version would be so much faster for people to go through to figure out the best way to improve the article than the talk page. For example, it would have allowed me to add in the information I figured out in Talk:Freeze-drying#How freeze drying works. Blackbombchu ( talk) 01:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
name of article/sandbox
. While I entirely understand that "subpages" are disabled in the article mainspace, that doesn't really mean anything for this purpose. The only technical reason that this isn't done, "you may land on a sandbox page from
Special:Random, can easily be fixed with a little javascript (which I would suggest go directly into common.js or at very least be an on-by-default gadget). I'll develop that script later today and test on testwiki. I'll be back in a couple days for an update or as soon as it is done. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c) 17:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)We are a group of researchers at the University of Michigan, Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh. Our research aims at discovering ways to motivate academic researchers who can be considered domain experts to provide feedback about Wikipedia articles in their area of expertise. The goal of the bot is to make the process of posting comments on article talk pages easy for users who are not familiar with Wikipedia markup language. The users who have access to this bot are experts in different scientific fields such as psychology and Economics and the purpose of the comments left on the article talk pages are providing information on how the article can be improved. We have designed and implemented the bot, and already passed the trial period. We will appreciate it if you take a look at our bot proposal at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/ExpertIdeasBot, and help us to expedite the approval procedure. I.yeckehzaare ( talk) 04:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I would like to see creation of a new portal into the Wikipedia content organized around questions and answers. The portal would be a structured set of questions that have factual, but complex answers. For example:
The answers would rely heavily on links into to existing Wikipedia articles, or a short narrative linking to several articles. Trivial questions that can be answered by reading a single existing Wikipedia article obviously related to the question (e.g. when was Bruce Springsteen born?) are excluded. Unanswerable questions, typically because it is a matter of opinion, or is unknowable such as: "Was the Judge correct in vacating Ray Rice's suspension" are similarly excluded. Perhaps we can refer people to Quora or similar sites for these questions.
Thanks! -- Lbeaumont ( talk) 21:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I suggest a global content change for all biographies of deceased people. The information I would like is: If this person were alive today how old would they be?
Advantages: I think they are numerous as despite dates being listed, converting that information automatically to something more easily understood like age would be make the biography more personable and approachable. Just think of some historical figures and then think, oh, that’s how old they would be... It’s just as useful as the current age given now in biographies rather than expecting the visitor to do the math, and obviously well suited to the dynamic wiki format.
Disadvantages: It would need a short abbreviation and be easily explained to the visitor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetbadger ( talk • contribs) 20:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi all,
I notice a lot of 'list of ...' pages on Wikipedia. What are some efforts to standardize formatting and/or create automatic lists with filtering capabilities? It seems like it is a lot of work to create these lists and keep them up to date, as well as duplicate data, where an automated solution might prove effective.
Thanks for your feedback,
-- Brylie Christopher Oxley ( talk) 08:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Since that unless working for IPv6, which can be used to uniquely assign address per SIM card/CDMA Phone to unique IP address, IP address of Mobile connections will be always almost the same. Additionally, vandalizers take advantage of this arrangement, forcing editors, like myself, to take additional precautions to prevent false linkage by Checkusers to another user or IP vandalizers. The template will show the following:
Any comments are helpful. - gacelperfinian( talk in - error? Start a new topic) 06:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
So, are you proposing a template that says something like "This user edits on mobile devices, and may be unintentionally blocked when other users abuse editing privileges"? If so, just make it and put it on your page. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 17:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
In 2012 a German court ruling found that it was deceptive for someone with a financial connection to add promotional content to Wikipedia, because readers presume the information is crowd-sourced and independent, not a medium for covert advertising. Similar anti-astroturfing laws exist in the US that require readers know when they are reading information provided by someone affiliated with the company, as oppose to a crowd-sourced online participant.
I contribute quite a bit to articles where I have a financial connection, usually bringing them up to GA status and following COI best practices. I'm attending a conference right now that has a bit of a focus on the Federal Trade Commission's disclosure laws and I'm thinking about how there is still no way to provide a legally-required disclosure of my financial connection to readers on a page that doesn't have any actual problems that would require a COI template [7] (GA-ranked).
I'm not advocating for or against it, but wondering what the community reception is towards a small, tasteful disclosure to readers on articles that do not necessarily have any major content problems. A template that I might add myself to be legally compliant, as oppose to something contentious used to shame someone that contributed poorly.
A major contributor to this page was sponsored by _______. |
CorporateM ( Talk) 13:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
How about English Fanon Wikipedia? There have been plenty of vandalisers adding made up content into articles, so if they could make this information up themselves in this Wikipedia, it might get rid of some.
Every image and template from this Wikipedia could be copied over so no re-uploading is required. 89.240.248.49 ( talk) 21:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikifiction - a new wiki where editors could write and collaborate on works of fiction. Is that the idea here? Oiyarbepsy ( talk)
As the security of
SSL (https://) is broken
[8], see
Bullrun
[9] and BREACH
[10] its time to wrap SSL into
TextSecure against
MITMA and SSL key snooping.
For the time beeing, next to normal login with SSL, the option Login with TextSecure depends on using a browser plugin.See [11]. Aldo Wikipedia is not Wikileaks and each contributed statement must be verifiable, see WP:VER, even contributing to a WP article in which you point to certain source may have consequences in certain countries and results in a timely visit from the state and in the best case, they just search your house. If for example WP would have an article on this [12] every editor would be of interest to lay consequenses upon. The proposal is for a start to enhance Login and Wikipedia:Flow with TextSecure and see where it goes from there. Whatsapp finished their end-to-end encryption implementation within a few months. Mion ( talk) 03:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
09:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Bawolff ( talk) 05:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Because it seems to me to be maybe one of the most effective way to stop people seriously misusing user talk pages. John Carter ( talk) 23:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
So, what users are being targeted, user that abuse their own user talk pages, or users whose talk pages get vandalised? The initial comment sounds like it targets those who misuse their own pages, but all the responses assume the opposite. If someone vandalizes my talk page, I don't want it replaced by a wikilove message, I want the vandal reverted like it never happened. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 16:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I think we should run bot and script, which would search information from new articles in Internet and compare with search results. If bot see copipaste, he will nominate this article for fast deleting. Ochilov (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
As the NSA stores the entire internet the proposal is to use WMF employee name removed contacts with the NSA (about the backdoors in the Wikimedia software) to fix the Wikipedia problem with link rot. It would be handy to have a sort of NSA extension for direct linking into the NSA database to saved versions of webpages. A sort of state funded wayback machine, similar to Wayback Machine - Internet Archive [25]. For Wikipedia the advantage would be to have a plan B if the current wayback machine would default, for the NSA there would be a gain too, running a public service that is usefull to common people, best cover you can imagine. Mion ( talk) 17:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
We own you Love, the NSA |
NSAWiki
. It might even (trivially) be MediaWiki with the NSA_Snooper
extension added dynamically.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 19:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)What is the point in this discussion? The direction it appears to be headed in is kind of confusing me. You think the National Security Agency stores the internet? What does that have to do with IP logs and whatnot? Dustin (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, we could attempt asking for help, like this :D -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 17:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Greetings Wikipedians,
Down below, please find a proposal brief re: a digital memo application.
General function of the application:
- Enable readers to create digital memos that can be stored and later retrieved on the Wikipedia’s platform; where the application can be found on the < top right bar > next to the user’s profile page.
Overview:
Currently, English Wikipedia includes 4,658,450 articles and it’s increased every day with over 800 new articles.
Today, roughly 40% of the world has an internet connection, which presents a tremendous need for people in developing countries to be able to access web pages in their native language, and tools to assist with their information and gathering purposes.
Use Case:
Take for example, a teacher in Kenya may be researching various topics using Wikipedia. Today, if he or she wants to remember the information for a later time, he or she may copy the information onto 3rd party software to retrieve later.
But could there be a more convenient way for the reader? Where instead of taking the content onto another platform, the notes from the reader, can be saved onto the Wikipedia platform.
The Proposal
One-click digital memo application that enables the reader to:
- Create a private digital memo ( visual reference: yellow mini note found on the top right hand side of the user’s page ) - Bookmarks the web page where the memo is created and saved onto the reader’s profile page. ( visual reference: paper-clip )
The Benefits:
- Useful application that would make a great addition to the Wiki tool set - Easy to use ( 1 click process to creating note ) - Memos are private and non intrusive - Bookmarks the Wikipedia page
Application Considerations:
- Once a memo is placed on the Wikipedia page, it may cover the top right hand section of the page. To mitigate this, the top memo bar can collapse once the notes are made.
- Too many memos can get confusing and disorganized.To trouble shoot this issue, colored folders can be created by the user and tagged.
These are the two main considerations, if there are others, we can add them to the bug fix and development list.
Welcome your feedback. CitynSea ( talk) 02:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)CitynSea CitynSea ( talk) 02:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
< Response > Thank you for the feedback! Will review the links in your comment thread. Cheers CitynSea ( talk) 01:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'm working on an IEG project to create a tool to find important academic citations missing from Wikipedia. It does this by taking a large repository of open access papers, removing the ones already cited in Wikipedia, and then ranking those left over by some significance metric (at the moment, number of citations). We've just completed our first proof of concept demo which looks quite promising, and are looking for ideas or feedback. Check it out: Open Access Reader.
EdSaperia ( talk) 13:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I propose that we set aside a section of Wikimedia Foundation money to pay admins to recognize their highly significant and beneficial contributions to Wikipedia. Jinkinson talk to me 19:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll take the bait. Admins aren't the only users who make 'highly significant and beneficial contributions' to Wikipedia. Plus, I'm an admin but my most important contributions were not through my admin actions, and by far. There's also that it's unfeasible, but it's already been stated. There's certainly a need of recognition, but not just for admins. A 'featured editor' in the Signpost would be a better idea, but it's not without issues either. Cenarium ( talk) 22:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Even poor Stewards don't get money of their hard work... -- Stryn ( talk) 22:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Alternate idea: What about a one-time bonus upon being promoted to admin? Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 02:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I have an Idea this may be a little bit of a mission and could result if implemented in a major overhaul of infoboxes which relate to people. I am getting increasingly confused and in some cases frustrated when I am trying to update infoboxes for people. This is because currently infoboxes are for one specific thing e.g. cricket player, politician, astronaut, criminal, writer and so on. I know there is a generic infobox, the person infobox but its parameters are while extensive only really in my opinion generi and useful when describing a person and not for talking about a person. I am also aware that there is the child template which can be used to add information to existing templates, but I am frustrated by the limited number of labels which can be added and that it has a limit on the amount of times it can be used in an infobox.
What I am suggesting is the ability for an infobox which can be created from scratch, which would allow for one infobox to contain all the notable information for an individual. Such as sports people who compete in multiple sports or people who are notable in multiple and highly distinct fields e.g individuals who have a notable career before for example becoming a notable politician. For some people this can be done using the child template but in most cases I have found this child template is too limited in what it allows and I have found it only really works when dealing with similar or the same discipline e.g. motor racing drivers who compete in different racing series or categories.
Thoughts and constructive suggestions please.
Sport and politics (
talk) 15:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Infobox person is not flexible enough and is limited in what it can do. It only allows some other infoboxes to be added. I am asking for one where any infobox can be combined with another to create any combination of infoboxes for a person as their notability dictates. Sport and politics ( talk) 13:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
"We need... to make more of our biographical infoboxes work as modules". Sure, that's a chore, but it's much less work than what you're proposing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Xand2 金日光旦照. That's a long list of suggestions. I've numbered them for you so I can reply faster:
Thank you for taking the time to make your suggestions. Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 03:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
As for next row text that is in English also for example if you look in my edit source and how it is displayed:
This is example This is example
Both short sentences are in next row but are displayed in same row.
This is example
This is example
Now is empty row between and is displayed correctly this can be problem in writing long list of words which are in Wikipedia displayed as single block of text so user needs to add empty row between each.
Also where can I post about Wikihiero it has only basic Egyptian hieroglyphs for example less than A100 and free OpenSource JSesh has about 3000 while some other hieroglyph editors have almost 7000 hieroglyphs it is written like this < hiero > r:a-ra:Z1 < /hiero > and rendered like this:
|
Wikihiero has some errors for example < hiero > r:r < / hiero > should display r above r but it is in the same row
|
rr, or Ax&x & should display next character near sign but not above it like : isn't working < hiero > G25&x < /hiero >
|
Ax power of soul.Some errors were already reported on Wikihiero talk page but still no response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xand2 ( talk • contribs) 16:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
For edit count I was thinking on active user edit count as wiki template that could be on user main page like user-activenumberofedits. Xand2 金日光旦照 ( talk) 07:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
First, this isn't for experienced vandals and socks, it would be a pointless exercise. It's for inexperienced ones, and not really for the classic semi-protection or move rights that autoconfirmed gives, but for the edit filter. The edits filters very often check only edits by non-autoconfirmed users, so it makes sense to require ten non-deleted non-talk edits if we want to keep detecting newly created 'bad' articles, spam and vandalism from those new accounts when they didn't get indef-blocked (yet) so risk becoming autoconfirmed. Requiring non-deleted edits means we'll still be able to check for persistent (re)creations of problematic articles, and talk edits wouldn't be counted because they could easily achieve that just using their talk page. And in case of a temp block, the check should reset : 4 days and 10 non-deleted non-talk edits since the end of the block. This would prevent many of them from passing through the loopholes of this system. This is sufficiently targeted so as not to make auto-confirmation harder for good faith contributors. I'm not including userspace edits for example so that edits to user drafts are still counted. Cenarium ( talk) 08:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Help me with List of Pulitzer Prize Winners. `` SonictheHedgehog99 ( talk) 00:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I have been musing about this for a while and am trying to come up with something objective - BLP issues have been the subject of much discussion over the past 6 years or so, and WP:BLP1E was one development, as was the deletion of pages that were marginally notable if the subjects wanted their deletion.
I am not thrilled about the idea of someone influencing content in a big way, but am mindful that maybe we could be tighter with criteria in an objective way that allows us to remove some more marginal people.
My idea is something like this - A BLP subject may be considered not to warrant inclusion if they are not able to be mentioned in detail on an existing article (but otherwise have appeared in tabloids i.e. famous for being famous). Thus they need to have won something, played a role in a film, been elected, invented something, something "encyclopedic" as it were.
This might resolve issues like the following:
Some years ago. Jimbo nominated Mimi Macpherson for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mimi Macpherson). Now us Aussie editors know this person as Elle's sister and she has fulfilled notability quite easily with mentions in media etc. However, if you look at what articles might mention her they are only very minimal mentions, so if we had a criterion something like
"must be notable enough to warrant a significant mention on a nonbiographical article"
as an extra criterion for notability, it might be that she would not pass this and hence her article be deleted.
Apologies to Mimi for using her as an example (if she ever comes across this), but I felt that it illustrated the point of a person who fulfils generic notability criteria but some might argue in unencyclopedic.
Anyway, what do folks think? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 05:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Everyone seems to be missing the point. The test is not whether they are mentioned in a non-biography, but whether they should be. That means mentioning your person in a whole bunch of irrelevant articles would not save your biography. It also means that the good biographies would not be deleted because the non-biography about their actions hasn't been written yet. And the original proposal was "…to warrant a significant mention…" which has nothing to do with whether that mention is actually in the article right now. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 16:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
The problem you would hit fairly quickly is royalty. While his mother would be safe enough Charles, Prince of Wales would be borderline and his sons more so. Can't see his second wife doing much better. For the militant republicans I'd point out that most UK sitting MPs would also fail . EMPs would do even worse. ©Geni ( talk) 23:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, Wikipedia community experts,
Seasons Greetings,
I am multi-lingual & a linguist.
I have started my own Hebrew-Arabic language word comparison project (Excel format) which is FAR from being complete...yet, has many entries, already & which I would both like to share online with the general public/ community as well as require help/additions to (as, said project is alphabetically word-based). This, also in the hope of showing the world (particularly, in the war-torn iddle East!) how SIMILAR &RELATED the languages/cultures are!!!
I am NOT technically inclined (as far as web design/formats, etc...)-yet, can provide all academic knowledge pertaining to this field.
Would such a project be a Wikepedia materialization candidate? Could we make it happen?
Awaiting your earliest-possible feedback with much gratitude & blessings,
AK — Preceding unsigned comment added by AK63 ( talk • contribs) 18:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, there might be a place for this kind of thing at Wiktionary. You could make the case there that they should add a section called cognates at every entry, for example. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 20:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
For those of us that regularly contribute, it would be great if there was some way your team could TURN OFF the PLEASE DONATE pop up. Maybe there can be a little app that gets launched during the donation process that would turn off this annoying code.
thanks in advance,
Nancy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.9.40 ( talk) 18:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
What if it would be function of donating via SMS? It would be easy and comfort for most of Wikipediands. Ochilov (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking of making a proposal to allow bots to tag edits, and request the implementation of such a feature. The edit filter and other extensions tag an edit immediately when it is saved, but a bot would tag it afterwards, it may take a few seconds due to API lag. There is already a request at phabricator, T3189, however this is for all users, not just bots, and it has stalled, a suggestion was made to have a community request for this to get it moving. But I am proposing for bots, and only for bots, for three reasons : more likely to gain strong consensus, much less likely to create issues that will have to be solved somehow, and no need for devs to create a user interface, since bots need only the API, so less dev work, meaning we'll get it implemented faster. The following are possible uses, and I would welcome more suggestions, I'd like to have as many examples as possible to incorporate them in the proposal before going ahead :
We would also need a mass untag functionality usable by admins. Cenarium ( talk) 10:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Slightly off-topic - why doesn't the edit filter log link to the diff or revision? Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 15:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
hello everyone! I would like to propose an extension to the maximum size limit for AD. Now we have the parameter 190kb, but for some very complex articles that limit turns out to be a problem, forcing publishers or save the refs or text. none of this is ideal in editorial terms. I am aware of the possible difficulties of navigation for large pages, but note that this limit will very rarely exceeded. most of our featured nowhere near the limit, and do not believe that this change may cause any appreciable damage browsing, even more than the everyday technology improves and the systems become more agile, while will favor the deployment some good jobs that can not yet be so only by its excessive size. I do not know exactly what we could do if we simply eliminate the concept of maximum size or set a new value. I preferred to leave open, but maybe spend 250 kb would probably solve all cases. 191.185.208.14 ( talk) 12:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Since the posting of Sydney hostage situation, I wonder if there is an idea to improve In the News. Somehow, I worry about its being misused for profits. -- George Ho ( talk) 10:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The editing of others' work is generally best done at some distance in time from the original edit (not within minutes, as too often happens), to prevent generating an unnecessary "Edit Conflict" that results in confusion, lost work, contributor frustration and alienation, lost substantive contributor content or editor revisions, and wasted editor time.
On 11:30, 17 December 2014, I made some edits to the Wikipedia article " Beechcraft Model 18," then saved them -- then continued editing, saving again at 11:57, 17 December 2014, and continuing further editing. Within 10 minutes, while I continued editing, another Wiki contributor jumped in and began editing my edits. Consequently, when I attempted a save a few minutes later, I got one of those ghastly "Edit Conflict" messages, and found it next to impossible to sort out the differences.
While I do NOT like to scrap others' edits without careful review, I simply could not do this again (this "trigger-happy," near-realtime editing has been a continuing problem with edits at Wikipedia, particularly in the aviation field, causing me and other contributors much lost time and effort). I scrapped all the editor's changes, and re-instated my version, with my current edits. That editor, of course, can re-edit my work, and no doubt will.
In the future, it would be considerate and respectful for editors to wait a day before jumping into someone else's edit, and revising it. That might prevent the current deterrence of substantial repeat contributors, over relatively negligible edit issues. And it might keep the editor from wasting his/her time, as well.
Zxtxtxz ( talk) 13:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Zxtxtxz
The reference popup (eg.: when you click [43], a popup gives the corresponding reference info) should last long enough so it can be copy pasted. Otherwise it has to be noted down manually, especially if you want to refer to all the sources of a given sub-topic. 117.202.14.23 ( talk) 16:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Cite
Dear Wikipedians, should we add twin towns to infoboxes? This would create a common format for recording these connections. I imagine this would take some consensus building among editors? I'm scraping all the twin town data - trying to cover all the different formatting rules, so could provide dataset for scripted update to infoboxes. Anyway, something to think about/discuss...Reviewing the various lists for twins shows different countries and areas have used different formatting rules. Some use tables, some more free form lists. Within the town/city main articles there are also different section titles and ways to describe twin towns. If this info is in the infobox it will be picked up more readily by dbpedia and wikidata allowing more interesting data analysis such as this https://www.flickr.com/photos/29266908@N02/15846030356/ just an idea...I've never discussed an issue here and not an experienced editor so positive comments much appreciated, thank you -- Fozy81 ( talk) 20:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Since passwords are no longer very secure due to password reuse across websites (some of which are less secure than others) and keystroke logging by malicious software (especially on public computers), would it be a good idea to enable some kind of opt-in two factor authentication, such as by using the free Google Authenticator already used by many websites? Users who hold advanced technical rights or who for any other reason want to secure their accounts may find such a feature useful for security. Any thoughts? Tony Tan98 · talk 15:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, there's a bunch of misinformation in the above discussion. Here's some facts to help clear everything up:
Jackmcbarn ( talk) 21:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
There's also WP:COMMITTED, but it's a pity that there isn't a formal way to regain access to an account with it (We don't even know if it's actually acceptable yet). Zhaofeng Li [ talk... contribs... 02:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
You can reset tokens which allow access to certain private data associated with your account here.
You should do it if you accidentally shared them with someone or if your account has been compromised.
Tokens:
Token for the web feed (Atom/RSS) of changes to pages on your watchlist (current value: **value removed**)
The OP has been blocked per checkuser
|
---|
I wanted to reduce cultural bias at Template:Authority control, where USA-related LCCN is listed before ISNI. Details at Template talk:Authority control#USA bias. Now, two users drag the whole thing into a weird discussion. One reverts my edits, without any reasoning except for ~ "discuss", but he does not say what he wants to discuss. There should be some office in Wikipedia to properly treat such trouble making. John B. Sullivan ( talk) 11:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Reported at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias#Bias preferring USA based LCCN over ISNI. John B. Sullivan ( talk) 13:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
|
I found and fixed some articles on economics that use mathematical formulas but are poorly typeset, like Phillips curve and Aggregate demand (they are now improved by me, so you might want compare history). Should we create a portal to put on articles like this that needs proper mathematical typesetting? Or is it just too picayune and trivial? --Worst regards, Greek Fellows. Visit ma talk page and ma contributions. 14:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
There used to be {{ wikify}}, which was deprecated for being too vague. But I think it could be brought back, with a more specific purpose - "This article lacks formatting or contains formatting errors. Please add formatting and correct any errors so the article meets Wikipedia's standards." I think, if we bring this back, math formatting errors would be part of this, possibly. On the other hand, you could just be bold, create the template, and tag articles that need it, but it sounds like you'd rather just fix it. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 15:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Long project proposal
|
---|
Problem: Currently, when someone adds a table, chart, or graph to a Wikipedia article, that item is based on a table of information (usually a CSV) that came from a referenced source. That means the data in the article is either in the form of a static table or a static chart/graph. There are various shortcomings however with this method:
Solution: Having one central repository for all statistics would solve both of these problems, and provide major benefits when structured in the following way:
Summary
|
This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (idea lab). 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: 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
Hi All,
We all love to read wikipedia pages. But it so happens that while reading wikipedia documents, we might want to understand a term or know something about the organization or person mentioned in the document. In most of the cases we don't click on them and read about terms mentioned in the wikipedia document as we need to navigate to that document.
Wikiest allows readers to read wikipedia pages faster. Hovering on any wikipedia reference which might be a term, person or organization, fetches the image and minimum description that allows us to know more or understand the reference without navigating to that page. Hence reader is not distracted to go to reference, read there come back and read original document. He/She can read the whole wikipedia page faster and gain more knowledge without even navigating to the page.
AddOn Available at :
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/wikiest/lpgcpphnfhdacphjhmgelappmfbhmhek
Please feel free to share your thought on the addon. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
122.171.120.120 (
talk) 13:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Can a type of protection be developed for user pages and subpages in user space so that the page can only be edited by the user, and can the user be given the right to turn this protection on or off? Turning the protection off would allow other users to edit the user page or user subpages. It would be especially useful if the protection could be turned on or off on a page basis, rather than a user basis, so that the user could enable collaborative editing of draft articles in user space (rather than moving them into draft space). Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
One common reason for an article to be deleted is because it's suspected that no reliable source exists for that article but probably on rare occasion, at least 3 reliable sources did exist and nobody on its article for deletion page knew how to find them. For example, I'm sure many people in the world have a job that requires many years of training of researching how to make software that can get rid of viruses and how to track down web pages that redirect to a page for downloading an unusually nasty virus and blocking the redirect so maybe there do exist reliable sources for Java update virus. If not, then maybe there exists reliable sources for a general topic of people being tricked into downloading viruses for which maybe there should be an article. I know Wikipedia is not a guide, but maybe there are notable pieces of information about how in the past, viruses may have caused many people to be less able to do their school work on their computer and get lower marks, just like there is an article Vandalism on Wikipedia even though it appears to be a guide teaching people how to stop other people from doing vandalism. I don't feel free to start a deletion review of Java update virus because I'm the one who created it and I don't have a reason to think other so many other people were so stupid for being so sure no reliable sources exist for it. Feel free to tell me ways to improve the ability to find sources for articles in general with so few reliable sources, not just Java update virus, including a WikiProject on finding references and what changes to make to that WikiProject once it already exists. Blackbombchu ( talk) 03:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I've seen many terrible user pages - mainly vanicruftispamtisments or incoherent junk. I've seem many more very ordinary user pages "Hi, I'm Randy from Boise. I like Wikipedia... yadda yadda, blah blah." Very occasionally I discover user pages that are well designed and contain a good mix of pertinent information about the editor, a little well-deserved bragging, and a variety of other bits and pieces that may be useful to other editors. I'm thinking that a mechanism to give a little recognition and "publicity" to such user pages may serve a few purposes - firstly it "congratulates" the page owner, then it is held up as an example of good use of a user page that other may follow, and ultimately may help with editor retention. A few examples of such good user pages that I've found are; User:HelenOnline, User:Anna Frodesiak, User: Kim Dent-Brown, and if you'll permit me a moment of immodesty, my page isn't too ugly either... Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
( moved from User talk:Jimbo Wales)
My heart usually sinks when I see that little red square telling me I have one or more notifications. I fear I've been reverted (or something similar) and that this may be the prelude to a distressing dispute. Yet it's actually usually nothing to worry about, such as a harmless disambiguation bot message, and sometimes it's actually a pleasant thank you note. The fact that I know that I may cause somebody unwarranted alarm (based on my own experience) causes me to hesitate before clicking on the Thanks button, which seems undesirable. Even if we only have one color, red hardly seems ideal, being psychologically associated with danger. But ideally we would have several colors, such as green for good news (thanks, etc), blue for harmless (disambiguation bot messages, etc), yellow (or orange?) for unknown type (such as messages posted on your Talk page, and also 'you've been mentioned in Topic X's Talk page', unless we let the message writer choose the notification colour, but defaulting to yellow), red for bad news (such as you have been reverted). If multiple notifications have different colours, either use green if notifications are all green or blue, yellow if there are yellow but no red present, or red if any red is present (or alternatively use more than one notification count square).
(By the way, if this is the wrong forum for this suggestion/request, please accept my apologies, and please let me know which is the right one). Tlhslobus ( talk) 08:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion about revert notifications - please discuss under another heading
|
---|
|
#pt-notifications .mw-echo-notifications-badge.mw-echo-unread-notifications {
background-color: #C00;
}
#C00
to another
colour value, then save. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 15:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
For the OP, I have created a script that can color the indicator based on count:
addOnloadHook(function () {
noteLink = document.getElementById( 'pt-notifications' ).childNodes0];
noteCount = noteLink.innerHTML;
color = { 0:'lightblue', 1:'green', 2:'orange', 3:'red' };
noteLink.style.backgroundColor = colornoteCount || 'gray';
});
Just add it to your javascript and away you go, customize colors as needed.
Basing it on the types of notifications may be possible but it would be unclear what color to use in many circumstances. It would be possible to replace the number with a longer string like "N1 R2" for "1 notification, 2 reverts". Chillum 07:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I realize someone has mentioned this before but I want to bring it up again... I do like the idea of Color Schemes for the Inbox.. Red makes me think... >>oh shit what did I mess up this time<< HealingNot 13:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm becoming more conscious of the corruption for-profit endeavors are prone to. E.g., the major SEs (search engines) are right now arguably pirating imagery. They bring up wonderful full-quality images scraped from websites in wispy efficient UIs that let's the user download whatever they want without needing to visit the original webpage. (Most people don't even tag their images with logos or include their site in the filename, so once it's saved to disc from the SE, there's no clue of where it came from.) They also allow purely image scraper sites to manipulate their systems, hence even when an SE displays a link back to the original webpage, that link might be back to a scraper site that already harvested your original image and may be even less likely to credit the original original page. Even further, there are actually fake anti-scam sites that come up when you investigate, giving the scraper sites A+ scores and listing no complaints.
The thing that really nags me is that it's not one but all 3 of the major SEs (Google, Bing, & Yahoo). It almost sounds like a conspiracy theory but really, they're all doing it. I keep wondering how the this could possibly be? The only answer I can think of is that the type of endeavor (for-profit search engine) is just prone to this type of corruption; however, SEs also provide an incredible service: they drive incredible traffic to your site. I've tried to play devil's advocate and say now wait, do the benefits they provide still outweigh these perceived violations? The answer may be yes (Google has the case well, without us, you'd barely be getting any traffic at all), but then again, it's a nasty theoretical, because things might have evolved differently if they had begun in the pattern of what they're doing now.
What if this unsaid contract with the SEs had begun way back as a nonprofit endeavor? What if we had said you know, why don't we build a way to search the whole internet for free!! Then the SEs wouldn't be prone to corruption, right? In other words, why aren't SEs like Wikipedia? Could we build such? Squish7 ( talk) 23:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
If you click here, you'll see a large list of edits that have tripped the "possible vandalism" tag. I've noticed that this tag is incredibly accurate. Almost every edit that it tags as vandalism is vandalism. Instead of going through the trouble of reverting these edits, why don't we just block them in the first place? If my memory serves me correctly, edit filters have the ability to do this. (Of course, edit count fanatics won't like this proposal, because they won't have as many edits to revert...) -- Writing Enthusiast ( talk | contribs) 21:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I was searching for a phrase in WP and it didn't come up and it occured to me it would be handy to have links at the top of the page, "Search Wiktionary for this query" and Commons and Wikisource and stuff like that, much in the same way we add the templates to articles linking categories on other sites. Probably been suggested before, not sure what it would be called in the archives, ~ R. T. G 15:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Rather long time ago I ran into a problem when a closer of RFC discounted some opinions about merger of an article, because he thought that some major changes of that article changed the situation significantly, while missing a discussion (that ended up in the archive) where those changes were discussed (the article has been deleted by now, and so is the RFC). After that I have prepared (without publishing) a "checklist" that would list some steps that might be worth considering while closing discussions (like looking at the discussion, article and its history, archives etc., making a list of participants, arguments etc. and the like). The obvious problem with that is that I have yet to close a single discussion... So, I'd like to ask: would such "checklist" actually have any use..? -- Martynas Patasius ( talk) 00:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
As a fun way of encouraging people to develop WP articles - the WP equivalent of Bingo (Commonwealth) - lists of (for example) 10-12 articles, possibly themed/category of improvement required. People can pick up one (or several if they have the inclination) - and those who have improved the most by a given date 'win' (Other versions can include getting one of the entries to GA/FA status etc). See the current mainpage talkpage discussion on MM for one variant. (Not all articles need be 'those sitting in improvement categories') Jackiespeel ( talk) 21:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, please also note my point on integrating with crypto currencies as per my proposal below. It could be a related idea. Thanks :) Willibs ( talk) 00:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello there,
I am a wikipedian with more than five years of activity and more than 10,000 edits. For some privacy reasons I decided to create a new user and to post my message with it. Since a long time ago I was thinking that I would like to live closer to other wikipedians. There are two proposals I have for Wikimedia Foundation (WMF):
1) Help the wikipedians to find apartments to share. Since many years, I live in a flat, where I rent a room. I pay 300 euros / month to the owner of the apartment for that room. But I would like to find other wikipedians in my city who are interested to share a flat. And then, three wikipedians for example can rent an apartment together. The advantage consists in sharing the house with people who share your passions and in feeling more comfortable and safe. It's less likely that you will have problems when you live with people who are trying to build a better world, than when you live with people you find in a newspaper. I know, I can contact the wikipedians in my country (I think such a group already exists), but WMF can better help people to find each other for such purpose. WMF can promote this so the people better get the idea, and it can involve a bit in some very big cities, where there are many wikipedians.
A group of six wikipedians can rent two apartments next to each other, making the situation even more interesting. Twenty wikipedians might be able to rent an entire small apartment building, and so on. For me, it would be very nice to live in a Wipedia community. And I dare to think that I'm not the only one who thinks like that.
2) Rent rooms/studios/apartments/houses to wikipedians - and not only to wikipedians. I know WMF is not a real estate agency, but there is an undeniable fact: people make donations to WMF, and in the future, before or after passing away, they will live their wealth and houses to Wikipedia. Maybe such things already happened. I am one of those people who will live a part of their wealth to Wikipedia at the end of my life - at least 20% but maybe even 50% or 90%. And then, Wikipedia can rent those houses to wikipedians, at the market price, having a steady source of income forever. Instead of renting to random people, WMF should try to rent it to wikipedians first (but no discounts for them), so they can be closer to each other, if that's what they wish.
I suggest that WMF should also try something like this to see how it goes: buy a house somewhere in the suburbs of a big city where there are many wikipedians (let's say New York or Los Angeles). A house that needs a bit of reforming (and which is cheaper because it needs reforming). Maybe some wikipedians will volunteer to help with reforming. Or maybe some wikipedians will convince their family or friends to volunteer. And then, after reforming it, WMF can rent it to wikipedians. It is a one-time investment but it generates income forever. Or WMF can raise a cheap building (open source plans, open source techology) with small studios and rent them. If WMF would start such a project, I am more than happy to put 300 euros to support buying or raising a building for renting it. Maybe I would put even 500 euros. I am quite sure that I am not the only one to support such an idea. Many people (will) realize the fact that renting housing can generate revenues forever and it's one of the best ideas for funding a foundation. The money for the building can be raised in a campaign anywhere, even on Kickstarter.
In case that renting to wikipedians can be problematic (like some of them asking for a free rent in return for their work on Wikipedia), then the flats should be rented to non-wikipedians, who don't create such problems. Or there can be strict rules in place, to make sure such problems can't rise.
Many times I wonder why big charities like Red Cross or World Vision are not doing things like that. Many people live their houses to such charities in their testaments. Why they refuse to rent those places to the people, to generate a steady revenue, it's a big question for me. The only answer I can imagine is that they struggle very hard to keep it fake. Instead of paying 30 euros / month to Red Cross as a supporting member, I would prefer to pay them 300 euros / month for a room that they already have. It would generate 10 times more revenue (from me) that can be used to help the poor. But in this world, the things are the way they are..
I would accept to pay the same money that I am paying now for renting a room, even if it's further from my work than the place where I live now, if I can share the flat with more interesting and safe people. And I'm quite sure I'm not the only one who thinks like that.
This kind of things should have been done a long time ago, by the charities who have millions of members worldwide. Therefore, the idea should be expanded to rent not only to wikipedians, but to all wikians in general, and even to members of charities who are (being misleaded into) trying to improve the world: Red Cross, Vorld Vision, Action Aid, World Food Programme, etc. Those members who participated for a minimum while, of course.
In the end, I would like to bring into your attention the fact that the Red Cross in Kenya owns a five star hotel, that is generating a constant revenue. So this idea is not completely new. And renting real estate is easier and safer than owning businesses like hotels, restaurants, shops or other kind of for-profit activities, which can go up but also can go down anytime. As an activist, I would feel much better to live close to other activists than living close to strangers.
I think WMF should definitely try those things out.
Thanks for reading all the words above. Yours sincerely, --- WikiHousing ( talk) 13:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I am an occasional contributor to Wikipedia, and I really think Wikipedia could use some sort of centralized geographic information system of it's own, that editors could enrich articles with, and could make information a lot more accessible and clear to the readers. Does such a product exist at the present? does the Wikimedia foundation consider to create such a solution in the future? or nobody has ever thought of it yet?
I would like to elaborate on the matter: imagine an article like religion in Africa (for example), this specific article contains at the moment some sort of map in picture format that displays the different religions in Africa by different colors. the map is not too easy to interact with, the data is extremely simplified, and readers who want to research the subject further will probably use another service like Google maps, that allows them to manipulate the geographic data more easily (but would require the reader to also use some other source for the actual information on the specific subject).
I imagine some sort of simple to use inter-Wikipedia application, that would allow users to use existing Rasters and polygonal Geo-referenced layers saved on Wikipedia's servers or some other free to use sites, and only manipulate the attributes of the data relevant to the specific article. I imagine the Wikimedia foundation could reach some sort of agreement with Google to use it's maps services, or if that involves too much complications, ask for help from it's vast bank of volunteers - some of which are inclined to be programmers. And as for the data and raster layers themselves, use open sourced data across the internet as a basis, and allow editors to link to free-to-use data themselves, or contribute their copyrighted data.
I would appreciate your reply on this subject, Bigtk ( talk) 11:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I have recently began observing developments in the cryptocurrency world and have determined several ideas of great import and potential relevance to the Wikimedia foundation.
Perhaps it would be useful to explore the idea of developing a crypto currency that integrates into the crowd sourced framework of Wikimedia foundation knowledge where contributors are compensated for their efforts - in effect, coins are created (mined) and distributed in accordance with user contributions. This way all contributing users will have the additional benefit of receiving economic compensation for their efforts, and thus contributors will have a greater incentive to contribute, and can even singularly dedicate their time to compiling their knowledge online with secure assurance that an income will also be generated. Perhaps the currency could be named WikimediaCoin, which will be one of the first knowledge backed currencies - literally, a first in decentralised knowledge based economies. For an example scenario, a user would be generate a coin for every 10000 words contributed. Administrative/Moderators/Peer review users could also be compensated in some way, say perhaps they are apportioned a flat percentage of 5% of the coins generated from every new contribution that is reviewed. In general, an appropriate coin distribution system needs to be implemented that acknowledges everyone's honest collaborative input, while also having some quality assurance systems in place that protect the wiki from being abused for personal gain and thus ensuring integrity in the value of the crypto currency and the knowledge which is contributed. This idea could also provide massive benefits to free education platforms such as Wikiversity, in enabling itself to propel forward the mass dissemination of knowledge for free, and also for a freely generated income.
Alternatively, it may be a hard sell to transform the established Wikimedia foundation in such a way, therefore perhaps a new start up may be essential which might go by something like "Cryptopedia", "Cryptoknowledge", or "Distribmedia" etc, which could also be stored on a decentralised crowd cloud computing network such as MaidSafe - which brings me to another point. Would Wikimedia's administrative costs benefit from adopting a decentralised crowd sourced cloud server platform? (Such as MaidSafe, once MaidSafe is launched and becomes a thriving platform) Could it even enhance Wikimedia's services?
I wish to leave you all with these stimulating thoughts and hope that they do provide some excitement in terms of prospective potential. Please, everyone contribute to the development of this idea, throw in your eggs of innovation whatever they may be, whether you're a total expert or only have an inkling, the more ideas we can link together, the greater, more effective, self-sustainable, and self-propagating the platform will be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willibs ( talk • contribs) 22:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Willibs ( talk) 23:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear editors: Often new users who don't know how to create user subpages write draft articles in their sandbox. In fact, they are encouraged to do so by Wikipedia talk:Simple guide to creating your first article and the video at WP:USERSUBPAGE, and likely other places.
Inevitable, the draft articles need to be moved out, either to Draft space or to article space, leaving a redirect, with one edit attributed to whoever did the move. The user will then delete the redirect and start a new article. This has unintended consequences; for example, today I was notified that a draft I had created, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mikiea Perkins, was about to be deleted. Not only had I not created the article, but I had never edited that article; my only contributions was to move a draft article that had at some time previously been in the same sandbox. This led to the actual creator of the draft not being notified.
This also leads to distorted article attribution in the contributions statistics. For example, XTools lists me as the creator of Sharmin Ali, Atacama B-Mode Search, Healey Silverstone and several others which I have never edited or even seen before.
Since new users are immediately able to create pages in their own userspaces, would it be appropriate to minimize the problem by changing various instruction pages, help videos, etc., to encourage new users to create their first article draft in a user subpage with the intended title rather than one called "sandbox"? Or would this cause other problems that haven't occurred to me? The only one that I can think of is that the user might forget what they had called the page. — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
–As as esperento and ido are closly similar contributions to one wikipedia should be added to the other wikipedia as well thru machine translation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.118.223 ( talk) 00:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I have a possible policy proposal and I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions on how to make it better.
Sometimes there are very contentious RfC's with lots of people on both sides of the issue. Sometimes the number of votes, for instance, comes down to 55% on one side and 45% on the other. Now a uninvolved editor trying to close this RfC lets say they could reasonably choose that there is a consensus (in favor of the 55%), or that there just is no consensus (its close enough between the two sides). The person making the decision on how to close the RfC in that case is very important, and they are unlikely to be overturned (as they could decide either way). So here is what I propose:
Any closure done after this requirement is added to the RfC and in violation of it would not be valid and could be overturned on review.
To help make this clear going forward, I created a sandboxed modification of the RfC template that has two additional options "admin=yes""panel=yes" turns on the requirement to close the RfC. And "days=x" turns on the requirement that it be closed after x days (this is incase maybe people don't need the full 30 days or everyone wants more then 30). Here is what it looks like:
{{Rfc/sandbox/Adminclose|bio|rfcid=580730E|panel=yes|days=30}}
Additionally I propose that for the most very complex cases, that a request can be made that a 3 administrator panel decide how to close the RfC. That accepting it be discretionary (the closing administrator can choose to get 3 or not), unless there is a consensus in favor of a 3 administrator panel.
The good things about this are 1) that admins area panel is much more likely to carefully review the closing decision then a normal editor. (Admins tend to have put in a lot of time and effort in establishing a good reputation of being fair and will not want to ruin that.) 2) the adminspanel are less likely to be advocating one side in the dispute or conflict of intrest, or otherwise not have a neutral point of view on the subject. 3) Its far too easy for an involved editor to create (or have) a sockpuppet close the RfC on their behalf without anyone finding out, this would prevent that. (Yes there are other ways to look and try to find who is a sock puppet but they are not full-proof if they use a different IP).
The disadvantages of such a system are that it increases the amount of work that admins have to do. Secondly that it increases the power of administrators over normal editors.
The disadvantages would be 1) that it would be harder to close some RfC's 2)that it would be difficult to figure out who should be on the panel (especially if there is not consensus).
What are your thoughts on this and how it might be improved?
-- Obsidi ( talk) 01:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
@
Jackmcbarn: Please read the top of this page, which is also emphasized at the top of the editing window:
I specifically urged Obsidi to post here, rather than Policy, because I thought the idea needed some work. My post specifically addressed the concern you have, identifying a way to use non-admins even in difficult closes. -- S Philbrick (Talk) 13:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I can understand that this process would be time consuming and difficult to figure out who the panel would be. One mitigating factor is that the closing panel does not need to get consensus first (although that would be nice), but as long as it is three uninvolved editors agreeing to close. The second thing we could consider is to have a minimum number of editors required to request it before it becomes mandatory. If a single editor would be too easy, how about 2? Or 5? How many editors agreeing the process is needed do you think to minimize the times that it occurs to the really important ones. What I don't want is just that it requires consensus (if you have that you can do whatever you want), it should be some fixed number, so if there are a lot of people in a big discussion then it should require the extra protections. -- Obsidi ( talk) 17:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
In my experience, these conflicts can run deeper and deeper into WP:DR processes, with things like RfCs being a process associated with the early stages of a dispute. That is to say, it's very rarely the case that an RfC which closes in a contentious area is definitive. It is impossible to resolve larger disputes with an RfC, and once it becomes clear that the problems are larger than that scope, other dispute resolution avenues are available, including third opinion, dispute resolution noticeboard, other noticeboards, mediation, and finally arbitration. This proposal seems to be trying to push RfC further down the pipe of dispute resolution processes. It's not clear that we need to burden the RfC with heavier processes when such a need indicates that other more formal dispute resolution may be needed. aprock ( talk) 19:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
How about the default/option to include the list of {{ X1}} · {{ X2}} · ... · {{ Template sandbox}} links (from Template:Template sandbox heading) along the top-right of an "Editing Template:..." page..? (Apologies if this already considered.) Sardanaphalus ( talk) 11:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Given the severe backlog of AfC submissions, I would like to know whether Wikipedia software alerts an editor who is about to create an article in mainspace with a name that already exists in the draft namespace. If I'm not mistaken, I currently have three pending submissions and it would be rather painful if another editor would go through the trouble of creating an article about one of those subjects unaware of the existence of my work. Obviously the same goes for other drafts. I think it's safe to say that not all editors check for drafts before they start bashing keys. -- 82.136.210.153 ( talk) 16:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
A small link to wikinews.org in the news today box (at the bottom of the box), so that people can peruse more news if they so desire. Alternatively a link on this page, at the top - /info/en/?search=Portal:Current_events. It would make it easier for people looking for a certain category of news like "Education";or "Central America" for news of their locality. 117.221.179.80 ( talk) 17:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)inkee
Bump JDgeek1729 ( talk) 06:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm working on a 'soft block' proposal that is to classic block what pending changes protection is to classic protection. My draft is located here and I welcome any input before going ahead with the proposal. This also involves a new usergroup, with the temporary name of 'moderator', although this is not strictly necessary for it to work. Cenarium ( talk) 20:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
In the right hand column where technical information is shown for TV series, I wish they would have the option to also say if the series died/was cancelled on a cliff hanger. People like myself would really like to know that the show ends this way, sort of similar that the book you're reading has had the final chapter torn from it. Gunnerclark ( talk) 10:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
{{
Infobox television}}
. Most templates have a discussion page specific to that template, the one for this infobox is at
Template talk:Infobox television. Your proposal is best discussed either there or at
WT:WikiProject Television, because this page is very much general. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 14:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)I am interested in becoming a much more active editor on Wikipedia now that I'm semi-retired and have time to devote to the job. Some of the subjects in which I am particularly interested are on the esoteric side of the ledger. I've spent a little time perusing some of these subjects and I have detected what seems to be a Wikpedia bias or informal policy toward subjects which lend themselves to academic scholarship. There is an accompanying disdain for subjects which do not lend themselves to such research.
Underlying some of the discussions of this issue that I've found sprinkled around the site is the assumption -- sometimes clearly stated -- that the mere inclusion of a topic in Wikipedia gives it a certain amount of credibility that ought perhaps be more closely guarded. I find that a particularly peculiar idea given the somewhat iconoclastic beginnings of Wikipedia and the overall tendency on the Internet to allow for more untested and unpopular ideas in the interest of allowing what I suppose might be called "crowdtalk" to sort things out.
In trying to figure out how to come up with a proposal to what I see as a bit of a dilemma here, I have begun to wonder whether there is a tagging or other categorization system that could be implemented that would allow content to be labeled as "not amenable to research" rather than either being dismissed or held to an impossible standard to qualify for inclusion in the main encyclopedia.
Fundamentally, I agree with the concepts of balanced coverage and Point of View as I understand them but I don't want to see Wikipedia become constrained by "Establishment" taboos and thinking that holds the viewpoint that *only* that which can be measured and physically sensed is "real" and worthy of either research or inclusion here.
Is this the proper forum to raise this idea? Is there somewhere else I should look to discuss it? Has it already been covered; if so, please point me to that source. I really want to understand the policy and its rationale.
Dshafer ( talk) 06:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I/we could use some additional input here. It's a proposal to deprecate {{ No footnotes}}, and replace it with - a somewhat differently worded - {{ No inline citations}}. -- 82.136.210.153 ( talk) 00:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
STOP HOOKING INTERNET BROWSER'S ALT-F COMMAND. BECAUSE NOBODY USES THE ALT-F FEATURE TO SEARCH IN WIKIPEDA. ASO IT APPEARS WIKIPEDIA CREATING DISPARAGEMENTS OF MICROSOFT INTERNET EXPLORER. A LIST INCLUDES NONE OF YOUR LINKS OR SUGGESTIONS TO XIPH.ORG FOR WINDOWS INTERNET EXPLORER TO PLAY YOUR EMBEDDED MOVIES WORK AT ALL, ANDSEEMS DECEIT CAUSING YEARS OF DYSFUNCTIONAL EXPERIENCES WITH WIKIPEDIA FOR AMERICANS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8B36:4750:64B2:EB7F:52E0:B1F0 ( talk) 07:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Four years ago, when constructing List of world records in masters athletics I was looking for a way to emulate html code placing a table within a table to force layout within a specific space; to cover multi-event competition (Decathlon, Heptathlon, Pentathlon) scores that get complex. For context, compare the poor way the same information is laid out in List of world records in athletics. Originally I created new articles and placed them into the layout, but articles are too public and because the articles looked weird as a stand alone, they generated a lot of trouble--proposed deletions. I finally was given the suggestion of creating templates, which eliminated the controversy. Template:Rolf Geese M60 World Record Score is the active example. That is until today. I have an editor seeking ways to harass me (we have a standing disagreement) and he has found a policy about single use templates. The concept has even been discussed here. As concluded in that discussion,
"that's a rule that we created and therefore a rule that we can change to accommodate this kind of sensible use."
But apparently the policy still exists (though I can't find it). If legit, then I will have situations that might violate that policy and this wikilawyer will use it to delete the content if I don't make an adjustment. So how would a single use get approved? Or would there be a better way, that is not violating policy, to insert this kind of layout? Trackinfo ( talk) 09:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
{{Rolf Geese M60 World Record Score}}
by:{{Decathlon score|13.01|5.15m|12.20m|1.54m|60.95|15.77|39.84m|3.40m|37.18m|5:33.42}}
{{Decathlon score|13.01|5.15m|12.20m|1.54m|60.95|15.77|39.84m|3.40m|37.18m|5:33.42}}
produces:100m (wind) | Long jump (wind) | Shot put | High jump | 400m | 110H (wind) | Discus | Pole vault | Javelin | 1500m |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
13.01 | 5.15m | 12.20m | 1.54m | 60.95 | 15.77 | 39.84m | 3.40m | 37.18m | 5:33.42 |
I want to propose the "readers first" rule, but I wonder if it's ever been done before. Policies and guidelines are no longer enough, and WP:five pillars... I don't know if editors will remember them anymore. -- George Ho ( talk) 17:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I would welcome input on User:Cenarium/Administrative Appointments Commission, an idea based on the recent discussions and suggestions on reforming RFA. A commission would appoint and reconfirm admins for six months terms, and after two reconfirmations, an admin could request permanent adminship to the community. Cenarium ( talk) 19:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it should be possible for any administrator to delete an individual revision of an article without deleting the whole article then restoring only some of the revisions. I think that in some cases, when an article is tagged for speedy deletion but looks like it could have been written in another way which belongs, when an administrator sees it, it should be up to the administrator's discretion whether to delete it or remove the nomination template and then nominate it for deletion to give a chance to fix the problem, once the problem in the article is fixed, it could be closed as keep, then the administrator wouldn't need to delete the whole article since they could instead delete the very disruptful history revisions. Same goes for when an administrator sees a restored article that was previously deleted. Wikipedia making this change might prevent articles in the future from being mistakenly deleted that didn't need to be like when Fram deleted Marine D3 possibly because it had the sentence "It's not even necessary for one to diet or exercise to lose weight if one eats Marine D3." in it according to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 110#Promotional articles. I'm not sure if it's worth starting a deletion review of Marine D3 to suggest that it be nominated for deletion instead of speedy deleted, then if it doesn't get edited into being non-promotional during the deletion discussion, it can be deleted. Blackbombchu ( talk) 22:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I have the idea of a bot which links automatically non-linked pages to a specific page by analysing what pages are visited after a specific page (which should be part of the same theme). Example: Many persons which were on the page tree visited after this the page plant to inform also about plants. Because there was no link in tree to plant they had to search for it in the searchbox. The bot would recognize that many persons visit plant after visting tree and turn the already, in the text of tree, existing word "plant" into a link. Is this possible? -- Impériale ( talk) 17:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I have an idea for a new category of rights that could be granted to non-Admin Users, Semi-Page Protection creation for limited amounts of time. This would be similar to granting Rollback rights to a User, an ability that an Admin has, but that is limited in scope. I don't know the technical feasibility of this, but a User with this right would only be able to apply or remove Semi-Protection to an article either with an expiration date/time or a fixed maximum period of time. Admins would still be the only personnel with the ability to apply/remove the higher levels of protection.
The benefit would be additional assistance for the Admins that patrol the Requests for Protection Noticeboard and those Users with the right who routinely patrol the Pending Changes list would be able to protect any article that is experiencing sudden and/or short term vandalism without posting a request at RfP. A secondary benefit could also eventually be that the Admins can spend more time addressing requests for higher levels of protection since most seem to result in short term semi-protection.
Your thoughts? -- SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
This template is so small and inconspicuous that it barely registers when viewing a page, yet it has a very important task -- letting new users know that the page is inactive! I've experienced now a few pages where new or IP users have continued to use a page despite the template being in place. I think a clearer template would be very useful. Do other users share this thought?
What would be thoughts on doing something such as either changing the image to give it more contrast, changing the text, or altering the background colour? As this is the idea lab, please do not just support/oppose. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 02:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Oiyarbepsy ( talk · contribs) has opened a new discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposed user right: Vandal fighter. Cunard ( talk) 00:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I've been looking at all the talk of unbundling admin rights lately, and I came up with the following idea: Create a user group for stopping vandals, with the rights to block and protect, but with the following restrictions to address concerns raised with ideas similar to this one:
Thoughts? Jackmcbarn ( talk) 21:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
"How would this toolset be granted or withdrawn?"I'm thinking something in between reviewer and abusefilter.
"Is it the intent that the only situation in which this class of editors will be allowed to use these tools is where there is clear-cut vandalism, as described by WP:VAND?"I don't really care, but I note that such a restriction would be unprecedented (for example, account creators are allowed to use their tboverride permission to edit editnotices, not just create forbidden accounts)
"Note that having blocks that expire on vandalism-only accounts may have undesirable and unwanted side effects."This isn't an issue at all. The limited duration of blocks I mentioned would only apply to IPs, not accounts.
"How useful would this privilege bundle actually be?"A large part of that is taken care of by the previous question, since there are a lot of account blocks. As for longer IP blocks, my intention is that a member of this new group sets a 24-hour block, then an admin going through the list would increase it if necessary.
"Looking at the last 50 entries in the protection log ... there's only a couple that run for 24 hours or less."Again, the idea here is that a short protection could be set as a stopgap, which an admin could then raise. This would be useful in cases like this one, where a page received nearly 100 edits in less than 2 hours, all of them either vandalism or reverting of vandalism.
"a bot immediately reporting all vandal stopper actions for approval. This way, there's no need for a special page". A special page is a better option than a bot, IMO. (Especially since it won't actually be its own page. It will just be an extra filter option on Special:ProtectedPages and Special:BlockList.)
Dear editors: I don't know about you, but I rarely use the generic sandbox associated with my user name. I often have a number of things going on at once in my user space, so I keep them on separately labelled subpages. Instead of the link to the Sandbox, wouldn't it be handy to have a link to a list of user subpages instead? I know that one is available by clicking on contributions, scrolling to the bottom, and then clicking on "Subpages", but it was a long time before I discovered this, and it's not as convenient. Out of sight, out of mind, you know. I realized recently that there were several incomplete projects that I had forgotten about. The sandbox is there on the list of subpages, so for those who really do use the generic sandbox a lot it's only one more step, or it could be bookmarked in their browser. Any opinions about this? — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
mw.util.addPortletLink ('p-tb', wgServer+wgArticlePath.replace("$1", "Special:PrefixIndex/"+wgPageName+"/"), 'Subpages');
mw.util.addPortletLink ('p-tb', '/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/User:Gadget850', 'My subpages');
mw.util.addPortletLink( 'p-personal', '/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/User:Anne Delong', 'Subpages', null, null, null, '#pt-preferences');
@ Anne Delong: You can achieve what you suggested in your initial proposal easily enough just by adding {{list subpages|Anne Delong|User}} to the top of your Sandbox page. That will turn your sandbox into a list of subpages in your user space. Waggers TALK 10:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
It is clear that piped links can be used so as to bypass Wikipedia definitions that have been developed by consensus and it would be advantages if a facility could be developed so that such links could be checked. Can/should "What links here" be developed so as to indicate which links have been piped? Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
This is a new draft proposal, available at Wikipedia:Deferred changes, combining Wikipedia:Deferred revisions and Wikipedia:Pending changes blocks, and superseding both. Comments are welcome. Cenarium ( talk) 11:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Previously, videos could function as stand alone illustrations in addition to being videos, which made them more useful, especially when a thumbnail was manually selected. See for example here [4], where it could show both a famous image, and a video of the event. But for some reason, the player icon has become big and dark, obscuring much of the thumb. I think the previous version was much more useful, for the reason mentioned above. See also here [5], where the icon pretty much destroys the thumbnail.
Perhaps the icon could be moved to one of the corners of the thumbs, instead of smack in the middle? And be smaller, too. Or maybe there could be a parameter for making the icon either dark or light, depending on the thumbnail, so where wouldn't have to be a huge, dark bar around it to make it discernible? Or maybe the play icon could be moved to the caption field? FunkMonk ( talk) 13:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I think each Wikipedia article should have a draft version whose title is "Draft:" followed by the name of the article and the link for it should be between the link titled "Article" and the link titles "Talk". The draft version should exist so that people will feel free to add in information they can't find a source for that they're not all that sure is true, then an experience person will add that information to the article itself if it turns out it belongs and a source exists for it. A draft version would be so much faster for people to go through to figure out the best way to improve the article than the talk page. For example, it would have allowed me to add in the information I figured out in Talk:Freeze-drying#How freeze drying works. Blackbombchu ( talk) 01:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
name of article/sandbox
. While I entirely understand that "subpages" are disabled in the article mainspace, that doesn't really mean anything for this purpose. The only technical reason that this isn't done, "you may land on a sandbox page from
Special:Random, can easily be fixed with a little javascript (which I would suggest go directly into common.js or at very least be an on-by-default gadget). I'll develop that script later today and test on testwiki. I'll be back in a couple days for an update or as soon as it is done. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c) 17:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)We are a group of researchers at the University of Michigan, Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh. Our research aims at discovering ways to motivate academic researchers who can be considered domain experts to provide feedback about Wikipedia articles in their area of expertise. The goal of the bot is to make the process of posting comments on article talk pages easy for users who are not familiar with Wikipedia markup language. The users who have access to this bot are experts in different scientific fields such as psychology and Economics and the purpose of the comments left on the article talk pages are providing information on how the article can be improved. We have designed and implemented the bot, and already passed the trial period. We will appreciate it if you take a look at our bot proposal at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/ExpertIdeasBot, and help us to expedite the approval procedure. I.yeckehzaare ( talk) 04:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I would like to see creation of a new portal into the Wikipedia content organized around questions and answers. The portal would be a structured set of questions that have factual, but complex answers. For example:
The answers would rely heavily on links into to existing Wikipedia articles, or a short narrative linking to several articles. Trivial questions that can be answered by reading a single existing Wikipedia article obviously related to the question (e.g. when was Bruce Springsteen born?) are excluded. Unanswerable questions, typically because it is a matter of opinion, or is unknowable such as: "Was the Judge correct in vacating Ray Rice's suspension" are similarly excluded. Perhaps we can refer people to Quora or similar sites for these questions.
Thanks! -- Lbeaumont ( talk) 21:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I suggest a global content change for all biographies of deceased people. The information I would like is: If this person were alive today how old would they be?
Advantages: I think they are numerous as despite dates being listed, converting that information automatically to something more easily understood like age would be make the biography more personable and approachable. Just think of some historical figures and then think, oh, that’s how old they would be... It’s just as useful as the current age given now in biographies rather than expecting the visitor to do the math, and obviously well suited to the dynamic wiki format.
Disadvantages: It would need a short abbreviation and be easily explained to the visitor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetbadger ( talk • contribs) 20:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi all,
I notice a lot of 'list of ...' pages on Wikipedia. What are some efforts to standardize formatting and/or create automatic lists with filtering capabilities? It seems like it is a lot of work to create these lists and keep them up to date, as well as duplicate data, where an automated solution might prove effective.
Thanks for your feedback,
-- Brylie Christopher Oxley ( talk) 08:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Since that unless working for IPv6, which can be used to uniquely assign address per SIM card/CDMA Phone to unique IP address, IP address of Mobile connections will be always almost the same. Additionally, vandalizers take advantage of this arrangement, forcing editors, like myself, to take additional precautions to prevent false linkage by Checkusers to another user or IP vandalizers. The template will show the following:
Any comments are helpful. - gacelperfinian( talk in - error? Start a new topic) 06:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
So, are you proposing a template that says something like "This user edits on mobile devices, and may be unintentionally blocked when other users abuse editing privileges"? If so, just make it and put it on your page. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 17:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
In 2012 a German court ruling found that it was deceptive for someone with a financial connection to add promotional content to Wikipedia, because readers presume the information is crowd-sourced and independent, not a medium for covert advertising. Similar anti-astroturfing laws exist in the US that require readers know when they are reading information provided by someone affiliated with the company, as oppose to a crowd-sourced online participant.
I contribute quite a bit to articles where I have a financial connection, usually bringing them up to GA status and following COI best practices. I'm attending a conference right now that has a bit of a focus on the Federal Trade Commission's disclosure laws and I'm thinking about how there is still no way to provide a legally-required disclosure of my financial connection to readers on a page that doesn't have any actual problems that would require a COI template [7] (GA-ranked).
I'm not advocating for or against it, but wondering what the community reception is towards a small, tasteful disclosure to readers on articles that do not necessarily have any major content problems. A template that I might add myself to be legally compliant, as oppose to something contentious used to shame someone that contributed poorly.
A major contributor to this page was sponsored by _______. |
CorporateM ( Talk) 13:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
How about English Fanon Wikipedia? There have been plenty of vandalisers adding made up content into articles, so if they could make this information up themselves in this Wikipedia, it might get rid of some.
Every image and template from this Wikipedia could be copied over so no re-uploading is required. 89.240.248.49 ( talk) 21:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikifiction - a new wiki where editors could write and collaborate on works of fiction. Is that the idea here? Oiyarbepsy ( talk)
As the security of
SSL (https://) is broken
[8], see
Bullrun
[9] and BREACH
[10] its time to wrap SSL into
TextSecure against
MITMA and SSL key snooping.
For the time beeing, next to normal login with SSL, the option Login with TextSecure depends on using a browser plugin.See [11]. Aldo Wikipedia is not Wikileaks and each contributed statement must be verifiable, see WP:VER, even contributing to a WP article in which you point to certain source may have consequences in certain countries and results in a timely visit from the state and in the best case, they just search your house. If for example WP would have an article on this [12] every editor would be of interest to lay consequenses upon. The proposal is for a start to enhance Login and Wikipedia:Flow with TextSecure and see where it goes from there. Whatsapp finished their end-to-end encryption implementation within a few months. Mion ( talk) 03:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
09:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Bawolff ( talk) 05:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Because it seems to me to be maybe one of the most effective way to stop people seriously misusing user talk pages. John Carter ( talk) 23:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
So, what users are being targeted, user that abuse their own user talk pages, or users whose talk pages get vandalised? The initial comment sounds like it targets those who misuse their own pages, but all the responses assume the opposite. If someone vandalizes my talk page, I don't want it replaced by a wikilove message, I want the vandal reverted like it never happened. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 16:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I think we should run bot and script, which would search information from new articles in Internet and compare with search results. If bot see copipaste, he will nominate this article for fast deleting. Ochilov (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
As the NSA stores the entire internet the proposal is to use WMF employee name removed contacts with the NSA (about the backdoors in the Wikimedia software) to fix the Wikipedia problem with link rot. It would be handy to have a sort of NSA extension for direct linking into the NSA database to saved versions of webpages. A sort of state funded wayback machine, similar to Wayback Machine - Internet Archive [25]. For Wikipedia the advantage would be to have a plan B if the current wayback machine would default, for the NSA there would be a gain too, running a public service that is usefull to common people, best cover you can imagine. Mion ( talk) 17:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
We own you Love, the NSA |
NSAWiki
. It might even (trivially) be MediaWiki with the NSA_Snooper
extension added dynamically.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 19:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)What is the point in this discussion? The direction it appears to be headed in is kind of confusing me. You think the National Security Agency stores the internet? What does that have to do with IP logs and whatnot? Dustin (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, we could attempt asking for help, like this :D -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 17:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Greetings Wikipedians,
Down below, please find a proposal brief re: a digital memo application.
General function of the application:
- Enable readers to create digital memos that can be stored and later retrieved on the Wikipedia’s platform; where the application can be found on the < top right bar > next to the user’s profile page.
Overview:
Currently, English Wikipedia includes 4,658,450 articles and it’s increased every day with over 800 new articles.
Today, roughly 40% of the world has an internet connection, which presents a tremendous need for people in developing countries to be able to access web pages in their native language, and tools to assist with their information and gathering purposes.
Use Case:
Take for example, a teacher in Kenya may be researching various topics using Wikipedia. Today, if he or she wants to remember the information for a later time, he or she may copy the information onto 3rd party software to retrieve later.
But could there be a more convenient way for the reader? Where instead of taking the content onto another platform, the notes from the reader, can be saved onto the Wikipedia platform.
The Proposal
One-click digital memo application that enables the reader to:
- Create a private digital memo ( visual reference: yellow mini note found on the top right hand side of the user’s page ) - Bookmarks the web page where the memo is created and saved onto the reader’s profile page. ( visual reference: paper-clip )
The Benefits:
- Useful application that would make a great addition to the Wiki tool set - Easy to use ( 1 click process to creating note ) - Memos are private and non intrusive - Bookmarks the Wikipedia page
Application Considerations:
- Once a memo is placed on the Wikipedia page, it may cover the top right hand section of the page. To mitigate this, the top memo bar can collapse once the notes are made.
- Too many memos can get confusing and disorganized.To trouble shoot this issue, colored folders can be created by the user and tagged.
These are the two main considerations, if there are others, we can add them to the bug fix and development list.
Welcome your feedback. CitynSea ( talk) 02:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)CitynSea CitynSea ( talk) 02:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
< Response > Thank you for the feedback! Will review the links in your comment thread. Cheers CitynSea ( talk) 01:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'm working on an IEG project to create a tool to find important academic citations missing from Wikipedia. It does this by taking a large repository of open access papers, removing the ones already cited in Wikipedia, and then ranking those left over by some significance metric (at the moment, number of citations). We've just completed our first proof of concept demo which looks quite promising, and are looking for ideas or feedback. Check it out: Open Access Reader.
EdSaperia ( talk) 13:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I propose that we set aside a section of Wikimedia Foundation money to pay admins to recognize their highly significant and beneficial contributions to Wikipedia. Jinkinson talk to me 19:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll take the bait. Admins aren't the only users who make 'highly significant and beneficial contributions' to Wikipedia. Plus, I'm an admin but my most important contributions were not through my admin actions, and by far. There's also that it's unfeasible, but it's already been stated. There's certainly a need of recognition, but not just for admins. A 'featured editor' in the Signpost would be a better idea, but it's not without issues either. Cenarium ( talk) 22:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Even poor Stewards don't get money of their hard work... -- Stryn ( talk) 22:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Alternate idea: What about a one-time bonus upon being promoted to admin? Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 02:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I have an Idea this may be a little bit of a mission and could result if implemented in a major overhaul of infoboxes which relate to people. I am getting increasingly confused and in some cases frustrated when I am trying to update infoboxes for people. This is because currently infoboxes are for one specific thing e.g. cricket player, politician, astronaut, criminal, writer and so on. I know there is a generic infobox, the person infobox but its parameters are while extensive only really in my opinion generi and useful when describing a person and not for talking about a person. I am also aware that there is the child template which can be used to add information to existing templates, but I am frustrated by the limited number of labels which can be added and that it has a limit on the amount of times it can be used in an infobox.
What I am suggesting is the ability for an infobox which can be created from scratch, which would allow for one infobox to contain all the notable information for an individual. Such as sports people who compete in multiple sports or people who are notable in multiple and highly distinct fields e.g individuals who have a notable career before for example becoming a notable politician. For some people this can be done using the child template but in most cases I have found this child template is too limited in what it allows and I have found it only really works when dealing with similar or the same discipline e.g. motor racing drivers who compete in different racing series or categories.
Thoughts and constructive suggestions please.
Sport and politics (
talk) 15:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Infobox person is not flexible enough and is limited in what it can do. It only allows some other infoboxes to be added. I am asking for one where any infobox can be combined with another to create any combination of infoboxes for a person as their notability dictates. Sport and politics ( talk) 13:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
"We need... to make more of our biographical infoboxes work as modules". Sure, that's a chore, but it's much less work than what you're proposing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Xand2 金日光旦照. That's a long list of suggestions. I've numbered them for you so I can reply faster:
Thank you for taking the time to make your suggestions. Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 03:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
As for next row text that is in English also for example if you look in my edit source and how it is displayed:
This is example This is example
Both short sentences are in next row but are displayed in same row.
This is example
This is example
Now is empty row between and is displayed correctly this can be problem in writing long list of words which are in Wikipedia displayed as single block of text so user needs to add empty row between each.
Also where can I post about Wikihiero it has only basic Egyptian hieroglyphs for example less than A100 and free OpenSource JSesh has about 3000 while some other hieroglyph editors have almost 7000 hieroglyphs it is written like this < hiero > r:a-ra:Z1 < /hiero > and rendered like this:
|
Wikihiero has some errors for example < hiero > r:r < / hiero > should display r above r but it is in the same row
|
rr, or Ax&x & should display next character near sign but not above it like : isn't working < hiero > G25&x < /hiero >
|
Ax power of soul.Some errors were already reported on Wikihiero talk page but still no response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xand2 ( talk • contribs) 16:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
For edit count I was thinking on active user edit count as wiki template that could be on user main page like user-activenumberofedits. Xand2 金日光旦照 ( talk) 07:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
First, this isn't for experienced vandals and socks, it would be a pointless exercise. It's for inexperienced ones, and not really for the classic semi-protection or move rights that autoconfirmed gives, but for the edit filter. The edits filters very often check only edits by non-autoconfirmed users, so it makes sense to require ten non-deleted non-talk edits if we want to keep detecting newly created 'bad' articles, spam and vandalism from those new accounts when they didn't get indef-blocked (yet) so risk becoming autoconfirmed. Requiring non-deleted edits means we'll still be able to check for persistent (re)creations of problematic articles, and talk edits wouldn't be counted because they could easily achieve that just using their talk page. And in case of a temp block, the check should reset : 4 days and 10 non-deleted non-talk edits since the end of the block. This would prevent many of them from passing through the loopholes of this system. This is sufficiently targeted so as not to make auto-confirmation harder for good faith contributors. I'm not including userspace edits for example so that edits to user drafts are still counted. Cenarium ( talk) 08:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Help me with List of Pulitzer Prize Winners. `` SonictheHedgehog99 ( talk) 00:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I have been musing about this for a while and am trying to come up with something objective - BLP issues have been the subject of much discussion over the past 6 years or so, and WP:BLP1E was one development, as was the deletion of pages that were marginally notable if the subjects wanted their deletion.
I am not thrilled about the idea of someone influencing content in a big way, but am mindful that maybe we could be tighter with criteria in an objective way that allows us to remove some more marginal people.
My idea is something like this - A BLP subject may be considered not to warrant inclusion if they are not able to be mentioned in detail on an existing article (but otherwise have appeared in tabloids i.e. famous for being famous). Thus they need to have won something, played a role in a film, been elected, invented something, something "encyclopedic" as it were.
This might resolve issues like the following:
Some years ago. Jimbo nominated Mimi Macpherson for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mimi Macpherson). Now us Aussie editors know this person as Elle's sister and she has fulfilled notability quite easily with mentions in media etc. However, if you look at what articles might mention her they are only very minimal mentions, so if we had a criterion something like
"must be notable enough to warrant a significant mention on a nonbiographical article"
as an extra criterion for notability, it might be that she would not pass this and hence her article be deleted.
Apologies to Mimi for using her as an example (if she ever comes across this), but I felt that it illustrated the point of a person who fulfils generic notability criteria but some might argue in unencyclopedic.
Anyway, what do folks think? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 05:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Everyone seems to be missing the point. The test is not whether they are mentioned in a non-biography, but whether they should be. That means mentioning your person in a whole bunch of irrelevant articles would not save your biography. It also means that the good biographies would not be deleted because the non-biography about their actions hasn't been written yet. And the original proposal was "…to warrant a significant mention…" which has nothing to do with whether that mention is actually in the article right now. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 16:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
The problem you would hit fairly quickly is royalty. While his mother would be safe enough Charles, Prince of Wales would be borderline and his sons more so. Can't see his second wife doing much better. For the militant republicans I'd point out that most UK sitting MPs would also fail . EMPs would do even worse. ©Geni ( talk) 23:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, Wikipedia community experts,
Seasons Greetings,
I am multi-lingual & a linguist.
I have started my own Hebrew-Arabic language word comparison project (Excel format) which is FAR from being complete...yet, has many entries, already & which I would both like to share online with the general public/ community as well as require help/additions to (as, said project is alphabetically word-based). This, also in the hope of showing the world (particularly, in the war-torn iddle East!) how SIMILAR &RELATED the languages/cultures are!!!
I am NOT technically inclined (as far as web design/formats, etc...)-yet, can provide all academic knowledge pertaining to this field.
Would such a project be a Wikepedia materialization candidate? Could we make it happen?
Awaiting your earliest-possible feedback with much gratitude & blessings,
AK — Preceding unsigned comment added by AK63 ( talk • contribs) 18:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, there might be a place for this kind of thing at Wiktionary. You could make the case there that they should add a section called cognates at every entry, for example. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 20:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
For those of us that regularly contribute, it would be great if there was some way your team could TURN OFF the PLEASE DONATE pop up. Maybe there can be a little app that gets launched during the donation process that would turn off this annoying code.
thanks in advance,
Nancy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.9.40 ( talk) 18:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
What if it would be function of donating via SMS? It would be easy and comfort for most of Wikipediands. Ochilov (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking of making a proposal to allow bots to tag edits, and request the implementation of such a feature. The edit filter and other extensions tag an edit immediately when it is saved, but a bot would tag it afterwards, it may take a few seconds due to API lag. There is already a request at phabricator, T3189, however this is for all users, not just bots, and it has stalled, a suggestion was made to have a community request for this to get it moving. But I am proposing for bots, and only for bots, for three reasons : more likely to gain strong consensus, much less likely to create issues that will have to be solved somehow, and no need for devs to create a user interface, since bots need only the API, so less dev work, meaning we'll get it implemented faster. The following are possible uses, and I would welcome more suggestions, I'd like to have as many examples as possible to incorporate them in the proposal before going ahead :
We would also need a mass untag functionality usable by admins. Cenarium ( talk) 10:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Slightly off-topic - why doesn't the edit filter log link to the diff or revision? Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 15:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
hello everyone! I would like to propose an extension to the maximum size limit for AD. Now we have the parameter 190kb, but for some very complex articles that limit turns out to be a problem, forcing publishers or save the refs or text. none of this is ideal in editorial terms. I am aware of the possible difficulties of navigation for large pages, but note that this limit will very rarely exceeded. most of our featured nowhere near the limit, and do not believe that this change may cause any appreciable damage browsing, even more than the everyday technology improves and the systems become more agile, while will favor the deployment some good jobs that can not yet be so only by its excessive size. I do not know exactly what we could do if we simply eliminate the concept of maximum size or set a new value. I preferred to leave open, but maybe spend 250 kb would probably solve all cases. 191.185.208.14 ( talk) 12:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Since the posting of Sydney hostage situation, I wonder if there is an idea to improve In the News. Somehow, I worry about its being misused for profits. -- George Ho ( talk) 10:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The editing of others' work is generally best done at some distance in time from the original edit (not within minutes, as too often happens), to prevent generating an unnecessary "Edit Conflict" that results in confusion, lost work, contributor frustration and alienation, lost substantive contributor content or editor revisions, and wasted editor time.
On 11:30, 17 December 2014, I made some edits to the Wikipedia article " Beechcraft Model 18," then saved them -- then continued editing, saving again at 11:57, 17 December 2014, and continuing further editing. Within 10 minutes, while I continued editing, another Wiki contributor jumped in and began editing my edits. Consequently, when I attempted a save a few minutes later, I got one of those ghastly "Edit Conflict" messages, and found it next to impossible to sort out the differences.
While I do NOT like to scrap others' edits without careful review, I simply could not do this again (this "trigger-happy," near-realtime editing has been a continuing problem with edits at Wikipedia, particularly in the aviation field, causing me and other contributors much lost time and effort). I scrapped all the editor's changes, and re-instated my version, with my current edits. That editor, of course, can re-edit my work, and no doubt will.
In the future, it would be considerate and respectful for editors to wait a day before jumping into someone else's edit, and revising it. That might prevent the current deterrence of substantial repeat contributors, over relatively negligible edit issues. And it might keep the editor from wasting his/her time, as well.
Zxtxtxz ( talk) 13:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Zxtxtxz
The reference popup (eg.: when you click [43], a popup gives the corresponding reference info) should last long enough so it can be copy pasted. Otherwise it has to be noted down manually, especially if you want to refer to all the sources of a given sub-topic. 117.202.14.23 ( talk) 16:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Cite
Dear Wikipedians, should we add twin towns to infoboxes? This would create a common format for recording these connections. I imagine this would take some consensus building among editors? I'm scraping all the twin town data - trying to cover all the different formatting rules, so could provide dataset for scripted update to infoboxes. Anyway, something to think about/discuss...Reviewing the various lists for twins shows different countries and areas have used different formatting rules. Some use tables, some more free form lists. Within the town/city main articles there are also different section titles and ways to describe twin towns. If this info is in the infobox it will be picked up more readily by dbpedia and wikidata allowing more interesting data analysis such as this https://www.flickr.com/photos/29266908@N02/15846030356/ just an idea...I've never discussed an issue here and not an experienced editor so positive comments much appreciated, thank you -- Fozy81 ( talk) 20:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Since passwords are no longer very secure due to password reuse across websites (some of which are less secure than others) and keystroke logging by malicious software (especially on public computers), would it be a good idea to enable some kind of opt-in two factor authentication, such as by using the free Google Authenticator already used by many websites? Users who hold advanced technical rights or who for any other reason want to secure their accounts may find such a feature useful for security. Any thoughts? Tony Tan98 · talk 15:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, there's a bunch of misinformation in the above discussion. Here's some facts to help clear everything up:
Jackmcbarn ( talk) 21:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
There's also WP:COMMITTED, but it's a pity that there isn't a formal way to regain access to an account with it (We don't even know if it's actually acceptable yet). Zhaofeng Li [ talk... contribs... 02:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
You can reset tokens which allow access to certain private data associated with your account here.
You should do it if you accidentally shared them with someone or if your account has been compromised.
Tokens:
Token for the web feed (Atom/RSS) of changes to pages on your watchlist (current value: **value removed**)
The OP has been blocked per checkuser
|
---|
I wanted to reduce cultural bias at Template:Authority control, where USA-related LCCN is listed before ISNI. Details at Template talk:Authority control#USA bias. Now, two users drag the whole thing into a weird discussion. One reverts my edits, without any reasoning except for ~ "discuss", but he does not say what he wants to discuss. There should be some office in Wikipedia to properly treat such trouble making. John B. Sullivan ( talk) 11:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Reported at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias#Bias preferring USA based LCCN over ISNI. John B. Sullivan ( talk) 13:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
|
I found and fixed some articles on economics that use mathematical formulas but are poorly typeset, like Phillips curve and Aggregate demand (they are now improved by me, so you might want compare history). Should we create a portal to put on articles like this that needs proper mathematical typesetting? Or is it just too picayune and trivial? --Worst regards, Greek Fellows. Visit ma talk page and ma contributions. 14:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
There used to be {{ wikify}}, which was deprecated for being too vague. But I think it could be brought back, with a more specific purpose - "This article lacks formatting or contains formatting errors. Please add formatting and correct any errors so the article meets Wikipedia's standards." I think, if we bring this back, math formatting errors would be part of this, possibly. On the other hand, you could just be bold, create the template, and tag articles that need it, but it sounds like you'd rather just fix it. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 15:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Long project proposal
|
---|
Problem: Currently, when someone adds a table, chart, or graph to a Wikipedia article, that item is based on a table of information (usually a CSV) that came from a referenced source. That means the data in the article is either in the form of a static table or a static chart/graph. There are various shortcomings however with this method:
Solution: Having one central repository for all statistics would solve both of these problems, and provide major benefits when structured in the following way:
Summary
|