This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212
I would like to create a Wikipedia toolbar to aid in navigation within the site. There would simply be buttons to replicate the tabs and other links we see on pages. It may sound simple, but I'm constantly wishing I didn't need to scroll around pages looking for links. A toolbar would make these links always accessible.
I'd like to begin with Firefox. I know something about programming but I don't specifically know Firefox addons. If someone out there knows how to create Firefox addons, and could create an example toolbar for me which would only contain a button or two, say, to access the current Wikipedia page's Talk and History pages, I might be able to use the code to replicate other buttons.
If anyone can do that for me, or if anyone is interested in starting a full-on project for this, I really think it would be useful to a lot of people. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/ C • 03:17, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)
← I've begun development of the Wikipedia Toolbar. Check it out and let me know what you think. Equazcion •✗/ C • 18:29, 24 Jan 2008 (UTC)
A Google search for either of these titles reveals that many persons use these two articles -- or at least are obsessively interested in these two titles. In other words, these two titles are "attractive nuisances." And these Wikipedia articles of course head the list of webpages found for these two searches.
Proposal: Rename these two articles "Ur-mother" and "Ur-father" respectively, then rewrite the articles themselves accordingly, and of course Re-direct references to "Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-chromosomal Adam" to these two articles.
The rewritten articles might begin with the next sentence, for the first of the two articles:
The name Ur-mother, while not yet common in the literature of genealogical DNA (which is totally secular or non-religious), is used here in preference to the more usual name "mitochondrial Eve," in order to avoid any religious overtones or any Biblical connections.
Other Wikipedia users have been on this topic before, such as in the following {bracketed}-quote at the top of the talk page of the second article -- somewhat shortened by deletions of discussion of Aaron, indicated by an ellipsis (...) :
{... "Y-chromosomal Adam" is just a pet name. It has nothing to do with Genesis. "Y-chromosomal Aaron", otoh, is completely arbitrary, we might as well have "Y-chromosomal Smith" tracing the common ancestor of all people called Smith. this link says "The name Eve, in retrospect, is perhaps the worst possible name to give to the entity in question" for mitochondrial Eve. The same might be said for Y-Adam. It was chosen as a funny and suggestive name, without thinking that it may stir interest in religious or racist circles. ... dab 13:04, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Dab, if you can come up with with a better name for this article then please do propose one. ... JFW | T@lk 13:12, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Cool. JFW | T@lk 20:18, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)}
I think a move would be in contravention to the naming conventions, given that they are widely accepted entities in genetic research. I also don't think we should action a move on the basis of a short discussion held 3.5 years ago. Surely we'd need to reestablish consensus. JFW | T@lk 06:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
These templates vary in terms of external link formatting, separators, and so on, I would like to standardize these but I want people's opinions on what direction to go:
Link formatting:
The last version is tempting, but it results in much larger code for instances that require multiple "external" links, and will look wrong if user preferences specify a different color for internal links. Some templates do this: Example ( talk · contribs · block log); I can't figure out why this would be wanted. I have a vague recollection that this could in the past be done without requiring separate color tags inside each link, this may be the reason.
Separators - or, rather, the _size_ in particular of the dots
Believe it or not, all four of these choices are in use right now, along with no dot at all. Simple wikipedia goes to the other extreme, using ▪. Arguably, we could decide to use a different separator e.g. a vertical bar, instead: Example ( talk | contribs | block log). It has been proposed to make the parentheses smaller as well: Example ( talk · contribs · block log)
Another issue, which I've brought up in the past, is the overlap in scope between some of these templates; I'd like to ultimately find out what each one is actually used for. — Random832 15:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
If there are no responses (my last thread about standardizing these stalled due to complete and total apathy, rather than any objection; and those templates which are protected are due to heavy use rather than any dispute), I will go forward with editing all of these templates to conform to this style: Example ( talk · contribs · block log), except for those which exist for no other reason than a variance of style (e.g. {{ user9}}) — Random832 16:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I already filed this as bugzilla:12667, but if the devs see some community support they might implement this a bit sooner. Any user should be able to see the list of his/here deleted edits (contribs to pages that got deleted):
Please note that this proposal is not about:
∴ AlexSm 15:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe Wikipedia could start a wiki-encyclopedia for the paranormal. Obviously there are HUGE number of people here interested in promoting the paranormal. There are armies of people interested in remote viewing, UFOs, homeopathy, Rosicrucians, scientology, conspiracy theories, complementary medicine, telepathy, psychic surgery, demonology, Nostradamus, pictures of the Madonna appearing on half eaten toasted cheese sandwiches etc.
Some of this material is informative. A lot of it is entertaining. Clearly many are enthusiastic about it and want to write about it or read about it. However, describing a lot of it comes into conflict with WP:NPOV and efforts to make Wikipedia a respectable scholarly work. And this leads to trouble, and is clearly evident if you look.
So why do we not have a special wiki for the paranormal? We could direct people interested in nonmainstream topics to that Wiki, and it could feature articles on this sort of material, which would get a lot of attention apparently. This would be like a "paranormal fork" of ALL of Wikipedia.
The reason I suggest this is that there was a big problem at Dinosaurs for a while. Then the article Creationist perspectives on dinosaurs was created that gave the creationists some place to edit. And they were happy, and eventually this creationist "fork" was folded into a regular creationist article. We did similar things at evolution by moving the material dealing with the creation-evolution controversy out of the main article, so there would be other places that those interested could see their views represented. So maybe something similar would work for this entire family of WP:FRINGE topics.
It would draw a lot of editors and a lot of pageviews. I think that it might help Wikipedia by providing an outlet for this sort of stuff, and might provide a valuable resource. A similar but related idea would be a Wiki for popular culture, to reduce the cruft that builds up over and over in regular articles on Wikipedia. Perhaps these two offbeat wikis could be combined? I am not sure what you would call it however. -- Filll ( talk) 16:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Excellent! Let's see if I can encourage some of these editors to try it.--
Filll (
talk) 04:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Please try to not violate WP:NPA as you have done repeatedly and been repeatedly part of assorted administrative actions and accused of vexatious litigation. Either cooperate with the community and abide by its rules, or suffer the consequences. Thanks.-- Filll ( talk) 17:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I have rollback permissions. Whenever I find vandalism, and click on the rollback button, and discover that someone else (or bot) had reverted it first, I see a page titled "Unauthorized" with a message saying "Cannot revert edit" and things like that. I don't think that it is a good title because it can be confusing, making some people think of the very word 'Unauthorized' as things like 'unauthorized from editing at all', for example. Does anyone know whether there is another title for the page that is currently titled "Unauthorized" (after clicking on the rollback button after someone else or bot makes an edit)? NHRHS 2010 NHRHS2010 01:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
importScript('User:AzaToth/morebits.js');
in
your monobook.js file. I doubt it's causing this problem, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.
Tuvok
T
@
lk/
Improve 05:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)I changed MediaWiki:Permissionserrors to say "Error: unable to proceed", which should be generic enough to cover permissions errors as well as the rollback error. There should always be more specific text in the actual error message. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 05:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Testing (to see if the rollback issue is resolved). NHRHS 2010 NHRHS2010 11:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia. My name is Mark
I really want to do a Wiki on an atlanta Restaurant called Willys California style burritos. They are like moes but the quality is way better, the ambiance is nicer, and the people are friendlier. I have not yet mastered the wiki enough to start a brand new one. Please help!
- email address removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamtonycipriani ( talk • contribs) 18:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I propose when loading the main page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) the cursor to be set automatically inside the search box - this is a standard feature in all search engines google, yahoo etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.99.101 ( talk) 11:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
forgot to sign before 82.6.99.101 ( talk) 11:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikimedia, while providing an excellent resource, with its offer of totally free and unrestricted information, is rather difficult to use on many mobile devices. I reccomend that Wikimedia offer both a regular mobile version of its sites and an iPhone/iPod Touch version, which would make both casual use and editing from mobile devices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noz92 ( talk • contribs) 21:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I propose that wikipedea is made a more brightwebsite. therefore making the experience more fun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.126.106 ( talk) 19:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
hi
i like wikipedia and congratulate all those who contribute
a couple of questions
1. next to each edit hyperlink could there be a "top" hyperlink too?
2. i go to a page, and spot a "gap" (ie table of contents for a similar entry (eg cars versus trains) has a history section in one and not the other) and i want to contact the "owner" of the page to suggest something is missing that should be added => can the tabs on the top of any page be added to to include a general comments section? where the "owner" (the most frequent contributor?) can review and judge whether changes need to be made
thanks
74.92.140.6 ( talk) 23:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC).
I'm proposing that we enable OpenID logins. If there's significant support for this, I'll file a bug asking the developers to install the necessary extension. Triona ( talk) 09:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
hi
is it possible to have a link to the Wikipedia:PUMP in the interaction box on the left hand side of the screen?
thanks - 74.92.140.6 ( talk) 23:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC).
just realized what i proposed is being said for 100,000,000 times 5secs after i submitted it, so it's deleted by me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nekomini ( talk • contribs) 10:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I propose to add a template on anonymous user talk pages directing them to view the bottom of the page. Please read and comment: Wikipedia:IPtalk proposal. Shalom ( Hello • Peace) 14:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible to add a program to Wikipedia to perform one or more readability tests for each Wikipedia article, and to place
At this time, the article " readability test" lists the following tests.
If it is desirable to include consideration of each word in the article as to its frequency in the English language, can that be a part of the program? (Maybe the Wikipedia community can originate a new kind of readability test.) In regard to readability tests of Wikipedia articles generally, do the benefits outweigh the costs? Also, please consider applying this suggestion to Simple English Wikipedia.-- Wavelength ( talk) 05:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
An important feature of Wikipedia is the cross-referencing, whereby links to related articles are provided simply by clicking on a key word in the text. But sometimes this cross-referencing is so excessive as to be ludicrous. Just as an example: consider the "Alien Abduction" page. Surely, links to 'United States', 'university', 'automobile', 'asparagus' (!!), etc, etc - to select a few at random from dozens of highlighted words - are TOTALLY out of place in an encyclopedia article on "Alien Abduction". Wikipedia urgently needs a way of including only relevant links. ( Ericlord ( talk) 17:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC))
Having just made the same mistake twice in the last ten minutes, i.e. of putting in a standard vandal message on an editor's talk page, press save page and realised as I pressed it that I hadn't signed the message, I feel it's high time for me to make this proposal:
In user preferences, theres a useful option that reminds users to leave an edit summary. I have this checked, and as a result I haven't skipped a summary since March last year. Is it possible to have something similar to check for ~~~~ within the edit box of talk pages? A reminder could come up, saying You have not signed this edit. If you click Save again, your edit will be saved without a signature. It wouldn't be perfect - fopr example, it wouldn't check sigs for this page, as it isn't a talk page, but it would be helpful for most situations. Now to remember to sign this page! Tivedshambo (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
At the bottom of the editing window, there are a couple of clickable radio buttons.
" x This is a minor edit ( what's this?) and x Watch this page "
What I would like to propose is a third button taking the first place;
See rough;
(Equally, I could suggest another for copyedit or formatting) it would just seem a useful took to have onboard. It would encourage many users to go ahead and add more to build a good editing record. Fine, it wont fix the world but, ditto, it would not take that much coding to do or cause issues. In balance, beneficial.) -- Lucyintheskywithdada ( talk) 09:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). SharkD ( talk) 02:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, would it be okay if I politely asked one of the techs/developers if we could whitelist browsershots.org? I've frequently wanted to run tests from there on various templates and interfaces to make sure they'll be accessible across all platforms but since we disallow several different pages on our robots.txt it doesn't necessarily work correctly.
I'd propose adding the following to explicitly allow their crawls:
User-agent: Browsershots Disallow:They, themselves, have a robots.txt to prevent search engine caching of results. Cheers. =) -- slakr\ talk / 20:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SquelchBot if you have comments. Thank you, Iamunknown 01:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I propose categorize wikipedia entries with the Universal Decimal Classification or other kind of classification system. -- WonderingAngel-aesc78 ( talk) 18:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I have proposed a means by which arbitrators may impose article probation without necessarily taking a case, at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration policy#Arbitrators may impose article probation without taking a case?. I invite discussion there. MilesAgain ( talk) 17:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This idea stems from the current issues we've had with episode merging and the like, in the fact that people don't feel they're getting sufficient notification for various issues. While watchlists are great, when you get more than a few hundred pages it can be very hard to follow or discover certain changes, particularly if you ignore WP even over 24hrs. The idea is not to replace the watchlist system but to provide a more pro-active notification system for people that want to track changes on key articles.
Here's my idea, in terms of how it works:
In this fashion, those pages most important to uses can be tracked closer without having to chase through long watchlist details. The bot should also create pages, by user, so they know what they are tracking so they can maintain that list (simply by removing their name from said template and also to avoid someone enlisting them inappropriately on pages they don't want to watch). Now, I do note that unlike the watchlist which is private to a user, this does make it public that you are watching the article, but very likely, if you are, you are a major contributor to the article and thus it is no surprse that you are watching it in this fashion, and I think the value of letting people know I'm watching an article is a small price to pay for having better notification on articles I'm most interested in.
I did mention the possibility of notification levels (like with some debugging). Maybe you only want to know if the article's about to be deleted, or maybe you want any change to be notified (which may be very spammy). We could classify the types of changes into a series of levels to let uses pick which ones they want when they enter their name on the template.
The only issue I see is not so much in bot programming but how much of a load would this be; again, the delta time between checking for differences can be changed appropriately to alter this. -- MASEM 18:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice if we could watchlist specialpages, such as:
and etc. The benefits would be huge-- penubag 01:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Special pages aren't watchable because they aren't hard "pages" that get "changed". They're dynamically-created lists that are compiled anew when a user accesses them, and are never saved. Scripts can perform similar functions though --
User:Tra has a couple that do what you need: "user watch list" script lets you "watch" user contribs: add importScript('User:Tra/userwatchlist.js');
to your monobook.js. Instructions are at
User:Tra#User_watchlist. There's also "whatlinkshere watchlist", importScript(User:Tra/whatlinksherewatchlist.js');
. Instructions at
User:Tra#What links here watchlist.
Equazcion
•✗/
C • 14:54, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Say a Wikipedian knows someone who would be a great addition to Wikipedia and convinces them to join. Maybe, there could be a barnstar or a special userbox for that person. They would apply for it, and the IP address of the new user would be checked to prevent sock puppetry. What do you think? I call it "scouting". Shapiros10 ( talk) 20:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the "100 good edits" idea. Maybe a bot could do the sorting... Shapiros10 ( talk) 20:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212
I would like to create a Wikipedia toolbar to aid in navigation within the site. There would simply be buttons to replicate the tabs and other links we see on pages. It may sound simple, but I'm constantly wishing I didn't need to scroll around pages looking for links. A toolbar would make these links always accessible.
I'd like to begin with Firefox. I know something about programming but I don't specifically know Firefox addons. If someone out there knows how to create Firefox addons, and could create an example toolbar for me which would only contain a button or two, say, to access the current Wikipedia page's Talk and History pages, I might be able to use the code to replicate other buttons.
If anyone can do that for me, or if anyone is interested in starting a full-on project for this, I really think it would be useful to a lot of people. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/ C • 03:17, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)
← I've begun development of the Wikipedia Toolbar. Check it out and let me know what you think. Equazcion •✗/ C • 18:29, 24 Jan 2008 (UTC)
A Google search for either of these titles reveals that many persons use these two articles -- or at least are obsessively interested in these two titles. In other words, these two titles are "attractive nuisances." And these Wikipedia articles of course head the list of webpages found for these two searches.
Proposal: Rename these two articles "Ur-mother" and "Ur-father" respectively, then rewrite the articles themselves accordingly, and of course Re-direct references to "Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-chromosomal Adam" to these two articles.
The rewritten articles might begin with the next sentence, for the first of the two articles:
The name Ur-mother, while not yet common in the literature of genealogical DNA (which is totally secular or non-religious), is used here in preference to the more usual name "mitochondrial Eve," in order to avoid any religious overtones or any Biblical connections.
Other Wikipedia users have been on this topic before, such as in the following {bracketed}-quote at the top of the talk page of the second article -- somewhat shortened by deletions of discussion of Aaron, indicated by an ellipsis (...) :
{... "Y-chromosomal Adam" is just a pet name. It has nothing to do with Genesis. "Y-chromosomal Aaron", otoh, is completely arbitrary, we might as well have "Y-chromosomal Smith" tracing the common ancestor of all people called Smith. this link says "The name Eve, in retrospect, is perhaps the worst possible name to give to the entity in question" for mitochondrial Eve. The same might be said for Y-Adam. It was chosen as a funny and suggestive name, without thinking that it may stir interest in religious or racist circles. ... dab 13:04, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Dab, if you can come up with with a better name for this article then please do propose one. ... JFW | T@lk 13:12, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Cool. JFW | T@lk 20:18, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)}
I think a move would be in contravention to the naming conventions, given that they are widely accepted entities in genetic research. I also don't think we should action a move on the basis of a short discussion held 3.5 years ago. Surely we'd need to reestablish consensus. JFW | T@lk 06:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
These templates vary in terms of external link formatting, separators, and so on, I would like to standardize these but I want people's opinions on what direction to go:
Link formatting:
The last version is tempting, but it results in much larger code for instances that require multiple "external" links, and will look wrong if user preferences specify a different color for internal links. Some templates do this: Example ( talk · contribs · block log); I can't figure out why this would be wanted. I have a vague recollection that this could in the past be done without requiring separate color tags inside each link, this may be the reason.
Separators - or, rather, the _size_ in particular of the dots
Believe it or not, all four of these choices are in use right now, along with no dot at all. Simple wikipedia goes to the other extreme, using ▪. Arguably, we could decide to use a different separator e.g. a vertical bar, instead: Example ( talk | contribs | block log). It has been proposed to make the parentheses smaller as well: Example ( talk · contribs · block log)
Another issue, which I've brought up in the past, is the overlap in scope between some of these templates; I'd like to ultimately find out what each one is actually used for. — Random832 15:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
If there are no responses (my last thread about standardizing these stalled due to complete and total apathy, rather than any objection; and those templates which are protected are due to heavy use rather than any dispute), I will go forward with editing all of these templates to conform to this style: Example ( talk · contribs · block log), except for those which exist for no other reason than a variance of style (e.g. {{ user9}}) — Random832 16:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I already filed this as bugzilla:12667, but if the devs see some community support they might implement this a bit sooner. Any user should be able to see the list of his/here deleted edits (contribs to pages that got deleted):
Please note that this proposal is not about:
∴ AlexSm 15:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe Wikipedia could start a wiki-encyclopedia for the paranormal. Obviously there are HUGE number of people here interested in promoting the paranormal. There are armies of people interested in remote viewing, UFOs, homeopathy, Rosicrucians, scientology, conspiracy theories, complementary medicine, telepathy, psychic surgery, demonology, Nostradamus, pictures of the Madonna appearing on half eaten toasted cheese sandwiches etc.
Some of this material is informative. A lot of it is entertaining. Clearly many are enthusiastic about it and want to write about it or read about it. However, describing a lot of it comes into conflict with WP:NPOV and efforts to make Wikipedia a respectable scholarly work. And this leads to trouble, and is clearly evident if you look.
So why do we not have a special wiki for the paranormal? We could direct people interested in nonmainstream topics to that Wiki, and it could feature articles on this sort of material, which would get a lot of attention apparently. This would be like a "paranormal fork" of ALL of Wikipedia.
The reason I suggest this is that there was a big problem at Dinosaurs for a while. Then the article Creationist perspectives on dinosaurs was created that gave the creationists some place to edit. And they were happy, and eventually this creationist "fork" was folded into a regular creationist article. We did similar things at evolution by moving the material dealing with the creation-evolution controversy out of the main article, so there would be other places that those interested could see their views represented. So maybe something similar would work for this entire family of WP:FRINGE topics.
It would draw a lot of editors and a lot of pageviews. I think that it might help Wikipedia by providing an outlet for this sort of stuff, and might provide a valuable resource. A similar but related idea would be a Wiki for popular culture, to reduce the cruft that builds up over and over in regular articles on Wikipedia. Perhaps these two offbeat wikis could be combined? I am not sure what you would call it however. -- Filll ( talk) 16:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Excellent! Let's see if I can encourage some of these editors to try it.--
Filll (
talk) 04:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Please try to not violate WP:NPA as you have done repeatedly and been repeatedly part of assorted administrative actions and accused of vexatious litigation. Either cooperate with the community and abide by its rules, or suffer the consequences. Thanks.-- Filll ( talk) 17:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I have rollback permissions. Whenever I find vandalism, and click on the rollback button, and discover that someone else (or bot) had reverted it first, I see a page titled "Unauthorized" with a message saying "Cannot revert edit" and things like that. I don't think that it is a good title because it can be confusing, making some people think of the very word 'Unauthorized' as things like 'unauthorized from editing at all', for example. Does anyone know whether there is another title for the page that is currently titled "Unauthorized" (after clicking on the rollback button after someone else or bot makes an edit)? NHRHS 2010 NHRHS2010 01:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
importScript('User:AzaToth/morebits.js');
in
your monobook.js file. I doubt it's causing this problem, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.
Tuvok
T
@
lk/
Improve 05:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)I changed MediaWiki:Permissionserrors to say "Error: unable to proceed", which should be generic enough to cover permissions errors as well as the rollback error. There should always be more specific text in the actual error message. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 05:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Testing (to see if the rollback issue is resolved). NHRHS 2010 NHRHS2010 11:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia. My name is Mark
I really want to do a Wiki on an atlanta Restaurant called Willys California style burritos. They are like moes but the quality is way better, the ambiance is nicer, and the people are friendlier. I have not yet mastered the wiki enough to start a brand new one. Please help!
- email address removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamtonycipriani ( talk • contribs) 18:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I propose when loading the main page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) the cursor to be set automatically inside the search box - this is a standard feature in all search engines google, yahoo etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.99.101 ( talk) 11:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
forgot to sign before 82.6.99.101 ( talk) 11:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikimedia, while providing an excellent resource, with its offer of totally free and unrestricted information, is rather difficult to use on many mobile devices. I reccomend that Wikimedia offer both a regular mobile version of its sites and an iPhone/iPod Touch version, which would make both casual use and editing from mobile devices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noz92 ( talk • contribs) 21:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I propose that wikipedea is made a more brightwebsite. therefore making the experience more fun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.126.106 ( talk) 19:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
hi
i like wikipedia and congratulate all those who contribute
a couple of questions
1. next to each edit hyperlink could there be a "top" hyperlink too?
2. i go to a page, and spot a "gap" (ie table of contents for a similar entry (eg cars versus trains) has a history section in one and not the other) and i want to contact the "owner" of the page to suggest something is missing that should be added => can the tabs on the top of any page be added to to include a general comments section? where the "owner" (the most frequent contributor?) can review and judge whether changes need to be made
thanks
74.92.140.6 ( talk) 23:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC).
I'm proposing that we enable OpenID logins. If there's significant support for this, I'll file a bug asking the developers to install the necessary extension. Triona ( talk) 09:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
hi
is it possible to have a link to the Wikipedia:PUMP in the interaction box on the left hand side of the screen?
thanks - 74.92.140.6 ( talk) 23:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC).
just realized what i proposed is being said for 100,000,000 times 5secs after i submitted it, so it's deleted by me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nekomini ( talk • contribs) 10:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I propose to add a template on anonymous user talk pages directing them to view the bottom of the page. Please read and comment: Wikipedia:IPtalk proposal. Shalom ( Hello • Peace) 14:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible to add a program to Wikipedia to perform one or more readability tests for each Wikipedia article, and to place
At this time, the article " readability test" lists the following tests.
If it is desirable to include consideration of each word in the article as to its frequency in the English language, can that be a part of the program? (Maybe the Wikipedia community can originate a new kind of readability test.) In regard to readability tests of Wikipedia articles generally, do the benefits outweigh the costs? Also, please consider applying this suggestion to Simple English Wikipedia.-- Wavelength ( talk) 05:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
An important feature of Wikipedia is the cross-referencing, whereby links to related articles are provided simply by clicking on a key word in the text. But sometimes this cross-referencing is so excessive as to be ludicrous. Just as an example: consider the "Alien Abduction" page. Surely, links to 'United States', 'university', 'automobile', 'asparagus' (!!), etc, etc - to select a few at random from dozens of highlighted words - are TOTALLY out of place in an encyclopedia article on "Alien Abduction". Wikipedia urgently needs a way of including only relevant links. ( Ericlord ( talk) 17:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC))
Having just made the same mistake twice in the last ten minutes, i.e. of putting in a standard vandal message on an editor's talk page, press save page and realised as I pressed it that I hadn't signed the message, I feel it's high time for me to make this proposal:
In user preferences, theres a useful option that reminds users to leave an edit summary. I have this checked, and as a result I haven't skipped a summary since March last year. Is it possible to have something similar to check for ~~~~ within the edit box of talk pages? A reminder could come up, saying You have not signed this edit. If you click Save again, your edit will be saved without a signature. It wouldn't be perfect - fopr example, it wouldn't check sigs for this page, as it isn't a talk page, but it would be helpful for most situations. Now to remember to sign this page! Tivedshambo (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
At the bottom of the editing window, there are a couple of clickable radio buttons.
" x This is a minor edit ( what's this?) and x Watch this page "
What I would like to propose is a third button taking the first place;
See rough;
(Equally, I could suggest another for copyedit or formatting) it would just seem a useful took to have onboard. It would encourage many users to go ahead and add more to build a good editing record. Fine, it wont fix the world but, ditto, it would not take that much coding to do or cause issues. In balance, beneficial.) -- Lucyintheskywithdada ( talk) 09:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). SharkD ( talk) 02:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, would it be okay if I politely asked one of the techs/developers if we could whitelist browsershots.org? I've frequently wanted to run tests from there on various templates and interfaces to make sure they'll be accessible across all platforms but since we disallow several different pages on our robots.txt it doesn't necessarily work correctly.
I'd propose adding the following to explicitly allow their crawls:
User-agent: Browsershots Disallow:They, themselves, have a robots.txt to prevent search engine caching of results. Cheers. =) -- slakr\ talk / 20:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SquelchBot if you have comments. Thank you, Iamunknown 01:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I propose categorize wikipedia entries with the Universal Decimal Classification or other kind of classification system. -- WonderingAngel-aesc78 ( talk) 18:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I have proposed a means by which arbitrators may impose article probation without necessarily taking a case, at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration policy#Arbitrators may impose article probation without taking a case?. I invite discussion there. MilesAgain ( talk) 17:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This idea stems from the current issues we've had with episode merging and the like, in the fact that people don't feel they're getting sufficient notification for various issues. While watchlists are great, when you get more than a few hundred pages it can be very hard to follow or discover certain changes, particularly if you ignore WP even over 24hrs. The idea is not to replace the watchlist system but to provide a more pro-active notification system for people that want to track changes on key articles.
Here's my idea, in terms of how it works:
In this fashion, those pages most important to uses can be tracked closer without having to chase through long watchlist details. The bot should also create pages, by user, so they know what they are tracking so they can maintain that list (simply by removing their name from said template and also to avoid someone enlisting them inappropriately on pages they don't want to watch). Now, I do note that unlike the watchlist which is private to a user, this does make it public that you are watching the article, but very likely, if you are, you are a major contributor to the article and thus it is no surprse that you are watching it in this fashion, and I think the value of letting people know I'm watching an article is a small price to pay for having better notification on articles I'm most interested in.
I did mention the possibility of notification levels (like with some debugging). Maybe you only want to know if the article's about to be deleted, or maybe you want any change to be notified (which may be very spammy). We could classify the types of changes into a series of levels to let uses pick which ones they want when they enter their name on the template.
The only issue I see is not so much in bot programming but how much of a load would this be; again, the delta time between checking for differences can be changed appropriately to alter this. -- MASEM 18:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice if we could watchlist specialpages, such as:
and etc. The benefits would be huge-- penubag 01:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Special pages aren't watchable because they aren't hard "pages" that get "changed". They're dynamically-created lists that are compiled anew when a user accesses them, and are never saved. Scripts can perform similar functions though --
User:Tra has a couple that do what you need: "user watch list" script lets you "watch" user contribs: add importScript('User:Tra/userwatchlist.js');
to your monobook.js. Instructions are at
User:Tra#User_watchlist. There's also "whatlinkshere watchlist", importScript(User:Tra/whatlinksherewatchlist.js');
. Instructions at
User:Tra#What links here watchlist.
Equazcion
•✗/
C • 14:54, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Say a Wikipedian knows someone who would be a great addition to Wikipedia and convinces them to join. Maybe, there could be a barnstar or a special userbox for that person. They would apply for it, and the IP address of the new user would be checked to prevent sock puppetry. What do you think? I call it "scouting". Shapiros10 ( talk) 20:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the "100 good edits" idea. Maybe a bot could do the sorting... Shapiros10 ( talk) 20:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)