This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals).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
When a person adds a merge template to an article, A to be merged with article B (i.e. {{merge|B}}), then automatic addition of the corresponding template to the sister article, B ({{merge|A}}) would save the editor time and effort. You wont need to notify anyone of the change, 'cause they'll notice it themselves when they go to the second article. A {{mergeto|B}} template will obviously invoke a {{mergefrom|A}} on the sister article. ---- Seans Potato Business 22:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Please redirect me to Bugzilla if this does require a change in software but could we please have the 'Save changes' button no longer being the default (perhaps the 'Show preview' button would be a better default). I request this because when attempting to use the shift and/or delete keys I sometimes accidentally hit the return key which automatically saves the page with the typos etc I was trying to correct. I realise that this is due to my own clumsiness but it would make editing just that little bit easier. It would also make edit histories slightly less of a mess because I would not have to make another change to correct my own mistakes in the main article or in the edit summary. Any thoughts? -- Hydraton31 ( talk) 04:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's a simple user script that asks "Are you sure you want to submit?" when you submit the form:
addOnloadHook(function() {
var editform = document.forms"editform"];
if (!editform) return;
editform.onsubmit = function() {
return confirm("Save changes to " + decodeURIComponent(wgPageName.replace(/_/g, " ")) + "?");
}
});
If accidentally hitting return in the edit summary box is the main problem, or this one gets too annoying, I could write another script that causes hitting the key to do nothing when a form element is focused. (I personally find form submission from the edit summary box useful...) Gracenotes T § 20:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to login! -- Hydraton31 ( talk) 06:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Every year google has an april fool's hoax (see Google's hoaxes ). Should wikipedia have something like this? It would be a great publicity stunt (like the google hoaxes) and increase the circulation of the other lesser know Wikimedia brands as well as livening up the image of wikipedia (as a dull lifeless encyclopedia).... and before anyone bags the idea, consider the advantages over the disadvantages Talk to symode09's or How's my driving? 12:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Apologies if this isn't the right place for article title questions--feel free to redirect me.
With several other editors, I've been working on a cleanup of the various articles about intelligence (i.e., military or national). There is an unsourced stub article Compartmentalization. When I try to search on "Compartmentation", I get redirected to a disambiguation page on compartmentalization, which has a link to intelligence use of the term. It is mentioned that "compartmentalisation" is the UK usage.
Unfortunately, the US usage is "compartmented" or "compartmentation". This is mentioned correctly in Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, and in the Classified information in the United States articles.
My proposal would be to rename the "compartmentalization" article to "compartmentation". I'm willing to take that article in hand, source the term, and add examples, and/or creating an article on "Sensitive Compartmented Information". I might also create an article on "Special Access Program", which is the military equivalent of the "SCI" term specific to intelligence.
The disambiguation page on compartmentalization would also need to change the intelligence-related link to compartmentation. I can check with a UK editor on what they use as the term.
How should I proceed? Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 19:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
My proposal relates to the treatment of vandals. I do my share of recent change patrol and discovered, that our treatment of vandals is quite ineffective. First we warn them. Then, if it's a IP address, we usually don't do anything, because this could affect innocent users too. If it's a registered editor, we delete his account. That's something, which hurts only real editors with many contributions. As long as they don't go crazy, these editors usually don't vandalize wikipedia. The typical vandal is not interested in his account. For him it's easier to create a new account, than it was for us, to delete the old one. We only lose the trace of the vandal and he can begin anew.
Therefore my proposal: Is there a possibility to give the administrators a tool, which changes the color of dangerous IP addresses and/or editors in the article history and the recent changes page, by adding something to the userpage or page of the ID. Today, all names of users with user pages, which were not edited, appear in red. Dangerous IP adresses or users would appear in yellow, brown or another color. To be able to discover them, would make it easier to fight them. I think, that's more effective than to delete their acounts, just to have them create a new, unknown account, one minute later.--
Thw1309 (
talk) 20:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Some commercial sites like amazon note whether the name used by a user is their "real name" or not : it is checked with the name on their credit card.
Wikipedia allows people to use any name they wish, which is fine. But some people would like to use their real name and prove it is their real name (like myself).
Surely it would be possible on wikipedia to set up some mechanism for doing this.
I personally think that except for a very small number of situations where it is not safe to use your real name, real names are much better and encourage honesty and directness.
John C Mullen 90.11.74.49 ( talk) 08:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC) (real name!)
It is possible in some circumstances to identify yourself to the foundation. This is only done when necessary. You can also use crypto-keys to self-identify (though I haven't done so yet). I wonder if we could get pubkey login for wikipedia. :-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 03:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
We already have confirmation of real life identity for users with CheckUser access and Arbitration Committee members. This is for legal reasons and I understand it's necessary but the process is impossible to implement on a larger scale.
I wouldn't mind any real identity confirmation process for regular users and administrators, as long as it is strictly voluntary.
Puchiko (
Talk-
email) 17:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if this has been discussed previously; I haven't been able to find any comments on this so far.
I know this is a big request, but I suggest providing access to Wikipedia over an encrypted/https connection. This would allow users to explore and contribute to Wikipedia without concern about eavesdropping by overly-curious governments, ISPs, neighbors, etc. (And, I'm hopeful that it would set a precedent. I'd like to eventually see pervasive encryption of even the most innocuous network traffic.) 24.6.86.200 ( talk) 08:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia currently has a policy against Wikipedia allowing original research but what if an academic knows of original research which is currently at "in press" statement - would this count as "original research"? It has long been my view that what ever the faults of Wikpedia may be, it surely has the merit of being the world's most up-to-date encyclopaedia. To ensure up-to-date coverage of academic topics, how about a policy where academics can cite articles for publication which are not yet published in print form, but which are currently "in press", even if these are articles which the academics themselves have written? ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 20:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for raising these points in response to my earlier suggestion. I am now happy to recant - in particular, TenofAllTrades, I felt, had a good point about journal editors getting upset if material is too widely distributed ahead of distribution! The only point I would challenge in the all above comments is the attempt to belittle social sciences (I think that some sociology academics might be rather annoyed by suggestions that their papers are less than "academic"); however, I do wish to offer thanks to all who responded. My final decision - let us just stay as we are! ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 20:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Very early on, IIRC some scientists (experts in their field!) would add clues to new stuff they were working on to wikipedia. It's an old trick, to establish that you were the first person to work on/discover something. Due to NOR being expanded way beyond its original parameters (where it was only there to stop cranks), this kind of thing is no longer possible, and at times we may need to wait years before the same information is added. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 17:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I have recently come across an article ( Sadaqah) that I feel would benefit with having a translation of its title into Arabic at the start of the article (rather like articles like Zakat). However, I did not manage to find any appropriate template for this, and was forced to create Wikipedia:Translation/Sadaqah, although that is not quite what I want.
I therefore propose that a template be created for when people want specific sections or words in articles in the English Wikipedia to be translated into other languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by It Is Me Here ( talk • contribs) 09:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I haven't fully read through Help:Sections, but I don't think it says anything on this matter. Should we have any recommendations on empty sections? I think these look rather unprofessional, and generally keep them within hidden comment tags myself. This also applies to sections which aren't empty per se, but have only a 'this section is a stub' or 'this article cites no sources' tag. It's very 'scaffoldy' and I think we should avoid these. However, I have no idea whether others will agree on this. I would bring it up on the respective page, but there won't be any replies, and it's one of those meta crossover pages where I have no idea which talk page to use anyway. Richard001 ( talk) 00:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm just old fashioned, see:
http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_to_consider
specifically:
I think I still agree with the reasoning presented there. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 17:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Location of search box: left margin is fine, but it should be placed higher, more towards the top of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.135.37.84 ( talk) 19:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I have created a new archive box to replace the current {{ archives}}, {{ archive box}}, and {{ archive box collapsible}} templates. It incorporates all of the necessary parameters. Could I please get some comments/suggestions on it. And how would I go about implementing it? Thanks, MrKIA11 ( talk) 03:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
There exist on Wikipedia a huge number of figures converted from some unit to another. When the ratio used for this calculation changes, the numbers given become less accurate. A system whereby a measure could be given a unit (e.g. U.S. Dollars) and a date (1988) could be added to the Wikipedia software that would automatically update this number for inflation at some regular time interval. Another example of where this could be useful is in the price of a commodity such as gold. On pages where dollar amounts for gold are given, these sums could be dynamic, changed by the software to reflect the current market value of the holding. An additional use for an arrangement such as this could be giving figures in Euros (or any other currency) their current equivalent dollar value, or vice versa. The necessary information is available from a huge number of websites, but I don't know what their use policies are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reb42 ( talk • contribs) 21:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
{{inflation|USD|1988|99.95}}
After moving a page, the following message is presented:
Please check whether this move has created any double redirects, and fix them as necessary. For this purpose, you can use the following text: #REDIRECT [[Eight-cell stage]]''
However bots exists whose speciality is checking the list of double redirects and correcting them automatically, less than half an hour after their creation.
Humans have a special ability to think in a way that bots cannot, and their time should not be wasted on this pointless, tedious, demoralising work that is practically designed for a piece of mindless computer code. The time of a human editor is better spent on things that a bot cannot do, and sparing it in this way, will free the time for more productive purposes and boost the morale of all. ---- Seans Potato Business 14:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
When preforming mindless tasks such as fixing double redirects with a bot, you often encounter pages protected (generally for vandalism). These would have to be dealt with manually and this is quite irritating. And they eventually pile up if left unattended.
I propose the idea that bots be allowed to edit protected pages. Since all bot edits are REQUIRED to be non-controversial this shouldn't be an issue. I am posting this to start a general discussion on the mater.
-- Cat chi? 23:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I wrote some code which would allow Template:User to be interwikied.
Etcetera. It works for all wikis.
Useful, huh?
If you think so, leave a comment at Template talk:User#Altering template-user to allow for Interwiki. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 08:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This has been sitting around for a while, so I thought I'd get this page some attention. Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals has a few gadget proposals (such as the log table and metadata scripts) that have been there for quite a long time with no objections, some support, but not many people commenting. I'm requesting some more input on these proposals or, better yet, for an administrator to simply make them into gadgets.
Please respond at Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals. Pyrospirit ( talk · contribs) 00:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I think to make conversations easier between people an instant messager should be introduced. Many people would be allowed to contribute to the conversations and also consensus building would be done much more quickly and effectively. Anybody up for a trial run of Wikimessenger? -- Hadseys ( talk • contribs) 13:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
When possible, real time communications are to be preferred. (see: OODA loop). -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 23:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering how to best handle the certain situations that happen in "Political Positions of" articles for both politicians and commentators such as Politics of Bill O'Reilly and Political Positions of John Edwards. There seem to be criticism articles of people, such as Criticism of Bill O'Reilly, but I wanted a policy defined for when to post a criticism. Again, using Bill O'Reilly as an example, if someone was found criticizing him or his actions it should be mentioned in the "Criticism of" article, but if they had a criticism of his particular policy it should be mentioned in the "Politics of" article.
A criticism of policy would be "so and so believes that Bill O'Reilly's position on immigration does not take into account..." as opposed to a general criticism of either conservative or liberal ideology/positions. If there is a criticism of conservative (or liberal) positions in general, such as "being against pro-choice (or pro-life) is bad because...", then I personally think it should not be included.
Again, just using O'Reilly as an example here. It should be applied to all commentators and politicians both. Of course, all criticism should follow BLP and the editor must still maintain NPOV when citing the criticism. What do you guys think, allow the criticisms or disallow them? Arnabdas ( talk) 19:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
When in a portal, clicking on Random article, should return an article within that portal. Eav ( talk) 21:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I would give my kingdom for "random unpatrolled". The community dynamics would be really useful. (unlikely that 2 people patrol the same page, and a quick way to up your edit count. Who wouldn't use it?) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 00:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC) not that I need to up my edit count
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
When a person adds a merge template to an article, A to be merged with article B (i.e. {{merge|B}}), then automatic addition of the corresponding template to the sister article, B ({{merge|A}}) would save the editor time and effort. You wont need to notify anyone of the change, 'cause they'll notice it themselves when they go to the second article. A {{mergeto|B}} template will obviously invoke a {{mergefrom|A}} on the sister article. ---- Seans Potato Business 22:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Please redirect me to Bugzilla if this does require a change in software but could we please have the 'Save changes' button no longer being the default (perhaps the 'Show preview' button would be a better default). I request this because when attempting to use the shift and/or delete keys I sometimes accidentally hit the return key which automatically saves the page with the typos etc I was trying to correct. I realise that this is due to my own clumsiness but it would make editing just that little bit easier. It would also make edit histories slightly less of a mess because I would not have to make another change to correct my own mistakes in the main article or in the edit summary. Any thoughts? -- Hydraton31 ( talk) 04:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's a simple user script that asks "Are you sure you want to submit?" when you submit the form:
addOnloadHook(function() {
var editform = document.forms"editform"];
if (!editform) return;
editform.onsubmit = function() {
return confirm("Save changes to " + decodeURIComponent(wgPageName.replace(/_/g, " ")) + "?");
}
});
If accidentally hitting return in the edit summary box is the main problem, or this one gets too annoying, I could write another script that causes hitting the key to do nothing when a form element is focused. (I personally find form submission from the edit summary box useful...) Gracenotes T § 20:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to login! -- Hydraton31 ( talk) 06:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Every year google has an april fool's hoax (see Google's hoaxes ). Should wikipedia have something like this? It would be a great publicity stunt (like the google hoaxes) and increase the circulation of the other lesser know Wikimedia brands as well as livening up the image of wikipedia (as a dull lifeless encyclopedia).... and before anyone bags the idea, consider the advantages over the disadvantages Talk to symode09's or How's my driving? 12:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Apologies if this isn't the right place for article title questions--feel free to redirect me.
With several other editors, I've been working on a cleanup of the various articles about intelligence (i.e., military or national). There is an unsourced stub article Compartmentalization. When I try to search on "Compartmentation", I get redirected to a disambiguation page on compartmentalization, which has a link to intelligence use of the term. It is mentioned that "compartmentalisation" is the UK usage.
Unfortunately, the US usage is "compartmented" or "compartmentation". This is mentioned correctly in Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, and in the Classified information in the United States articles.
My proposal would be to rename the "compartmentalization" article to "compartmentation". I'm willing to take that article in hand, source the term, and add examples, and/or creating an article on "Sensitive Compartmented Information". I might also create an article on "Special Access Program", which is the military equivalent of the "SCI" term specific to intelligence.
The disambiguation page on compartmentalization would also need to change the intelligence-related link to compartmentation. I can check with a UK editor on what they use as the term.
How should I proceed? Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 19:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
My proposal relates to the treatment of vandals. I do my share of recent change patrol and discovered, that our treatment of vandals is quite ineffective. First we warn them. Then, if it's a IP address, we usually don't do anything, because this could affect innocent users too. If it's a registered editor, we delete his account. That's something, which hurts only real editors with many contributions. As long as they don't go crazy, these editors usually don't vandalize wikipedia. The typical vandal is not interested in his account. For him it's easier to create a new account, than it was for us, to delete the old one. We only lose the trace of the vandal and he can begin anew.
Therefore my proposal: Is there a possibility to give the administrators a tool, which changes the color of dangerous IP addresses and/or editors in the article history and the recent changes page, by adding something to the userpage or page of the ID. Today, all names of users with user pages, which were not edited, appear in red. Dangerous IP adresses or users would appear in yellow, brown or another color. To be able to discover them, would make it easier to fight them. I think, that's more effective than to delete their acounts, just to have them create a new, unknown account, one minute later.--
Thw1309 (
talk) 20:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Some commercial sites like amazon note whether the name used by a user is their "real name" or not : it is checked with the name on their credit card.
Wikipedia allows people to use any name they wish, which is fine. But some people would like to use their real name and prove it is their real name (like myself).
Surely it would be possible on wikipedia to set up some mechanism for doing this.
I personally think that except for a very small number of situations where it is not safe to use your real name, real names are much better and encourage honesty and directness.
John C Mullen 90.11.74.49 ( talk) 08:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC) (real name!)
It is possible in some circumstances to identify yourself to the foundation. This is only done when necessary. You can also use crypto-keys to self-identify (though I haven't done so yet). I wonder if we could get pubkey login for wikipedia. :-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 03:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
We already have confirmation of real life identity for users with CheckUser access and Arbitration Committee members. This is for legal reasons and I understand it's necessary but the process is impossible to implement on a larger scale.
I wouldn't mind any real identity confirmation process for regular users and administrators, as long as it is strictly voluntary.
Puchiko (
Talk-
email) 17:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if this has been discussed previously; I haven't been able to find any comments on this so far.
I know this is a big request, but I suggest providing access to Wikipedia over an encrypted/https connection. This would allow users to explore and contribute to Wikipedia without concern about eavesdropping by overly-curious governments, ISPs, neighbors, etc. (And, I'm hopeful that it would set a precedent. I'd like to eventually see pervasive encryption of even the most innocuous network traffic.) 24.6.86.200 ( talk) 08:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia currently has a policy against Wikipedia allowing original research but what if an academic knows of original research which is currently at "in press" statement - would this count as "original research"? It has long been my view that what ever the faults of Wikpedia may be, it surely has the merit of being the world's most up-to-date encyclopaedia. To ensure up-to-date coverage of academic topics, how about a policy where academics can cite articles for publication which are not yet published in print form, but which are currently "in press", even if these are articles which the academics themselves have written? ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 20:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for raising these points in response to my earlier suggestion. I am now happy to recant - in particular, TenofAllTrades, I felt, had a good point about journal editors getting upset if material is too widely distributed ahead of distribution! The only point I would challenge in the all above comments is the attempt to belittle social sciences (I think that some sociology academics might be rather annoyed by suggestions that their papers are less than "academic"); however, I do wish to offer thanks to all who responded. My final decision - let us just stay as we are! ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 20:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Very early on, IIRC some scientists (experts in their field!) would add clues to new stuff they were working on to wikipedia. It's an old trick, to establish that you were the first person to work on/discover something. Due to NOR being expanded way beyond its original parameters (where it was only there to stop cranks), this kind of thing is no longer possible, and at times we may need to wait years before the same information is added. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 17:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I have recently come across an article ( Sadaqah) that I feel would benefit with having a translation of its title into Arabic at the start of the article (rather like articles like Zakat). However, I did not manage to find any appropriate template for this, and was forced to create Wikipedia:Translation/Sadaqah, although that is not quite what I want.
I therefore propose that a template be created for when people want specific sections or words in articles in the English Wikipedia to be translated into other languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by It Is Me Here ( talk • contribs) 09:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I haven't fully read through Help:Sections, but I don't think it says anything on this matter. Should we have any recommendations on empty sections? I think these look rather unprofessional, and generally keep them within hidden comment tags myself. This also applies to sections which aren't empty per se, but have only a 'this section is a stub' or 'this article cites no sources' tag. It's very 'scaffoldy' and I think we should avoid these. However, I have no idea whether others will agree on this. I would bring it up on the respective page, but there won't be any replies, and it's one of those meta crossover pages where I have no idea which talk page to use anyway. Richard001 ( talk) 00:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm just old fashioned, see:
http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_to_consider
specifically:
I think I still agree with the reasoning presented there. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 17:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Location of search box: left margin is fine, but it should be placed higher, more towards the top of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.135.37.84 ( talk) 19:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I have created a new archive box to replace the current {{ archives}}, {{ archive box}}, and {{ archive box collapsible}} templates. It incorporates all of the necessary parameters. Could I please get some comments/suggestions on it. And how would I go about implementing it? Thanks, MrKIA11 ( talk) 03:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
There exist on Wikipedia a huge number of figures converted from some unit to another. When the ratio used for this calculation changes, the numbers given become less accurate. A system whereby a measure could be given a unit (e.g. U.S. Dollars) and a date (1988) could be added to the Wikipedia software that would automatically update this number for inflation at some regular time interval. Another example of where this could be useful is in the price of a commodity such as gold. On pages where dollar amounts for gold are given, these sums could be dynamic, changed by the software to reflect the current market value of the holding. An additional use for an arrangement such as this could be giving figures in Euros (or any other currency) their current equivalent dollar value, or vice versa. The necessary information is available from a huge number of websites, but I don't know what their use policies are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reb42 ( talk • contribs) 21:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
{{inflation|USD|1988|99.95}}
After moving a page, the following message is presented:
Please check whether this move has created any double redirects, and fix them as necessary. For this purpose, you can use the following text: #REDIRECT [[Eight-cell stage]]''
However bots exists whose speciality is checking the list of double redirects and correcting them automatically, less than half an hour after their creation.
Humans have a special ability to think in a way that bots cannot, and their time should not be wasted on this pointless, tedious, demoralising work that is practically designed for a piece of mindless computer code. The time of a human editor is better spent on things that a bot cannot do, and sparing it in this way, will free the time for more productive purposes and boost the morale of all. ---- Seans Potato Business 14:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
When preforming mindless tasks such as fixing double redirects with a bot, you often encounter pages protected (generally for vandalism). These would have to be dealt with manually and this is quite irritating. And they eventually pile up if left unattended.
I propose the idea that bots be allowed to edit protected pages. Since all bot edits are REQUIRED to be non-controversial this shouldn't be an issue. I am posting this to start a general discussion on the mater.
-- Cat chi? 23:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I wrote some code which would allow Template:User to be interwikied.
Etcetera. It works for all wikis.
Useful, huh?
If you think so, leave a comment at Template talk:User#Altering template-user to allow for Interwiki. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 08:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This has been sitting around for a while, so I thought I'd get this page some attention. Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals has a few gadget proposals (such as the log table and metadata scripts) that have been there for quite a long time with no objections, some support, but not many people commenting. I'm requesting some more input on these proposals or, better yet, for an administrator to simply make them into gadgets.
Please respond at Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals. Pyrospirit ( talk · contribs) 00:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I think to make conversations easier between people an instant messager should be introduced. Many people would be allowed to contribute to the conversations and also consensus building would be done much more quickly and effectively. Anybody up for a trial run of Wikimessenger? -- Hadseys ( talk • contribs) 13:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
When possible, real time communications are to be preferred. (see: OODA loop). -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 23:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering how to best handle the certain situations that happen in "Political Positions of" articles for both politicians and commentators such as Politics of Bill O'Reilly and Political Positions of John Edwards. There seem to be criticism articles of people, such as Criticism of Bill O'Reilly, but I wanted a policy defined for when to post a criticism. Again, using Bill O'Reilly as an example, if someone was found criticizing him or his actions it should be mentioned in the "Criticism of" article, but if they had a criticism of his particular policy it should be mentioned in the "Politics of" article.
A criticism of policy would be "so and so believes that Bill O'Reilly's position on immigration does not take into account..." as opposed to a general criticism of either conservative or liberal ideology/positions. If there is a criticism of conservative (or liberal) positions in general, such as "being against pro-choice (or pro-life) is bad because...", then I personally think it should not be included.
Again, just using O'Reilly as an example here. It should be applied to all commentators and politicians both. Of course, all criticism should follow BLP and the editor must still maintain NPOV when citing the criticism. What do you guys think, allow the criticisms or disallow them? Arnabdas ( talk) 19:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
When in a portal, clicking on Random article, should return an article within that portal. Eav ( talk) 21:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I would give my kingdom for "random unpatrolled". The community dynamics would be really useful. (unlikely that 2 people patrol the same page, and a quick way to up your edit count. Who wouldn't use it?) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 00:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC) not that I need to up my edit count