This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals).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
With inflation and the sort often reading numbers of wikipedia can be quite misleading, i purpose starting a policy of tagging all currency with a year. This will allow for possible latter action of:
I realise that there may be some technical barries to either/both of the above 2 but the 1st step would also allow for browser plugins/scripts to do this on peoples machine and get around technical problems, so even if wikipedia never decide to implement the ideas, people will benefit from the extra information.-- 82.35.192.193 ( talk) 06:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The Recent Changes list allows you to hide minor edits and bot edits. This should be available on all history pages. If you're really trying to track how the content of the page has changed, minor/bot edits can just clutter up the whole process. Those edits would still be shown in diffs, obviously. -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The wishlist so far:
Even if hiding edits does end up being too complicated to implement, here's an idea that's not: In addition to displaying edits in groups of 50 - 500, we should be able to display all revisions in the previous day / 3 day / 7 days, etc. just like on the Watchlist. This would be really helpful for pages with a lot of traffic, such as WP:AIV. -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Often we have straw polls or even more official votes for nominations and such. Currently, the convention seems to be listing comments prefixed with a bold "support," "oppose," or some other word. This generally works well, but often people have discussions in the middle of the list of votes or embed their votes in sub-sections and it really makes counting votes hard sometimes. A more serious problem (generally on controversial article talk pages) is when for some reason a bunch of people debate some change to the article and no formal polling takes place. One side will claim there consensus in support, but the other side will claim there is consensus against. It is really hard to actually determine who is for or against certain changes because you have to go through a large rambling talk page to get a sense of who is involved in the dispute and who supports what. I have even seen some talk pages where people argue about the number of supporters/opponents there are in certain arguments. On particularly long pages, it is easy to "hide" polls in the text and get limited (and one-sided) participation which can be used to claim there is consensus.
I would like to suggest having some framework of where users could create dedicated polls off of a talk page that users can vote in and leave comments. The goal would be to provide a simple and hopefully user-friendly way of encouraging polls that are centralized, fully disclosing if there are links to them or something at the top of the talk page maybe, and impartially tallying up votes. Any thoughts? Dwr12 ( talk) 20:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I suggest replacing the former with the latter, because:
After further inspection, it looks like every field that is in the Neighborhood template exists in the Settlement template already, so simply replacing the Neighborhood template with a redirect to the Settlement template should suffice. Thoughts? Gary King ( talk) 02:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I have accepted a nomination to be considered for membership in the Bot Approvals Group. Please express comments and views here. MBisanz talk 08:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Would a page at Wikipedia:List of tips for admins listing things like "Protect Grawp and Toofy Userpages" and "block long german usernames" be a helpful addition. A rotating page of things admins need to we watching for at the moment basically. MBisanz talk 18:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Will there ever be featured disambiguation pages? Alot of those pages are very useful and need to be recognized. If every article in a disambiguation page is featured then the disambiguation page should be featured. -- 70.134.89.205 ( talk) 02:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I have a good idea, and I also think I'm in the right place to post it. But I could be wrong about both, being not too familiar with the innards of this vast awesome tool. But I was wondering if there was a way to change the wikipedia pages from white to black and the font to white. It's already been done with google(blackle.com) where the purpose is to cut energy consumption since it takes less power to generate a black page then a white one. I thought about how often I use this website and wondered how much energy would be saved by a simple change. Hoopesk2 ( talk) 00:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed Proposal/Poll ( talk)
This is a discussion and poll for whether the requirements for autoconfirmation should be increased. - jc37 20:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It is now possible to find articles by how they are categorized using search. To search for articles in a specific category, type incategory:"CategoryName" in the search box. Searching more than one category at the same time performs a rough approximation of category intersection -- finding articles that are common to all the categories searched. For example incategory:"Suspension bridges" incategory:"Bridges in New York City" will return the articles that are common to both categories — the suspension bridges in New York City.
Similarly, an "OR" can be added to join the contents of one category with the contents of another. incategory:"Suspension bridges" OR incategory:"Bridges in New York City" will show all suspension bridges along with all bridges in New York City. This includes suspension bridges which are not in New York City, and bridges in New York City that are not suspension bridges.
The developers have been discussing additional ways of implementing category intersection and unions on the tech mailing list, and community members had previously discussed various changes to the user interface to make this feature easier to use. Unfortunately, the way we have structured categories has made it very difficult to use this feature effectively. To illustrate the problem, searching on incategory:"Suspension bridges" incategory:"Bridges in the United States" yields no results because Category:Bridges in the United States has been diffused into its subcategories by state. Unless categories are reorganized, this feature will have limited valued in Wikipedia. To discuss possible changes to categorization policy see Wikipedia talk:Categorization. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
DISCUSSION MOVED TO Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Category intersection update, PLEASE COMMENT ON THAT PAGE
Many search engines and websites have something called a "Safe Search" or "Adult Filter" function. Wikipedia does not have such a thing. This causes many parental controls and corporate content filters to block Wikipedia. That sucks. Is there any way we could create such a feature so that Wikipedia would not get blocked? GO-PCHS-NJROTC ( talk) 02:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
"(removed for security) <(removed for security)@embarqmail.com> writes: >Why exactly is Wikipedia blocked anyway? > (removed for security),
I take it that you are a student? I could not find a teacher with that name.
The short story is that I have to follow district policy. wikipedia is a very interesting and sometimes useful site. I won't argue about whether or not its all guaranteed to be factual since it is created "by the people for the people". As with anything, consider the source.
You may have noticed that most of the search engines like Yahoo! and Google are forced to use "safe search" settings. wikipedia has no such functionality. It wants to be uncensored. That is all well and good, but because of this, the site includes a porn star database, "recipies" for doing bad or dangerous things (I'm intentionally being vague on that one), etc.
Wikipedia is like the Internet in it's own little world, it has a bit of everything. Because of the "bad stuff" one can find on wikipedia, it is blocked.
I hope that explanation helps. A school district is required by law to provide safeguards and you won't get the freedom you'd expect at home here."
See, there are content filters blocking Wikipedia. If you'd like, you can contact CCPS at web_security AT ccps DOT k12 DOT fl DOT us (but please don't say anything about the secured site, you'd make lunch time awfully boring as I go to the media center to fight vandals during lunch). GO-PCHS-NJROTC ( talk) 00:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyone who says that "Wikipedia is not censored" is actually a liar, if it weren't censored, vandalism would never be reverted, the notability policy would not exist, WP:NPOV would be unknown to all, WP:UAA would be tagged as humorous, open proxies would be free to edit, spam would be welcome, attack pages would exist indef, WP:CIVIL would be an essay rather than a policy, page protection would be considered a joke... A more appropriate statement would be "Wikipedia is censored," other sites don't have near as many policies and endless cernsorship as we do. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ( talk) 19:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is advocating censoring Wikipedia. What was suggested is a "hook" or an optional feature that would enable people, households or corporations to censor, at their own discretion, a particular brand of content that is often found undesirable. This would enable such individuals to use Wikipedia at their own comfort level. -- Eliyak T· C 00:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't really see what kind of benefit this would add to Wikipedia. Personally, I don't find much use in a bastardized, half-assed version of something. It would seem that the only argument in favor of implementing such a system would be to help try and convince draconian public schools to unblock the project and allow access. However, at that point, it's essentially up to them to dictate what constitutes a bad article or a bad image rather than by operating by consensus on what constitutes such things, which is a terrible idea. I think it best to err on the side of staying with the goals of the project and providing information to everyone. Celarnor Talk to me 11:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I seriously suggest that you start a petition. In this regard, you might like to read Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia and Wikipedia:School and university projects. Anyone who thinks that it would be feasible to implement a system where pages could be flagged on the grounds of their content should take a look at the debates over at AFD. We shouldn't add another layer of administration, policies and rules just because some narrow-minded school districts can't figure out how to configure their net-nanny filters. Wikipedia has information about a wide range of sexual activity, and even some information out how to make certain kinds of infernal machines, but a student who cannot figure out how to build an Improvised explosive device, and can't manage to get internet access through a mobile phone, will probably not get far just by reading Wikipedia. Back in the days before the evils of the internet and The Anarchist Cookbook, my friends at school were successfully building chlorine bombs and match-head bombs. If students are looking at nekkid pictures on Wikipedia when they should be working, or where other students can see and be offended, those students should be disciplined. Honi soit qui mal y pense. -- Slashme ( talk) 13:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored, period. Who makes the decision about what is "family friendly?" Google image searches are one thing, but I'm strongly opposed to having a filter capability on the encyclopedia, there's just too much potential for bureaucracy. What's the next step, requiring age verification with a credit card to perform an uncensored search? No way! If parents, schools, or libraries want to filter out objectionable content on the encyclopedia, they can do that on their end easily enough without blocking the whole site. Mister Senseless™ ( Speak - Contributions) 15:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It would be extremely nice if a lot of the data presented on Wikipedia was downloadable. Specifically, every table in Wikipedia should be downloadable (perhaps csv format). I don't know if this is possible right now, but if it is, it's not quite as simple as I think it should be. It should be a click of a button in a the corner of the table. ImperfectlyInformed | { talk - contribs} 04:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
header 1 | header 2 | header 3 |
---|---|---|
row 1, cell 1 | row 1, cell 2 | row 1, cell 3 |
row 2, cell 1 | row 2, cell 2 | row 2, cell 3 |
copy-pastes fine into excel for me - You have to start the mouse-drag outside the table for it to paste properly though. -- Random832 ( contribs) 17:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Still doesn't paste into Excel for me. Strange. Using Firefox. And I did try to start the mouse-drag outside the table. ImperfectlyInformed | { talk - contribs} 07:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Many of you might know about the articles relating to World War II, their importance and varied quality. In fact, the main article on World War II, the beginning of the modern era, is only a B class article despite the slew of excellent sources out there to use. Presently, the only project working on these articles is a task force with enough members for its own Wikiproject. A topic of such importance deserves more attention, don't you think? Marlith (Talk) 03:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I think in case of spelling errors and such wikipedia should have a search system like googles which provides a did you mean to write this word instead. At the moment wikipedia's searching procedures arent very good at taking spelling mistakes into account -- Hadseys 12:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a proposal by WilyD, which I think has a lot of merit, in terms of not putting things on Google that really don't belong there. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Noindexing Talk Spaces. Thanks.-- Pharos ( talk) 00:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it about time that we have a process to find, review and select A-class articles much in the line of WP:FAC and WP:GAN? Aditya( talk • contribs) 04:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Creating an A-Class assessment process would create more problems than it would solve (seeing as it would solve 0 problems):
The better solution is to remove A-class or place it below GA-class. That's what we did at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry, and we're all happy clams. -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 10:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
In light of this discussion looking at the possibility of putting GA icons on top of articles like the FA icon, I have come to believe that it is even more important to address the issue of the barely functional A-grading of articles. Let me restate the proposal.
I am personally in favor of the former proposition, as it also addresses the fear of the creep. Please, comment. Aditya( talk • contribs) 03:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
If I click my contributions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/WonRyong
I see at the top of the article:
I suggest some more.
How about this idea? -- WonRyong ( talk) 14:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I see that *box fever has swept the Wikipedia nation over the past few months, the easier and more efficient way to make nice message boxes. But, the Wikipedia namespace doesn't use something like that. I think we should just kinda make a metatemplate for the Wikipedia namespace that uses Ambox, but DOES NOT take on the usual appearance of an Ambox at the same time. Like, it could be made to emulate the usual message box styles used for that namespace, but at the same time, be on a more powerful and consistant platform.
So, anyone thing we should have Wmbox or Wpbox or something like that? ViperSnake151 22:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
We should be able to see the traffic to each page. Further, there should be some articles devoted to categorizing and listing the pages with the most traffic. If you can suggest a personal hack to do this, cool, but that doesn't distract from the point: I want this built into WP in a simple, obvious manner. This would be useful because some of us don't want people to be misinformed. Thus the pages which have a lot of traffic could be monitored more closely. ImperfectlyInformed | { talk - contribs} 21:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm an old-timer. If I recall correctly, I think we had this functionality back in 2003 or 2002. It was disabled due to the heavy traffic noted by Carnildo. So, the solution is "donate"! -- Taku ( talk) 23:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I have a interwiki bot.
Thease article's interwiki is too difficult.
Many errors! :(
So, I do not interwiki those.
I suggest.
Make Template:..., Wikipedia:... edit rules for interwiki bots.
Make worldwide rules.
For example,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username
Where is interwiki?
Bot's task is error.
Make worldwide rules for interwiki bots!! -- WonRyong ( talk) 00:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
To the best of my limited knowledge, Wikipedia doesn't include redirects for derogatory terms that are linked to the subjects they are describing, and creating such redirects seems to be interpreted is the equivalent of attacking said subjects. There was a user who redirected the page Turd burglar (UK slang for a gay person I believe) to gay and they were severly reprimanded for this, so I'm not sure it the redirect I pointed out should stay. I propose deleting it.-- Urban Rose 02:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The much-cited "verifiability" policy is a misnomer. What's important is not so much that the citations are verifiable (especially immediately -- we use print sources) but rather that they are credible. If we keep using verifiable in a way that it doesn't mean, we'll keep having confusion. Ultimately we may even distort the meaning of the word itself. I've raised the issue at the Verifiability talk page. ImperfectlyInformed | { talk - contribs} 07:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Most websites with a search feature have an advanced search, where it is possible to very easily narrow down a search. Why not create such a function on Wikipedia? GO-PCHS-NJROTC ( talk) 01:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I know you guys probrably get loads of requests for projects, but shouldn't we have a welcome team? For example, wikiHow do, Wikipedia FR have a few users who welcome you and give some good links to start you off. Thanks -- ♦ { Crimson } ♦ Talk • Contributions 16:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I realize this has been discussed about 30 times before, but it's been a while, and there's no real reason to not discuss it again.
Proposed: We move the Main Page to Portal:Main Page.
It is one of the few pages that is still in the article namespace that is clearly not an article. Obviously Main Page would remain a redirect to Portal:Main Page. And the sidebar and logo could be easily updated to link to the correct location.
Thoughts? -- MZMcBride ( talk) 01:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer Wikipedia:Front Page. Aside from the more friendly name, this would be good for three reasons:
We would of course keep a redirect at Main Page unless we needed that space for an article. — Remember the dot ( talk) 23:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the rationale behind the proposal, but I don't find it sufficiently convincing for such a change. Sorry. - Neparis ( talk) 01:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Prescriptivist reasoning with no pragmatic basis. Has multiple problems which have much more serious implications, both pragmatic and on-principle. — Werdna talk 13:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this is worth doing, considering the drama and waste of time that would come as a result of it. dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 10:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
To restate what's already been said above repeatedly in different words, the only reason to worry about this is some abstract semantic inconsistency. There's no practical benefit. The resulting title would actually be less user-friendly. Newbies and casual surfers who don't know about namespace differences wouldn't care or appreciate the change, at best. At worst, it would confuse people. Equazcion •✗/ C • 10:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The one reason why we would want to do this is consistency with other portals, which is a tiny advantage, and as pointed out it could cause many problems. Not worth it. Hut 8.5 18:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I am a korean wikipedian. I use en-2.
In ko: wiki, I edit 10,000s and I use ko: wiki for 3 years. I edit en: wiki "sometimes" :)
User talk:WonRyong/Archive1#Replaceable fair use Image:Park_Geun-hye.jpg
In my talk page, above template warnig is there. many.
but, I don't know what means.
because, when I read english, I translate and understand. but that warning is too long. I can't understand what mean it.
so, I sugesst korean translate warnig templates!
Example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-old
I click "한국어(korean)", and I can easily understand what mean.
PLEASE!!! MAKE IT!!! :( -- WonRyong ( talk) 12:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
English wikipedia is not for only native english people.
English wikipedia is not for only en-3 or en-4 people.
So many en-1, en-2 people use English wikipedia. Becuase many information is here.
I suggest...hmmm...
For en-1, en-2 users, make other languages' warning templates, please.
English wikipedia is not meta. English wikipedia is not commons.
But, in some respects, English wikipedia is meta. English wikipedia is commons. -- WonRyong ( talk) 12:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I really think we need to remove twinkle from gadgets. When it was in monobooks of users, we were able to remove it when problems arose. Now, we're stuck with the only option of blocking a user when it is misused. I have heard that protecting the monobook works to remove twinkle from the gadgets, but I'm not completely sure on this.
I don't think every user here can be trusted to use twinkle constructively, and as it's easy to install in your monobook, being able to remove the tool from a users monobook is one last safety net. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
← (ec) Perhaps, but I'm sure we could conceive of a way to disable it per-user even though it's not in monobook.js. I see how you may have experienced trouble due to it, but looking at the larger picture, my concern is that it probably does much more good than harm having it more widely available. Equazcion •✗/ C • 18:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Please bear in mind that Twinkle only works for autoconfirmed users. I'll have to look into additional restrictions when I have time. — Remember the dot ( talk) 18:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
It would be possible to have Twinkle turn off if the user's monobook.js is protected, but we'd have to set up a fairly complex cookie system to prevent a significant performance burden. We could also restrict the Twinkle gadget to rollbackers. Or we could remove it entirely and go back to users having to manually add it. You decide. — Remember the dot ( talk) 00:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
restricting twinkle to rollbackers would be a reasonable compromise and have the smallest impact on current users. Gnan garra 01:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I for one support Twinkle being limited to rollbackers. That way, a user's rollback can be removed if an admin wishes to disable Twinkle, even if it's in use as a gadget. dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 11:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you give multiple examples of misuses of Twinkle that justifies changing the requirements? - 62.172.143.205 ( talk) 13:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
About three years ago I recall asking if there was anyway to block a vandal or persistent stalker from posting to your user or user talk page. However, by accident I have recently discovered a way to do just that - at least in terms of a "quicky" vandal who is unwilling or unable to go to the extra trouble it takes to find your user or user talk page and cause trouble. The method is simply to use a different name (such as your real first name) in your raw signature line. The solution is that simple. Thanks. --Taxa 13:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
In addition to what EVula and Matt said, not linking to either your user or talk page is a clear violation of WP:SIG, which states "at least one of those two pages must be linked from your signature." -- Kralizec! ( talk) 17:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I made a kind of silly typo, in other language wiki. It looks something like ('(' and ')' are used instead of '[' and ']' to prevent link here)
((:en:exiting page)) instead of ((:en"existing page))
However, on preview, the interwiki link (on left side, which reads "English" was not red, so I did not notice. (so it went out. and when clicked new page for edit pops out)
Is it possible to make it red?
Thank you very much. AIEA ( talk) 16:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I also found that broken interwikilink is not red either. ie not red is not red, and if you click this link, the page you get is what red link would show in Italian one. It may not be easy for programmers to fix, but it is not straightforward to users to follow link either. AIEA ( talk) 15:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Greetings, There is a BIG backstory behind this article. So have a read of this before commenting - please. The two basic reason behind the repeated deletions of the Corey Worthington article have been WP:ONEEVENT and (my personal opinion) the other main reason has been because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. With his continued coverage in the media over the last few months not relating to the initial event that made him notable, I now believe that ONEEVENT has been well and truly satisfied. To this end, I have been working on the article in userspace but I would now like to promote it to mainspace to allow a broader editorbase to edit it. I have created two subheading below to attempt to contain different disputes about this topic as I am sure it will get into another heated debate - please try to place your comments in the correct one (I reserve the right to move them to the correct heading if they are misfiled) Fosnez ( talk) 07:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's look at the page WP:MOSLINK#Context. This is a guideline, it provides some rules. Now there is Help:Piped link which is a Wikipedia-specific version of m:Help:Piped link. These are Help pages, they explain technical details. Having these pages (guide + help) I'm starting to wonder... What is the possible reason to maintain yet another howto page at Wikipedia:Piped link? This is an instruction creep, pure and simple! Should be split and redirected. And this is just an example, there are some more Wikipedia:xxx pages that unnecessarily replicate Help:xxx pages (instead of redirecting to them). -- Kubanczyk ( talk) 13:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
(moved to Wikipedia talk:Categorization. -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 19:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC))
I beleive that entry is needed for Lt. Micheal Moulton. He was a Revolutionary Soldier and Moulton, Alabama is named after him. He accompananied Gen. Andrew Jackson at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.222.105.224 ( talk) 00:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that many users will use the discussion page of an article to debate the topic of the article, not the article itself. Instead of simply telling them not to discuss these things, give them a space on the page to put links to other website or chatrooms where they can discuss them. 168.216.176.35 ( talk) 14:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been experimenting with a shadowing template I created and decided to test it in my Main Page sandbox. Please check it out and give me feedback. ~ RayLast « Talk!» 02:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
As some might already be aware, I suggested this a while ago, and when no one was interested I made it myself.
Now, keep in mind as you read this, that presently, this toolbar, well, sort of sucks. It's the first Firefox extension I've ever attempted to write, and I didn't have the inclination to really delve deep into the various possibilities. So while I think it's pretty useful, it's really still quite basic, no-frills, and essentially it boils down to some shortcuts that I sought to make for my own use.
Nevertheless, less than 4 months later, the download count reads 600, and that's just at the extension's Mozilla page.
To give you an idea of the significance of that number:
In the past, I think the mention of a Wikipedia toolbar made people cringe, because they think of crappy ad-campaign toolbars like Google and Yahoo. Had I heard the suggestion I might've thought the same myself. However I'd attest now that a toolbar doesn't need to be something that takes over the user's computer. It can instead be a real asset, especially to WP junkies who spend entirely too much time here (such as myself). My goal here is now to get some more interest going in development of this, perhaps even by Wikipedia's developers. There's only so much I can do here myself, and I think it's a shame that a tool with so much interest and potential has to be so limited.
The fact that this toolbar, in its admittedly very basic form, currently averages over 60 downloads a week, just at the secondary site (and that's a number that's been climbing steadily for as long as I can remember) should surely tell us that this is something worth serious consideration. I'm reasonably certain that a well-written tool could help get more people involved in the project, get more of the casual users to be more involved, and not to mention, make work easier for our current regulars. Equazcion •✗/ C • 12:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
There have been some discussion on
Template talk:Reflist about whether to remove multicolumn support from {{
reflist}}.
The simple solution would be to remove support for it in the reflist template, however, some users suggested it might be better to have a policy change? (I'm guessing they where referring to
MoS?). So if you have any thoughts about that please consider taking part in the discussion.
—
Apis (
talk) 21:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I just did my first Deletion review, and as I noted there apparently the Deletion review doesn't drop automatically drop a note on the relevant AfD. That would be convenient for people looking at the AfD later, but even more convenient is that it would let people who are still watching the AfD know about the Deletion review. I think that, whenever possible, we should automatically link relevant things together. Previous AfDs should be automatically linked to later AfDs, previous RfAs should be linked to subsequent RfAs, ect. ImperfectlyInformed | { talk - contribs} 03:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
After the deletion discussion of Modernista!/Notice, which thoroughly rejected the idea of a disclaimer on the Modernista! article, a disclaimer of sorts was added to MediaWiki:Common.js that is displayed to anyone coming to Wikipedia from modernista.com. I do not believe there was community consensus to do so and am proposing that this is removed from Common.js. --- RockMFR 19:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that, like the move feature, we require some time before people are allowed to upload images. I find it quite common to see people who are simply using Wikipedia as their personal image storage place. Besides, there is no reason for someone's first edit to be an image upload. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 00:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Support, this would make it much more difficult for fools to upload vandalistic images and copyright violations. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ( talk) 01:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Why does the German Wikipedia logo look so much better than ours? Can we do whatever they did? Notice their smooth anti-aliasing and lack of any white edge around the globe, despite the transparency. Any thoughts?
Equazcion •✗/ C • 17:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I also like the look of the Simple Wikipedia, it is very crisp and clean. Maybe just a tiny contrast adjustment and it would be better than the German Wikipedia. -- penubag ( talk) 07:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Equazcion •✗/ C • 18:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me know what you think. This is Image:WikiNewSample.png, a sample showing the new image, Image:WikiNew.png, against our background. See Image:WikiNew.png for the actual new logo with transparent background. According to the Bugzilla response, when we're ready, the image needs to be uploaded to Image:Wiki.png, then full protect the image description page again, then re-open the bugzilla ticket. Equazcion •✗/ C • 15:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, there was an article in the New York Times about this on June 25, 2007. See my other comments at the top of this thread for the relevant links and details. Can nobody figure out how to fix these handful of problems at once?!? There are 2 major character issues (Devanagari and Japanese), and 2 minor misplaced accents (Ώ and Й), plus the aesthetic issues discussed above. I'm going to poke a few other talkpages/people, see if we can finally solve it. -- Quiddity ( talk) 22:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
There are a few things about the basic pages that come up when "edit this page" or "history" is pressed that I would like to improve.
I'd like to suggest two additions to image pages; titles (as opposed to file names), and image information boxes.
My first suggestion is titles. While images that are displayed within a wikipedia entry are in boxes that also contain the image's name and artist/photographer, once you click through to the image's own page, there is no longer a simple artist & title summary, only the file name. There might be comments, or general info on the artist that is not specific to the particular image, but not a dedicated place or requirement for an image title. That leaves it to the uploader to have thought to name the file with the picture's title, or at least something that isn't "IMG-0024", but that is rarely the case with images on the internet.
Here are two pages showing images of the same print of Mt Fuji:
1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hokusai-fuji7.png
2.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Red_Fuji_southern_wind_clear_morning.jpg
The first example's picture title is "Image:Hokusai-fuji7.png", and the second's is "Image:Red_Fuji_southern_wind_clear_morning.jpg". Rather than having those file names as titles, I think it would be better if each page's title has both the image name and file name, but on separate lines, like so;
Red Fuji Southern Wind Clear Morning, by Katsushika Hokusai
Filename: Image:Hokusai-fuji7.png
It's personal preference that I want the image title to be bigger than the file name. I'd actually like there to be less of a size difference between the two lines, however this is the best I could do with my limited knowledge of html.
My second suggestion is for a standard info box underneath each image, which can be filled in by users. I would suggest the following (example based on page 2 mentioned above);
Artist: Katsushika Hokusai
Title: Red Fuji Southern Wind Clear Morning
Series: 36 Views of Mount Fuji
Date: Original wood print circa 1830
Edition: circa 1930 reprint
Materials: Wood block print on paper
"Materials" could also be "composition", or whatever word is appropriate to represent the many types of art styles as well as photography, diagrams, etc. Or perhaps there could be different options for different image types, whatever you think would work best. There could also be Additional Comments, where further information, anecdotes, et. could be mentioned.
What do you think? Wwoorrddss ( talk) 04:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The stub template currently has two links, one to "wp:stub", the other to "edit this page". See the proposal at Wikipedia talk:Stub#Proposal to change the second link to a short tutorial on how to add to an article, like on the French wikipedia. 199.125.109.126 ( talk) 16:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[Note: I take no credit for this idea, I am just the messenger.]
User:Lenoxus has had an idea for standardisation of redirect templates. The idea basically boils down to a meta-template replacing all those
separate templates for categorising redirects. This would allow standardisation and easy adding of multiple reasons to redirects. Please comment over at
WikiProject Redirects to keep all discussion coherent. Thanks.
RichardΩ612
Ɣ
ɸ 20:01, May 18, 2008 (UTC)
dab
or r dab
into the template instead of
Redirects to disambiguation pages
, the current category.I have 3 or 4 usernames.
REASON: forget password, email account is deleted, etc.
I want to merge their edit history, counts, watchlist, etc.
I moved user page and user talk page manually.
But I can not move edit history, edit counts.
make this feature, pleas! :) -- WonRyong ( talk) 22:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
(Duped from here) So we've got stars at the top-right of individual FC items, but there's usually no way to tell if (say) an article's featured unless you go there. What if FC links appeared as a different color than blue, say, green? Since FC articles inevitably touch upon more than just their own subjects, greenlinks could help browsing by steering people to the best prospects for research. It'd also provide an additional reward for FC stuff in terms of added visibility. Thoughts? Cheers, Mdiamante ( talk) 13:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This is possible with FlaggedRevs, i.e. create a "featured" level of assessment that is the highest and that list would be available through some special page. As for the different color links, that's an issue for Bugzilla. MER-C 06:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
We've had considerable discussion, and we're considering putting A below GA, and adding a C-Class between Start and B. Please choose your favourite option here. Walkerma ( talk) 05:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I have a suggestion. Why don't you include a tab listing birthdays of all notable people for the specific day? The tab could be right next to the "recent deaths" tab. In that way, you can read up on notable people. It should not be too difficult to manage. I find the "recent deaths" very informative, the same will apply here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cozinsky ( talk • contribs) 07:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I think there should be a button I can click that lets me save my favorite pages for viewing later like on youtube. Did anyone already think of this yet, it seems pretty obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcutler ( talk • contribs) 08:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, When you type something into wikipedia and mispell it slighty the relavent page does not come up. But if you do the same on google it says " Did you mean.....". I was wondering how hard it would be to integrate a similar feature onto wikipedia. Could you plesae reply on my talk page or notify me on my talk page if you have replied. Thanks Bit Lordy ( talk) 21:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I think redirects and disambiguation pages work just fine for this purpose. If a redirect doesn't exist for a specific phrase, make one. If a redirect doesn't exist for a typo, learn how to type. -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to submit a patch for this feature. It will be reviewed for its performance impact on the site, code quality, and so on. See How to become a MediaWiki hacker for details. — Werdna talk 13:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I think one of the biggest flaws in wikipedia is it has articles on pretty much every subject but it doesn't take into account human error. For example if you spell a word incorrectly it doesnt recognise it as a mistake and come up with a "did you mean"? message like google does; the best you can hope for is a re-direct which in 9 out of 10 cases don't come up. I propose we implement a did you mean thing when displaying search results with obvious spelling errors -- Hadseys 12:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Support this change - it is becoming more and more common on other sites, and is very useful to users. I have repeatedly noticed its absence (due to my own poor typing!)
Dhollm (
talk) 22:13, 12 May 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
With inflation and the sort often reading numbers of wikipedia can be quite misleading, i purpose starting a policy of tagging all currency with a year. This will allow for possible latter action of:
I realise that there may be some technical barries to either/both of the above 2 but the 1st step would also allow for browser plugins/scripts to do this on peoples machine and get around technical problems, so even if wikipedia never decide to implement the ideas, people will benefit from the extra information.-- 82.35.192.193 ( talk) 06:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The Recent Changes list allows you to hide minor edits and bot edits. This should be available on all history pages. If you're really trying to track how the content of the page has changed, minor/bot edits can just clutter up the whole process. Those edits would still be shown in diffs, obviously. -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The wishlist so far:
Even if hiding edits does end up being too complicated to implement, here's an idea that's not: In addition to displaying edits in groups of 50 - 500, we should be able to display all revisions in the previous day / 3 day / 7 days, etc. just like on the Watchlist. This would be really helpful for pages with a lot of traffic, such as WP:AIV. -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Often we have straw polls or even more official votes for nominations and such. Currently, the convention seems to be listing comments prefixed with a bold "support," "oppose," or some other word. This generally works well, but often people have discussions in the middle of the list of votes or embed their votes in sub-sections and it really makes counting votes hard sometimes. A more serious problem (generally on controversial article talk pages) is when for some reason a bunch of people debate some change to the article and no formal polling takes place. One side will claim there consensus in support, but the other side will claim there is consensus against. It is really hard to actually determine who is for or against certain changes because you have to go through a large rambling talk page to get a sense of who is involved in the dispute and who supports what. I have even seen some talk pages where people argue about the number of supporters/opponents there are in certain arguments. On particularly long pages, it is easy to "hide" polls in the text and get limited (and one-sided) participation which can be used to claim there is consensus.
I would like to suggest having some framework of where users could create dedicated polls off of a talk page that users can vote in and leave comments. The goal would be to provide a simple and hopefully user-friendly way of encouraging polls that are centralized, fully disclosing if there are links to them or something at the top of the talk page maybe, and impartially tallying up votes. Any thoughts? Dwr12 ( talk) 20:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I suggest replacing the former with the latter, because:
After further inspection, it looks like every field that is in the Neighborhood template exists in the Settlement template already, so simply replacing the Neighborhood template with a redirect to the Settlement template should suffice. Thoughts? Gary King ( talk) 02:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I have accepted a nomination to be considered for membership in the Bot Approvals Group. Please express comments and views here. MBisanz talk 08:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Would a page at Wikipedia:List of tips for admins listing things like "Protect Grawp and Toofy Userpages" and "block long german usernames" be a helpful addition. A rotating page of things admins need to we watching for at the moment basically. MBisanz talk 18:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Will there ever be featured disambiguation pages? Alot of those pages are very useful and need to be recognized. If every article in a disambiguation page is featured then the disambiguation page should be featured. -- 70.134.89.205 ( talk) 02:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I have a good idea, and I also think I'm in the right place to post it. But I could be wrong about both, being not too familiar with the innards of this vast awesome tool. But I was wondering if there was a way to change the wikipedia pages from white to black and the font to white. It's already been done with google(blackle.com) where the purpose is to cut energy consumption since it takes less power to generate a black page then a white one. I thought about how often I use this website and wondered how much energy would be saved by a simple change. Hoopesk2 ( talk) 00:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed Proposal/Poll ( talk)
This is a discussion and poll for whether the requirements for autoconfirmation should be increased. - jc37 20:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It is now possible to find articles by how they are categorized using search. To search for articles in a specific category, type incategory:"CategoryName" in the search box. Searching more than one category at the same time performs a rough approximation of category intersection -- finding articles that are common to all the categories searched. For example incategory:"Suspension bridges" incategory:"Bridges in New York City" will return the articles that are common to both categories — the suspension bridges in New York City.
Similarly, an "OR" can be added to join the contents of one category with the contents of another. incategory:"Suspension bridges" OR incategory:"Bridges in New York City" will show all suspension bridges along with all bridges in New York City. This includes suspension bridges which are not in New York City, and bridges in New York City that are not suspension bridges.
The developers have been discussing additional ways of implementing category intersection and unions on the tech mailing list, and community members had previously discussed various changes to the user interface to make this feature easier to use. Unfortunately, the way we have structured categories has made it very difficult to use this feature effectively. To illustrate the problem, searching on incategory:"Suspension bridges" incategory:"Bridges in the United States" yields no results because Category:Bridges in the United States has been diffused into its subcategories by state. Unless categories are reorganized, this feature will have limited valued in Wikipedia. To discuss possible changes to categorization policy see Wikipedia talk:Categorization. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
DISCUSSION MOVED TO Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Category intersection update, PLEASE COMMENT ON THAT PAGE
Many search engines and websites have something called a "Safe Search" or "Adult Filter" function. Wikipedia does not have such a thing. This causes many parental controls and corporate content filters to block Wikipedia. That sucks. Is there any way we could create such a feature so that Wikipedia would not get blocked? GO-PCHS-NJROTC ( talk) 02:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
"(removed for security) <(removed for security)@embarqmail.com> writes: >Why exactly is Wikipedia blocked anyway? > (removed for security),
I take it that you are a student? I could not find a teacher with that name.
The short story is that I have to follow district policy. wikipedia is a very interesting and sometimes useful site. I won't argue about whether or not its all guaranteed to be factual since it is created "by the people for the people". As with anything, consider the source.
You may have noticed that most of the search engines like Yahoo! and Google are forced to use "safe search" settings. wikipedia has no such functionality. It wants to be uncensored. That is all well and good, but because of this, the site includes a porn star database, "recipies" for doing bad or dangerous things (I'm intentionally being vague on that one), etc.
Wikipedia is like the Internet in it's own little world, it has a bit of everything. Because of the "bad stuff" one can find on wikipedia, it is blocked.
I hope that explanation helps. A school district is required by law to provide safeguards and you won't get the freedom you'd expect at home here."
See, there are content filters blocking Wikipedia. If you'd like, you can contact CCPS at web_security AT ccps DOT k12 DOT fl DOT us (but please don't say anything about the secured site, you'd make lunch time awfully boring as I go to the media center to fight vandals during lunch). GO-PCHS-NJROTC ( talk) 00:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyone who says that "Wikipedia is not censored" is actually a liar, if it weren't censored, vandalism would never be reverted, the notability policy would not exist, WP:NPOV would be unknown to all, WP:UAA would be tagged as humorous, open proxies would be free to edit, spam would be welcome, attack pages would exist indef, WP:CIVIL would be an essay rather than a policy, page protection would be considered a joke... A more appropriate statement would be "Wikipedia is censored," other sites don't have near as many policies and endless cernsorship as we do. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ( talk) 19:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is advocating censoring Wikipedia. What was suggested is a "hook" or an optional feature that would enable people, households or corporations to censor, at their own discretion, a particular brand of content that is often found undesirable. This would enable such individuals to use Wikipedia at their own comfort level. -- Eliyak T· C 00:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't really see what kind of benefit this would add to Wikipedia. Personally, I don't find much use in a bastardized, half-assed version of something. It would seem that the only argument in favor of implementing such a system would be to help try and convince draconian public schools to unblock the project and allow access. However, at that point, it's essentially up to them to dictate what constitutes a bad article or a bad image rather than by operating by consensus on what constitutes such things, which is a terrible idea. I think it best to err on the side of staying with the goals of the project and providing information to everyone. Celarnor Talk to me 11:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I seriously suggest that you start a petition. In this regard, you might like to read Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia and Wikipedia:School and university projects. Anyone who thinks that it would be feasible to implement a system where pages could be flagged on the grounds of their content should take a look at the debates over at AFD. We shouldn't add another layer of administration, policies and rules just because some narrow-minded school districts can't figure out how to configure their net-nanny filters. Wikipedia has information about a wide range of sexual activity, and even some information out how to make certain kinds of infernal machines, but a student who cannot figure out how to build an Improvised explosive device, and can't manage to get internet access through a mobile phone, will probably not get far just by reading Wikipedia. Back in the days before the evils of the internet and The Anarchist Cookbook, my friends at school were successfully building chlorine bombs and match-head bombs. If students are looking at nekkid pictures on Wikipedia when they should be working, or where other students can see and be offended, those students should be disciplined. Honi soit qui mal y pense. -- Slashme ( talk) 13:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored, period. Who makes the decision about what is "family friendly?" Google image searches are one thing, but I'm strongly opposed to having a filter capability on the encyclopedia, there's just too much potential for bureaucracy. What's the next step, requiring age verification with a credit card to perform an uncensored search? No way! If parents, schools, or libraries want to filter out objectionable content on the encyclopedia, they can do that on their end easily enough without blocking the whole site. Mister Senseless™ ( Speak - Contributions) 15:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It would be extremely nice if a lot of the data presented on Wikipedia was downloadable. Specifically, every table in Wikipedia should be downloadable (perhaps csv format). I don't know if this is possible right now, but if it is, it's not quite as simple as I think it should be. It should be a click of a button in a the corner of the table. ImperfectlyInformed | { talk - contribs} 04:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
header 1 | header 2 | header 3 |
---|---|---|
row 1, cell 1 | row 1, cell 2 | row 1, cell 3 |
row 2, cell 1 | row 2, cell 2 | row 2, cell 3 |
copy-pastes fine into excel for me - You have to start the mouse-drag outside the table for it to paste properly though. -- Random832 ( contribs) 17:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Still doesn't paste into Excel for me. Strange. Using Firefox. And I did try to start the mouse-drag outside the table. ImperfectlyInformed | { talk - contribs} 07:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Many of you might know about the articles relating to World War II, their importance and varied quality. In fact, the main article on World War II, the beginning of the modern era, is only a B class article despite the slew of excellent sources out there to use. Presently, the only project working on these articles is a task force with enough members for its own Wikiproject. A topic of such importance deserves more attention, don't you think? Marlith (Talk) 03:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I think in case of spelling errors and such wikipedia should have a search system like googles which provides a did you mean to write this word instead. At the moment wikipedia's searching procedures arent very good at taking spelling mistakes into account -- Hadseys 12:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a proposal by WilyD, which I think has a lot of merit, in terms of not putting things on Google that really don't belong there. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Noindexing Talk Spaces. Thanks.-- Pharos ( talk) 00:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it about time that we have a process to find, review and select A-class articles much in the line of WP:FAC and WP:GAN? Aditya( talk • contribs) 04:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Creating an A-Class assessment process would create more problems than it would solve (seeing as it would solve 0 problems):
The better solution is to remove A-class or place it below GA-class. That's what we did at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry, and we're all happy clams. -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 10:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
In light of this discussion looking at the possibility of putting GA icons on top of articles like the FA icon, I have come to believe that it is even more important to address the issue of the barely functional A-grading of articles. Let me restate the proposal.
I am personally in favor of the former proposition, as it also addresses the fear of the creep. Please, comment. Aditya( talk • contribs) 03:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
If I click my contributions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/WonRyong
I see at the top of the article:
I suggest some more.
How about this idea? -- WonRyong ( talk) 14:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I see that *box fever has swept the Wikipedia nation over the past few months, the easier and more efficient way to make nice message boxes. But, the Wikipedia namespace doesn't use something like that. I think we should just kinda make a metatemplate for the Wikipedia namespace that uses Ambox, but DOES NOT take on the usual appearance of an Ambox at the same time. Like, it could be made to emulate the usual message box styles used for that namespace, but at the same time, be on a more powerful and consistant platform.
So, anyone thing we should have Wmbox or Wpbox or something like that? ViperSnake151 22:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
We should be able to see the traffic to each page. Further, there should be some articles devoted to categorizing and listing the pages with the most traffic. If you can suggest a personal hack to do this, cool, but that doesn't distract from the point: I want this built into WP in a simple, obvious manner. This would be useful because some of us don't want people to be misinformed. Thus the pages which have a lot of traffic could be monitored more closely. ImperfectlyInformed | { talk - contribs} 21:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm an old-timer. If I recall correctly, I think we had this functionality back in 2003 or 2002. It was disabled due to the heavy traffic noted by Carnildo. So, the solution is "donate"! -- Taku ( talk) 23:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I have a interwiki bot.
Thease article's interwiki is too difficult.
Many errors! :(
So, I do not interwiki those.
I suggest.
Make Template:..., Wikipedia:... edit rules for interwiki bots.
Make worldwide rules.
For example,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username
Where is interwiki?
Bot's task is error.
Make worldwide rules for interwiki bots!! -- WonRyong ( talk) 00:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
To the best of my limited knowledge, Wikipedia doesn't include redirects for derogatory terms that are linked to the subjects they are describing, and creating such redirects seems to be interpreted is the equivalent of attacking said subjects. There was a user who redirected the page Turd burglar (UK slang for a gay person I believe) to gay and they were severly reprimanded for this, so I'm not sure it the redirect I pointed out should stay. I propose deleting it.-- Urban Rose 02:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The much-cited "verifiability" policy is a misnomer. What's important is not so much that the citations are verifiable (especially immediately -- we use print sources) but rather that they are credible. If we keep using verifiable in a way that it doesn't mean, we'll keep having confusion. Ultimately we may even distort the meaning of the word itself. I've raised the issue at the Verifiability talk page. ImperfectlyInformed | { talk - contribs} 07:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Most websites with a search feature have an advanced search, where it is possible to very easily narrow down a search. Why not create such a function on Wikipedia? GO-PCHS-NJROTC ( talk) 01:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I know you guys probrably get loads of requests for projects, but shouldn't we have a welcome team? For example, wikiHow do, Wikipedia FR have a few users who welcome you and give some good links to start you off. Thanks -- ♦ { Crimson } ♦ Talk • Contributions 16:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I realize this has been discussed about 30 times before, but it's been a while, and there's no real reason to not discuss it again.
Proposed: We move the Main Page to Portal:Main Page.
It is one of the few pages that is still in the article namespace that is clearly not an article. Obviously Main Page would remain a redirect to Portal:Main Page. And the sidebar and logo could be easily updated to link to the correct location.
Thoughts? -- MZMcBride ( talk) 01:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer Wikipedia:Front Page. Aside from the more friendly name, this would be good for three reasons:
We would of course keep a redirect at Main Page unless we needed that space for an article. — Remember the dot ( talk) 23:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the rationale behind the proposal, but I don't find it sufficiently convincing for such a change. Sorry. - Neparis ( talk) 01:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Prescriptivist reasoning with no pragmatic basis. Has multiple problems which have much more serious implications, both pragmatic and on-principle. — Werdna talk 13:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this is worth doing, considering the drama and waste of time that would come as a result of it. dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 10:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
To restate what's already been said above repeatedly in different words, the only reason to worry about this is some abstract semantic inconsistency. There's no practical benefit. The resulting title would actually be less user-friendly. Newbies and casual surfers who don't know about namespace differences wouldn't care or appreciate the change, at best. At worst, it would confuse people. Equazcion •✗/ C • 10:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The one reason why we would want to do this is consistency with other portals, which is a tiny advantage, and as pointed out it could cause many problems. Not worth it. Hut 8.5 18:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I am a korean wikipedian. I use en-2.
In ko: wiki, I edit 10,000s and I use ko: wiki for 3 years. I edit en: wiki "sometimes" :)
User talk:WonRyong/Archive1#Replaceable fair use Image:Park_Geun-hye.jpg
In my talk page, above template warnig is there. many.
but, I don't know what means.
because, when I read english, I translate and understand. but that warning is too long. I can't understand what mean it.
so, I sugesst korean translate warnig templates!
Example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-old
I click "한국어(korean)", and I can easily understand what mean.
PLEASE!!! MAKE IT!!! :( -- WonRyong ( talk) 12:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
English wikipedia is not for only native english people.
English wikipedia is not for only en-3 or en-4 people.
So many en-1, en-2 people use English wikipedia. Becuase many information is here.
I suggest...hmmm...
For en-1, en-2 users, make other languages' warning templates, please.
English wikipedia is not meta. English wikipedia is not commons.
But, in some respects, English wikipedia is meta. English wikipedia is commons. -- WonRyong ( talk) 12:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I really think we need to remove twinkle from gadgets. When it was in monobooks of users, we were able to remove it when problems arose. Now, we're stuck with the only option of blocking a user when it is misused. I have heard that protecting the monobook works to remove twinkle from the gadgets, but I'm not completely sure on this.
I don't think every user here can be trusted to use twinkle constructively, and as it's easy to install in your monobook, being able to remove the tool from a users monobook is one last safety net. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
← (ec) Perhaps, but I'm sure we could conceive of a way to disable it per-user even though it's not in monobook.js. I see how you may have experienced trouble due to it, but looking at the larger picture, my concern is that it probably does much more good than harm having it more widely available. Equazcion •✗/ C • 18:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Please bear in mind that Twinkle only works for autoconfirmed users. I'll have to look into additional restrictions when I have time. — Remember the dot ( talk) 18:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
It would be possible to have Twinkle turn off if the user's monobook.js is protected, but we'd have to set up a fairly complex cookie system to prevent a significant performance burden. We could also restrict the Twinkle gadget to rollbackers. Or we could remove it entirely and go back to users having to manually add it. You decide. — Remember the dot ( talk) 00:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
restricting twinkle to rollbackers would be a reasonable compromise and have the smallest impact on current users. Gnan garra 01:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I for one support Twinkle being limited to rollbackers. That way, a user's rollback can be removed if an admin wishes to disable Twinkle, even if it's in use as a gadget. dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 11:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you give multiple examples of misuses of Twinkle that justifies changing the requirements? - 62.172.143.205 ( talk) 13:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
About three years ago I recall asking if there was anyway to block a vandal or persistent stalker from posting to your user or user talk page. However, by accident I have recently discovered a way to do just that - at least in terms of a "quicky" vandal who is unwilling or unable to go to the extra trouble it takes to find your user or user talk page and cause trouble. The method is simply to use a different name (such as your real first name) in your raw signature line. The solution is that simple. Thanks. --Taxa 13:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
In addition to what EVula and Matt said, not linking to either your user or talk page is a clear violation of WP:SIG, which states "at least one of those two pages must be linked from your signature." -- Kralizec! ( talk) 17:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I made a kind of silly typo, in other language wiki. It looks something like ('(' and ')' are used instead of '[' and ']' to prevent link here)
((:en:exiting page)) instead of ((:en"existing page))
However, on preview, the interwiki link (on left side, which reads "English" was not red, so I did not notice. (so it went out. and when clicked new page for edit pops out)
Is it possible to make it red?
Thank you very much. AIEA ( talk) 16:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I also found that broken interwikilink is not red either. ie not red is not red, and if you click this link, the page you get is what red link would show in Italian one. It may not be easy for programmers to fix, but it is not straightforward to users to follow link either. AIEA ( talk) 15:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Greetings, There is a BIG backstory behind this article. So have a read of this before commenting - please. The two basic reason behind the repeated deletions of the Corey Worthington article have been WP:ONEEVENT and (my personal opinion) the other main reason has been because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. With his continued coverage in the media over the last few months not relating to the initial event that made him notable, I now believe that ONEEVENT has been well and truly satisfied. To this end, I have been working on the article in userspace but I would now like to promote it to mainspace to allow a broader editorbase to edit it. I have created two subheading below to attempt to contain different disputes about this topic as I am sure it will get into another heated debate - please try to place your comments in the correct one (I reserve the right to move them to the correct heading if they are misfiled) Fosnez ( talk) 07:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's look at the page WP:MOSLINK#Context. This is a guideline, it provides some rules. Now there is Help:Piped link which is a Wikipedia-specific version of m:Help:Piped link. These are Help pages, they explain technical details. Having these pages (guide + help) I'm starting to wonder... What is the possible reason to maintain yet another howto page at Wikipedia:Piped link? This is an instruction creep, pure and simple! Should be split and redirected. And this is just an example, there are some more Wikipedia:xxx pages that unnecessarily replicate Help:xxx pages (instead of redirecting to them). -- Kubanczyk ( talk) 13:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
(moved to Wikipedia talk:Categorization. -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 19:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC))
I beleive that entry is needed for Lt. Micheal Moulton. He was a Revolutionary Soldier and Moulton, Alabama is named after him. He accompananied Gen. Andrew Jackson at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.222.105.224 ( talk) 00:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that many users will use the discussion page of an article to debate the topic of the article, not the article itself. Instead of simply telling them not to discuss these things, give them a space on the page to put links to other website or chatrooms where they can discuss them. 168.216.176.35 ( talk) 14:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been experimenting with a shadowing template I created and decided to test it in my Main Page sandbox. Please check it out and give me feedback. ~ RayLast « Talk!» 02:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
As some might already be aware, I suggested this a while ago, and when no one was interested I made it myself.
Now, keep in mind as you read this, that presently, this toolbar, well, sort of sucks. It's the first Firefox extension I've ever attempted to write, and I didn't have the inclination to really delve deep into the various possibilities. So while I think it's pretty useful, it's really still quite basic, no-frills, and essentially it boils down to some shortcuts that I sought to make for my own use.
Nevertheless, less than 4 months later, the download count reads 600, and that's just at the extension's Mozilla page.
To give you an idea of the significance of that number:
In the past, I think the mention of a Wikipedia toolbar made people cringe, because they think of crappy ad-campaign toolbars like Google and Yahoo. Had I heard the suggestion I might've thought the same myself. However I'd attest now that a toolbar doesn't need to be something that takes over the user's computer. It can instead be a real asset, especially to WP junkies who spend entirely too much time here (such as myself). My goal here is now to get some more interest going in development of this, perhaps even by Wikipedia's developers. There's only so much I can do here myself, and I think it's a shame that a tool with so much interest and potential has to be so limited.
The fact that this toolbar, in its admittedly very basic form, currently averages over 60 downloads a week, just at the secondary site (and that's a number that's been climbing steadily for as long as I can remember) should surely tell us that this is something worth serious consideration. I'm reasonably certain that a well-written tool could help get more people involved in the project, get more of the casual users to be more involved, and not to mention, make work easier for our current regulars. Equazcion •✗/ C • 12:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
There have been some discussion on
Template talk:Reflist about whether to remove multicolumn support from {{
reflist}}.
The simple solution would be to remove support for it in the reflist template, however, some users suggested it might be better to have a policy change? (I'm guessing they where referring to
MoS?). So if you have any thoughts about that please consider taking part in the discussion.
—
Apis (
talk) 21:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I just did my first Deletion review, and as I noted there apparently the Deletion review doesn't drop automatically drop a note on the relevant AfD. That would be convenient for people looking at the AfD later, but even more convenient is that it would let people who are still watching the AfD know about the Deletion review. I think that, whenever possible, we should automatically link relevant things together. Previous AfDs should be automatically linked to later AfDs, previous RfAs should be linked to subsequent RfAs, ect. ImperfectlyInformed | { talk - contribs} 03:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
After the deletion discussion of Modernista!/Notice, which thoroughly rejected the idea of a disclaimer on the Modernista! article, a disclaimer of sorts was added to MediaWiki:Common.js that is displayed to anyone coming to Wikipedia from modernista.com. I do not believe there was community consensus to do so and am proposing that this is removed from Common.js. --- RockMFR 19:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that, like the move feature, we require some time before people are allowed to upload images. I find it quite common to see people who are simply using Wikipedia as their personal image storage place. Besides, there is no reason for someone's first edit to be an image upload. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 00:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Support, this would make it much more difficult for fools to upload vandalistic images and copyright violations. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ( talk) 01:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Why does the German Wikipedia logo look so much better than ours? Can we do whatever they did? Notice their smooth anti-aliasing and lack of any white edge around the globe, despite the transparency. Any thoughts?
Equazcion •✗/ C • 17:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I also like the look of the Simple Wikipedia, it is very crisp and clean. Maybe just a tiny contrast adjustment and it would be better than the German Wikipedia. -- penubag ( talk) 07:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Equazcion •✗/ C • 18:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me know what you think. This is Image:WikiNewSample.png, a sample showing the new image, Image:WikiNew.png, against our background. See Image:WikiNew.png for the actual new logo with transparent background. According to the Bugzilla response, when we're ready, the image needs to be uploaded to Image:Wiki.png, then full protect the image description page again, then re-open the bugzilla ticket. Equazcion •✗/ C • 15:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, there was an article in the New York Times about this on June 25, 2007. See my other comments at the top of this thread for the relevant links and details. Can nobody figure out how to fix these handful of problems at once?!? There are 2 major character issues (Devanagari and Japanese), and 2 minor misplaced accents (Ώ and Й), plus the aesthetic issues discussed above. I'm going to poke a few other talkpages/people, see if we can finally solve it. -- Quiddity ( talk) 22:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
There are a few things about the basic pages that come up when "edit this page" or "history" is pressed that I would like to improve.
I'd like to suggest two additions to image pages; titles (as opposed to file names), and image information boxes.
My first suggestion is titles. While images that are displayed within a wikipedia entry are in boxes that also contain the image's name and artist/photographer, once you click through to the image's own page, there is no longer a simple artist & title summary, only the file name. There might be comments, or general info on the artist that is not specific to the particular image, but not a dedicated place or requirement for an image title. That leaves it to the uploader to have thought to name the file with the picture's title, or at least something that isn't "IMG-0024", but that is rarely the case with images on the internet.
Here are two pages showing images of the same print of Mt Fuji:
1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hokusai-fuji7.png
2.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Red_Fuji_southern_wind_clear_morning.jpg
The first example's picture title is "Image:Hokusai-fuji7.png", and the second's is "Image:Red_Fuji_southern_wind_clear_morning.jpg". Rather than having those file names as titles, I think it would be better if each page's title has both the image name and file name, but on separate lines, like so;
Red Fuji Southern Wind Clear Morning, by Katsushika Hokusai
Filename: Image:Hokusai-fuji7.png
It's personal preference that I want the image title to be bigger than the file name. I'd actually like there to be less of a size difference between the two lines, however this is the best I could do with my limited knowledge of html.
My second suggestion is for a standard info box underneath each image, which can be filled in by users. I would suggest the following (example based on page 2 mentioned above);
Artist: Katsushika Hokusai
Title: Red Fuji Southern Wind Clear Morning
Series: 36 Views of Mount Fuji
Date: Original wood print circa 1830
Edition: circa 1930 reprint
Materials: Wood block print on paper
"Materials" could also be "composition", or whatever word is appropriate to represent the many types of art styles as well as photography, diagrams, etc. Or perhaps there could be different options for different image types, whatever you think would work best. There could also be Additional Comments, where further information, anecdotes, et. could be mentioned.
What do you think? Wwoorrddss ( talk) 04:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The stub template currently has two links, one to "wp:stub", the other to "edit this page". See the proposal at Wikipedia talk:Stub#Proposal to change the second link to a short tutorial on how to add to an article, like on the French wikipedia. 199.125.109.126 ( talk) 16:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[Note: I take no credit for this idea, I am just the messenger.]
User:Lenoxus has had an idea for standardisation of redirect templates. The idea basically boils down to a meta-template replacing all those
separate templates for categorising redirects. This would allow standardisation and easy adding of multiple reasons to redirects. Please comment over at
WikiProject Redirects to keep all discussion coherent. Thanks.
RichardΩ612
Ɣ
ɸ 20:01, May 18, 2008 (UTC)
dab
or r dab
into the template instead of
Redirects to disambiguation pages
, the current category.I have 3 or 4 usernames.
REASON: forget password, email account is deleted, etc.
I want to merge their edit history, counts, watchlist, etc.
I moved user page and user talk page manually.
But I can not move edit history, edit counts.
make this feature, pleas! :) -- WonRyong ( talk) 22:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
(Duped from here) So we've got stars at the top-right of individual FC items, but there's usually no way to tell if (say) an article's featured unless you go there. What if FC links appeared as a different color than blue, say, green? Since FC articles inevitably touch upon more than just their own subjects, greenlinks could help browsing by steering people to the best prospects for research. It'd also provide an additional reward for FC stuff in terms of added visibility. Thoughts? Cheers, Mdiamante ( talk) 13:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This is possible with FlaggedRevs, i.e. create a "featured" level of assessment that is the highest and that list would be available through some special page. As for the different color links, that's an issue for Bugzilla. MER-C 06:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
We've had considerable discussion, and we're considering putting A below GA, and adding a C-Class between Start and B. Please choose your favourite option here. Walkerma ( talk) 05:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I have a suggestion. Why don't you include a tab listing birthdays of all notable people for the specific day? The tab could be right next to the "recent deaths" tab. In that way, you can read up on notable people. It should not be too difficult to manage. I find the "recent deaths" very informative, the same will apply here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cozinsky ( talk • contribs) 07:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I think there should be a button I can click that lets me save my favorite pages for viewing later like on youtube. Did anyone already think of this yet, it seems pretty obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcutler ( talk • contribs) 08:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, When you type something into wikipedia and mispell it slighty the relavent page does not come up. But if you do the same on google it says " Did you mean.....". I was wondering how hard it would be to integrate a similar feature onto wikipedia. Could you plesae reply on my talk page or notify me on my talk page if you have replied. Thanks Bit Lordy ( talk) 21:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I think redirects and disambiguation pages work just fine for this purpose. If a redirect doesn't exist for a specific phrase, make one. If a redirect doesn't exist for a typo, learn how to type. -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to submit a patch for this feature. It will be reviewed for its performance impact on the site, code quality, and so on. See How to become a MediaWiki hacker for details. — Werdna talk 13:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I think one of the biggest flaws in wikipedia is it has articles on pretty much every subject but it doesn't take into account human error. For example if you spell a word incorrectly it doesnt recognise it as a mistake and come up with a "did you mean"? message like google does; the best you can hope for is a re-direct which in 9 out of 10 cases don't come up. I propose we implement a did you mean thing when displaying search results with obvious spelling errors -- Hadseys 12:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Support this change - it is becoming more and more common on other sites, and is very useful to users. I have repeatedly noticed its absence (due to my own poor typing!)
Dhollm (
talk) 22:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)