This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals).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
In general, Wikipedia avoids phrases such as "recently" and "this year" that will go out of date quickly. But I think we need to avoid even phrases that will go out of date slowly, for two reasons:
First, it is entirely possible for an article to go without proper updating indefinitely, which could mean millions of years if Wikipedia remains active that long.
Second, if the human race or human civilization dies out, but has a successor, Wikipedia will become an archeological record. In this case, it will be more useful if all of its dates are absolute and the archeologist doesn't need to guess whether it's been 1 or 2 million years since something was dated to "2.4 million years ago."
Making dates truly ageless doesn't have to be hard. Just change "5 million years ago" to "5 million years BC," "approximately 18,000 years ago" to "approximately 16,000 years BC," and "1030 years from now" to "1030 years AD." Neon Merlin 13:27, 18 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 have seen a rise in abuse of Twinkle since it has been added to the Gadgets list. Well I was thinking maybe admin should have the ability to restrict a person's gadgets. Like if a person is abusing Twinkle instead of blocking you can turn off the gadget and then lock the monobook (just in case). It is just because people using the Gadgets make it hard for admin and that the only thing you can do is block them. Rgoodermote 20:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Please come over to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Burmese) and state whether or not you would like to approve our naming conventions. We don't have many, so it won't take much of your time. Thanks! Kaldari ( talk) 15:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I proposal a way to search for all the contributions by a the same contributor on a specific talk page, article page, category page, etc. etc.
We can go to User contributions and see what the user contributed, using filters and using the drop down box to filterout for say contributions in the Articlespace. We need to search for contributions by editors for contributions in an article space for a specific article, let's say, so we can track down all the vandalism to the article contributed by the editor, let's say that it was pov. Please post this on the proposal media bugzilla or whatever cause I don't have an account. Thanks so much! 68.148.164.166 ( talk) 20:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Ever read a diff on an incredibly long page that you would like to reply to? What a hassle! You have to either find the exact section the comment was made in or you hit edit and wait a million years for the kilobytes of page text that has nothing to do with your edit to load. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to reply directly to a comment that was made. It would be easy to write a script that would insert the new comment directly below the other comment with the appropriate indentation. That would be glorious! Please, developers, develop this feature! I don't have this page on my watchlist, so if someone says they want to join me in rallying for this feature, comment on my talk page. ScienceApologist ( talk) 23:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This suggestion sort is something I've had in mind for a while, but it also sort of ties in with the previous one.
The most frequent reason I look at article histories is to find the change that added a specific part of the text. That's the sort of task a computer could do much more easily. I envision two ways to provide this function, one pretty simple and the other not.
The simple one is to provide, for every section of every article, a "section history" link that would display a list exactly like the article history page, but restricted to edits that may have affected the specific section. To keep the processing simple, edits that don't have a /* section */ command in their edit summary would always be included -- although it would be better if there was a database identifying which sections were edited in each change, so they could be included or excluded from the list as applicable.
The section history links could appear either on their own page with a manu based on the TOC (perhaps alphabetized, since section titles will have changed over time) and reached by a single link from the article and/or article history pages. Or alternatively, the section titles appearing in gray in the article history could become links to section histories.
Where an edit changes the title of a section, it would be ideal for this to be recognized and a combined history provided, but the simple solution of treating a retitled section as a new section that replaces the older one would still be practical.
A more general technique would be to provide a form into which a chunk of text from the article could be pasted. The edit history would be scanned and all edits affecting text that matches that chunk would be listed. The comparison would be have to be on a form of the text resembling what you get if you copy-and-paste the rendered page, excluding all Wikimarkup.
No, I don't expect this would be fast -- but it'd be faster than doing it "by hand", and when it's what you want, it's what you want.
-- 207.176.159.90 ( talk) 00:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I viewed the following page "Deus", and thought in general it would be cool, if one could click on the word
"pronounced",
and have the computer audio teach how to pronounce it. I would do it myself, but I am a real dunce in the computer world and am scheduled to die well before this task could be acheved. Hope some computer literate younger person might think this a worthy task. Good luck!
Deus (pronounced ['deːus]) is the Latin word for "god" or "deity". The Latin words deus and dīvus, and Greek διϝος = "divine", are descended from Proto-Indo-European *deiwos = "divine", from the same root as Dyēus, the reconstructed chief god of the Proto-Indo-European pantheon, also a cognate of the Greek Ζευς (Zeus). By the era of Classical Latin it ... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.190.247.176 (
talk)
17:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an easy cleanup category to patrol - but there are a stack of "User:" and "Wikipedia:" space entries here - clearly the software is labelling user mainspace and Wikipedia project/policy mainspace as general mainspace. Can this be fixed? (i.e. so only article mainspace appears) Cricketgirl ( talk) 08:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The categories which I try to do some work in, as a German-English bilingual, such as Category:Rough translations and Category:Wikipedia articles needing cleanup after translation, are generated by templates which have a parameter for sources language - so would it be possible to split the cleanup categories by language? It's really annoying to have to click through almost every article trying to find the ones that are from German - and having a distinct category for, say, Japanese, might make it easier to recruit Japanese-English bilingual help. Cricketgirl ( talk) 08:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
A friend of mine had a birthday this week and I thought it would be fun if I could link to a page that shows historical figures that she is now older than. It would cross reference to a sentence on biographies that says [person] was ## years old when they died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vtricia ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone has been going around changing all of the
current event templates to use
instead of
. Frankly, the one we were using before looks much better. I propose that we go back to the old icon on all the current event template messages. —
Remember the dot (
talk)
05:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking about a rating system for images similar to WP:ASSESS. Any ideas? Red Thunder 14:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
When I became an admin I spent a lot of time just finding the templates to use when closing xfd:s, and I kept forgetting where the instructions were. To make it easier for new admins to get the hang of things (and for old admins to get involved in new areas) I suggest that we work out some sort of standard location to keep admin instructions, so when you come to a page like AfD or rfpp the "technical" instructions would always be in the same location. I've created a suggestion of how it could look like, if a link in the top right corner was used. I think a standard location of admin instructions would have several benefits:
I guess my most important point is that I really think a standard location for admin instructions would make life easier for everyone. The exact implementation could be something totally different from what I suggested. The instruction pages should not contain any actual policies or policy interpreting stuff, just describe the process, present all the templates that an admin would need and links to the appropriate policies. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 00:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Since this seems to be an uncontroversial suggestion I've gone ahead and implemented it at WP:RFPP and I've also made an AfD example page. More opinions would be appreciated. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 16:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Today a fairly big change of the functionality of links in the {{ shortcut}} templates was suggested. (The links will no longer take you back to the page the box is on, but instead to the shortcut redirect page.) The change seems like a useful improvement so I am thinking of adding it. Since this affects lots of project pages (like this page) and I know many of you reading this page uses such shortcuts I thought it best to announce it here too. Take a look at the discussion and examples at Template talk:Shortcut#Shortcut links.
And while I am at it: We added a feature to the shortcut templates some week ago: They now automatically add section anchors to the pages they are used on. See documentation of the anchor functionality at {{ shortcut}}.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 02:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Has a Common Sense Noticeboard ever been considered? By that I mean a noticeboard where disputes involving claims of common sense could be linked to, which could also potentially serve as examples of how policies and guidelines may need to be reworded. I originally posted this suggestion on the WP:COMMON discussion page, but that appears to get very little attention, so I thought this was probably a better place to suggest it. PSWG1920 ( talk) 22:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I see that a "common sense noticeboard" per se might not be such a good idea, but what about a centralized location with links to discussions on article talk pages which potentially serve as examples of how policies and guidelines might need to be reworded? PSWG1920 ( talk) 22:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I generally love Wikipedia and use it almost daily, but from time to time there are particular details on topics that I'd like to see expanded. I have a very slow internet connection, so there may already be a way to do this that I haven't found, but could there be a mechanism to request expansion on topics, maybe by flagging the article? I think something like this could help Wikipedia grow by providing authors with a means of feedback so they know what readers want to know more about. This may not be practical and I doen't expect any kind of personalized service, but it could result in a one stop place where someone who wanted to contribute could see what topics have a demand for more details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.236.155.76 ( talk) 21:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I’d like to suggest that an administrator noticeboard be set up handle threats of violence or suicide made anywhere on Wikipedia. The standard response to this is usually to contact the local authorities with any information available I believe. (I’m not sure if we have a formal policy on that though.) I suggest this be called Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/threats or something similer.
I’m suggesting this as a follow up to this thread on WP:AN/I. (For further discussion of these issues please also see discussion here.) -- S.dedalus ( talk) 00:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There are a lot of articles that could be vastly improved by the inclusion of videos of sufficient quality and length which are not difficult to obtain. Liquid crystal thermometer, for example, is hard to understand without a non-static visual reference. Since the Template:Reqvideo is seldom used and the Template:Reqphoto is way overused, how about a central video request page, where articles in need of videos could be listed, and people could contribute their own videos to it? Dr. e X treme 23:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Theres "Audio and Visual requests" on Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Audio_and_video_requests -- Coasttocoast ( talk) 00:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we should try this w:es:Plantilla:Muchasref. It's a very useful tool to make smaller the references section. Srmagnetismo ( talk) 02:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
This? I think it's a good idea, as some references sections are ridiculously long and there is a group of editors who oppose all such methods to remedy this problem citing that the templates are "not standard" which is not a valid reason.
<div style="height: 220px; overflow: auto; padding: 3px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA; reflist4" >
-- .: Alex :. 11:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
<div class="references-small">{{reflist}}</div>
It makes the text in the references section smaller, which is a good alternative to using the scrollable box if it's causing problems (and may not suit the article). .: Alex :. 15:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Unified login is now available. We should have a message to users to Special:MergeAccounts like on other wikis. Reywas92 Talk 22:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be nice if an automatic slideshow of the pictures of an article could be created and accesible at a single click? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon.bastien ( talk • contribs) 02:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I think articles like this one look bad with too much explanations about the pronunciation, that's not so important for using the whole first line. It could be put bellow, or inside anoyher section -- Moraleh ( talk) 02:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I've never really understood why "move" was called "move." In reality, you're not moving anything, you're just changing the title of the page. None of the logs move, none of the deleted revisions move, nada, zilch, squat-diddily. The history moves over, but that's sort of an expected result of renaming something. In short, there is, so far as I can tell, no point whatsoever in calling that a "move." Because that's exactly what it isn't. I'm not the only one confused by this, either - the help desk gets asked on a regular basis "How do I edit the title?", "How do I rename this page?", or my personal favorite, the all-caps "WRONG TITLE". Here's one today, from Apr. 14, from Apr. 9, just after that last one, and so on. Mind, we do get a LOT of repeat questions, but renaming this tab would be really helpful in reducing those numbers, as well as reducing the number of confused newbies who don't bother asking. Of course, the log will still appear as a "Move log", but those who need to check those logs will probably know what it's referring to. For reference, the appropriate MediaWiki page is MediaWiki:Move. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 23:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This has come up here before. While move doesn't really fit, rename just invites newbies to vandalize with it or test it even more than just move does. Reywas92 Talk 01:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the point. Move and rename are synonyms computer-wise - I don't think one is any clearer than the other - Halo ( talk) 17:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this one's dead... It's been here for a month and a half and there is more opposition than support. Does any one agree that it is time for archiving? Waltham, The Duke of 03:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Transcluded from Wikipedia:Rollback feature/throttle removal
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.
The following discussion was moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Non-admin rollbackers
I don't know if this has been/is being discussed somewhere else, or even if this is the correct place to post this, but I think that non-admin rollbackers should be allowed to make more than 5 rollbacks in a minute before being throttled. I think that they (OK, we) should be able to make at least 10 rollbacks (15 would be better) before being throttled.
Considering that rollback rights are not automatically assigned (as autoconfirmed rights are), I do not see any reason that we should be restricted so much. I use Huggle rather vigorously, and I would be able to be much more effective in my vandal-fighting (especially during high-volume times) if I was not slowed down by having to force Huggle to mimic the rollback feature for 5/6 of the time after I use up my 5 rollbacks in 10 seconds. (which I do fairly frequently when vandalism is at its peak)
Also, I sometimes encounter someone who adds external links (pointing to pages in the same website) to many articles (think 15-25) before I realize what he/she is doing. I review their contribs in Huggle to ensure that they are all spam, and if they have not been warned previously, I usually give them either a level 2 or a level 3 warning, open their contribs, and click on the rollback links. It is incredibly annoying to only be able to do 5 rollbacks, and then having to click "undo" for the rest. J.delanoy gabs adds 02:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like it should be much of a risk to increase the limit to, say, 25 or even 50 rollbacks per minute. Actually, I'm not sure it even really needs a limit at all; after all, the worst you could do with unlimited rollback would be to run a bot to rollback every page and every new edit as soon as it's made — and that would just get you blocked quickly and the rollbacks reverted. Yes, that would be a nuisance, but hardly a serious one. Probably about equal in overall annoyance level to a 5-minute database lock or thereabouts. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 14:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
←OK, it looks like several people think it's a good idea, so, how do we move forward from here? Should I create a poll somewhere to try to get more community input? If so where should I create it? As a subpage of WP:ROLLBACK? J.delanoy gabs adds 21:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I put a limit on it because I thought we were going to be sensible and give rollback to all users, and I had the limit set accordingly. I'm not attached to it, and it was pretty much plucked from thin air, so there's no big deal in upping it two or three-fold. FWIW, I've hit this limit too, and it's a bit of a pain. — Werdna talk 09:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
As the person who filed
bug 12760 back when rollback was first made available, this obviously has my full support. I can confirm that the limit is easily reached during busy periods when only a handful of people are patrolling recent changes. While I have addressed this to some extent in
Huggle by falling back to normal reversion rather than just displaying an "Action throttled" error message, the difference in speed can be significant
Gurchzilla (
talk)
12:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, it looks like we have quite a bit of support for this. I'm going to move it to
WP:VPP and open a straw poll.
J.delanoy
gabs
adds
15:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Previous discussion from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Non-admin rollbackers. Please add any new discussion in the section below.
It seems that most of the people above supported removing the limit entirely. When I originally made the post, I did not want to sound too radical. (for lack of a better term) Many of the users who supported removing the limit entirely on VP:technical are administrators, which is why I worded the straw poll the way I did. J.delanoy gabs adds 15:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I count over 30 users in support of either raising the limit or removing it altogether, with no opposition. Enough for now? I'm not too optimistic about the change actually being implemented since I requested it four months ago, but it might be helpful to be able to say "there is consensus for this" -- Gurchzilla ( talk) 16:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
At present, non-admin rollbackers are able to make 5 rollbacks per minute.
Considering that mass rollback vandalism would be fairly easy to revert, and that any admin can remove rollback rights from any non-admin rollbacker, I beg the question:
Should non-admin rollbackers be able to make unlimited rollbacks without being throttled?
(After your signature on your !vote, please include the user group which shows up under Special:ListUsers/ when you type your name in. I do not mean for this to be demeaning to uninvolved parties, it is merely to aid in determining the natural bias of votes, as present rollbackers (e.g. me) would obviously be very likely to support this measure. Thanks.)
I was rather active in the original proposal to implement a non-administrative rollback feature, and I don't recall any mention of a "throttle" or similar limit. Can someone post a link to the discussion that led to the setting of such a limit? Equazcion •✗/ C • 16:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The rollback rate limit has been raised to 100 / minute on all WMF wikis. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 02:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I propose that an example of the raw signature such as: <small>--<font face="rage italic" size="4.5" color="LightSteelBlue"> [[User:taxa|Taxa]]</font> ([[User talk:taxa|talk]])</small> be included on the my preferences page. -- Taxa ( talk) 15:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
For those artsy folk, the English Wikibooks project is choosing a new logo currently. Although we have 10 proposals (which will not be expanded) we would be very much interested in improvements on those proposed logos. Comments would be useful too. Please see m:Wikibooks/Logo. Thanks to anyone who helps! – Mike. lifeguard | @en.wb 23:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
After a quick review of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hkelkar suggests some banned users are most tenacious sock articles. It becomes quite repeatative to file RFCU. May I propse to form a new project or something like WP:Emergency anti-sockpuppet task force etc. to counter the continuous socks. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 18:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know if this has been proposed before, because I haven't read the archives. On the Chinese Wikipedia they have tabs at the top of the page where a user can choose to display all WP pages in the writing style of their choice. The options are: no conversion, Simplified characters, Traditional characters, Mainland simplified, Taiwan variant, Singapore variant, and Hong Kong/Macau variant. The entire page is instantly changed to the style of choice, for example 國 is detected and changed to 国.
Couldn't something like this be implemented on the English Wikipedia, so the user can select their preferred writing style? I'm unaware of differences between the countries of Commonwealth English, so the three tabs would be "no conversion", "Commonwealth English" and "American English". The term "color" would be detected and converted into "colour" at the click of a tab. The tab could be auto-selected based on a user's IP, and a change stored in cookies.
Of course this could bring up server load issues, but I don't know if there are more Chinese character variants than English word variants, or vice versa, so the usage would either be greater or less. Also, there would need to be exceptions, like proper nouns such as Medal of Honor, possibly within article titles or a template that hides the term from detection in article content, along the lines of {{noconvert|Medal of Honor}}.
I wasn't sure if this should be at Bugzilla, but I figured that if it's already done on the Chinese WP, it's already part of the software. -- Joowwww ( talk) 19:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering why exactly the discussion pages are wiki-pages (i.e. editable). Why wouldn't we just use a standardized approach (I'm thinking forum-alike)? I know this would of course a big overhaul, and that it causes problems with respect to the talk-pages already in place. I only would like to know if people agree, aside from the issues above, this would be a better system. Advantages:
Disadvantages (apart from the two posted above):
84.87.183.181 ( talk) 12:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It would be beneficial to users patrolling Special:Newpages if users who create lots of quality articles were excluded from their articles needing review. The 'autopatrol' right is already given to admins and bots - any new pages they create are automatically marked as patrolled. However, many of these users don't want or need the rest of admin tools. This could be given out by admins, similar to rollback and accountcreator, to users with a history of creating good articles (lots of good creations, no problems with articles being deleted). So what do people think? Mr. Z-man 05:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it's un-necessary, and low-risk, if it has to happen then admins giving it out seems fine. — TreasuryTag— t | c 07:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
(Unindent) This sounds like fun. I'd like this kind of access for myself, but I suppose if I really wanted it that badly I could do an RFA. I put "construction" templates to keep the speedy deletion tags off my pages, and I'd prefer not to have to do that, but I've gotten used to it by now. Of course, we must also consider the consequences of creating endless new user access levels for no particularly compelling reason. :) Shalom ( Hello • Peace) 03:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It would be helpful if pages had a link or button so they could be emailed (either the whole text or a link). Job listing example —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki11790 ( talk • contribs) 02:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia already has this feature. See: Template:Email -- penubag ( talk) 06:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a really good idea, and that the spambots can be overcome. If all major news websites can do it, why can't wikipedia? Saluton ( talk) 21:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is news shown on Wikipedia's main page? That is what Wikinews is for. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. In real life, would you open up the encyclopedia volume to find the latest news? Certainly not. Likewise, would you open up the newspaper to find general news? Again, no.
Wikinews should be dedicated to news, and likewise Wikipedia to knowledge and learning. On Wikipedia's main page, they could continue to provide a news section, but it should only be a link to Wikinews.
I often wonder why Wikipedia is the only project of the Wikimedia Foundation that has truly taken off. Perhaps it was the first and the oldest and the other projects will follow. Please discuss anything further either at the Village Pump or elsewhere, but please keep me informed as this goes on. Thank you!
Agomulka ( talk) 13:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Discussion moved to subpage: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/FritzpollBot. -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 10:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi there - I actually operate the bot. I've only glanced through the text above, and fully support the community involvement in this process. Let me answer some of the points raised above:
In short, the bot is only a tool for extraction and article creation. It still requires human input, but in a format where human interaction can be very efficient. The timescale is relatively short, but the articles are only created country-by-country, following human eyes (the community here, not just me) confirming the validity of the data. I hope this addresses some concerns about the bot, but I am of course happy (and in my opinion obligated) to respond to any other comments you may have. Best wishes Fritzpoll ( talk) 10:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
There's a discussion on refining the wording of RfA boilerplate taking place at Template talk:RfA#Proposal to change the following sentence. The current proposal is to change the sentence introducing the questions from:
to:
The Transhumanist 13:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Per the discussion at subpage Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/FritzpollBot creating millions of new articles, which in one day has already gotten longer than this whole page, I propose a slight change in the random page function. Rather than weight every article equally (as I presume happens now), why don't we weight the articles by size in bytes? (Alternatively, we could use age or number of edits, or any one of many dependent functions.) The immediate benefit is that better articles get better exposure, even though randomness is thoroughly preserved. There is an additional benefit in that a very high number of very short (4K) new geographical stubs is expected to be created over the next months by the proposed bot, and having a disproportionate number (as high as 50%) of random articles resulting in geo-stubs is a definite drag to many people. Weighting would be an excellent solution to this problem, and would be an improvement even if there were no such problem.
Though we are not to worry about implementation and costs, the simplest way is to have a periodic (e.g. daily) update of a field in the article's database entry which contains the then-current cumulative bytecount (i.e. total bytes in all articles up to and including the current one). Then you pick a random number from 1 to total bytes in the system, and select the article where that field contains the lowest number greater than or equal to the random number. I think this would be an excellent consideration for all spaces completely independent of the bot debate. Who would be able to work on it? JJB 21:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Note that any changes to Special:Random would/should probably involve adding optional parameters for specifying the behavior, rather than forcing a single behavior that weights articles in some fashion.
You really have to think about how the random article function is actually being used. Are there people who use it to find well-written articles? I myself use it primarily to find crappy articles and missed vandalism. It would be interesting to poll readers to find out why they use the random article function and what they intend to find with it. --- RockMFR 22:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe there has been an increase in page move vandalism recently by sockpuppets (it could also be my imagination) and I remember a user (one account) who moved in excess of 40 pages before being blocked. This was mainly due to the speed that they are able to move pages and the fact that it requires an admin to properly clean-up afterwards means the damage can be significant. I therefore propose that there be a restriction on page move speed (e.g. no more than 10 in 5 minutes). I understand that this would inconvenience some users who wish to move lots of similarly badly-titled articles etc. but the benefits outweigh the inconveniences in my opinion. GDonato ( talk) 18:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there any real reason not to set a throttle?, as evidenced here [4], unlimited page moves once autoconfirmed is a lot more useful for vandals, there can't be many legitimate reasons for a mass of page moves in a short space of time, and in those cases, it wouldn't be difficult to get admin help, obviously they'd be exempt-- Jac16888 ( talk) 16:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to get an idea of whether anybody actually wants any changes and, if so, what they should be. Please feel free to sign under the heading which you believe would be the best solution to the page move vandalism "problem". GDonato ( talk) 20:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
'wgRateLimits' => array(
// Limit new accounts to 2 moves per 90 seconds, and anons to 3 edits per 30 seconds
'default' => array(
'move' => array(
'newbie' => array( 2, 120 ),
# To limit high-rate move page attacks on smaller wikis
# Newbie limit was trivially avoided by a patient vandal
'user' => array( 8, 60 ),
),
)
),
from noc.wikimedia.org/conf. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 06:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Last summer the style for message boxes in articles were standardised and the meta-template {{ ambox}} was implemented to allow easy creation of such boxes. Some weeks ago we deployed {{ imbox}} and {{ cmbox}} for image page and category page message boxes. (But we are still discussing one extra feature for imbox.)
Now we have coded up the {{ tmbox}} for talk pages, the {{ ombox}} for all other types of pages such as "Wikipedia:" pages, and the {{ mbox}} namespace-detecting style-shifting message box to rule them all. This means all the namespaces are covered. Everyone is invited to take a look at the new boxes and have a say at their talk pages.
Please discuss at their talk pages and not here. This is just an announcement.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 12:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() | Note that we are suggesting some colour changes for talk page and "other pages" message boxes. So we really would like some input from some more editors before we deploy this all over Wikipedia. For instance, this is a talk page message box {{ tmbox}} with the suggested style for "minor warnings and problems". |
![]() | And this is an other pages message box {{ ombox}} with the suggested style for "major warnings and problems". |
The other day, I had a need to see the history of a small section of a large article I was working on. So, my only recourse was to view the history of the entire article. I must have looked at over 2000 entries of edits and not one of them referred to the section I was working on. It was just too overwheming, so I just gave up. Anyway, if there were an ability to view the history pertaining only to a section of an article, the information I needed would have been much easier to acquire. Just a thought. Thanks. -- Champaign ( talk) 22:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I have encountered a fair number of Commons image's talk pages being created on en.wiki with content similar to this. While this content clearly is not beneficial to the project, it does not fall under any of the current CSD criteria. The two closest "matches" are CSD A3 ("No content") and CSD G8 ("Talk pages whose article does not exist") and I think an extension to A3 to allow the "article" template to be placed on image talk pages would suffice to remedy this gap. An alternative would be to allow G8 to be placed on Commons image's talk pages as it currently has a prohibition on doing that. Another alternative would be to create an "I11" criteria that would basically be the same as A3 except it applies to image talk pages. Imho, extending A3 would be more effective than extending G8 because it could also be applied to similar "commentary talk pages" that show up on images hosted on en.wiki. Also, an I11 criteria is unnecessary imo because the same thing would be accomplished with the A3 extension. Any thoughts will be greatly appreciated. Thingg ⊕ ⊗ 22:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I've made a refined proposal based on yesterday's mad, mad rush of comments, which my brain has now had time to process. Thing is, I don't want to post it on the page as it is. Should I archive it, or start a new page? Otherwise the discussion will get in the way of what is actually being proposed. Arhciving would also remove the hideousness of the straw poll Fritzpoll ( talk) 13:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be great if we could have a page where we could see ALL the changes made to the document, including redirects, moves, and creation, from all the user who contributed? There could be a separate sub page, or function, where you have the Revision history page on one side, but only taking half (or whatever porportion) of this proposed page, and then lines to from the users who contributed (in bluelinks) to their changes! Please submit this idea to Bugzilla, since I don't have an account. Thank you! 68.148.164.166 ( talk) 05:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to refactor/move these 2 comments into new threads/pages etc. I won't have much time this week, and just wanted to get them mentioned. -- Quiddity ( talk) 21:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
For more experienced users (and probably most newbies), this usually wouldn't be very confusing since we already know what the sandbox is and what's permitted there, but I can't help but to wonder how many newbies have been confused when they've proceeded to edit the sandbox and read the text "For testing, please use the sandbox instead" on the sandbox. Should we delete "instead" from that sentence that appears whenever someone attempts to edit any page? GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 16:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems that there is a recent increase in page move vandalism. The vandal choses the most visible articles. Do we really need to move articles like Sun, Canada or Pacific Ocean to move that often? Would be such a move unavoidably controversial and so better handled via WP:RM? I think any move of a well-established article should go via WP:RM so people who edited the article and were happy with the name could have their say. If so why not move-protect all "well established articles".
There are many ways to define which article is well established. We might base it either on the number of edits or editors or on the age of the article. How about:
or
The measure would not decrease the page move vandalism but it would make it more less visible. Alex Bakharev ( talk) 12:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be great if we could search within our own contributions (or whatever, (or changes)) for say, all things we replaced with "{{main|". Please post this on bugzilla since I don't have an account, thanks! 68.148.164.166 ( talk) 19:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a proposal to merge the anon tips ("Ten things you may not...", etc.) and the donation banner into one banner. The proposal is available here. Comments / input / feedback are welcome there. Cheers. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 19:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. The ratification vote to add {{ C-Class}} to the assessment scale has started. The poll will run for two weeks, until 0300 UTC June 18, 2008, and you can find the poll here, where we ask for your comment.
On behalf of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 03:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The two main activities on Wikipedia are "searching and browsing" - they go together like bread and butter. They are referred to by these names on most of the relevant help pages, and on Wikipedia's main table of contents page.
Currently, on the sidebar, browsing is referred to as "navigation". This proposal is to change it to the word "browse". With the search section likely to be moved to the top of the sidebar (right below the Wikipedia logo - see that proposal above), having the "browse" section right below the "search" section would be the perfect companion. In any case, "browse" is the term in more common use on Wikipedia, and should replace "navigation". The Transhumanist 22:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Like with AFD, I think we should have templates that record the results of merge discussions - either there was consensus not to merge, no consensus, or a merge occurred. In the first two cases, this should be recorded at the top of relevant talk pages (cf. Template:Oldafdfull). In the case that there was a merge, it should also be recorded at the top of the talk page the page where the merge took place. It needn't be enforced strictly, but I think it should become more common and templates should be made available for this purpose.
This can help people avoid suggesting merges without realizing there has been discussion before, or creating pages that have been merged in the past. Richard001 ( talk) 02:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello.. Every time I use Wikipedia I wince, visually. I find it very difficult to read and wonder if it could be styled with a font that does not tent to be so compressed, and perhaps has lower case letters as well. Doesn't have to be Arial / Verdana.. but the current choice is bordering on illegible. Can we change it? Thank you D. Heywood. June 3 2008—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.19.126 ( talk) 16:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Last year most of the non-free image tags were renamed to indicate their nonfree status by changing the naming scheme from {{logo}} to {{Non-free logo}}. However, on viewing Category:Non-free image copyright tags one can see that many tags are still wrongly named.
So I am proposing to go through and rename all non-standard tag names to the proper {{Non-free X}} model we have adopted. I will then file a WP:BRFA and correct the template use at the image level with my bot, as was done in the past for the other non-free tags. This will have the added advantage of making the Image: page more machine readable for fairuse compliance purposes. MBisanz talk 03:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I completely support this proposal. I imagine these templates were either overlooked when the standardization took place or created at some point after it. As I understand it, this will just be another pass through Wikipedia:Non-free content/templates, which should include renaming templates in Category:Non-free image copyright tags (actually, a more complete list is found here, I will try to reconcile the uncategorized ones tomorrow) and deleting non-conforming redirects (after they have been completely decommissioned by bot). - AWeenieMan ( talk) 04:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Upload concerning the removal or reduction of the protection on the main upload page, to open it up to community development.
The Transhumanist 00:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe the WWC is need of help badly. With the large amounts of new users, the user creation log is full of red links. Therefore, I am asking anyone who wants to sign up please do so.-- LAA Fan 18:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I doubt most people pay attention to the Welcome greetings anyway. I know I didn't; I was mildly annoyed by it. ImpIn | ( t - c) 00:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Ever notice how some sites (such as web based email and search engines) not only have a next and previous button, but they also have a first and last button? I think it'd be swell if we had that kind of button under the history tabs. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 23:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I have seen a number of proposals for changing the user interface and there are myriads of scripts or CSS changes that an editor can use. Instead of bite-size global changes, why not provide a preference page where each editor can customize their individual experience. I suppose many of these would be classed as gadgets, but the current approach is not unified. Some possible settings:
--—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Users should have an option under "my preferences" to allow them to have their signature automatically added to non-minor edits on talk pages. This option should also allow users to override a default signature with some other. For example 4 ~'s added automatically, and 5 ~'s overriding that. Wiki11790 talk 18:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems like sometimes people intentionally post messages without signing them, and that in some ways identifying the ip address of the person who posted an anonymous message almost violates their privacy. And since the use of the ip address is mainly useful for following posts on talk pages with unsigned comments, I propose that rather than using ip addresses as the identifier we should use some sort of random string generated specifically for that ip address. For certain public institutions (schools, government, large businesses), I think the ip address probably should still be public. Theshibboleth ( talk) 10:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
So, could we add a function that lets you view the overlap between categories? For example, you could see what articles are in the categories for both French engineers and French mathematicians. - Link ( talk) 12:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, whaddaya know? Never mind.- Link ( talk) 12:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
How about a list of articles that haven't been edited in a while (say, a minimum of three months) so people can see what articles need attention? Obviously, the longer it's been since an edit, the higher it will be on the list.
Also, why don't whe add a view count, so we can see how many times a page has been viewed? This would make it a lot easier (or at least somewhat easier) to resolve certain issues, such as article priority. For an example of a wiki that does this, see here; view counts are at the very bottoms of articles.- Link ( talk) 13:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I would be great if we could click on the version instead of having to have to click on the 2 radio buttons just to get to the later version. Please post this on bugzilla, because I don't have an account, thanks! 68.148.164.166 ( talk) 02:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe as most people do in freedom of expression and I think it is wrong to censor user pages in most cases in fact almost all cases however when a user as important as Jimbo Wales whose page is viewed countless times writes something that though he himself may believe to be true is misleading it is the duty of Wikipedians to be neutral and write the truth. So how about we have a vote (consensus over truth) to persuade Jimbo Wales to change the information on his user page that states that he and he alone founded Wikipedia to co-founded. Note: I know this may sound petty and like a waste of time :) but I really think it is a mean thing of Jimbo to do so vote, please don't be afraid be bold. THROUGH?AWIKI?DARKLY ( talk) 09:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I noticed the instructions for uploading images don't make it clear that the image needs to be on the editor's computer first. I've noticed several times on the help desk where people have had difficulty uploading fair use images, and have gone "Oh! I didn't know that" when told to download it from their source first; or they have tried to add HTML <img...> tags into articles to externally link images. A clarification to the file upload instructions might reduce this type of help desk query. Astronaut ( talk) 16:35, 6 June 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
In general, Wikipedia avoids phrases such as "recently" and "this year" that will go out of date quickly. But I think we need to avoid even phrases that will go out of date slowly, for two reasons:
First, it is entirely possible for an article to go without proper updating indefinitely, which could mean millions of years if Wikipedia remains active that long.
Second, if the human race or human civilization dies out, but has a successor, Wikipedia will become an archeological record. In this case, it will be more useful if all of its dates are absolute and the archeologist doesn't need to guess whether it's been 1 or 2 million years since something was dated to "2.4 million years ago."
Making dates truly ageless doesn't have to be hard. Just change "5 million years ago" to "5 million years BC," "approximately 18,000 years ago" to "approximately 16,000 years BC," and "1030 years from now" to "1030 years AD." Neon Merlin 13:27, 18 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 have seen a rise in abuse of Twinkle since it has been added to the Gadgets list. Well I was thinking maybe admin should have the ability to restrict a person's gadgets. Like if a person is abusing Twinkle instead of blocking you can turn off the gadget and then lock the monobook (just in case). It is just because people using the Gadgets make it hard for admin and that the only thing you can do is block them. Rgoodermote 20:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Please come over to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Burmese) and state whether or not you would like to approve our naming conventions. We don't have many, so it won't take much of your time. Thanks! Kaldari ( talk) 15:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I proposal a way to search for all the contributions by a the same contributor on a specific talk page, article page, category page, etc. etc.
We can go to User contributions and see what the user contributed, using filters and using the drop down box to filterout for say contributions in the Articlespace. We need to search for contributions by editors for contributions in an article space for a specific article, let's say, so we can track down all the vandalism to the article contributed by the editor, let's say that it was pov. Please post this on the proposal media bugzilla or whatever cause I don't have an account. Thanks so much! 68.148.164.166 ( talk) 20:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Ever read a diff on an incredibly long page that you would like to reply to? What a hassle! You have to either find the exact section the comment was made in or you hit edit and wait a million years for the kilobytes of page text that has nothing to do with your edit to load. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to reply directly to a comment that was made. It would be easy to write a script that would insert the new comment directly below the other comment with the appropriate indentation. That would be glorious! Please, developers, develop this feature! I don't have this page on my watchlist, so if someone says they want to join me in rallying for this feature, comment on my talk page. ScienceApologist ( talk) 23:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This suggestion sort is something I've had in mind for a while, but it also sort of ties in with the previous one.
The most frequent reason I look at article histories is to find the change that added a specific part of the text. That's the sort of task a computer could do much more easily. I envision two ways to provide this function, one pretty simple and the other not.
The simple one is to provide, for every section of every article, a "section history" link that would display a list exactly like the article history page, but restricted to edits that may have affected the specific section. To keep the processing simple, edits that don't have a /* section */ command in their edit summary would always be included -- although it would be better if there was a database identifying which sections were edited in each change, so they could be included or excluded from the list as applicable.
The section history links could appear either on their own page with a manu based on the TOC (perhaps alphabetized, since section titles will have changed over time) and reached by a single link from the article and/or article history pages. Or alternatively, the section titles appearing in gray in the article history could become links to section histories.
Where an edit changes the title of a section, it would be ideal for this to be recognized and a combined history provided, but the simple solution of treating a retitled section as a new section that replaces the older one would still be practical.
A more general technique would be to provide a form into which a chunk of text from the article could be pasted. The edit history would be scanned and all edits affecting text that matches that chunk would be listed. The comparison would be have to be on a form of the text resembling what you get if you copy-and-paste the rendered page, excluding all Wikimarkup.
No, I don't expect this would be fast -- but it'd be faster than doing it "by hand", and when it's what you want, it's what you want.
-- 207.176.159.90 ( talk) 00:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I viewed the following page "Deus", and thought in general it would be cool, if one could click on the word
"pronounced",
and have the computer audio teach how to pronounce it. I would do it myself, but I am a real dunce in the computer world and am scheduled to die well before this task could be acheved. Hope some computer literate younger person might think this a worthy task. Good luck!
Deus (pronounced ['deːus]) is the Latin word for "god" or "deity". The Latin words deus and dīvus, and Greek διϝος = "divine", are descended from Proto-Indo-European *deiwos = "divine", from the same root as Dyēus, the reconstructed chief god of the Proto-Indo-European pantheon, also a cognate of the Greek Ζευς (Zeus). By the era of Classical Latin it ... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.190.247.176 (
talk)
17:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an easy cleanup category to patrol - but there are a stack of "User:" and "Wikipedia:" space entries here - clearly the software is labelling user mainspace and Wikipedia project/policy mainspace as general mainspace. Can this be fixed? (i.e. so only article mainspace appears) Cricketgirl ( talk) 08:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The categories which I try to do some work in, as a German-English bilingual, such as Category:Rough translations and Category:Wikipedia articles needing cleanup after translation, are generated by templates which have a parameter for sources language - so would it be possible to split the cleanup categories by language? It's really annoying to have to click through almost every article trying to find the ones that are from German - and having a distinct category for, say, Japanese, might make it easier to recruit Japanese-English bilingual help. Cricketgirl ( talk) 08:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
A friend of mine had a birthday this week and I thought it would be fun if I could link to a page that shows historical figures that she is now older than. It would cross reference to a sentence on biographies that says [person] was ## years old when they died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vtricia ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone has been going around changing all of the
current event templates to use
instead of
. Frankly, the one we were using before looks much better. I propose that we go back to the old icon on all the current event template messages. —
Remember the dot (
talk)
05:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking about a rating system for images similar to WP:ASSESS. Any ideas? Red Thunder 14:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
When I became an admin I spent a lot of time just finding the templates to use when closing xfd:s, and I kept forgetting where the instructions were. To make it easier for new admins to get the hang of things (and for old admins to get involved in new areas) I suggest that we work out some sort of standard location to keep admin instructions, so when you come to a page like AfD or rfpp the "technical" instructions would always be in the same location. I've created a suggestion of how it could look like, if a link in the top right corner was used. I think a standard location of admin instructions would have several benefits:
I guess my most important point is that I really think a standard location for admin instructions would make life easier for everyone. The exact implementation could be something totally different from what I suggested. The instruction pages should not contain any actual policies or policy interpreting stuff, just describe the process, present all the templates that an admin would need and links to the appropriate policies. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 00:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Since this seems to be an uncontroversial suggestion I've gone ahead and implemented it at WP:RFPP and I've also made an AfD example page. More opinions would be appreciated. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 16:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Today a fairly big change of the functionality of links in the {{ shortcut}} templates was suggested. (The links will no longer take you back to the page the box is on, but instead to the shortcut redirect page.) The change seems like a useful improvement so I am thinking of adding it. Since this affects lots of project pages (like this page) and I know many of you reading this page uses such shortcuts I thought it best to announce it here too. Take a look at the discussion and examples at Template talk:Shortcut#Shortcut links.
And while I am at it: We added a feature to the shortcut templates some week ago: They now automatically add section anchors to the pages they are used on. See documentation of the anchor functionality at {{ shortcut}}.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 02:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Has a Common Sense Noticeboard ever been considered? By that I mean a noticeboard where disputes involving claims of common sense could be linked to, which could also potentially serve as examples of how policies and guidelines may need to be reworded. I originally posted this suggestion on the WP:COMMON discussion page, but that appears to get very little attention, so I thought this was probably a better place to suggest it. PSWG1920 ( talk) 22:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I see that a "common sense noticeboard" per se might not be such a good idea, but what about a centralized location with links to discussions on article talk pages which potentially serve as examples of how policies and guidelines might need to be reworded? PSWG1920 ( talk) 22:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I generally love Wikipedia and use it almost daily, but from time to time there are particular details on topics that I'd like to see expanded. I have a very slow internet connection, so there may already be a way to do this that I haven't found, but could there be a mechanism to request expansion on topics, maybe by flagging the article? I think something like this could help Wikipedia grow by providing authors with a means of feedback so they know what readers want to know more about. This may not be practical and I doen't expect any kind of personalized service, but it could result in a one stop place where someone who wanted to contribute could see what topics have a demand for more details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.236.155.76 ( talk) 21:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I’d like to suggest that an administrator noticeboard be set up handle threats of violence or suicide made anywhere on Wikipedia. The standard response to this is usually to contact the local authorities with any information available I believe. (I’m not sure if we have a formal policy on that though.) I suggest this be called Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/threats or something similer.
I’m suggesting this as a follow up to this thread on WP:AN/I. (For further discussion of these issues please also see discussion here.) -- S.dedalus ( talk) 00:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There are a lot of articles that could be vastly improved by the inclusion of videos of sufficient quality and length which are not difficult to obtain. Liquid crystal thermometer, for example, is hard to understand without a non-static visual reference. Since the Template:Reqvideo is seldom used and the Template:Reqphoto is way overused, how about a central video request page, where articles in need of videos could be listed, and people could contribute their own videos to it? Dr. e X treme 23:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Theres "Audio and Visual requests" on Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Audio_and_video_requests -- Coasttocoast ( talk) 00:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we should try this w:es:Plantilla:Muchasref. It's a very useful tool to make smaller the references section. Srmagnetismo ( talk) 02:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
This? I think it's a good idea, as some references sections are ridiculously long and there is a group of editors who oppose all such methods to remedy this problem citing that the templates are "not standard" which is not a valid reason.
<div style="height: 220px; overflow: auto; padding: 3px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA; reflist4" >
-- .: Alex :. 11:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
<div class="references-small">{{reflist}}</div>
It makes the text in the references section smaller, which is a good alternative to using the scrollable box if it's causing problems (and may not suit the article). .: Alex :. 15:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Unified login is now available. We should have a message to users to Special:MergeAccounts like on other wikis. Reywas92 Talk 22:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be nice if an automatic slideshow of the pictures of an article could be created and accesible at a single click? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon.bastien ( talk • contribs) 02:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I think articles like this one look bad with too much explanations about the pronunciation, that's not so important for using the whole first line. It could be put bellow, or inside anoyher section -- Moraleh ( talk) 02:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I've never really understood why "move" was called "move." In reality, you're not moving anything, you're just changing the title of the page. None of the logs move, none of the deleted revisions move, nada, zilch, squat-diddily. The history moves over, but that's sort of an expected result of renaming something. In short, there is, so far as I can tell, no point whatsoever in calling that a "move." Because that's exactly what it isn't. I'm not the only one confused by this, either - the help desk gets asked on a regular basis "How do I edit the title?", "How do I rename this page?", or my personal favorite, the all-caps "WRONG TITLE". Here's one today, from Apr. 14, from Apr. 9, just after that last one, and so on. Mind, we do get a LOT of repeat questions, but renaming this tab would be really helpful in reducing those numbers, as well as reducing the number of confused newbies who don't bother asking. Of course, the log will still appear as a "Move log", but those who need to check those logs will probably know what it's referring to. For reference, the appropriate MediaWiki page is MediaWiki:Move. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 23:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This has come up here before. While move doesn't really fit, rename just invites newbies to vandalize with it or test it even more than just move does. Reywas92 Talk 01:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the point. Move and rename are synonyms computer-wise - I don't think one is any clearer than the other - Halo ( talk) 17:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this one's dead... It's been here for a month and a half and there is more opposition than support. Does any one agree that it is time for archiving? Waltham, The Duke of 03:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Transcluded from Wikipedia:Rollback feature/throttle removal
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.
The following discussion was moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Non-admin rollbackers
I don't know if this has been/is being discussed somewhere else, or even if this is the correct place to post this, but I think that non-admin rollbackers should be allowed to make more than 5 rollbacks in a minute before being throttled. I think that they (OK, we) should be able to make at least 10 rollbacks (15 would be better) before being throttled.
Considering that rollback rights are not automatically assigned (as autoconfirmed rights are), I do not see any reason that we should be restricted so much. I use Huggle rather vigorously, and I would be able to be much more effective in my vandal-fighting (especially during high-volume times) if I was not slowed down by having to force Huggle to mimic the rollback feature for 5/6 of the time after I use up my 5 rollbacks in 10 seconds. (which I do fairly frequently when vandalism is at its peak)
Also, I sometimes encounter someone who adds external links (pointing to pages in the same website) to many articles (think 15-25) before I realize what he/she is doing. I review their contribs in Huggle to ensure that they are all spam, and if they have not been warned previously, I usually give them either a level 2 or a level 3 warning, open their contribs, and click on the rollback links. It is incredibly annoying to only be able to do 5 rollbacks, and then having to click "undo" for the rest. J.delanoy gabs adds 02:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like it should be much of a risk to increase the limit to, say, 25 or even 50 rollbacks per minute. Actually, I'm not sure it even really needs a limit at all; after all, the worst you could do with unlimited rollback would be to run a bot to rollback every page and every new edit as soon as it's made — and that would just get you blocked quickly and the rollbacks reverted. Yes, that would be a nuisance, but hardly a serious one. Probably about equal in overall annoyance level to a 5-minute database lock or thereabouts. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 14:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
←OK, it looks like several people think it's a good idea, so, how do we move forward from here? Should I create a poll somewhere to try to get more community input? If so where should I create it? As a subpage of WP:ROLLBACK? J.delanoy gabs adds 21:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I put a limit on it because I thought we were going to be sensible and give rollback to all users, and I had the limit set accordingly. I'm not attached to it, and it was pretty much plucked from thin air, so there's no big deal in upping it two or three-fold. FWIW, I've hit this limit too, and it's a bit of a pain. — Werdna talk 09:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
As the person who filed
bug 12760 back when rollback was first made available, this obviously has my full support. I can confirm that the limit is easily reached during busy periods when only a handful of people are patrolling recent changes. While I have addressed this to some extent in
Huggle by falling back to normal reversion rather than just displaying an "Action throttled" error message, the difference in speed can be significant
Gurchzilla (
talk)
12:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, it looks like we have quite a bit of support for this. I'm going to move it to
WP:VPP and open a straw poll.
J.delanoy
gabs
adds
15:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Previous discussion from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Non-admin rollbackers. Please add any new discussion in the section below.
It seems that most of the people above supported removing the limit entirely. When I originally made the post, I did not want to sound too radical. (for lack of a better term) Many of the users who supported removing the limit entirely on VP:technical are administrators, which is why I worded the straw poll the way I did. J.delanoy gabs adds 15:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I count over 30 users in support of either raising the limit or removing it altogether, with no opposition. Enough for now? I'm not too optimistic about the change actually being implemented since I requested it four months ago, but it might be helpful to be able to say "there is consensus for this" -- Gurchzilla ( talk) 16:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
At present, non-admin rollbackers are able to make 5 rollbacks per minute.
Considering that mass rollback vandalism would be fairly easy to revert, and that any admin can remove rollback rights from any non-admin rollbacker, I beg the question:
Should non-admin rollbackers be able to make unlimited rollbacks without being throttled?
(After your signature on your !vote, please include the user group which shows up under Special:ListUsers/ when you type your name in. I do not mean for this to be demeaning to uninvolved parties, it is merely to aid in determining the natural bias of votes, as present rollbackers (e.g. me) would obviously be very likely to support this measure. Thanks.)
I was rather active in the original proposal to implement a non-administrative rollback feature, and I don't recall any mention of a "throttle" or similar limit. Can someone post a link to the discussion that led to the setting of such a limit? Equazcion •✗/ C • 16:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The rollback rate limit has been raised to 100 / minute on all WMF wikis. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 02:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I propose that an example of the raw signature such as: <small>--<font face="rage italic" size="4.5" color="LightSteelBlue"> [[User:taxa|Taxa]]</font> ([[User talk:taxa|talk]])</small> be included on the my preferences page. -- Taxa ( talk) 15:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
For those artsy folk, the English Wikibooks project is choosing a new logo currently. Although we have 10 proposals (which will not be expanded) we would be very much interested in improvements on those proposed logos. Comments would be useful too. Please see m:Wikibooks/Logo. Thanks to anyone who helps! – Mike. lifeguard | @en.wb 23:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
After a quick review of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hkelkar suggests some banned users are most tenacious sock articles. It becomes quite repeatative to file RFCU. May I propse to form a new project or something like WP:Emergency anti-sockpuppet task force etc. to counter the continuous socks. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 18:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know if this has been proposed before, because I haven't read the archives. On the Chinese Wikipedia they have tabs at the top of the page where a user can choose to display all WP pages in the writing style of their choice. The options are: no conversion, Simplified characters, Traditional characters, Mainland simplified, Taiwan variant, Singapore variant, and Hong Kong/Macau variant. The entire page is instantly changed to the style of choice, for example 國 is detected and changed to 国.
Couldn't something like this be implemented on the English Wikipedia, so the user can select their preferred writing style? I'm unaware of differences between the countries of Commonwealth English, so the three tabs would be "no conversion", "Commonwealth English" and "American English". The term "color" would be detected and converted into "colour" at the click of a tab. The tab could be auto-selected based on a user's IP, and a change stored in cookies.
Of course this could bring up server load issues, but I don't know if there are more Chinese character variants than English word variants, or vice versa, so the usage would either be greater or less. Also, there would need to be exceptions, like proper nouns such as Medal of Honor, possibly within article titles or a template that hides the term from detection in article content, along the lines of {{noconvert|Medal of Honor}}.
I wasn't sure if this should be at Bugzilla, but I figured that if it's already done on the Chinese WP, it's already part of the software. -- Joowwww ( talk) 19:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering why exactly the discussion pages are wiki-pages (i.e. editable). Why wouldn't we just use a standardized approach (I'm thinking forum-alike)? I know this would of course a big overhaul, and that it causes problems with respect to the talk-pages already in place. I only would like to know if people agree, aside from the issues above, this would be a better system. Advantages:
Disadvantages (apart from the two posted above):
84.87.183.181 ( talk) 12:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It would be beneficial to users patrolling Special:Newpages if users who create lots of quality articles were excluded from their articles needing review. The 'autopatrol' right is already given to admins and bots - any new pages they create are automatically marked as patrolled. However, many of these users don't want or need the rest of admin tools. This could be given out by admins, similar to rollback and accountcreator, to users with a history of creating good articles (lots of good creations, no problems with articles being deleted). So what do people think? Mr. Z-man 05:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it's un-necessary, and low-risk, if it has to happen then admins giving it out seems fine. — TreasuryTag— t | c 07:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
(Unindent) This sounds like fun. I'd like this kind of access for myself, but I suppose if I really wanted it that badly I could do an RFA. I put "construction" templates to keep the speedy deletion tags off my pages, and I'd prefer not to have to do that, but I've gotten used to it by now. Of course, we must also consider the consequences of creating endless new user access levels for no particularly compelling reason. :) Shalom ( Hello • Peace) 03:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It would be helpful if pages had a link or button so they could be emailed (either the whole text or a link). Job listing example —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki11790 ( talk • contribs) 02:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia already has this feature. See: Template:Email -- penubag ( talk) 06:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a really good idea, and that the spambots can be overcome. If all major news websites can do it, why can't wikipedia? Saluton ( talk) 21:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is news shown on Wikipedia's main page? That is what Wikinews is for. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. In real life, would you open up the encyclopedia volume to find the latest news? Certainly not. Likewise, would you open up the newspaper to find general news? Again, no.
Wikinews should be dedicated to news, and likewise Wikipedia to knowledge and learning. On Wikipedia's main page, they could continue to provide a news section, but it should only be a link to Wikinews.
I often wonder why Wikipedia is the only project of the Wikimedia Foundation that has truly taken off. Perhaps it was the first and the oldest and the other projects will follow. Please discuss anything further either at the Village Pump or elsewhere, but please keep me informed as this goes on. Thank you!
Agomulka ( talk) 13:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Discussion moved to subpage: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/FritzpollBot. -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 10:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi there - I actually operate the bot. I've only glanced through the text above, and fully support the community involvement in this process. Let me answer some of the points raised above:
In short, the bot is only a tool for extraction and article creation. It still requires human input, but in a format where human interaction can be very efficient. The timescale is relatively short, but the articles are only created country-by-country, following human eyes (the community here, not just me) confirming the validity of the data. I hope this addresses some concerns about the bot, but I am of course happy (and in my opinion obligated) to respond to any other comments you may have. Best wishes Fritzpoll ( talk) 10:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
There's a discussion on refining the wording of RfA boilerplate taking place at Template talk:RfA#Proposal to change the following sentence. The current proposal is to change the sentence introducing the questions from:
to:
The Transhumanist 13:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Per the discussion at subpage Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/FritzpollBot creating millions of new articles, which in one day has already gotten longer than this whole page, I propose a slight change in the random page function. Rather than weight every article equally (as I presume happens now), why don't we weight the articles by size in bytes? (Alternatively, we could use age or number of edits, or any one of many dependent functions.) The immediate benefit is that better articles get better exposure, even though randomness is thoroughly preserved. There is an additional benefit in that a very high number of very short (4K) new geographical stubs is expected to be created over the next months by the proposed bot, and having a disproportionate number (as high as 50%) of random articles resulting in geo-stubs is a definite drag to many people. Weighting would be an excellent solution to this problem, and would be an improvement even if there were no such problem.
Though we are not to worry about implementation and costs, the simplest way is to have a periodic (e.g. daily) update of a field in the article's database entry which contains the then-current cumulative bytecount (i.e. total bytes in all articles up to and including the current one). Then you pick a random number from 1 to total bytes in the system, and select the article where that field contains the lowest number greater than or equal to the random number. I think this would be an excellent consideration for all spaces completely independent of the bot debate. Who would be able to work on it? JJB 21:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Note that any changes to Special:Random would/should probably involve adding optional parameters for specifying the behavior, rather than forcing a single behavior that weights articles in some fashion.
You really have to think about how the random article function is actually being used. Are there people who use it to find well-written articles? I myself use it primarily to find crappy articles and missed vandalism. It would be interesting to poll readers to find out why they use the random article function and what they intend to find with it. --- RockMFR 22:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe there has been an increase in page move vandalism recently by sockpuppets (it could also be my imagination) and I remember a user (one account) who moved in excess of 40 pages before being blocked. This was mainly due to the speed that they are able to move pages and the fact that it requires an admin to properly clean-up afterwards means the damage can be significant. I therefore propose that there be a restriction on page move speed (e.g. no more than 10 in 5 minutes). I understand that this would inconvenience some users who wish to move lots of similarly badly-titled articles etc. but the benefits outweigh the inconveniences in my opinion. GDonato ( talk) 18:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there any real reason not to set a throttle?, as evidenced here [4], unlimited page moves once autoconfirmed is a lot more useful for vandals, there can't be many legitimate reasons for a mass of page moves in a short space of time, and in those cases, it wouldn't be difficult to get admin help, obviously they'd be exempt-- Jac16888 ( talk) 16:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to get an idea of whether anybody actually wants any changes and, if so, what they should be. Please feel free to sign under the heading which you believe would be the best solution to the page move vandalism "problem". GDonato ( talk) 20:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
'wgRateLimits' => array(
// Limit new accounts to 2 moves per 90 seconds, and anons to 3 edits per 30 seconds
'default' => array(
'move' => array(
'newbie' => array( 2, 120 ),
# To limit high-rate move page attacks on smaller wikis
# Newbie limit was trivially avoided by a patient vandal
'user' => array( 8, 60 ),
),
)
),
from noc.wikimedia.org/conf. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 06:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Last summer the style for message boxes in articles were standardised and the meta-template {{ ambox}} was implemented to allow easy creation of such boxes. Some weeks ago we deployed {{ imbox}} and {{ cmbox}} for image page and category page message boxes. (But we are still discussing one extra feature for imbox.)
Now we have coded up the {{ tmbox}} for talk pages, the {{ ombox}} for all other types of pages such as "Wikipedia:" pages, and the {{ mbox}} namespace-detecting style-shifting message box to rule them all. This means all the namespaces are covered. Everyone is invited to take a look at the new boxes and have a say at their talk pages.
Please discuss at their talk pages and not here. This is just an announcement.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 12:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() | Note that we are suggesting some colour changes for talk page and "other pages" message boxes. So we really would like some input from some more editors before we deploy this all over Wikipedia. For instance, this is a talk page message box {{ tmbox}} with the suggested style for "minor warnings and problems". |
![]() | And this is an other pages message box {{ ombox}} with the suggested style for "major warnings and problems". |
The other day, I had a need to see the history of a small section of a large article I was working on. So, my only recourse was to view the history of the entire article. I must have looked at over 2000 entries of edits and not one of them referred to the section I was working on. It was just too overwheming, so I just gave up. Anyway, if there were an ability to view the history pertaining only to a section of an article, the information I needed would have been much easier to acquire. Just a thought. Thanks. -- Champaign ( talk) 22:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I have encountered a fair number of Commons image's talk pages being created on en.wiki with content similar to this. While this content clearly is not beneficial to the project, it does not fall under any of the current CSD criteria. The two closest "matches" are CSD A3 ("No content") and CSD G8 ("Talk pages whose article does not exist") and I think an extension to A3 to allow the "article" template to be placed on image talk pages would suffice to remedy this gap. An alternative would be to allow G8 to be placed on Commons image's talk pages as it currently has a prohibition on doing that. Another alternative would be to create an "I11" criteria that would basically be the same as A3 except it applies to image talk pages. Imho, extending A3 would be more effective than extending G8 because it could also be applied to similar "commentary talk pages" that show up on images hosted on en.wiki. Also, an I11 criteria is unnecessary imo because the same thing would be accomplished with the A3 extension. Any thoughts will be greatly appreciated. Thingg ⊕ ⊗ 22:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I've made a refined proposal based on yesterday's mad, mad rush of comments, which my brain has now had time to process. Thing is, I don't want to post it on the page as it is. Should I archive it, or start a new page? Otherwise the discussion will get in the way of what is actually being proposed. Arhciving would also remove the hideousness of the straw poll Fritzpoll ( talk) 13:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be great if we could have a page where we could see ALL the changes made to the document, including redirects, moves, and creation, from all the user who contributed? There could be a separate sub page, or function, where you have the Revision history page on one side, but only taking half (or whatever porportion) of this proposed page, and then lines to from the users who contributed (in bluelinks) to their changes! Please submit this idea to Bugzilla, since I don't have an account. Thank you! 68.148.164.166 ( talk) 05:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to refactor/move these 2 comments into new threads/pages etc. I won't have much time this week, and just wanted to get them mentioned. -- Quiddity ( talk) 21:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
For more experienced users (and probably most newbies), this usually wouldn't be very confusing since we already know what the sandbox is and what's permitted there, but I can't help but to wonder how many newbies have been confused when they've proceeded to edit the sandbox and read the text "For testing, please use the sandbox instead" on the sandbox. Should we delete "instead" from that sentence that appears whenever someone attempts to edit any page? GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 16:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems that there is a recent increase in page move vandalism. The vandal choses the most visible articles. Do we really need to move articles like Sun, Canada or Pacific Ocean to move that often? Would be such a move unavoidably controversial and so better handled via WP:RM? I think any move of a well-established article should go via WP:RM so people who edited the article and were happy with the name could have their say. If so why not move-protect all "well established articles".
There are many ways to define which article is well established. We might base it either on the number of edits or editors or on the age of the article. How about:
or
The measure would not decrease the page move vandalism but it would make it more less visible. Alex Bakharev ( talk) 12:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be great if we could search within our own contributions (or whatever, (or changes)) for say, all things we replaced with "{{main|". Please post this on bugzilla since I don't have an account, thanks! 68.148.164.166 ( talk) 19:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a proposal to merge the anon tips ("Ten things you may not...", etc.) and the donation banner into one banner. The proposal is available here. Comments / input / feedback are welcome there. Cheers. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 19:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. The ratification vote to add {{ C-Class}} to the assessment scale has started. The poll will run for two weeks, until 0300 UTC June 18, 2008, and you can find the poll here, where we ask for your comment.
On behalf of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 03:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The two main activities on Wikipedia are "searching and browsing" - they go together like bread and butter. They are referred to by these names on most of the relevant help pages, and on Wikipedia's main table of contents page.
Currently, on the sidebar, browsing is referred to as "navigation". This proposal is to change it to the word "browse". With the search section likely to be moved to the top of the sidebar (right below the Wikipedia logo - see that proposal above), having the "browse" section right below the "search" section would be the perfect companion. In any case, "browse" is the term in more common use on Wikipedia, and should replace "navigation". The Transhumanist 22:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Like with AFD, I think we should have templates that record the results of merge discussions - either there was consensus not to merge, no consensus, or a merge occurred. In the first two cases, this should be recorded at the top of relevant talk pages (cf. Template:Oldafdfull). In the case that there was a merge, it should also be recorded at the top of the talk page the page where the merge took place. It needn't be enforced strictly, but I think it should become more common and templates should be made available for this purpose.
This can help people avoid suggesting merges without realizing there has been discussion before, or creating pages that have been merged in the past. Richard001 ( talk) 02:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello.. Every time I use Wikipedia I wince, visually. I find it very difficult to read and wonder if it could be styled with a font that does not tent to be so compressed, and perhaps has lower case letters as well. Doesn't have to be Arial / Verdana.. but the current choice is bordering on illegible. Can we change it? Thank you D. Heywood. June 3 2008—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.19.126 ( talk) 16:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Last year most of the non-free image tags were renamed to indicate their nonfree status by changing the naming scheme from {{logo}} to {{Non-free logo}}. However, on viewing Category:Non-free image copyright tags one can see that many tags are still wrongly named.
So I am proposing to go through and rename all non-standard tag names to the proper {{Non-free X}} model we have adopted. I will then file a WP:BRFA and correct the template use at the image level with my bot, as was done in the past for the other non-free tags. This will have the added advantage of making the Image: page more machine readable for fairuse compliance purposes. MBisanz talk 03:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I completely support this proposal. I imagine these templates were either overlooked when the standardization took place or created at some point after it. As I understand it, this will just be another pass through Wikipedia:Non-free content/templates, which should include renaming templates in Category:Non-free image copyright tags (actually, a more complete list is found here, I will try to reconcile the uncategorized ones tomorrow) and deleting non-conforming redirects (after they have been completely decommissioned by bot). - AWeenieMan ( talk) 04:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Upload concerning the removal or reduction of the protection on the main upload page, to open it up to community development.
The Transhumanist 00:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe the WWC is need of help badly. With the large amounts of new users, the user creation log is full of red links. Therefore, I am asking anyone who wants to sign up please do so.-- LAA Fan 18:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I doubt most people pay attention to the Welcome greetings anyway. I know I didn't; I was mildly annoyed by it. ImpIn | ( t - c) 00:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Ever notice how some sites (such as web based email and search engines) not only have a next and previous button, but they also have a first and last button? I think it'd be swell if we had that kind of button under the history tabs. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 23:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I have seen a number of proposals for changing the user interface and there are myriads of scripts or CSS changes that an editor can use. Instead of bite-size global changes, why not provide a preference page where each editor can customize their individual experience. I suppose many of these would be classed as gadgets, but the current approach is not unified. Some possible settings:
--—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Users should have an option under "my preferences" to allow them to have their signature automatically added to non-minor edits on talk pages. This option should also allow users to override a default signature with some other. For example 4 ~'s added automatically, and 5 ~'s overriding that. Wiki11790 talk 18:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems like sometimes people intentionally post messages without signing them, and that in some ways identifying the ip address of the person who posted an anonymous message almost violates their privacy. And since the use of the ip address is mainly useful for following posts on talk pages with unsigned comments, I propose that rather than using ip addresses as the identifier we should use some sort of random string generated specifically for that ip address. For certain public institutions (schools, government, large businesses), I think the ip address probably should still be public. Theshibboleth ( talk) 10:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
So, could we add a function that lets you view the overlap between categories? For example, you could see what articles are in the categories for both French engineers and French mathematicians. - Link ( talk) 12:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, whaddaya know? Never mind.- Link ( talk) 12:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
How about a list of articles that haven't been edited in a while (say, a minimum of three months) so people can see what articles need attention? Obviously, the longer it's been since an edit, the higher it will be on the list.
Also, why don't whe add a view count, so we can see how many times a page has been viewed? This would make it a lot easier (or at least somewhat easier) to resolve certain issues, such as article priority. For an example of a wiki that does this, see here; view counts are at the very bottoms of articles.- Link ( talk) 13:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I would be great if we could click on the version instead of having to have to click on the 2 radio buttons just to get to the later version. Please post this on bugzilla, because I don't have an account, thanks! 68.148.164.166 ( talk) 02:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe as most people do in freedom of expression and I think it is wrong to censor user pages in most cases in fact almost all cases however when a user as important as Jimbo Wales whose page is viewed countless times writes something that though he himself may believe to be true is misleading it is the duty of Wikipedians to be neutral and write the truth. So how about we have a vote (consensus over truth) to persuade Jimbo Wales to change the information on his user page that states that he and he alone founded Wikipedia to co-founded. Note: I know this may sound petty and like a waste of time :) but I really think it is a mean thing of Jimbo to do so vote, please don't be afraid be bold. THROUGH?AWIKI?DARKLY ( talk) 09:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I noticed the instructions for uploading images don't make it clear that the image needs to be on the editor's computer first. I've noticed several times on the help desk where people have had difficulty uploading fair use images, and have gone "Oh! I didn't know that" when told to download it from their source first; or they have tried to add HTML <img...> tags into articles to externally link images. A clarification to the file upload instructions might reduce this type of help desk query. Astronaut ( talk) 16:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)