This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals).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
A debug mode for tables would be very convenient. Could one maybe create a class="debug" with exagerated cellpadding or whatever? It would also need to make all borders visible even if they had been set to not show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemmiwinks2 ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Proposal to split apart Wikipedia:Manual of Style (MUSTARD) and merge it into the other Music Guidlines. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (MUSTARD)#Page Split -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 20:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
You can put non-free images in articles (where they are very visable) but NOT in talk pages (where their non-free impact is low). That in itself is wierd. Furthermore, the proccess for uploading images is arcane and unfriendly to the new user, requiring special basiv knowlegde of how copyright works in America (which I don't care about, as I don't live in America). My proposal calls for sweeping reforms to how we manage images and is to be done by in-house experts on the subject who must always keep the "dumb-end-user" in mind when reforming policy to make it VERY STREAMLINED AND MAKE SENSE!! (I don't mean understandable, I mean common sense!!).
Mod MMG (
User Page) Reply on my
talkpage. Do NOT click
this link 08:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
First of all this may be more of a global Wikimedia issue, but I feel having a discussion here first would be more interesting and useful. Also, this post is, in a way, a means of getting some frustration off my chest. (Hopefully I won't bore you too much in the process)
I have an Wikipedia account since 2004, and have been an utterly satisfied user of the encyclopaedia for a long while now. Occasionally I do some edits, mostly fixing patent mistakes and reverting vandalism I happen to come across, but I never became a prolific editor. A couple weeks ago, however, I began to study programming following a particularly well written Wikibook, and I felt totally at ease with the Wikibook model (probably just because my brain is best suited to tasks more modular and self-contained than building the incredibly complex web of cross-linking articles Wikipedia is. But I digress) and began doing some serious copyediting of the book right away. I felt that I finally found my home in the Wikimedia projects, and so decided to look around to learn more about how Wikibooks worked.
My worries began when, on reading the RfD page of Wikibooks, I took issue with a particular book on physics, and decided, after checking some policies and deciding it was reasonable to do so, make an RfD against that book. You can read all the gory details on the RfD entry itself if you wish, but the issue which really concerns me is totally independent on whether that RfD will be accepted or not by the community. The problem is that at several points during the process it looked very appropriate to ask other Wikibookians with some knowledge of physics for their opinions, as it is done in a RfC around here. Unfortunately, it appears impossible to locate a single regularly active editor of any of the better Wikibooks on physics, or find a place where asking for comments on the RfD would be useful. In fact, many of the RfD discussions at Wikibooks, particularly those on "specialist" subjects like physics, get no input other than from the proponent and the (currently 12) admins (and, occasionally, from the main contributor of the book to which the RfD refers to).
A pertinent question at this point would be what Wikipedia has to do with my complaints. The answer is very simple. Wikipedia has millions of registered users, an useful RfC system, some functional Wikiprojects and lots of public recognition. Wikibooks has none of these things. The point I'm trying to make is that Wikipedia could use some, even a little bit, of its leverage and brain power to support its sibling projects. Maybe something like having smallish (10-20 people) rotating boards of contributors in the main areas of knowledge (natural sciences, humanities, computing...) dedicated to providing comments in discussions and working at improving books at Wikibooks (the members of the boards could well be permanent, but for practical reasons I guess a rotating cast of volunteers would work better). It wouldn't cost much to Wikipedia, but would help the smaller projects a lot. The way things are now, I am afraid most of the existing Wikibooks are condemned to remaining eternally as stubs, and I feel the Wikipedia community could do something about that situation.
Note that I didn't post this either at Meta or at Wikibooks, as I feel it would be more productive starting this discussion at Wikipedia. Hoping to read your opinions, whatever they are. And thanks for putting up with my lamentations. -- Duplode ( talk) 23:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Some sort of cross-wiki-WikiProject thing might be beneficial. There have been times on other projects where I've felt something was an issue, but there was no analog to a WikiProject I could go to and say "okay, I feel there's a problem in the domain of topic X, what do you all think?" For instance, I don't agree with the way the categories for roads/road sign photographs are set up on Commons. If this had happened on Wikipedia, I could consult with WP:USRD and work out a consensus, but it doesn't exist over there, so I couldn't go seek the input of people specifically knowledgeable about road photos. As a result, last time that I attempted to broach that topic, it ended up with two or three Commons categorizers shouting that I didn't understand Commons and me arguing that they didn't understand the reasons the photos had been taken in the first place, and thus their categorization scheme was silly. Very little got done. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
(Without breaking the flow of the current discussions: I just told people at Wikibooks about this thread. -- Duplode ( talk) 15:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC))
More about Foo
Books about Foo
Quotes by Foo
Current news related to Foo
Definition of Foo
Pictures of Foo
Opinions? {{
Sonia|
talk|
simple}} 05:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
First: great anecdote, and collabs across Projects is a great idea.
Second: the easiest way to support a project may be to drive traffic to it, particularly editing traffic. This doesn't have to have any particular structure (such as the rotating boards).
One thing we could consider is setting up a more effective banner system to sharing project-related messages for editors -- so that editors would see notices of other projects related to their interests, or randomly selected notices about something cool going on across Wikimedialand.
Third, Yair is right :) Maybe one big WikiProject here devoted to collaboration and barnraisings across Projects would be enough, could have weekly or monthly drives, and could call on specific WikiProjects here for each of its efforts. – SJ + 15:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I just say that I wish to add my support, as many have, to the idea of trans-wiki collaboration - it makes sense to me. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 21:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The main reason Wikipedia editors don't edit much at Wikibooks, etc. is multiple watchlists.
Please see:
This user supports global, cross-wiki, integrated watchlists. |
Well, it is a trivial matter to put a link to the pertinent VP archive in a centralized location, e.g., Wikipedia:Integrated watchlists, and thereby keep the content of those conversations from being forgotten. But devs tend to use Bugzilla; that way, they can subscribe to the Bugzilla listserv and/or to particular bugs that they have an interest in, and get an email whenever someone makes a comment.
I want to raise another issue about this proposal, which is that, by encouraging cross-wiki participation, integrated watchlists will likely increase homogenization across Wikimedia projects, as users bring the values and norms of their own preferred wikis to other wikis. I personally think that's a good thing; we could use some cross-pollination. But the downside is that, Wikipedia being the 400-kg gorilla of the group, the other wikis will probably tend to be pushed even more in the direction of Wikipedia-like standards. E.g., strict adherence to " reliable sourcing" and notability, etc. But I think it's unavoidable; really, our only alternatives are for those wikis to remain neglected, or for them to become homogenized/dominated by Wikipedia-like standards. I don't think that's a false dichotomy. Wikipedia really reflects the standards of the Wikimedia Foundation in purest form, and it seeks to ultimately make all of its projects conform to those standards. It just hasn't made it a high priority for those smaller wikis, because no one really cares about them all that much, since they don't show up much in the Google search results. Tisane ( talk) 23:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
If your username is Example%%%%% and if you have edited at English Wikiversity, then you can leave a message at http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Example%%%%%, inviting editors to leave a message at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Example%%%%%, which might say "You have a message at http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Example%%%%%." -- Wavelength ( talk) 03:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
To anyone interested, another technical step: Wikibooks has just imported b:Template:WPBannerMeta and associated templates (like ratings) so that interested Wikipedia WikiProjects have a familiar interface available for coordinating efforts. -- Duplode ( talk) 05:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Please join in Discussion to promote Wikipedia:Notability (sports) from essay to guideline, deprecating the Athletes section of WP:Notability (people). -- Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 02:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The "third level down" section header (4 equal signs, sample above) and the "second level down" (3 equal signs, sample below) look too similar, making the section hierarchy easily missed. The are identical except that one is (only) 11% shorter.
The difference is even harder to spot when they are a few paragraphs apart, and where where the difference should be obvious enough to guide the reader rather than when the reader is comparing them, knowing that they are different (as in my post here).
Proposal: make the "3 equal sign" heading font a tiny bit larger.
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 11:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
<h3>
, which is defined in monobook as:h1 { font-size: 188%; }
h1 .editsection { font-size: 53%; }
h2 { font-size: 150%; }
h2 .editsection { font-size: 67%; }
h3, h4, h5, h6 {
border-bottom: none;
font-weight: bold;
}
h3 .editsection { font-size: 76%; font-weight: normal; }
h4 { font-size: 116%; }
h4 .editsection { font-size: 86%; font-weight: normal; }
h5 { font-size: 100%; }
h5 .editsection { font-weight: normal; }
h6 { font-size: 80%; }
h6 .editsection { font-size: 125%; font-weight: normal; }
I have a proposal for a new template, designed for users or IP's who have a history of many warnings over a few months and possibly one or two blocks, possibly none. This could be used to tell them in a very open way that they are close to being blocked, possibly indef blocked. I have had good some results from this, and it appears to work. I'm just throwing this out there because I think that it could help, and I know it may not, so if anyone has any mods/complaints or supports it, PLEASE say so. Here's the proposal:
Many of your recent edits have been obvious vandalism, and most have been reverted. Please do NOT continue your streak. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Just an idea.
Old Al (
Talk) 21:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
As requested, here's the weekly Pending Changes update.
We proceed boldly toward launch. The main update is that we have pushed the English Wikipedia launch back one day to Tuesday, June 15. That will let us avoid stepping on the WP Academy Israel event, and it means Jimmy Wales will be available to talk to the press, which in turn will yield a better public understanding of Pending Changes.
However, we will still be rolling the new FlaggedRevs code into production on Monday, June 14th (circa 4 pm Pacific, or 23:00 GMT). We hope that this, aside from some minor UI improvements, will pass unnoticed on the project currently using FlaggedRevs. If there are bugs, we look forward to hearing about them via the usual channels, including #wikimedia-tech. Minor bugs will be fixed in place; any major issues will result in a quick rollback to the existing code.
More prosaically, we had a number of bits of work verified complete this week, including a number of little bugs. Our thanks to the German community for their diligent testing of a labs instance of the German configuration.
If you'd like once last chance to see what's coming, try the latest code updates
on our labs site.
To see the upcoming work, it's listed in our tracker, under Current and Backlog.
Thanks, William Pietri ( talk) 23:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
(Cross-posted from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). Cenarium ( talk) 03:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC))
In addition, there are a few remaining issues to settle, such as usage of flagged protection/pending changes, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Flagged revisions trial. We also need to finalize documentation pages among other things, any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Cenarium ( talk) 03:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Currently, if a user who has made no edits and who's username is about to be taken does not object in 7 days to the usurpation, then the usurpation occurs. I feel that this should be extended to 14 days, to ensure that the user has sufficient time to become aware of the matter and object to it (if they want/need to). Immunize ( talk) 23:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
If a username has been registered for some time and never been used for editing, then there is no reason to double the period of grace that its owner has to insist on maintaining it. Oppose proposal. ╟─ Treasury Tag► inspectorate─╢ 17:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I was just reading slashdot and noticed they have a robot reader. [1] Here is one open source text to speech program [2] Would there be interest in attempting to combine this into Wikipedia? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
It would be very convenient to be able to add, through the use of Wiki markup, context menu options to a link. This would allow one to link the same word to many different sites or to the same site with many different optional parameters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemmiwinks2 ( talk • contribs) 19:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I am wondering about adding the ability to view pending changes restricted to a single Wikiproject. I think this would bring many editors aboard who wish to stay within their primary area of interest. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Question, is there a way to remove a user from autoconfirmed? It would make semi-protection a highly useful, and selective way of protecting pages from one or two problem-editors with over 10-edits who are edit warring but not requiring a block as yet. It allows the page to still be edited by helpful non-admin users, while 'offending' accounts have their autoconfirm removed for a period, or until dispute is passed at a mediation page or RfC.
Just a passing thought, feel free to obliterate :D S.G.(GH) ping! 21:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, the edit-filter can de-confirm accounts... ╟─ Treasury Tag► directorate─╢ 21:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The way to ingrain that ATA are ATA is to reject it. This can establish more consensus. RussianReversal ( talk) 03:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Can somebody create a feature that allows articles to have alternate titles, so that the name is rendered as whichever name the reader searched for? Redirects rarely solve naming issues where more than one name is acceptable, but this would solve that. For consistency, there should also be a format that allows alternate text within the article so that it goes along with the name. This would save thousands of hours of arguing over page titles, and it would be a fair compromise that both sides of almost any page name dispure would be happy with. -- WikiDonn ( talk) 23:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you guys don't understand the concept of my idea. With an alternate title, there would be no dominant title. There would be a list of interchangeable names (on a page similar to the "what links here" page) that the article has, and no name would have priority over another. What I am saying is that redirects do not solve this problem, or the issue of user preference over editors preference. If the reader prefers one term over another, they can enter it into the search box to get their version, but there would still be one page, even though some of the text is different. No this will not solve every move war, but it solves legitimate issues, in a way that most good faith editors in argument would agree to. I suppose they could fight over which name is in the #1 spot, but that could not affect the article in any positive way, so anyone doing that can simply be blocked. In fact, you have it backwards, most arguments are over which should be the redirect and which should be the main, but that still doesn't solve the problem in the text of the article. And changing every link that links to the article would be a hell of a lot of work, and much more tedious than moving only 1 page repeatedly. This is a solution for arguments where neither side is wrong. -- WikiDonn ( talk) 19:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
As an individual who's primary goal on Wikipedia is to reduce vandalism and edit warring, I can see this proposal (with application restricted to Admins) solving quite a few edit wars, like the one that has been going on over at epinephrine/adrenaline for the past five years, the editors simply wan the page to reflect the rerminology that they are comfortable with, and a macro like the one being proposed here would end this debate. (and cut down on the number of meaningless mediations. Ronk01 from an IP
Hello,I think citation needed is a notable subject because have 2,240,000 result from Google search or please see this page:
[citation needed] is a superscript notation used in Wikipedia articles to identify questionable claims without any basis on reliable sources. Outside of online communities, the tag has been also used in real life to poke fun at public / corporate advertisements with dubious messages.
this caricature maybe help to notability.Is it True?:)
Ladsgroup
بحث 10:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the place for new article proposals too? I would like to see a list of foreign (non-US) actors who have achieved success in the (film) industry in the US. A ground rule could be that the actor has worked in his home country before having moved to the US. Think of actors such as Ingrid Bergman, Greta Garbo etc.. May such a list be added (I can contribute to the names), and if so, how should it best be named? Moviefan ( talk) 21:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
When I was working on another wiki that used Mediawiki software, I found that new readers were far more likely to notice useful hat-notes if they were somehow separated from the rest of the page. I tried putting boxes around the hat-notes, but in the end I found that the easiest way of doing this was to just add a horizontal bar across the page right below the hotnote, like so:
Foobar is a common placeholder names used in computer programming…
I know that this change would affect millions of pages, but I found that it gave newcomers to the site web a surprisingly big help in finding what they were looking for. —
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs) 01:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
.dablink
and .rellink
classes in
MediaWiki:Common.css. My main concern is that horizontal lines might have other undue effects, such as spearing infoboxes—not to mention that I don't think it adds very much, though I don't care much were this to be changed. :P I'd also suggest that we use a .dablink + .dablink
rule so that hatnotes would group nicely, if we did it by CSS, but someone who remembers the quirks of CSS on browsers that aren't standards-compliant (will .class + .class
work on most browsers?). {{
Nihiltres|
talk|
edits|
⚡}} 06:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)I believe changing the font used for latex rendering to something in slightly more modern and sans-serif would increase readability greatly. http://www.tug.dk/FontCatalogue/mathfonts.html has a list of fonts, and the linked page for each font has a maths example. I propose Computer Modern Bright. 87.254.82.27 ( talk) 03:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
\scriptstyle
because it produces text that is too small and that is unnecessarily
unaccessible. and look almost the same for me except that the PNG version is bigger and more fuzzy (because of anti-aliasing).
Svick (
talk) 19:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I find the scriptstyle text the same size as the surrounding text, and, indeed, Firefox, zooms the whole page not just the text.
To get the maths rendered in the same font, size, etc. it's going to have to be rendered client side, and there does not appear to be any ubiquitous enough technology to do that.
I am merely proposing an incremental improvement. 87.254.82.27 ( talk) 22:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Most Wikipedians (myself included) appear to be against advertising becoming part of Wikipedia. However,a difficulty here could involve articles on brand names. It is true that there are some brand names - to name just a few, Kellogs, Cadburys, Heinz], Hovis and PG Tips - that have become so famous that they would surely merit their own article in Wikipedia. However, can I make a proposal that we have a tag indicating that an article on a brand name not advertise the product, but simply be a description of the brand name's history? Just how there is a category of living people, perhaps there should also be a category of brand names, to avoid material in such articles which could be construed as attempts to advertise for the brand name. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 21:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi again. Seems like our last discussion became lost. As almost always here on village pump or other discussion forums on Wikipedia. So what shall we do, should we have 50% Good articles on the DYK section I mean newly granted Good articles ofcourse. So that we can reach a consensus.(look a bit higher up for earlier discussion and support and oppose votes).-- ÅlandÖland ( talk) 23:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I Support both JMH and MBelgranos suggestion. I also suggest that we do them both as soon as possible.-- ÅlandÖland ( talk) 17:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, an RfC would be the next step. Trying to cram something through passed on weak consensus after less than a week on the village pump is not the way to go. I would also suggest dropping a note at the Signpost about the RfC. What is being proposed will radically change the spirit and purpose of DYK plus elevate GA to a level of visibility that previous community consensus have determined it should not have. For something so radical, the RfC will need a wide spread sampling of community opinions. Agne Cheese/ Wine 16:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm new to this discussion, so forgive the question: Did this come up because there is some sort of shortage of articles being suggested for DYK? Or did it come up because folks want to get more recognition for their newly promoted GA's? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 08:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I think is a very good idea and strongly support it. Pitty I missed the first discussion. -- Elekhh ( talk) 07:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
A few days ago I was looking for info about an Italian singer, Tony Dallara. While there was no article about him on the English Wikipedia, there was a pretty good article on the Italian Wikipedia.
I think you should assume that if there's an article in more than one language about a specific subject, the person interrested in it may be connected to both cultures and would be able to understand the article in the other language as well. But, with or without connection, many people speak more than one language. You should allow the user to pick multiple languages to search for topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srelu ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
While reading this essay, I noticed that some of the linked usernames used as "examples" point to real accounts. It is possible that the real User:Ididntdoit might later come back, see his userpage linked to the essay in "what links here" and object to being referred to as "The teeny bopper spammer", even unintentionally.
One way of avoiding this problem is to put an invalid character in front of the account name. Example, this...
<span style="color:#0000f1">User:#Ididntdoit</span>
Will render as this...
User:#Ididntdoit
This looks like a blue linked user account name that is guaranteed to never exist. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 15:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Can we get WP:WikiProject Essays to help change it the way you suggested? I think it is a good idea, though the whole thing should be moved to WT:WikiProject Essays. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
There has been a few editors lately that have proposed inserting large maps into the infoboxes of many, many articles. For examples, see Petrillo Music Shell, American Museum of Natural History, AT&T Plaza, etc. For the record, I am against this proposal, but those enacting these changes are going ahead with them anyways without putting forth a formal proposal despite the far-reaching effects this precedent would have on the majority of wiki articles.) Thoughts on the insertion of maps into infoboxes?
Here's an observation: The " Contents" link in the sidebar is basically useless. It contains huge entirely unusable lists of articles, and some links to featured content which is redundant to the " Featured content" page. I propose that the "Contents" link in the sidebar be removed. -- Yair rand ( talk) 20:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
#n-contents { display: none; }
Hi. I have proposed that {{ ImageUndeleteRequest}} and its associated process be folded into Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. The reason is that Category:Requests to undelete images is not regularly monitored (yesterday, I cleared out an entry that was sitting there for two weeks) and that templates do not facilitate feedback on the user's request. If you have an opinion, please participate in the discussion at the WP:REFUND talk page. Thank you. -- B ( talk) 15:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe that 142.33.41.7 should be on the WP:SIP list, because, according to the WHOIS, it is for the province of British Columbia. Logan Talk Contributions 20:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
When moving a page, entering a reason is encouraged and a field is provided for it. But when the reason is displayed it's truncated. Since this can't be predicted, it throws off writing it. The reason entry field should be shortened to the length WP will display later, so we'll be likelier to trim our reason until it fits.
We could add the trimmed information to the talk page of the redirection page, but it's unlikely anyone will ever look there. We could add it to the talk page of the destination page, but the presence of the reason field on the move-specification page makes it unlikely we'd also write on a talk page.
Example: On May 7, 2010, I moved The Lottery (Film) to The Lottery (2010 film). I successfully entered this reason:
Distinguish from two other films with the same name. One is in another article. The other was listed in the Lottery disambiguation page, although no article exists on it; the latter film's existence is confirmed at <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0204453/>, as accessed a few minutes ago.
This was truncated in the final display to (including ellipsis):
Distinguish from two other films with the same name. One is in another article. The other was listed in the Lottery disambiguation page, although no article exists on it; the latter film's ...
Possibly the final display including a statement of the move contributed to the truncation, but, even so, something should be redesigned, so that the length of the entry field corresponds to what the final display will support.
Thank you.
Nick Levinson ( talk) 00:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Corrected a link and added nowiki tags to prevent wiki-interpretation of reason entry: Nick Levinson ( talk) 00:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
A Wikipedia article will cross-reference the article's title to entries in Wikipedia's sister projects in Wikimedia, given a template such as {{Sisterlinks}}.
Sometimes, a WP article is supported by WP redirects from similar titles, mispellings, and so on.
The main WP article should similarly cross-reference sister project entries that correspond to titles the WP redirects support.
Example: WP has an article titled Feminism and a redirect to it titled Feminist. The article, via a Wiktionary template, now tells us that Wiktionary has a definition for feminism. But Wiktionary also has a definition for feminist and, because of the redirect, the Feminism article should offer both definitions.
The same should apply to a Sisterlinks template and to related templates.
This should not apply to an article cross-referencing another other than by a redirect.
While an article editor could add templates for every redirect, it's difficult to anticipate all the redirects in the future (e.g., new slang), adding lots of parameters and/or templates is cumbersome, I don't think I've seen an article where that's been done, if a redirect is abandoned (e.g., to replace it with a disambiguation page) someone would have to recode the former destination, and server-side processing can handle this efficiently.
Thank you.
Nick Levinson ( talk) 01:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Corrected, to add nowiki tags to suppress the effect of a Sisterlinks template: Nick Levinson ( talk) 01:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I think there should be an MOS for sports, but I was curious as to where it would go. Figured i'd check here first. Doc Quintana ( talk) 14:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Commons has been developing a proposed policy regarding sexual content at commons:Commons:Sexual content. It is now stable and ready for review by third parties - please look it over and provide any feedback on the talk page. We want to move forward on adoption soon. I'd also appreciate it if you can help spread the news to other relevant forums and local wikis, since this affects everyone. Thank you! Dcoetzee ( talk) 22:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
On pages subject to pending changes, there is an option to show the latest entry in the pending changes-protection log. On semi/fully-protected pages, the latest entry in the protection log is shown, I think it is preferable to have it hidden by default in the same way as for PC-protected pages. It can take a considerable place on the edit screen and there's imo no need to have it displayed at every edit. Cenarium ( talk) 03:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
A quick browse through the list at WP:MFD brings up a number of user-pages, user talk-pages, and user sub-pages being used exclusively for keeping track of betting pools. Many of them are quite blatant (and colourful); I wish all our article tables could look as pretty as this one! These pages serve no purpose whatsoever and yet they mostly sit at MFD for a few days until the clock runs out and they're wiped (some are simply snowballed). These are non-controversial pages to remove and I feel they should be removed quickly and cleanly, so I propose we create a U4. Game pool section to WP:CSD. Tag them and bag them; why hold a vote? Matt Deres ( talk) 01:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
With the number of reviewers approaching 5,000 I thought it might be appropriate to allow pages patrols to be only allowed for reviewers. At present, any autoconfirmed user can patrol a page and page patrol sprees often go unnoticed. -- Marcus Qwertyus ( talk) 06:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Is there a place that records all the pages someone patrolled or the patrollers per pages? I ask to see how many people are taking advantage of the feature, because there is a pretty big backlog and I don't think taking the patroller right from a huge amount of editors will help that right. Feed back (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
You know that yellow box that appears on any page when you have a new message in your talk page. Will it be possible to have that yellow box appear when there's a new message on any other talk page or WP page which the user can specify (like at a Special:Alerts" page). This will be very helpful for everyone to keep track of discussions. Feed back (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Currently when an IP views the source of a semiprotected talk page they would receive a message telling them where to make the editprotected requests, but on talk pages it's still link to the talk page, not the non-autoconfirmed talk page. Kayau Voting IS evil 05:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
One way which people use wikipedia is to browse random pages through the 'Random article' link repeatedly. When browsing in this way, the user will often read the title and maybe the first line of the page before moving onto another page of possible interest. This, I imagine, would be a large drain on resources (server load, etc) as the whole page is loaded when only little is read/seen. Possible solution: a browsing mode where a page of titles and first sentences are randomly listed, where users can go to the page (or even have it expand to be the full article with some ajax wizardry) so that the user can look at random pages without wasting resources. The level of complexity this solution adds to UI may not outweigh the resources saved - a suggestion none the less tho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrlord ( talk • contribs) 14:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Recently, Antonu ( talk · contribs) has proposed a massive upgrade of barnstars. The details can be viewed here. As this proposal has project-wide impacts, I am posting this here for community consensus. Kayau Voting IS evil 06:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has recently arisen in various venues about an image which is potentially illegal as possibly constituting child pornography. The object of this proposal is not to rehash that debate but to extract some positive proposals which seemed to me to arise from it.
1. There is no clear guidance on what, if anything, an editor should do if they believe that content is criminally illegal: I'm thinking child pornography here, not libel or copyvio. Is it good enough to report it to law enforcement and sit back and wait for the feds to call? If not, what should a concerned editor do on-wiki?
2. There needs to be a clear process for saying "I think X content is illegal" which does not render the report liable to blocking for violation of WP:NLT.
3. I specifically propose: a notice board where concerns can be reported; agreement that admins at that board can remove content if agreed likely; process for referring such content for WMF legal opinion.
Kenilworth Terrace ( talk) 19:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem though, is when you get into stuff like Muhammad. That's why only Florida is relevent, not out of some sort of malice toward other places. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 22:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
What about simply banning all pictures cointaining either people below 20 years, sexually explicit material, or both, at least until the panic vanishes?-- Ancient Anomaly ( talk) 22:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The laws relating to this issue are necessarily non-specific and subject to interpretation. Although it seems to attract no shortage of editors willing to offer their opinions, the community at large is simply not qualified to offer an opinion on this specialized area of law. It bears noting that adminship confers no special knowledge in this area. Discussions on related topics have shown the community -- both here and at other WMF projects -- to be hopelessly polarized and dysfunctional when it comes to taking constructive action to deal with these issues.
Rather than creating a noticebaord or procedure, we should offer advice on how editors who encounter something that they genuinely believe to be child pornography. Simply put, that advice would be:
I hope that anyone encountering something that is obviously and inarguably child pornography would take it upon themselves to remove the image from public view. This is a WMF issue, not an English Wikipedia issue, and we should allow the WMF to lead the way on this if further action is warranted. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 11:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Any discussion on this topic should be on the policy page, not on the proposals page. And there must be input from the legal counsel. Anything else is just wheel spinning. Everard Proudfoot ( talk) 18:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
es-wiki has a template es:Plantilla:Pirámide de población. We used to have an equivalent Template:Population pyramid, but it was apparently removed for lack of use. Several of us are currently translating es:Calviá as en:Calvià. The es-wiki article uses that template. Is there any reason I should not undelete or recreate it? It seems potentially useful. If I should not recreate it, do I have to handle this data as a graphic? - Jmabel | Talk 23:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
We have a lot of nomination systems for articles (FAC, FAR/FARC, GAN, GAR, also AfD and PR), so I'm making this proposal here. It is difficult to gain useful information from old assessment archives (i.e. looking up objections to last year's failed FAC before renominating) because the article can change so much. I propose that we archive permanent links to the revision nominated and the revision at closing. This helps editors see whether the article has progressed since the nom, and helps reviewers see how much the article has progressed during the nom. If a bot could add this information retroactively to the thousands of archive pages, it would be great; otherwise we'd just start doing it now. Thoughts? HereToHelp ( talk to me) 02:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
There's an RfC about standardising the names of navbox, infobox and sidebox (sidebar) templates here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Templates#RfC_re_template_naming. 212.84.103.144 ( talk) 18:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I have one suggestion as pertaining to the English Wikipedia main page but may be applicable for other languages as well.
Since many people visit Wikipedia to search for an article, I was hoping that the search bar would be in a more prominent position. The previous version had the search bar in the left-most column and the current version has the search bar in the upper right hand corner.
I would suggest that the search bar should be centered, towards the top of the main page and bigger so that it is easily accessible and prominent to viewers. Perhaps a good place for it would be the space to the right of the line: "Welcome to Wikipedia"
I am suggesting this by following the example of other search-intensive sites such Google or Bing or YouTube
Thanks for considering my suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noblerare ( talk • contribs) 19:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
RC patrollers would love this because it will offer guidance to them as to which edits to revert. T3h 1337 b0y 01:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I noticed this sentence "When you click Save, your changes will immediately become visible to everyone." at the bottom of the page when I am editing, and, while in the past it was entirely correct, it is no longer valid, as with pending changes an edit is not automatically viewable to all users and readers. Could someone remove it for the duration of the pending changes trial? Best wishes. Immunize ( talk) 18:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
With Level 2 just use an appropriate variation. For example,"Edits to this page by anonymous or newly registered users are subject to review before becoming visible to everyone"
... Kenosis ( talk) 15:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)"Edits to this page are subject to review by a reviewer or administrator before becoming visible to everyone."
I propose that past offenders' (users and i.p. that have been warned for vandalism) changes be in bold to indicate that they have a higher risk of being vandalism. This could be an invaluable tool for vandal fighters. -- Iankap99 ( talk) 07:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Strong support Would be very helpful. Immunize Contact me Contributions 13:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - scripts can do that; don't make it default for everyone. Besides, it's unfair to list out IPs that are on shared computers. Kayau Voting IS evil 14:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Would it be possible to have rewards for vandalism fighting? This could be done by the amount of rollbacks that have been performed by the user.-- Iankap99 ( talk) 07:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar}}
? See
WP:BARN for more information about barnstars.
Svick (
talk) 12:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
This is my third village pump proposal for a short while, but I feel the need to do so. I think there is an unhealthy trend in Wikipedia (it could have been the trend long before I came, but I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia as I wasn't involved in any serious editing till sometime last year.) Anyway I don't like the way people count the number of supports and opposes and call it 'consensus'. This is democracy, and Wikipedia is anything but a democracy if we want to make a good encyclopaedia. Lots of WP:LIKEs and WP:IDLs are recognised as !votes every day. And besides, IMO calling a vote a !vote is no different to just calling a vote a vote. I think there could be a petition where Wikipedians sign to reflect their discontent on such 'fake consensus'. Kayau Voting IS evil 14:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Question for Kayau: wouldn't the petition you suggest be a vote itself? Voting against votes sounds a bit strange! Alzarian16 ( talk) 16:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Indeed; online petitions of all kinds are generally slacktivism at its finest. Tisane talk/ stalk 03:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I propose we rename Autoreviewer, see the documentation to Autopatroller, articles create by users in this group are automatically patrolled when created. The name 'Autoreviewer' has resulted in much confusion with the upcoming and unrelated reviewer usergroup which will be used in the Pending changes trial, and the name 'autopatroller' is closer to the group's function. Cenarium ( talk) 16:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
FYI, the reviewer usergroup no longer possesses the 'autopatrol' userright, since it could conflict with autoreviewer which applies different standard for granting et al. Cenarium ( talk) 00:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Strong support More accurate. Immunize ( talk) 20:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Done - although the name should really be a noun, not an adjective. Prodego talk 03:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
It will be extremely helpfull if we add a Translating Tool(TT) Like Google Translate in tool box or in print/export section of every article/template.It'll be extremely easy to translate articles. As grammetical errors in the machine translated text are common,these errors can be fixed by human users. Consider an article of 5000 words which would have taken a month to translate fully by various users but can be translated in seconds and can be made grammetically error free by contributors in 5 minutes. This can also prevent some original research. Like a German translator who translate it manually may add some original research while translating.
Coercorash Talk Contr. 14:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
importScript('User:Manishearth/sidebartranslinks.js'); //[[User:Manishearth/sidebartranslinks.js]]
-As grammetical errors in the machine translated text are common,these errors can be fixed by human users. Coercorash Talk Contr. 14:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
It will be very helpful if we translate a tool (TT) template.It As in Google Translate tool box or in print / export section of each article / 'll add is extremely easy to translate texts. As grammetical errors in the machine translated text are widespread, may be adopted such errors by human users. Let us look at an article of 5000 words that would have taken a month to translate fully, but can be translated within seconds by different users and grammetically made errors of contributors in five minutes. This can also prevent some original research. As a German translator to translate the translation can manually add in some original research.
♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 14:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)If the end is calculated to turn around the conversion of dae (automatic device of the information entrance) (TTT, of what gradiciamo with the printing of portautensili Google or the drawer u), or, if all the regulations or the exemplary section if they are united to, this one is not useful the much municipality. It' Ll the limit in the conversion, is very simple. Gradice erroneous Grammetical the unit - what the preoccupations, transform the text to the divided interest of the conversion an error, what closings, more than the client of the person if possible those. About the month the requirements in the conversion and many that the types of that one probably had, turned totally the client into a second, can think that done grammetically and they do not depend on 5 distribute, the more on the equipment of employees of the relations of processing of 5000 words end to pay erroneous to the regulations are possible. That it interests the origin the search is therefore impedetto later possible. Somigli to the German decoder, if one turns, possibly, if this one turns the end to add the end him to use the hand, in the order the origin of the search.
I propose that a expandable ellipse be made for quotations. Currently, when a quote is used with either redundant or irrelevant content, it is removed and replaced with ellipsis ("...") which indicate that content has been removed. These however, can be made in bad faith, either to remove context or to remove content contrary to the use of the quote. My proposal is that to show good faith ellipsis, when clicked the full quote becomes visible. I suggest this could be achieved by the use of Template:... e.g. "I am quoted without the {{...|hidden part of the quote}} as an example"
This, as far as I know, is not possible at the moment due to commons.js forcing a table and [hide]/[show]
930913 (
Congratulate/
Complaints) 23:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
"Here's my not actually full quote".
Or you could just include the full quote in the "Quote" section of the cite template that references the quote.
Fences& Windows 22:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Devise a scheme whereby I can, at a glance, tell if a link to another wikipedia article leads to a more general subject or a more specific subject than the one which I am currently viewing. That is to say, "Will this link take up or down the categorical hierarchy of human knowledge?". For example if I am on the subject of Physics and I click on a link that takes me to the subject of Thermodynamics, I will have moved down the categorical hierarchy of human knowledge because Thermodynamics is an aspect of Physics. Therefore it is more limited in scope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.75.216 ( talk • contribs)
I'm working on the Open Library project at the Internet Archive. We trying to build a catalogue of all books ever published. The plan is to add links from our author and book pages to Wikipedia. One of my colleagues has suggested that we could also add links from Wikipedia to Open Library. Would it improve articles about authors and books if we include a link to Open Library? If not, are there any changes or improvements we think we need to make to Open Library before adding links from Wikipedia? Edward ( talk) 22:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
See Help talk:Minor edit#Should we remove the Preference setting to "Mark all edits minor by default" ?. – xeno talk 14:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
These tribes, and I know them. Write a letter in Arabic (ظ) and is not available in English so enlisted the letter which is closest (d). Should be re-the former name of this article. Then it's not an Iraqi tribe
This is the article and should be re-former name Al-Zafir_(tribe)
-- The arabin wolf ( talk) 14:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I propose we rename the following seven following articles:
In my opinion, this change is necassary to prevent confusion mainly because the articles need to focus only on the most prominent and significant events and trends in popular music worldwide and not include insignificant events and trends (the significance of each event and trend is of course debatable and would be determined acording to the consensus reached by the editors). TheCuriousGnome ( talk) 20:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Discussion about the recent interface changes is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/May 2010 skin change. Please comment there to keep discussion in one place. |
I think that the default interface should implement the code at User:Pyrospirit/metadata. One of the biggest problems we have with getting people to trust Wikipedia, is that they don't see us trying to maintain the quality of the articles. I showed another user last week, and he had no clue that you could do this and thought it would be very useful. If you implemented this code, or something similar, it would tell users alot more about articles on the main page. Right now we only show them GA and FA symbols, why not the whole range, that way we can increase awareness of all of our efforts in assessing articles? Sadads ( talk) 14:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I missed this until now, but this is similar to another issue I have raised as a proposal as WT:ASSESS not too long ago. I was going to try again here at the village pump, but in more broad terms, sometime within the next week or two. If you take a look at my initial proposal, I offered options to deal with Stub-thru-B-class articles separately, but you will still get very strong opposition from the WikiProjects that still use A-class and don't want to give it up. Although I favor what you are suggesting for the same reason, we'd have to push through lots of thorny, deadlocked issues to make any changes. For that reason, I was going to step back and ask a broader question and try to see if I could get people to agree on some basic principles, then proceed from there. All-in-all WP:ASSESS may need to be completely revamped, and there could be many, many ways to do it. We could get rid of lower classes, make a separate (but interconnected) rating systems for the public and editors, etc., etc. We'd only be limited by our own creativity and the limitations of Wiki. Anyway, I'll try to post the proposal sooner rather than later. If you want, I'll even try to type it up tomorrow night. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know where the "Sploofus" website is?
This is what I have in mind. Click "here" in the green comment at the top.
My proposal addresses both of these issues.
I'd like to do an initial one month trial on one article, tracking the stats, analyzing the quality; followed by a one month trial of a representative sample of 20 articles; and then present the findings for your consideration. Any support for this? Anthony ( talk) 00:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that red links are what tempt people the most to edit. People who aren't familiar with the fact that a red link means there's no article there, click on it and are confronted with an invitation to edit. Of course, there is always the possibility of reopening up new article creation to anonymous users; that might be helpful. Tisane talk/ stalk 03:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean move User:Anthonyhcole/Pain/tutorial to Pain/tutorial? Anthony ( talk) 04:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
When I saw this section heading it made me think of a problem I've seen several times recently for new editors. It's happened a few times to me, and certainly to several others I've seen. Dunno if this is the right forum, but here goes...
The problem is when a new(ish) editor (I've only been truly active for around six months) makes a suggestion on a talk page, or sometimes with a WP:BOLD edit, and gets told something like "No. You're wrong. That was all decided years ago. You can't change that consensus now". Well, that's an insulting arrogance, and is basically telling the newcomer "Your ideas aren't wanted". We need to find a way to better welcome newcomers than that sort of response. HiLo48 ( talk) 08:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
When discussing citation templates, I find it very clumsy to have to differentiate the different templates by style. I propose to name these:
This template is based on APA style and uses a comma as the default separator:
These templates are based on APA style and use a period as the separator:
These templates arebased on Ellis, Allen (1999). Comic Art in Scholarly Writing: A Citation Guide.
These templates are based on APA style but use styling that differs from CS1 or CS2; the listed templates do not necessarily use the same style:
These templates are base on the Vancouver style:
A freestyle template: {{ wikicite}}
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
tags that link to the reference list citation formatted with CS1 or CS2. I am not out to fix this system, as it seems to not be broken. I just want to document what is already in use, and I need some terminology to do this. ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk 15:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom is considering lifting the restriction imposed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Lightmouse automation, subject to BAG approval of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 4. As part of BAG's mandate is to gauge community consensus for proposed bot tasks and Lightbot's former activities were highly controversial, I invite all interested editors to join that discussion to ensure that community consensus is in fact in favor of this task. Thanks. Anomie ⚔ 17:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Make a feature by which new users, who are registering in wikipedia, will be able to see if the usernames they have chosen is available or not, before entering password and anti-spam words. It will save people's time. It took more than 4 mins for me to register here as whatever username i'm using shows a message "This username is too similar to XYZ" ): -- Tintin rules ( talk) 04:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
This isn't a proposal made my me, but a proposal that's going around and I'm curious about the general perception about it. Recently there was a bit of code added to Template:Infobox comic book title, that makes the titles of the articles using it to be in italics. There was a little reversion dispute about it, and a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Italic titles in Template:Infobox comic book title. The manual of style requires the names of works of arts (which includes comic books) to be written in italics, but its unclear whenever such rule is limited to the article prose (such as in "Frank Miller created Sin City, a black&white comic book of policial stories") or extends to the title of the article itself. Critics support the first thing, supporters support the later, and consider as well that specific projects may develop their own consensus about this.
That's actually what I wanted to ask. Being a detail of style that's so highly visible, can it be left to specific projects to decide about it, or should there be a wider discussion? Besides, if the rule is accepted, shouldn't it be applied to articles about other types of works of art as well? After all, the general rule is about works of art in general (movies, books, TV series, etc.), and whenever the rule reaches the article title or not should be the same for all of them. I'm not much of an editor of comic books articles, but I do work with some articles about Argentine TV series, books or portraits, and I want to know if I should place italics in their titles or not. MBelgrano ( talk) 12:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I posted an idea I had into meta, and was looking for some feedback! Thank you - Theornamentalist ( talk) 02:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I would say we don't have to hide/show the content table, but for every section. So we always show the "content table", all information is collapsed, and I can choose to show any specific section or subsection.
Since at present, all sections are shown, and some might be not interested for some readers. As for this page, I am just interested in this section I created. So I hope all other sections to disappear. Jackzhp ( talk) 18:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
When there is an argument about whether a change should be made in an article, and there is minority group against a change, they often start repeating that there is no consensus because they do not agree, and are able to prevent the change. The argument then breaks down into whether there is consensus or not, and even if the majority is supported by policy and reason, they are unable to make the change because they are unable to convince a small group of people. I think there should be a committee that has the power to declare based on the number of editors, supporting policies, supporting reasons etc., what consensus is in favor of at a given point in time, and give permission of one side to make a change, and block the opposing side from editing the page until they can get a consensus in their favor. I think this will help prevent endless discussions from being used to prevent a change. -- WikiDonn ( talk) 18:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
A recent interview posted about Dragon Quest IX has brought up a major problem. The site is entirely in flash and contains multiple videos and there is no clear way to distinguish which video one is referencing because they are all on the same page. Unlike some flash pages which can be saved to specific pages within the flash page, this one cannot be saved to a specific movie. 陣 内 Jinnai 02:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Robert Harris, the consultant who has been hired by WMF to conduct a study on Potentially-Objectionable Content within the projects. I've posted a series of questions for discussion to begin consultation within the communities at the Meta page devoted to the study ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content). Although the main focus of this specific set of questions is Wikimedia Commons, I'd be very interested in what all Wikipedians have to say about these questions, especially since policies on Commons obviously affect every other project, and the handling of images in Wikipedia is often subtly different than that of Commons. Robertmharris ( talk) 12:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Currently, the vetting (review) processes on Wikipedia is poorly understood by the general public. Wiki is often judged privately and publicly on articles that may or may not measure up to our highest standards. This leads to mixed opinions about the content, as well as sharp criticism and general distrust by the public and within the academic community. This in turn could complicate efforts to develop expert review systems in an atmosphere of distrust and misunderstanding.
In order for a reader to assess the Wiki-rated quality of a non- GA or FA article, they must select the Discussion tab (if the article is rated at all). If the article lacks a talk page or does not even have a header with a rating, no information is provided. If a rating is provided, it may either link to WP:ASSESS or an assessment page for a specific WikiProject. The pages often provide little information in a format that would be engaging to the average reader. Furthermore, ratings vary between projects, and many pages are rated inaccurately. The higher-quality content offered on Wiki, in the form of A-class, GA, and FA are not always perfect, but sweeps and reviews have improved the content within the past few years. The latter two even provide a link to WP:GA or WP:FA respectively from the article itself, in the form of a green plus or a bronze star icon. In short, article ratings and communication about those ratings are inconsistent and offer little "reader-friendly" information about our vetting process.
I would like to start by making a very general proposal. (In other words, don't read more into it than what it says.)
Proposal:
To begin a process with the goal of finding ways to utilize some sort of rating system to inform readers about the quality of the content of the articles they are viewing and inform them, as simply as possible, about our vetting system(s).
The proposal is being left very general for a reason. There have been many deadlocked issues that tie in with this topic, and I don't wish to address those details now. The purpose is to get consensus on whether or not to move forward with this general idea. More proposals will come, becoming more and more specific as we collectively find the most agreeable solutions.
Reason to support:
Reason to oppose:
These are the only points I want people to focus on for this round of the discussion. Again, please do not read more into than this than what is explicitly stated. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure I agree. This was a more specific proposal but got bogged down in specifics, so Visionholder tried a different approach to see if folks were agreed in principle to the idea of some form of article grading more easily visible to readers. I agree that many many pages have old gradings on the pages from before the wholesale move to inline referencing. I suspect many B-class need to be moved to C-class as the biggest shift needed. If a push to do this results - a good thing? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
While for the US/UK readers the imperial system is relevant, it doesn't happen the same for the rest of the world. In some articles both information is displayed, but it is not the common rule and makes the articles unnecessarily longer and more complicated to create (or edit).
Create a wikimedia symbol to input units and give users the option to select which units system to use. For instance {{meters|30}} which would display "30m" for users with the option "Metric system" activated and "98ft" for users with the "Imperial system" option. -- Micru ( talk) 14:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
convert}}
handles it. On the other hand, I don't think this would be worth the work from both developers and editors, especially considering that most readers are either anonymous or wouldn't set the preference one way or other. Also, if you want to show imperial units to anonymous Americans and metric to the rest of the anonymous world, it would require
geolocation and, as far as I know, Wikipedia doesn't do this now, so that would be additional work.
Svick (
talk) 15:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Please move this to a subpage, the pump is not well-suited for extended discussion, polling, etc. You create a subpage with the proposal and link to it from here. (In respect to the proposal, this looks like just going back down the same road of the date autoformatting saga with units, and we all know how that turned out). – xeno talk 15:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Today I revised two questions I asked on reference desks. I used this method to show where I was deleting what I had said. Is there an equivalent if you add something to a previous statement?
Vchimpanzee ·
talk ·
contributions · 20:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I wrote an essay recently and would appreciate feedback on it (either here or on its talkpage) or improvements to it: WP:Wikipedia is amoral ( WP:AMORAL). I have no aspirations of trying to elevate it beyond a mere essay. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I was looking for an RSS feed for DYK. I see we don't have one at WP:Syndication. I asked at the help desk, and I learned from Calvin_1998 that "because DYK, ITN, &c. are updated manually (bot or otherwise)," we would have to "ma[k]e a script that creates an RSS/Atom feed from the HTML on the main page".
That's outside my skill set (and my vocabulary). Can it be done? (and post the product at WP:Syndication?) Thanks. Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 06:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I’m the founder and CEO of StatSheet, Inc. ( http://statsheet.com), a sports media company that specializes in making sports stats easy to integrate across the web.
There are thousands of sports pages on wikipedia that get out of date quickly because the articles contain sports stats related to a team or player.
Would you have any interest in StatSheet providing a service to Wikipedia contributors that allowed them to embed a snippet of Javascript, which updated those stats/standings/etc in real-time? The embedded content could look like it is part of the page — not an outside add-on.
We have a service called Embed StatSheet that does exactly this: http://embed.statsheet.com
Look at the football standings table on the following page to get an idea of what I'm talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_A%26M#Athletics
Robbie
This proposal in a nutshell: Have a list of pages protected from deletions or moves (even by admins) to prevent accidental deletions/moves.
In order to prevent
deletions like these that have caused Wikipedia harm, I was wondering if a solution could be made that would prevent pages from getting deleted. I suggest a kind of MediaWiki:Pages protected from deletion page that would not allow any page listed on it to be deleted (preventing moves as well as deletions might also be a good idea). This would only prevent accidental deletions of the listed pages. If an admin really wanted to delete one of these pages, all he/she would have to do would be remove the page from the list and then delete the page. However, doing so would make it obvious that the deletion was intentional. When an admin presses the delete tab or navigates to the delete page for a page in the anti-delete list, they will not be shown a form to give a reason for the deletion but instead be given a notice that the page is protected from being deleted and must be removed from the list in order to be deleted. The notice would be shown before not after submitting the delete request to prevent
certain people from thinking that the page is in the list when in reality, it is not. I would suggest the syntax to be similar to
MediaWiki:Bad image list (separate lines for each entry, entries are links, wild cards accepted (somehow), and other entries on the same lines as exceptions (i.e. prevent
WP:Sandbox from being deleted but allow its subpages to be deleted)). The list should only be populated with pages that would disrupt access to Wikipedia or pages necessary to the operation of Wikipedia (i.e.
Wikipedia:Administrator's Noticeboard). Also, if implemented, releasing the source code would be great. If someone comes up with a better wording for all of this, please feel free to add it below.
Rabbitfang (
talk) 03:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone have a good way to be alerted when a new RfC is created? I tried watchlisting pages such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines (which is what the links at Wikipedia:Requests for comment imply we should do), but that involves wading through a diff, where the bot may have both added and deleted stuff, so it's not very clear in Popups what the change is. This seems a significant deterrent to widespread use of an important function—even assuming users take the step of watchlisting. If anything, wouldn't it be better if the system automatically alerted all registered users when a new RfC is created? PL290 ( talk) 08:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I was reading this article in the New York Times about how some are beginning to incorporate video into ebooks and other text on the Ipad and similar devices. A few weeks ago, i thought of the idea of creating an encyclopedia, but with videos interspersed throughout the text, as an aide to help clarify or provide a visual for better understanding. Or, maybe some just prefer things by video.
I googled video encyclopedias and the best result I came up with was vidipedia.org, but it doesn't exactly look like its going places. I thought I could create my own company but the amount of effort and cost that would go into such a project are too enormous for a college student like me with limited funds.
I was hoping that maybe you guys at wikimedia could look into such capabilities for your services. I see that you guys have "wikis" for various media but not video. Perhaps a partnership with Youtube is in the works.
But alas this is just a suggestion, someone will probably think of doing this before long and make money off it.
Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.181.3 ( talk • contribs) 16:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Videos can be uploaded, but must remain within the 100 meg limits, plus we only support 1 video codec, not all the current accepted ones for the HTML5 proposal, and HTML5 video is very limiting at the moment in browsers. The 100 meg limit and the inability to auto-scale quality based on connection speed would be a big holdup to incorporating better video into articles. That and I think a lot of people have preconceived ideas for what video is acceptable for an encyclopedia. And another major stumbling block is finding people who create good video content to release it under a free license acceptable for use here. I do think that properly done, and produced videos can greatly improve articles allowing users, specifically those with limited literacy to get more out of the encyclopedia. — raeky T 01:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia already has videos. Consider Cartesian_diver#Experiment_description.© Geni 19:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I posted this on WP:VP (Proposals) on July 8, but nobody responded.
I was looking for an RSS feed for DYK. I see we don't have one at WP:Syndication. I asked at the help desk, and I learned from Calvin_1998 that "because DYK, ITN, &c. are updated manually (bot or otherwise)," we would have to "ma[k]e a script that creates an RSS/Atom feed from the HTML on the main page".
Can someone do this? (and post the product at WP:Syndication?) Thanks. Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 06:14, 28 July 2010 (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 don't know how big a problem "vandalism" is on Wikipedia but I have developed a simple idea that may provide a disincentive for new users to make bad or malicious edits. This idea is so deliciously simple I don't know why it hasn't been thought of before. Namely, upon registering an account, a new user must use a credit card to "deposit" a sum of at least $20 in a Wikipedia trust account, although a user could choose to deposit more if he desires. For each edit the user makes that is flagged as "vandalism" or "non productive," a fraction of the deposit (perhaps $2-5) is forfeited to the wikipedia administration. If the user continues to make non-productive edits, the entire sum will be soon forfeited. Once the user's funds in the trust account are depleted, the user is banned from wikipedia. If, however, the user is not banned, the entire sum is refunded to the user's credit card within six months of registration, or within the first ten edits, whichever comes last. Wikipedia can also keep all the interest generated by this aggregate trust account, which mayhap would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Thus the tangible threat of economic loss will serve as a powerful disincentive to vandalize wikipedia. Your suggestions are of course welcome. Thank you. DeepAgentBorrasco ( talk) 05:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I've been trying to organise my watchlist, but frankly it's a bit of an archaic system that Wikipedia uses. Why not have a system similar to internet browser bookmarking, which is surely much simpler? Or at least have the ability to add folders to your watchlist, with a 'tick selected' to move individual pages into it arrangement?-- Richyratton ( talk) 10:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
^ -- MZMcBride ( talk) 22:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if you could help us out. We are quite new to all this, but after a conversation with a good friend over dinner we were talking about some of the issues in the article List of deaths by corporal punishment. This was resolved on the Biography of living people noticeboard, for although the subject of the list was dead, some people mentioned (as alleged murderers!) were living, which was the concern. We've got two more questions - not sure if this is the correct place to ask this becase the living persons board seems wrong for questions about list of deaths - if we are in the wrong place then do please point it out and feel free to move the question!
Firstly, we were looking at Category:Lists of people by cause of death, and it seems quite strange that there are the following articles:
AND
Whether or not keeping the complete list is something which is possible (ie: will ever be a complete list), we can see the reason for having one - but not why Turkey, Africa and the Lebanon get their own lists! (On a side note, the "see also" on the lebanon article seems to be pointing to a particular cause, which may or may not be backed up by the list...)
What would be the best thing to do in this circumstance? The main list seems to divide by country and continent as well - should the articles be merged?
Secondly, we were wondering what Wikipedia's policy is on the use of "alleged" or "allegedly" in an article. Are you allowed to allege that someone has/is/has done something, based on (eg: speculation made in a newspaper etc)? IE: If notable person Bob claims that notable person Mike has come round his house and stolen all his cutlery, even though there is no evidence to say so, is Mike's article allowed to say "Bob alleged that Mike came round his house and stole all his cutlery". Or is Bob's article allowed to say "He claimed that Mike once came round his house and stole all his cutlery"? We're not sure where the line is on this one!
Anyway, sorry for such a long post! Any answers you may have would be greatly appreciated! All the best, Artie and Wanda ( talk) 23:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
There is a WP feature that shows an indication (depending on the skin, I think) that someone else has edited your personal Talk page. This is a great feature. My proposal is to add an Email Preference to send an email to the user, in addition to setting the indicator. This preference would take priority over other Email Preferences so the email can be sent even when the user wants privacy for the other email features. David Spector (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
To summarize the comments: there has as yet been no objection to the proposal as stated. David Spector (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I support it. I know if I didn't spend every waking moment plugged into Wikipedia I would want to get e-mails when I have something on my talk. It would be like what I do with Facebook (silly silly website). Sadads ( talk) 17:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
As a semi-retired software engineer with about 40 years' experience working with computers, including 18 years of Windows programming, I can't see how sending an email to those who want one whenever their Talk page changes (or going even farther, when one of their watchlisted pages changes one or more times within a window of 30 minutes or so) would create a performance problem.
Presumably, WP data resides in a database handling thousands of transactions a second. Handling a few more every now and then wouldn't seem to be a problem to me. The actual email sending is also not a load; it can be handled by a lower-priority process. They'd have to convince me it would either load the servers or slow response time significantly.
This is a Proposals page. I assume that means that every proposal will be considered for implementation on its merits, not on some memory of 'they already rejected that'.
Concerning misuse by malicious users (vandals), I think this is not a significant addition to the tools they already have, principally too much time on their hands.
There's a lot of strong conservatism (in its meaning of 'opposition to change') here in spite of WP:BOLD, one of the most valuable of the founding principles of WP. I believe that "do the right thing" is a better attitude than "that's not the way we do it here."
Of course, if there really would be a performance problem, or this proposal turned out to help vandals significantly, then this proposal should not be implemented. David Spector (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
On some pages I believe you can subscribe to an RSS feed. Is this true of user talk pages? It might be especially useful on your own, and you could set up (email or other) alerts yourself using this. Verbal chat 20:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
decltype
(
talk) 15:34, 27 July 2010 (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
A debug mode for tables would be very convenient. Could one maybe create a class="debug" with exagerated cellpadding or whatever? It would also need to make all borders visible even if they had been set to not show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemmiwinks2 ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Proposal to split apart Wikipedia:Manual of Style (MUSTARD) and merge it into the other Music Guidlines. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (MUSTARD)#Page Split -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 20:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
You can put non-free images in articles (where they are very visable) but NOT in talk pages (where their non-free impact is low). That in itself is wierd. Furthermore, the proccess for uploading images is arcane and unfriendly to the new user, requiring special basiv knowlegde of how copyright works in America (which I don't care about, as I don't live in America). My proposal calls for sweeping reforms to how we manage images and is to be done by in-house experts on the subject who must always keep the "dumb-end-user" in mind when reforming policy to make it VERY STREAMLINED AND MAKE SENSE!! (I don't mean understandable, I mean common sense!!).
Mod MMG (
User Page) Reply on my
talkpage. Do NOT click
this link 08:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
First of all this may be more of a global Wikimedia issue, but I feel having a discussion here first would be more interesting and useful. Also, this post is, in a way, a means of getting some frustration off my chest. (Hopefully I won't bore you too much in the process)
I have an Wikipedia account since 2004, and have been an utterly satisfied user of the encyclopaedia for a long while now. Occasionally I do some edits, mostly fixing patent mistakes and reverting vandalism I happen to come across, but I never became a prolific editor. A couple weeks ago, however, I began to study programming following a particularly well written Wikibook, and I felt totally at ease with the Wikibook model (probably just because my brain is best suited to tasks more modular and self-contained than building the incredibly complex web of cross-linking articles Wikipedia is. But I digress) and began doing some serious copyediting of the book right away. I felt that I finally found my home in the Wikimedia projects, and so decided to look around to learn more about how Wikibooks worked.
My worries began when, on reading the RfD page of Wikibooks, I took issue with a particular book on physics, and decided, after checking some policies and deciding it was reasonable to do so, make an RfD against that book. You can read all the gory details on the RfD entry itself if you wish, but the issue which really concerns me is totally independent on whether that RfD will be accepted or not by the community. The problem is that at several points during the process it looked very appropriate to ask other Wikibookians with some knowledge of physics for their opinions, as it is done in a RfC around here. Unfortunately, it appears impossible to locate a single regularly active editor of any of the better Wikibooks on physics, or find a place where asking for comments on the RfD would be useful. In fact, many of the RfD discussions at Wikibooks, particularly those on "specialist" subjects like physics, get no input other than from the proponent and the (currently 12) admins (and, occasionally, from the main contributor of the book to which the RfD refers to).
A pertinent question at this point would be what Wikipedia has to do with my complaints. The answer is very simple. Wikipedia has millions of registered users, an useful RfC system, some functional Wikiprojects and lots of public recognition. Wikibooks has none of these things. The point I'm trying to make is that Wikipedia could use some, even a little bit, of its leverage and brain power to support its sibling projects. Maybe something like having smallish (10-20 people) rotating boards of contributors in the main areas of knowledge (natural sciences, humanities, computing...) dedicated to providing comments in discussions and working at improving books at Wikibooks (the members of the boards could well be permanent, but for practical reasons I guess a rotating cast of volunteers would work better). It wouldn't cost much to Wikipedia, but would help the smaller projects a lot. The way things are now, I am afraid most of the existing Wikibooks are condemned to remaining eternally as stubs, and I feel the Wikipedia community could do something about that situation.
Note that I didn't post this either at Meta or at Wikibooks, as I feel it would be more productive starting this discussion at Wikipedia. Hoping to read your opinions, whatever they are. And thanks for putting up with my lamentations. -- Duplode ( talk) 23:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Some sort of cross-wiki-WikiProject thing might be beneficial. There have been times on other projects where I've felt something was an issue, but there was no analog to a WikiProject I could go to and say "okay, I feel there's a problem in the domain of topic X, what do you all think?" For instance, I don't agree with the way the categories for roads/road sign photographs are set up on Commons. If this had happened on Wikipedia, I could consult with WP:USRD and work out a consensus, but it doesn't exist over there, so I couldn't go seek the input of people specifically knowledgeable about road photos. As a result, last time that I attempted to broach that topic, it ended up with two or three Commons categorizers shouting that I didn't understand Commons and me arguing that they didn't understand the reasons the photos had been taken in the first place, and thus their categorization scheme was silly. Very little got done. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
(Without breaking the flow of the current discussions: I just told people at Wikibooks about this thread. -- Duplode ( talk) 15:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC))
More about Foo
Books about Foo
Quotes by Foo
Current news related to Foo
Definition of Foo
Pictures of Foo
Opinions? {{
Sonia|
talk|
simple}} 05:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
First: great anecdote, and collabs across Projects is a great idea.
Second: the easiest way to support a project may be to drive traffic to it, particularly editing traffic. This doesn't have to have any particular structure (such as the rotating boards).
One thing we could consider is setting up a more effective banner system to sharing project-related messages for editors -- so that editors would see notices of other projects related to their interests, or randomly selected notices about something cool going on across Wikimedialand.
Third, Yair is right :) Maybe one big WikiProject here devoted to collaboration and barnraisings across Projects would be enough, could have weekly or monthly drives, and could call on specific WikiProjects here for each of its efforts. – SJ + 15:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I just say that I wish to add my support, as many have, to the idea of trans-wiki collaboration - it makes sense to me. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 21:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The main reason Wikipedia editors don't edit much at Wikibooks, etc. is multiple watchlists.
Please see:
This user supports global, cross-wiki, integrated watchlists. |
Well, it is a trivial matter to put a link to the pertinent VP archive in a centralized location, e.g., Wikipedia:Integrated watchlists, and thereby keep the content of those conversations from being forgotten. But devs tend to use Bugzilla; that way, they can subscribe to the Bugzilla listserv and/or to particular bugs that they have an interest in, and get an email whenever someone makes a comment.
I want to raise another issue about this proposal, which is that, by encouraging cross-wiki participation, integrated watchlists will likely increase homogenization across Wikimedia projects, as users bring the values and norms of their own preferred wikis to other wikis. I personally think that's a good thing; we could use some cross-pollination. But the downside is that, Wikipedia being the 400-kg gorilla of the group, the other wikis will probably tend to be pushed even more in the direction of Wikipedia-like standards. E.g., strict adherence to " reliable sourcing" and notability, etc. But I think it's unavoidable; really, our only alternatives are for those wikis to remain neglected, or for them to become homogenized/dominated by Wikipedia-like standards. I don't think that's a false dichotomy. Wikipedia really reflects the standards of the Wikimedia Foundation in purest form, and it seeks to ultimately make all of its projects conform to those standards. It just hasn't made it a high priority for those smaller wikis, because no one really cares about them all that much, since they don't show up much in the Google search results. Tisane ( talk) 23:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
If your username is Example%%%%% and if you have edited at English Wikiversity, then you can leave a message at http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Example%%%%%, inviting editors to leave a message at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Example%%%%%, which might say "You have a message at http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Example%%%%%." -- Wavelength ( talk) 03:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
To anyone interested, another technical step: Wikibooks has just imported b:Template:WPBannerMeta and associated templates (like ratings) so that interested Wikipedia WikiProjects have a familiar interface available for coordinating efforts. -- Duplode ( talk) 05:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Please join in Discussion to promote Wikipedia:Notability (sports) from essay to guideline, deprecating the Athletes section of WP:Notability (people). -- Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 02:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The "third level down" section header (4 equal signs, sample above) and the "second level down" (3 equal signs, sample below) look too similar, making the section hierarchy easily missed. The are identical except that one is (only) 11% shorter.
The difference is even harder to spot when they are a few paragraphs apart, and where where the difference should be obvious enough to guide the reader rather than when the reader is comparing them, knowing that they are different (as in my post here).
Proposal: make the "3 equal sign" heading font a tiny bit larger.
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 11:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
<h3>
, which is defined in monobook as:h1 { font-size: 188%; }
h1 .editsection { font-size: 53%; }
h2 { font-size: 150%; }
h2 .editsection { font-size: 67%; }
h3, h4, h5, h6 {
border-bottom: none;
font-weight: bold;
}
h3 .editsection { font-size: 76%; font-weight: normal; }
h4 { font-size: 116%; }
h4 .editsection { font-size: 86%; font-weight: normal; }
h5 { font-size: 100%; }
h5 .editsection { font-weight: normal; }
h6 { font-size: 80%; }
h6 .editsection { font-size: 125%; font-weight: normal; }
I have a proposal for a new template, designed for users or IP's who have a history of many warnings over a few months and possibly one or two blocks, possibly none. This could be used to tell them in a very open way that they are close to being blocked, possibly indef blocked. I have had good some results from this, and it appears to work. I'm just throwing this out there because I think that it could help, and I know it may not, so if anyone has any mods/complaints or supports it, PLEASE say so. Here's the proposal:
Many of your recent edits have been obvious vandalism, and most have been reverted. Please do NOT continue your streak. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Just an idea.
Old Al (
Talk) 21:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
As requested, here's the weekly Pending Changes update.
We proceed boldly toward launch. The main update is that we have pushed the English Wikipedia launch back one day to Tuesday, June 15. That will let us avoid stepping on the WP Academy Israel event, and it means Jimmy Wales will be available to talk to the press, which in turn will yield a better public understanding of Pending Changes.
However, we will still be rolling the new FlaggedRevs code into production on Monday, June 14th (circa 4 pm Pacific, or 23:00 GMT). We hope that this, aside from some minor UI improvements, will pass unnoticed on the project currently using FlaggedRevs. If there are bugs, we look forward to hearing about them via the usual channels, including #wikimedia-tech. Minor bugs will be fixed in place; any major issues will result in a quick rollback to the existing code.
More prosaically, we had a number of bits of work verified complete this week, including a number of little bugs. Our thanks to the German community for their diligent testing of a labs instance of the German configuration.
If you'd like once last chance to see what's coming, try the latest code updates
on our labs site.
To see the upcoming work, it's listed in our tracker, under Current and Backlog.
Thanks, William Pietri ( talk) 23:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
(Cross-posted from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). Cenarium ( talk) 03:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC))
In addition, there are a few remaining issues to settle, such as usage of flagged protection/pending changes, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Flagged revisions trial. We also need to finalize documentation pages among other things, any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Cenarium ( talk) 03:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Currently, if a user who has made no edits and who's username is about to be taken does not object in 7 days to the usurpation, then the usurpation occurs. I feel that this should be extended to 14 days, to ensure that the user has sufficient time to become aware of the matter and object to it (if they want/need to). Immunize ( talk) 23:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
If a username has been registered for some time and never been used for editing, then there is no reason to double the period of grace that its owner has to insist on maintaining it. Oppose proposal. ╟─ Treasury Tag► inspectorate─╢ 17:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I was just reading slashdot and noticed they have a robot reader. [1] Here is one open source text to speech program [2] Would there be interest in attempting to combine this into Wikipedia? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
It would be very convenient to be able to add, through the use of Wiki markup, context menu options to a link. This would allow one to link the same word to many different sites or to the same site with many different optional parameters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemmiwinks2 ( talk • contribs) 19:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I am wondering about adding the ability to view pending changes restricted to a single Wikiproject. I think this would bring many editors aboard who wish to stay within their primary area of interest. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Question, is there a way to remove a user from autoconfirmed? It would make semi-protection a highly useful, and selective way of protecting pages from one or two problem-editors with over 10-edits who are edit warring but not requiring a block as yet. It allows the page to still be edited by helpful non-admin users, while 'offending' accounts have their autoconfirm removed for a period, or until dispute is passed at a mediation page or RfC.
Just a passing thought, feel free to obliterate :D S.G.(GH) ping! 21:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, the edit-filter can de-confirm accounts... ╟─ Treasury Tag► directorate─╢ 21:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The way to ingrain that ATA are ATA is to reject it. This can establish more consensus. RussianReversal ( talk) 03:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Can somebody create a feature that allows articles to have alternate titles, so that the name is rendered as whichever name the reader searched for? Redirects rarely solve naming issues where more than one name is acceptable, but this would solve that. For consistency, there should also be a format that allows alternate text within the article so that it goes along with the name. This would save thousands of hours of arguing over page titles, and it would be a fair compromise that both sides of almost any page name dispure would be happy with. -- WikiDonn ( talk) 23:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you guys don't understand the concept of my idea. With an alternate title, there would be no dominant title. There would be a list of interchangeable names (on a page similar to the "what links here" page) that the article has, and no name would have priority over another. What I am saying is that redirects do not solve this problem, or the issue of user preference over editors preference. If the reader prefers one term over another, they can enter it into the search box to get their version, but there would still be one page, even though some of the text is different. No this will not solve every move war, but it solves legitimate issues, in a way that most good faith editors in argument would agree to. I suppose they could fight over which name is in the #1 spot, but that could not affect the article in any positive way, so anyone doing that can simply be blocked. In fact, you have it backwards, most arguments are over which should be the redirect and which should be the main, but that still doesn't solve the problem in the text of the article. And changing every link that links to the article would be a hell of a lot of work, and much more tedious than moving only 1 page repeatedly. This is a solution for arguments where neither side is wrong. -- WikiDonn ( talk) 19:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
As an individual who's primary goal on Wikipedia is to reduce vandalism and edit warring, I can see this proposal (with application restricted to Admins) solving quite a few edit wars, like the one that has been going on over at epinephrine/adrenaline for the past five years, the editors simply wan the page to reflect the rerminology that they are comfortable with, and a macro like the one being proposed here would end this debate. (and cut down on the number of meaningless mediations. Ronk01 from an IP
Hello,I think citation needed is a notable subject because have 2,240,000 result from Google search or please see this page:
[citation needed] is a superscript notation used in Wikipedia articles to identify questionable claims without any basis on reliable sources. Outside of online communities, the tag has been also used in real life to poke fun at public / corporate advertisements with dubious messages.
this caricature maybe help to notability.Is it True?:)
Ladsgroup
بحث 10:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the place for new article proposals too? I would like to see a list of foreign (non-US) actors who have achieved success in the (film) industry in the US. A ground rule could be that the actor has worked in his home country before having moved to the US. Think of actors such as Ingrid Bergman, Greta Garbo etc.. May such a list be added (I can contribute to the names), and if so, how should it best be named? Moviefan ( talk) 21:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
When I was working on another wiki that used Mediawiki software, I found that new readers were far more likely to notice useful hat-notes if they were somehow separated from the rest of the page. I tried putting boxes around the hat-notes, but in the end I found that the easiest way of doing this was to just add a horizontal bar across the page right below the hotnote, like so:
Foobar is a common placeholder names used in computer programming…
I know that this change would affect millions of pages, but I found that it gave newcomers to the site web a surprisingly big help in finding what they were looking for. —
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs) 01:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
.dablink
and .rellink
classes in
MediaWiki:Common.css. My main concern is that horizontal lines might have other undue effects, such as spearing infoboxes—not to mention that I don't think it adds very much, though I don't care much were this to be changed. :P I'd also suggest that we use a .dablink + .dablink
rule so that hatnotes would group nicely, if we did it by CSS, but someone who remembers the quirks of CSS on browsers that aren't standards-compliant (will .class + .class
work on most browsers?). {{
Nihiltres|
talk|
edits|
⚡}} 06:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)I believe changing the font used for latex rendering to something in slightly more modern and sans-serif would increase readability greatly. http://www.tug.dk/FontCatalogue/mathfonts.html has a list of fonts, and the linked page for each font has a maths example. I propose Computer Modern Bright. 87.254.82.27 ( talk) 03:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
\scriptstyle
because it produces text that is too small and that is unnecessarily
unaccessible. and look almost the same for me except that the PNG version is bigger and more fuzzy (because of anti-aliasing).
Svick (
talk) 19:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I find the scriptstyle text the same size as the surrounding text, and, indeed, Firefox, zooms the whole page not just the text.
To get the maths rendered in the same font, size, etc. it's going to have to be rendered client side, and there does not appear to be any ubiquitous enough technology to do that.
I am merely proposing an incremental improvement. 87.254.82.27 ( talk) 22:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Most Wikipedians (myself included) appear to be against advertising becoming part of Wikipedia. However,a difficulty here could involve articles on brand names. It is true that there are some brand names - to name just a few, Kellogs, Cadburys, Heinz], Hovis and PG Tips - that have become so famous that they would surely merit their own article in Wikipedia. However, can I make a proposal that we have a tag indicating that an article on a brand name not advertise the product, but simply be a description of the brand name's history? Just how there is a category of living people, perhaps there should also be a category of brand names, to avoid material in such articles which could be construed as attempts to advertise for the brand name. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 21:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi again. Seems like our last discussion became lost. As almost always here on village pump or other discussion forums on Wikipedia. So what shall we do, should we have 50% Good articles on the DYK section I mean newly granted Good articles ofcourse. So that we can reach a consensus.(look a bit higher up for earlier discussion and support and oppose votes).-- ÅlandÖland ( talk) 23:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I Support both JMH and MBelgranos suggestion. I also suggest that we do them both as soon as possible.-- ÅlandÖland ( talk) 17:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, an RfC would be the next step. Trying to cram something through passed on weak consensus after less than a week on the village pump is not the way to go. I would also suggest dropping a note at the Signpost about the RfC. What is being proposed will radically change the spirit and purpose of DYK plus elevate GA to a level of visibility that previous community consensus have determined it should not have. For something so radical, the RfC will need a wide spread sampling of community opinions. Agne Cheese/ Wine 16:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm new to this discussion, so forgive the question: Did this come up because there is some sort of shortage of articles being suggested for DYK? Or did it come up because folks want to get more recognition for their newly promoted GA's? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 08:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I think is a very good idea and strongly support it. Pitty I missed the first discussion. -- Elekhh ( talk) 07:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
A few days ago I was looking for info about an Italian singer, Tony Dallara. While there was no article about him on the English Wikipedia, there was a pretty good article on the Italian Wikipedia.
I think you should assume that if there's an article in more than one language about a specific subject, the person interrested in it may be connected to both cultures and would be able to understand the article in the other language as well. But, with or without connection, many people speak more than one language. You should allow the user to pick multiple languages to search for topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srelu ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
While reading this essay, I noticed that some of the linked usernames used as "examples" point to real accounts. It is possible that the real User:Ididntdoit might later come back, see his userpage linked to the essay in "what links here" and object to being referred to as "The teeny bopper spammer", even unintentionally.
One way of avoiding this problem is to put an invalid character in front of the account name. Example, this...
<span style="color:#0000f1">User:#Ididntdoit</span>
Will render as this...
User:#Ididntdoit
This looks like a blue linked user account name that is guaranteed to never exist. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 15:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Can we get WP:WikiProject Essays to help change it the way you suggested? I think it is a good idea, though the whole thing should be moved to WT:WikiProject Essays. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
There has been a few editors lately that have proposed inserting large maps into the infoboxes of many, many articles. For examples, see Petrillo Music Shell, American Museum of Natural History, AT&T Plaza, etc. For the record, I am against this proposal, but those enacting these changes are going ahead with them anyways without putting forth a formal proposal despite the far-reaching effects this precedent would have on the majority of wiki articles.) Thoughts on the insertion of maps into infoboxes?
Here's an observation: The " Contents" link in the sidebar is basically useless. It contains huge entirely unusable lists of articles, and some links to featured content which is redundant to the " Featured content" page. I propose that the "Contents" link in the sidebar be removed. -- Yair rand ( talk) 20:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
#n-contents { display: none; }
Hi. I have proposed that {{ ImageUndeleteRequest}} and its associated process be folded into Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. The reason is that Category:Requests to undelete images is not regularly monitored (yesterday, I cleared out an entry that was sitting there for two weeks) and that templates do not facilitate feedback on the user's request. If you have an opinion, please participate in the discussion at the WP:REFUND talk page. Thank you. -- B ( talk) 15:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe that 142.33.41.7 should be on the WP:SIP list, because, according to the WHOIS, it is for the province of British Columbia. Logan Talk Contributions 20:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
When moving a page, entering a reason is encouraged and a field is provided for it. But when the reason is displayed it's truncated. Since this can't be predicted, it throws off writing it. The reason entry field should be shortened to the length WP will display later, so we'll be likelier to trim our reason until it fits.
We could add the trimmed information to the talk page of the redirection page, but it's unlikely anyone will ever look there. We could add it to the talk page of the destination page, but the presence of the reason field on the move-specification page makes it unlikely we'd also write on a talk page.
Example: On May 7, 2010, I moved The Lottery (Film) to The Lottery (2010 film). I successfully entered this reason:
Distinguish from two other films with the same name. One is in another article. The other was listed in the Lottery disambiguation page, although no article exists on it; the latter film's existence is confirmed at <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0204453/>, as accessed a few minutes ago.
This was truncated in the final display to (including ellipsis):
Distinguish from two other films with the same name. One is in another article. The other was listed in the Lottery disambiguation page, although no article exists on it; the latter film's ...
Possibly the final display including a statement of the move contributed to the truncation, but, even so, something should be redesigned, so that the length of the entry field corresponds to what the final display will support.
Thank you.
Nick Levinson ( talk) 00:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Corrected a link and added nowiki tags to prevent wiki-interpretation of reason entry: Nick Levinson ( talk) 00:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
A Wikipedia article will cross-reference the article's title to entries in Wikipedia's sister projects in Wikimedia, given a template such as {{Sisterlinks}}.
Sometimes, a WP article is supported by WP redirects from similar titles, mispellings, and so on.
The main WP article should similarly cross-reference sister project entries that correspond to titles the WP redirects support.
Example: WP has an article titled Feminism and a redirect to it titled Feminist. The article, via a Wiktionary template, now tells us that Wiktionary has a definition for feminism. But Wiktionary also has a definition for feminist and, because of the redirect, the Feminism article should offer both definitions.
The same should apply to a Sisterlinks template and to related templates.
This should not apply to an article cross-referencing another other than by a redirect.
While an article editor could add templates for every redirect, it's difficult to anticipate all the redirects in the future (e.g., new slang), adding lots of parameters and/or templates is cumbersome, I don't think I've seen an article where that's been done, if a redirect is abandoned (e.g., to replace it with a disambiguation page) someone would have to recode the former destination, and server-side processing can handle this efficiently.
Thank you.
Nick Levinson ( talk) 01:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Corrected, to add nowiki tags to suppress the effect of a Sisterlinks template: Nick Levinson ( talk) 01:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I think there should be an MOS for sports, but I was curious as to where it would go. Figured i'd check here first. Doc Quintana ( talk) 14:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Commons has been developing a proposed policy regarding sexual content at commons:Commons:Sexual content. It is now stable and ready for review by third parties - please look it over and provide any feedback on the talk page. We want to move forward on adoption soon. I'd also appreciate it if you can help spread the news to other relevant forums and local wikis, since this affects everyone. Thank you! Dcoetzee ( talk) 22:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
On pages subject to pending changes, there is an option to show the latest entry in the pending changes-protection log. On semi/fully-protected pages, the latest entry in the protection log is shown, I think it is preferable to have it hidden by default in the same way as for PC-protected pages. It can take a considerable place on the edit screen and there's imo no need to have it displayed at every edit. Cenarium ( talk) 03:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
A quick browse through the list at WP:MFD brings up a number of user-pages, user talk-pages, and user sub-pages being used exclusively for keeping track of betting pools. Many of them are quite blatant (and colourful); I wish all our article tables could look as pretty as this one! These pages serve no purpose whatsoever and yet they mostly sit at MFD for a few days until the clock runs out and they're wiped (some are simply snowballed). These are non-controversial pages to remove and I feel they should be removed quickly and cleanly, so I propose we create a U4. Game pool section to WP:CSD. Tag them and bag them; why hold a vote? Matt Deres ( talk) 01:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
With the number of reviewers approaching 5,000 I thought it might be appropriate to allow pages patrols to be only allowed for reviewers. At present, any autoconfirmed user can patrol a page and page patrol sprees often go unnoticed. -- Marcus Qwertyus ( talk) 06:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Is there a place that records all the pages someone patrolled or the patrollers per pages? I ask to see how many people are taking advantage of the feature, because there is a pretty big backlog and I don't think taking the patroller right from a huge amount of editors will help that right. Feed back (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
You know that yellow box that appears on any page when you have a new message in your talk page. Will it be possible to have that yellow box appear when there's a new message on any other talk page or WP page which the user can specify (like at a Special:Alerts" page). This will be very helpful for everyone to keep track of discussions. Feed back (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Currently when an IP views the source of a semiprotected talk page they would receive a message telling them where to make the editprotected requests, but on talk pages it's still link to the talk page, not the non-autoconfirmed talk page. Kayau Voting IS evil 05:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
One way which people use wikipedia is to browse random pages through the 'Random article' link repeatedly. When browsing in this way, the user will often read the title and maybe the first line of the page before moving onto another page of possible interest. This, I imagine, would be a large drain on resources (server load, etc) as the whole page is loaded when only little is read/seen. Possible solution: a browsing mode where a page of titles and first sentences are randomly listed, where users can go to the page (or even have it expand to be the full article with some ajax wizardry) so that the user can look at random pages without wasting resources. The level of complexity this solution adds to UI may not outweigh the resources saved - a suggestion none the less tho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrlord ( talk • contribs) 14:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Recently, Antonu ( talk · contribs) has proposed a massive upgrade of barnstars. The details can be viewed here. As this proposal has project-wide impacts, I am posting this here for community consensus. Kayau Voting IS evil 06:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has recently arisen in various venues about an image which is potentially illegal as possibly constituting child pornography. The object of this proposal is not to rehash that debate but to extract some positive proposals which seemed to me to arise from it.
1. There is no clear guidance on what, if anything, an editor should do if they believe that content is criminally illegal: I'm thinking child pornography here, not libel or copyvio. Is it good enough to report it to law enforcement and sit back and wait for the feds to call? If not, what should a concerned editor do on-wiki?
2. There needs to be a clear process for saying "I think X content is illegal" which does not render the report liable to blocking for violation of WP:NLT.
3. I specifically propose: a notice board where concerns can be reported; agreement that admins at that board can remove content if agreed likely; process for referring such content for WMF legal opinion.
Kenilworth Terrace ( talk) 19:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem though, is when you get into stuff like Muhammad. That's why only Florida is relevent, not out of some sort of malice toward other places. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 22:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
What about simply banning all pictures cointaining either people below 20 years, sexually explicit material, or both, at least until the panic vanishes?-- Ancient Anomaly ( talk) 22:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The laws relating to this issue are necessarily non-specific and subject to interpretation. Although it seems to attract no shortage of editors willing to offer their opinions, the community at large is simply not qualified to offer an opinion on this specialized area of law. It bears noting that adminship confers no special knowledge in this area. Discussions on related topics have shown the community -- both here and at other WMF projects -- to be hopelessly polarized and dysfunctional when it comes to taking constructive action to deal with these issues.
Rather than creating a noticebaord or procedure, we should offer advice on how editors who encounter something that they genuinely believe to be child pornography. Simply put, that advice would be:
I hope that anyone encountering something that is obviously and inarguably child pornography would take it upon themselves to remove the image from public view. This is a WMF issue, not an English Wikipedia issue, and we should allow the WMF to lead the way on this if further action is warranted. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 11:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Any discussion on this topic should be on the policy page, not on the proposals page. And there must be input from the legal counsel. Anything else is just wheel spinning. Everard Proudfoot ( talk) 18:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
es-wiki has a template es:Plantilla:Pirámide de población. We used to have an equivalent Template:Population pyramid, but it was apparently removed for lack of use. Several of us are currently translating es:Calviá as en:Calvià. The es-wiki article uses that template. Is there any reason I should not undelete or recreate it? It seems potentially useful. If I should not recreate it, do I have to handle this data as a graphic? - Jmabel | Talk 23:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
We have a lot of nomination systems for articles (FAC, FAR/FARC, GAN, GAR, also AfD and PR), so I'm making this proposal here. It is difficult to gain useful information from old assessment archives (i.e. looking up objections to last year's failed FAC before renominating) because the article can change so much. I propose that we archive permanent links to the revision nominated and the revision at closing. This helps editors see whether the article has progressed since the nom, and helps reviewers see how much the article has progressed during the nom. If a bot could add this information retroactively to the thousands of archive pages, it would be great; otherwise we'd just start doing it now. Thoughts? HereToHelp ( talk to me) 02:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
There's an RfC about standardising the names of navbox, infobox and sidebox (sidebar) templates here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Templates#RfC_re_template_naming. 212.84.103.144 ( talk) 18:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I have one suggestion as pertaining to the English Wikipedia main page but may be applicable for other languages as well.
Since many people visit Wikipedia to search for an article, I was hoping that the search bar would be in a more prominent position. The previous version had the search bar in the left-most column and the current version has the search bar in the upper right hand corner.
I would suggest that the search bar should be centered, towards the top of the main page and bigger so that it is easily accessible and prominent to viewers. Perhaps a good place for it would be the space to the right of the line: "Welcome to Wikipedia"
I am suggesting this by following the example of other search-intensive sites such Google or Bing or YouTube
Thanks for considering my suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noblerare ( talk • contribs) 19:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
RC patrollers would love this because it will offer guidance to them as to which edits to revert. T3h 1337 b0y 01:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I noticed this sentence "When you click Save, your changes will immediately become visible to everyone." at the bottom of the page when I am editing, and, while in the past it was entirely correct, it is no longer valid, as with pending changes an edit is not automatically viewable to all users and readers. Could someone remove it for the duration of the pending changes trial? Best wishes. Immunize ( talk) 18:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
With Level 2 just use an appropriate variation. For example,"Edits to this page by anonymous or newly registered users are subject to review before becoming visible to everyone"
... Kenosis ( talk) 15:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)"Edits to this page are subject to review by a reviewer or administrator before becoming visible to everyone."
I propose that past offenders' (users and i.p. that have been warned for vandalism) changes be in bold to indicate that they have a higher risk of being vandalism. This could be an invaluable tool for vandal fighters. -- Iankap99 ( talk) 07:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Strong support Would be very helpful. Immunize Contact me Contributions 13:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - scripts can do that; don't make it default for everyone. Besides, it's unfair to list out IPs that are on shared computers. Kayau Voting IS evil 14:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Would it be possible to have rewards for vandalism fighting? This could be done by the amount of rollbacks that have been performed by the user.-- Iankap99 ( talk) 07:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar}}
? See
WP:BARN for more information about barnstars.
Svick (
talk) 12:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
This is my third village pump proposal for a short while, but I feel the need to do so. I think there is an unhealthy trend in Wikipedia (it could have been the trend long before I came, but I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia as I wasn't involved in any serious editing till sometime last year.) Anyway I don't like the way people count the number of supports and opposes and call it 'consensus'. This is democracy, and Wikipedia is anything but a democracy if we want to make a good encyclopaedia. Lots of WP:LIKEs and WP:IDLs are recognised as !votes every day. And besides, IMO calling a vote a !vote is no different to just calling a vote a vote. I think there could be a petition where Wikipedians sign to reflect their discontent on such 'fake consensus'. Kayau Voting IS evil 14:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Question for Kayau: wouldn't the petition you suggest be a vote itself? Voting against votes sounds a bit strange! Alzarian16 ( talk) 16:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Indeed; online petitions of all kinds are generally slacktivism at its finest. Tisane talk/ stalk 03:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I propose we rename Autoreviewer, see the documentation to Autopatroller, articles create by users in this group are automatically patrolled when created. The name 'Autoreviewer' has resulted in much confusion with the upcoming and unrelated reviewer usergroup which will be used in the Pending changes trial, and the name 'autopatroller' is closer to the group's function. Cenarium ( talk) 16:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
FYI, the reviewer usergroup no longer possesses the 'autopatrol' userright, since it could conflict with autoreviewer which applies different standard for granting et al. Cenarium ( talk) 00:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Strong support More accurate. Immunize ( talk) 20:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Done - although the name should really be a noun, not an adjective. Prodego talk 03:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
It will be extremely helpfull if we add a Translating Tool(TT) Like Google Translate in tool box or in print/export section of every article/template.It'll be extremely easy to translate articles. As grammetical errors in the machine translated text are common,these errors can be fixed by human users. Consider an article of 5000 words which would have taken a month to translate fully by various users but can be translated in seconds and can be made grammetically error free by contributors in 5 minutes. This can also prevent some original research. Like a German translator who translate it manually may add some original research while translating.
Coercorash Talk Contr. 14:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
importScript('User:Manishearth/sidebartranslinks.js'); //[[User:Manishearth/sidebartranslinks.js]]
-As grammetical errors in the machine translated text are common,these errors can be fixed by human users. Coercorash Talk Contr. 14:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
It will be very helpful if we translate a tool (TT) template.It As in Google Translate tool box or in print / export section of each article / 'll add is extremely easy to translate texts. As grammetical errors in the machine translated text are widespread, may be adopted such errors by human users. Let us look at an article of 5000 words that would have taken a month to translate fully, but can be translated within seconds by different users and grammetically made errors of contributors in five minutes. This can also prevent some original research. As a German translator to translate the translation can manually add in some original research.
♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 14:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)If the end is calculated to turn around the conversion of dae (automatic device of the information entrance) (TTT, of what gradiciamo with the printing of portautensili Google or the drawer u), or, if all the regulations or the exemplary section if they are united to, this one is not useful the much municipality. It' Ll the limit in the conversion, is very simple. Gradice erroneous Grammetical the unit - what the preoccupations, transform the text to the divided interest of the conversion an error, what closings, more than the client of the person if possible those. About the month the requirements in the conversion and many that the types of that one probably had, turned totally the client into a second, can think that done grammetically and they do not depend on 5 distribute, the more on the equipment of employees of the relations of processing of 5000 words end to pay erroneous to the regulations are possible. That it interests the origin the search is therefore impedetto later possible. Somigli to the German decoder, if one turns, possibly, if this one turns the end to add the end him to use the hand, in the order the origin of the search.
I propose that a expandable ellipse be made for quotations. Currently, when a quote is used with either redundant or irrelevant content, it is removed and replaced with ellipsis ("...") which indicate that content has been removed. These however, can be made in bad faith, either to remove context or to remove content contrary to the use of the quote. My proposal is that to show good faith ellipsis, when clicked the full quote becomes visible. I suggest this could be achieved by the use of Template:... e.g. "I am quoted without the {{...|hidden part of the quote}} as an example"
This, as far as I know, is not possible at the moment due to commons.js forcing a table and [hide]/[show]
930913 (
Congratulate/
Complaints) 23:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
"Here's my not actually full quote".
Or you could just include the full quote in the "Quote" section of the cite template that references the quote.
Fences& Windows 22:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Devise a scheme whereby I can, at a glance, tell if a link to another wikipedia article leads to a more general subject or a more specific subject than the one which I am currently viewing. That is to say, "Will this link take up or down the categorical hierarchy of human knowledge?". For example if I am on the subject of Physics and I click on a link that takes me to the subject of Thermodynamics, I will have moved down the categorical hierarchy of human knowledge because Thermodynamics is an aspect of Physics. Therefore it is more limited in scope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.75.216 ( talk • contribs)
I'm working on the Open Library project at the Internet Archive. We trying to build a catalogue of all books ever published. The plan is to add links from our author and book pages to Wikipedia. One of my colleagues has suggested that we could also add links from Wikipedia to Open Library. Would it improve articles about authors and books if we include a link to Open Library? If not, are there any changes or improvements we think we need to make to Open Library before adding links from Wikipedia? Edward ( talk) 22:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
See Help talk:Minor edit#Should we remove the Preference setting to "Mark all edits minor by default" ?. – xeno talk 14:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
These tribes, and I know them. Write a letter in Arabic (ظ) and is not available in English so enlisted the letter which is closest (d). Should be re-the former name of this article. Then it's not an Iraqi tribe
This is the article and should be re-former name Al-Zafir_(tribe)
-- The arabin wolf ( talk) 14:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I propose we rename the following seven following articles:
In my opinion, this change is necassary to prevent confusion mainly because the articles need to focus only on the most prominent and significant events and trends in popular music worldwide and not include insignificant events and trends (the significance of each event and trend is of course debatable and would be determined acording to the consensus reached by the editors). TheCuriousGnome ( talk) 20:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Discussion about the recent interface changes is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/May 2010 skin change. Please comment there to keep discussion in one place. |
I think that the default interface should implement the code at User:Pyrospirit/metadata. One of the biggest problems we have with getting people to trust Wikipedia, is that they don't see us trying to maintain the quality of the articles. I showed another user last week, and he had no clue that you could do this and thought it would be very useful. If you implemented this code, or something similar, it would tell users alot more about articles on the main page. Right now we only show them GA and FA symbols, why not the whole range, that way we can increase awareness of all of our efforts in assessing articles? Sadads ( talk) 14:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I missed this until now, but this is similar to another issue I have raised as a proposal as WT:ASSESS not too long ago. I was going to try again here at the village pump, but in more broad terms, sometime within the next week or two. If you take a look at my initial proposal, I offered options to deal with Stub-thru-B-class articles separately, but you will still get very strong opposition from the WikiProjects that still use A-class and don't want to give it up. Although I favor what you are suggesting for the same reason, we'd have to push through lots of thorny, deadlocked issues to make any changes. For that reason, I was going to step back and ask a broader question and try to see if I could get people to agree on some basic principles, then proceed from there. All-in-all WP:ASSESS may need to be completely revamped, and there could be many, many ways to do it. We could get rid of lower classes, make a separate (but interconnected) rating systems for the public and editors, etc., etc. We'd only be limited by our own creativity and the limitations of Wiki. Anyway, I'll try to post the proposal sooner rather than later. If you want, I'll even try to type it up tomorrow night. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know where the "Sploofus" website is?
This is what I have in mind. Click "here" in the green comment at the top.
My proposal addresses both of these issues.
I'd like to do an initial one month trial on one article, tracking the stats, analyzing the quality; followed by a one month trial of a representative sample of 20 articles; and then present the findings for your consideration. Any support for this? Anthony ( talk) 00:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that red links are what tempt people the most to edit. People who aren't familiar with the fact that a red link means there's no article there, click on it and are confronted with an invitation to edit. Of course, there is always the possibility of reopening up new article creation to anonymous users; that might be helpful. Tisane talk/ stalk 03:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean move User:Anthonyhcole/Pain/tutorial to Pain/tutorial? Anthony ( talk) 04:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
When I saw this section heading it made me think of a problem I've seen several times recently for new editors. It's happened a few times to me, and certainly to several others I've seen. Dunno if this is the right forum, but here goes...
The problem is when a new(ish) editor (I've only been truly active for around six months) makes a suggestion on a talk page, or sometimes with a WP:BOLD edit, and gets told something like "No. You're wrong. That was all decided years ago. You can't change that consensus now". Well, that's an insulting arrogance, and is basically telling the newcomer "Your ideas aren't wanted". We need to find a way to better welcome newcomers than that sort of response. HiLo48 ( talk) 08:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
When discussing citation templates, I find it very clumsy to have to differentiate the different templates by style. I propose to name these:
This template is based on APA style and uses a comma as the default separator:
These templates are based on APA style and use a period as the separator:
These templates arebased on Ellis, Allen (1999). Comic Art in Scholarly Writing: A Citation Guide.
These templates are based on APA style but use styling that differs from CS1 or CS2; the listed templates do not necessarily use the same style:
These templates are base on the Vancouver style:
A freestyle template: {{ wikicite}}
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
tags that link to the reference list citation formatted with CS1 or CS2. I am not out to fix this system, as it seems to not be broken. I just want to document what is already in use, and I need some terminology to do this. ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk 15:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom is considering lifting the restriction imposed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Lightmouse automation, subject to BAG approval of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 4. As part of BAG's mandate is to gauge community consensus for proposed bot tasks and Lightbot's former activities were highly controversial, I invite all interested editors to join that discussion to ensure that community consensus is in fact in favor of this task. Thanks. Anomie ⚔ 17:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Make a feature by which new users, who are registering in wikipedia, will be able to see if the usernames they have chosen is available or not, before entering password and anti-spam words. It will save people's time. It took more than 4 mins for me to register here as whatever username i'm using shows a message "This username is too similar to XYZ" ): -- Tintin rules ( talk) 04:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
This isn't a proposal made my me, but a proposal that's going around and I'm curious about the general perception about it. Recently there was a bit of code added to Template:Infobox comic book title, that makes the titles of the articles using it to be in italics. There was a little reversion dispute about it, and a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Italic titles in Template:Infobox comic book title. The manual of style requires the names of works of arts (which includes comic books) to be written in italics, but its unclear whenever such rule is limited to the article prose (such as in "Frank Miller created Sin City, a black&white comic book of policial stories") or extends to the title of the article itself. Critics support the first thing, supporters support the later, and consider as well that specific projects may develop their own consensus about this.
That's actually what I wanted to ask. Being a detail of style that's so highly visible, can it be left to specific projects to decide about it, or should there be a wider discussion? Besides, if the rule is accepted, shouldn't it be applied to articles about other types of works of art as well? After all, the general rule is about works of art in general (movies, books, TV series, etc.), and whenever the rule reaches the article title or not should be the same for all of them. I'm not much of an editor of comic books articles, but I do work with some articles about Argentine TV series, books or portraits, and I want to know if I should place italics in their titles or not. MBelgrano ( talk) 12:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I posted an idea I had into meta, and was looking for some feedback! Thank you - Theornamentalist ( talk) 02:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I would say we don't have to hide/show the content table, but for every section. So we always show the "content table", all information is collapsed, and I can choose to show any specific section or subsection.
Since at present, all sections are shown, and some might be not interested for some readers. As for this page, I am just interested in this section I created. So I hope all other sections to disappear. Jackzhp ( talk) 18:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
When there is an argument about whether a change should be made in an article, and there is minority group against a change, they often start repeating that there is no consensus because they do not agree, and are able to prevent the change. The argument then breaks down into whether there is consensus or not, and even if the majority is supported by policy and reason, they are unable to make the change because they are unable to convince a small group of people. I think there should be a committee that has the power to declare based on the number of editors, supporting policies, supporting reasons etc., what consensus is in favor of at a given point in time, and give permission of one side to make a change, and block the opposing side from editing the page until they can get a consensus in their favor. I think this will help prevent endless discussions from being used to prevent a change. -- WikiDonn ( talk) 18:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
A recent interview posted about Dragon Quest IX has brought up a major problem. The site is entirely in flash and contains multiple videos and there is no clear way to distinguish which video one is referencing because they are all on the same page. Unlike some flash pages which can be saved to specific pages within the flash page, this one cannot be saved to a specific movie. 陣 内 Jinnai 02:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Robert Harris, the consultant who has been hired by WMF to conduct a study on Potentially-Objectionable Content within the projects. I've posted a series of questions for discussion to begin consultation within the communities at the Meta page devoted to the study ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content). Although the main focus of this specific set of questions is Wikimedia Commons, I'd be very interested in what all Wikipedians have to say about these questions, especially since policies on Commons obviously affect every other project, and the handling of images in Wikipedia is often subtly different than that of Commons. Robertmharris ( talk) 12:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Currently, the vetting (review) processes on Wikipedia is poorly understood by the general public. Wiki is often judged privately and publicly on articles that may or may not measure up to our highest standards. This leads to mixed opinions about the content, as well as sharp criticism and general distrust by the public and within the academic community. This in turn could complicate efforts to develop expert review systems in an atmosphere of distrust and misunderstanding.
In order for a reader to assess the Wiki-rated quality of a non- GA or FA article, they must select the Discussion tab (if the article is rated at all). If the article lacks a talk page or does not even have a header with a rating, no information is provided. If a rating is provided, it may either link to WP:ASSESS or an assessment page for a specific WikiProject. The pages often provide little information in a format that would be engaging to the average reader. Furthermore, ratings vary between projects, and many pages are rated inaccurately. The higher-quality content offered on Wiki, in the form of A-class, GA, and FA are not always perfect, but sweeps and reviews have improved the content within the past few years. The latter two even provide a link to WP:GA or WP:FA respectively from the article itself, in the form of a green plus or a bronze star icon. In short, article ratings and communication about those ratings are inconsistent and offer little "reader-friendly" information about our vetting process.
I would like to start by making a very general proposal. (In other words, don't read more into it than what it says.)
Proposal:
To begin a process with the goal of finding ways to utilize some sort of rating system to inform readers about the quality of the content of the articles they are viewing and inform them, as simply as possible, about our vetting system(s).
The proposal is being left very general for a reason. There have been many deadlocked issues that tie in with this topic, and I don't wish to address those details now. The purpose is to get consensus on whether or not to move forward with this general idea. More proposals will come, becoming more and more specific as we collectively find the most agreeable solutions.
Reason to support:
Reason to oppose:
These are the only points I want people to focus on for this round of the discussion. Again, please do not read more into than this than what is explicitly stated. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure I agree. This was a more specific proposal but got bogged down in specifics, so Visionholder tried a different approach to see if folks were agreed in principle to the idea of some form of article grading more easily visible to readers. I agree that many many pages have old gradings on the pages from before the wholesale move to inline referencing. I suspect many B-class need to be moved to C-class as the biggest shift needed. If a push to do this results - a good thing? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
While for the US/UK readers the imperial system is relevant, it doesn't happen the same for the rest of the world. In some articles both information is displayed, but it is not the common rule and makes the articles unnecessarily longer and more complicated to create (or edit).
Create a wikimedia symbol to input units and give users the option to select which units system to use. For instance {{meters|30}} which would display "30m" for users with the option "Metric system" activated and "98ft" for users with the "Imperial system" option. -- Micru ( talk) 14:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
convert}}
handles it. On the other hand, I don't think this would be worth the work from both developers and editors, especially considering that most readers are either anonymous or wouldn't set the preference one way or other. Also, if you want to show imperial units to anonymous Americans and metric to the rest of the anonymous world, it would require
geolocation and, as far as I know, Wikipedia doesn't do this now, so that would be additional work.
Svick (
talk) 15:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Please move this to a subpage, the pump is not well-suited for extended discussion, polling, etc. You create a subpage with the proposal and link to it from here. (In respect to the proposal, this looks like just going back down the same road of the date autoformatting saga with units, and we all know how that turned out). – xeno talk 15:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Today I revised two questions I asked on reference desks. I used this method to show where I was deleting what I had said. Is there an equivalent if you add something to a previous statement?
Vchimpanzee ·
talk ·
contributions · 20:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I wrote an essay recently and would appreciate feedback on it (either here or on its talkpage) or improvements to it: WP:Wikipedia is amoral ( WP:AMORAL). I have no aspirations of trying to elevate it beyond a mere essay. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I was looking for an RSS feed for DYK. I see we don't have one at WP:Syndication. I asked at the help desk, and I learned from Calvin_1998 that "because DYK, ITN, &c. are updated manually (bot or otherwise)," we would have to "ma[k]e a script that creates an RSS/Atom feed from the HTML on the main page".
That's outside my skill set (and my vocabulary). Can it be done? (and post the product at WP:Syndication?) Thanks. Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 06:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I’m the founder and CEO of StatSheet, Inc. ( http://statsheet.com), a sports media company that specializes in making sports stats easy to integrate across the web.
There are thousands of sports pages on wikipedia that get out of date quickly because the articles contain sports stats related to a team or player.
Would you have any interest in StatSheet providing a service to Wikipedia contributors that allowed them to embed a snippet of Javascript, which updated those stats/standings/etc in real-time? The embedded content could look like it is part of the page — not an outside add-on.
We have a service called Embed StatSheet that does exactly this: http://embed.statsheet.com
Look at the football standings table on the following page to get an idea of what I'm talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_A%26M#Athletics
Robbie
This proposal in a nutshell: Have a list of pages protected from deletions or moves (even by admins) to prevent accidental deletions/moves.
In order to prevent
deletions like these that have caused Wikipedia harm, I was wondering if a solution could be made that would prevent pages from getting deleted. I suggest a kind of MediaWiki:Pages protected from deletion page that would not allow any page listed on it to be deleted (preventing moves as well as deletions might also be a good idea). This would only prevent accidental deletions of the listed pages. If an admin really wanted to delete one of these pages, all he/she would have to do would be remove the page from the list and then delete the page. However, doing so would make it obvious that the deletion was intentional. When an admin presses the delete tab or navigates to the delete page for a page in the anti-delete list, they will not be shown a form to give a reason for the deletion but instead be given a notice that the page is protected from being deleted and must be removed from the list in order to be deleted. The notice would be shown before not after submitting the delete request to prevent
certain people from thinking that the page is in the list when in reality, it is not. I would suggest the syntax to be similar to
MediaWiki:Bad image list (separate lines for each entry, entries are links, wild cards accepted (somehow), and other entries on the same lines as exceptions (i.e. prevent
WP:Sandbox from being deleted but allow its subpages to be deleted)). The list should only be populated with pages that would disrupt access to Wikipedia or pages necessary to the operation of Wikipedia (i.e.
Wikipedia:Administrator's Noticeboard). Also, if implemented, releasing the source code would be great. If someone comes up with a better wording for all of this, please feel free to add it below.
Rabbitfang (
talk) 03:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone have a good way to be alerted when a new RfC is created? I tried watchlisting pages such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines (which is what the links at Wikipedia:Requests for comment imply we should do), but that involves wading through a diff, where the bot may have both added and deleted stuff, so it's not very clear in Popups what the change is. This seems a significant deterrent to widespread use of an important function—even assuming users take the step of watchlisting. If anything, wouldn't it be better if the system automatically alerted all registered users when a new RfC is created? PL290 ( talk) 08:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I was reading this article in the New York Times about how some are beginning to incorporate video into ebooks and other text on the Ipad and similar devices. A few weeks ago, i thought of the idea of creating an encyclopedia, but with videos interspersed throughout the text, as an aide to help clarify or provide a visual for better understanding. Or, maybe some just prefer things by video.
I googled video encyclopedias and the best result I came up with was vidipedia.org, but it doesn't exactly look like its going places. I thought I could create my own company but the amount of effort and cost that would go into such a project are too enormous for a college student like me with limited funds.
I was hoping that maybe you guys at wikimedia could look into such capabilities for your services. I see that you guys have "wikis" for various media but not video. Perhaps a partnership with Youtube is in the works.
But alas this is just a suggestion, someone will probably think of doing this before long and make money off it.
Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.181.3 ( talk • contribs) 16:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Videos can be uploaded, but must remain within the 100 meg limits, plus we only support 1 video codec, not all the current accepted ones for the HTML5 proposal, and HTML5 video is very limiting at the moment in browsers. The 100 meg limit and the inability to auto-scale quality based on connection speed would be a big holdup to incorporating better video into articles. That and I think a lot of people have preconceived ideas for what video is acceptable for an encyclopedia. And another major stumbling block is finding people who create good video content to release it under a free license acceptable for use here. I do think that properly done, and produced videos can greatly improve articles allowing users, specifically those with limited literacy to get more out of the encyclopedia. — raeky T 01:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia already has videos. Consider Cartesian_diver#Experiment_description.© Geni 19:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I posted this on WP:VP (Proposals) on July 8, but nobody responded.
I was looking for an RSS feed for DYK. I see we don't have one at WP:Syndication. I asked at the help desk, and I learned from Calvin_1998 that "because DYK, ITN, &c. are updated manually (bot or otherwise)," we would have to "ma[k]e a script that creates an RSS/Atom feed from the HTML on the main page".
Can someone do this? (and post the product at WP:Syndication?) Thanks. Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 06:14, 28 July 2010 (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 don't know how big a problem "vandalism" is on Wikipedia but I have developed a simple idea that may provide a disincentive for new users to make bad or malicious edits. This idea is so deliciously simple I don't know why it hasn't been thought of before. Namely, upon registering an account, a new user must use a credit card to "deposit" a sum of at least $20 in a Wikipedia trust account, although a user could choose to deposit more if he desires. For each edit the user makes that is flagged as "vandalism" or "non productive," a fraction of the deposit (perhaps $2-5) is forfeited to the wikipedia administration. If the user continues to make non-productive edits, the entire sum will be soon forfeited. Once the user's funds in the trust account are depleted, the user is banned from wikipedia. If, however, the user is not banned, the entire sum is refunded to the user's credit card within six months of registration, or within the first ten edits, whichever comes last. Wikipedia can also keep all the interest generated by this aggregate trust account, which mayhap would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Thus the tangible threat of economic loss will serve as a powerful disincentive to vandalize wikipedia. Your suggestions are of course welcome. Thank you. DeepAgentBorrasco ( talk) 05:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I've been trying to organise my watchlist, but frankly it's a bit of an archaic system that Wikipedia uses. Why not have a system similar to internet browser bookmarking, which is surely much simpler? Or at least have the ability to add folders to your watchlist, with a 'tick selected' to move individual pages into it arrangement?-- Richyratton ( talk) 10:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
^ -- MZMcBride ( talk) 22:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if you could help us out. We are quite new to all this, but after a conversation with a good friend over dinner we were talking about some of the issues in the article List of deaths by corporal punishment. This was resolved on the Biography of living people noticeboard, for although the subject of the list was dead, some people mentioned (as alleged murderers!) were living, which was the concern. We've got two more questions - not sure if this is the correct place to ask this becase the living persons board seems wrong for questions about list of deaths - if we are in the wrong place then do please point it out and feel free to move the question!
Firstly, we were looking at Category:Lists of people by cause of death, and it seems quite strange that there are the following articles:
AND
Whether or not keeping the complete list is something which is possible (ie: will ever be a complete list), we can see the reason for having one - but not why Turkey, Africa and the Lebanon get their own lists! (On a side note, the "see also" on the lebanon article seems to be pointing to a particular cause, which may or may not be backed up by the list...)
What would be the best thing to do in this circumstance? The main list seems to divide by country and continent as well - should the articles be merged?
Secondly, we were wondering what Wikipedia's policy is on the use of "alleged" or "allegedly" in an article. Are you allowed to allege that someone has/is/has done something, based on (eg: speculation made in a newspaper etc)? IE: If notable person Bob claims that notable person Mike has come round his house and stolen all his cutlery, even though there is no evidence to say so, is Mike's article allowed to say "Bob alleged that Mike came round his house and stole all his cutlery". Or is Bob's article allowed to say "He claimed that Mike once came round his house and stole all his cutlery"? We're not sure where the line is on this one!
Anyway, sorry for such a long post! Any answers you may have would be greatly appreciated! All the best, Artie and Wanda ( talk) 23:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
There is a WP feature that shows an indication (depending on the skin, I think) that someone else has edited your personal Talk page. This is a great feature. My proposal is to add an Email Preference to send an email to the user, in addition to setting the indicator. This preference would take priority over other Email Preferences so the email can be sent even when the user wants privacy for the other email features. David Spector (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
To summarize the comments: there has as yet been no objection to the proposal as stated. David Spector (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I support it. I know if I didn't spend every waking moment plugged into Wikipedia I would want to get e-mails when I have something on my talk. It would be like what I do with Facebook (silly silly website). Sadads ( talk) 17:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
As a semi-retired software engineer with about 40 years' experience working with computers, including 18 years of Windows programming, I can't see how sending an email to those who want one whenever their Talk page changes (or going even farther, when one of their watchlisted pages changes one or more times within a window of 30 minutes or so) would create a performance problem.
Presumably, WP data resides in a database handling thousands of transactions a second. Handling a few more every now and then wouldn't seem to be a problem to me. The actual email sending is also not a load; it can be handled by a lower-priority process. They'd have to convince me it would either load the servers or slow response time significantly.
This is a Proposals page. I assume that means that every proposal will be considered for implementation on its merits, not on some memory of 'they already rejected that'.
Concerning misuse by malicious users (vandals), I think this is not a significant addition to the tools they already have, principally too much time on their hands.
There's a lot of strong conservatism (in its meaning of 'opposition to change') here in spite of WP:BOLD, one of the most valuable of the founding principles of WP. I believe that "do the right thing" is a better attitude than "that's not the way we do it here."
Of course, if there really would be a performance problem, or this proposal turned out to help vandals significantly, then this proposal should not be implemented. David Spector (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
On some pages I believe you can subscribe to an RSS feed. Is this true of user talk pages? It might be especially useful on your own, and you could set up (email or other) alerts yourself using this. Verbal chat 20:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
decltype
(
talk) 15:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)