This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212
I'd like to propose the removal of episode summaries from Wikipedia. By this, I mean articles created specifically to summarize one single episode of a TV show-- Wikipedia is not a TV guide.
The only reason particular episodes of anything should be mentioned, in my opinion, is if they are particularly noteable. Jtrainor 05:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The fanboy issue really should be rather irrelevant, as AfDs are not a vote. Invalid arguments in an AfD (for both keep and delete), along with entries that are just votes, should really be discounted, but all too often, arn't.
A major problem with Wikipedia is that all too often, many editors (and admins!) mistake AfDs for a vote instead of a debate, with predictable consequences. Jtrainor 06:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The right way
as I understand it is how it's done now. List of episodes, expand like any other topic once a given episode has enough content per policy. Is the section starter, jtrainor, saying we just shouldn't have episode articles in general? I am confused. A TV show episode, a person, a recipe, a fish called Ralph (or Wanda)--if its notable, ATT, etc., it's entitled a fair shake at an article. Also, for the above question, is Lisa's Rival the episode notable?
Multiple
non-trivial
sources. Could probably find way more with a proper news search, that was 120 seconds on Google. -
Denny 21:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
What I'm saying is, there is no reason to list every episode of anything ever. Only particularly noteable episodes should have articles. Jtrainor 23:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
You could make the same argument about a lot of Wikipedia article, including most of the articles about movies, porn movies, and the articles for every single Pokemon character. The notability bar, rightly IMO, is set pretty low, and I imagine most TV episode articles would meet it if they came up for AfD. And to answer the question about Simpsons quotes above, some of us Simpsons watchers above the age of 14 have been trying to hold the line on those damn quote sections. An episode capsule may be one thing, but few people want to read a complete script. Natalie 22:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Eh, we list every book or movie in a series separately. TV shows are just very long series.
Owlofcreamcheese
At the moment there are plenty of protection templates, and they are not standardized in any way, both in naming and parameter usage. So I propose that we does some standardization on them.
Here are my proposal:
Example naming of template could be:
{{
protected-semi-high visible template}}
{{
pp-s-high visible template}}
→ Aza Toth 17:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea. I've been thinking we need a Wikipedia:WikiProject Template Harmonization, a parent or sibling of WP:UW. Any interest? — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-17 08:00Z
In the spirit of reducing the confusing and byzantine amount of policy pages... Wikipedia:Attack page basically tells us that attack pages are deleted. In that, it is redundant with WP:CSD, which says the same. Are there any objections to redirecting the former to latter, since it completely overlaps? >Radiant< 16:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the content is small enough to merit merging somewhere, though I don't think WP:CSD is the right place. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-17 08:04Z
Relevant discussion at | → WT:UW#Overview - Now time to finish |
Most of you are aware of the work that was done over the previous 6 months by the user warnings project WP:UW and then when handed over WP:UTM to harmonise the multi level warnings. We'd now like to wrap up this project by completing the single issue templates and tidying up the Category:User warning templates. To achieve this, one of the areas that needs greater community involvement is the redirecting of the old templates to the new ones. This is not something we will undertake lightly as a few editors are still attached to the old templates, though the majority of warnings being issued now are with the new system. If you have an opinion on the user warnings templates old or new, we'd appreciate your thoughts here please. Regards Khu kri 10:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Relevant discussion at | → Wikipedia talk:Butcher's rules |
I created an essay on how to respectfully point out an obvious error to a user. I'd like some feedback. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
When searching through some article histories, it would be extremely helpful if edits identified as vandalism would have a bold v beside them, as is the case of minor (m) edits; or bot (b) edits and new (N) pages in the Watchlist. Combined with an optional History filter which would allow me to hide Vandal edits, it would make researching an article's history far simpler. For example, the article Nothing has been a frequent target of vandals; and over the course of the month of February, large portions of the article have been changed. It is difficult to identify if they were removed by vandals (as some large portions indeed were) or if they were removed for well-explained reasons. As for identifying vandal edits: therein probably lies the tricky part. My first thought it to restrict it to admins-only, but that may create a heavy burden upon them. AntiVandalBot does a great job at catching a large volume of them, so it would be nice if special permissions could be provided for users/bots such as that. Or if it is to be a tool available to mainstream users, its use should be restricted such that only established users can mark an edit as a vandal edit. I hope the above makes sense! Sláinte! -- Bossi ( talk ;; contribs) 23:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I have been trying to produce a new search page for when there is an error. My prototype is available here tell me what you think. Click on the search box and make a search. It is pretty good. I know a few people @ ms. I will see if they will make a version where there are no advertisements. A few strings might be able to be pulled. Give me any feedback, errors or objections you have, I would really like to build on it. Sorry about the loading time, the background image is kinda biggish but i wanted it to look realistic.
thanx
symode09 14:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I have added this proposal again because nof the lack of response
symode09 04:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Are there any plans to have wikipedias in sign languageas, such as American Sign Language (ASL) or British Sign Language (BSL)?
stevo
(email removed, to protect you from spam harvesters)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.22.72 ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 9 March 2007
This isn't the right venue. Take this to the meta discussion. 142.157.19.40 22:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Editors: I am emailing about the Jewellery category. I personally have no issue with the fact that we have 2 different spelllings on WP - both English and American - as I am aware there are 2 different spellings and for me, it is not a problem. However, I do feel we are having a siginifcant issue here on WP about the English VS. American spelling and I feel I have a good case to revert to the American Spelling. So - here it is. I am a graduate student at Bard here in US. I have read and researched literally hundreds of published titles on this topic. To that aim, I am endeavoring to beef up this category and help WP. However, in the act of reading many titles over many years, I have come to conclude that the American spelling is more dominent in published works on this topic. I don't have a reasoning behind why, I just know that it is so. Because of this, I feel it is neccesary to switch back to the American spelling. Even though in OED, it is jewellery, in every major book on this topic with the exception a few published in UK, it is spelled jewelry. For example - see what is known as "the bible on jewelry," the title is: Jewelry Concepts & Technology by Oppi Untracht. The spelling used is jewelry. Another example: On Amazon, you type in both. For jewelry there are 83,868 Results, for Jewellery, there are 61,300,000 Results - that is a significant difference in published works. I am more than happy to provide a complete bibliography if need be, but in the interest of being user friendly, I ask that you consider this and let me know what you think. Thanks, Archie, archimartin Archiemartin
I find it hard to believe that WP would cater to one author as opposed to being user friendly. Also - after reading the spelling guidelines it actually looks like the intent to be consistant would trump any original author.
archie, archiemartin Archiemartin
Thanks guys - and I am leaving it alone in the sense that I am not editing anyone's writing to reflect my ideas. However, I am not leaving it alone in the sense that I think it needs to be changed. If it were not a problem we would not have this major discussion going on usage of style to have the spellings automatically transfer to the common use of the surfer, (see usage of style). I also did contact the original contributor to see what he she thinks. I truly believe there are some serious inconcistancies with not only the desire of WP to be consistant but also with trumping one contributor over the needs of the millions of users. At the end of the day - it just makes good sense - particularly with a noun. archie, archiemartin Archiemartin
Hi - First off - the spelling is not a dialect. Second, I have no issue myself with the two spellings as I said, it is WP that clearly states in the usage area that the spelling and usage should be consistant. If they, or WP does not want that because as they state, "It makes WP look unprofessional" then they should change that. I don't care for myself but you have to admit that usage, and how people surf WP is important. This is not a personal debate - this is about serving the needs of the many and not the few.
Last - there is no such thing as a lost cause. archie, archiemartin Archiemartin
To address both of your arguments - there are more uses on both Amazon and Google for the American spelling indicating that the searchability is there for the American spelling. This is not an "alternative" spelling but another one. Again - I think many of you are taking this as a personal cause or argument when it has more to do with usability as well as the WP rules and manual of style. Believe me when I say that if WP did not state that they want consistency I would not be wasting my time. As for needs - I think it is obvious that we would like to have as much consistency and fact finding as we can so, I don't see how you can ignore the fact that many people, (like myself) originally went to "jewelry" and found zip. Also - if consistency is not important then why are we allowing an editor to make a recent chnage within that article to make the entire spelling to that of jewellery, the English one.
Last, no one has addressed the real argument here which is that the one spelling is obviously more used. Go on Amazon and Google. See for yourself. Thanks, Archie, archiemartin Archiemartin
HI,
Trebor - just to be clear for the third time - I have no problem myself with the two spellings as I use them all the time. When you ask what the problem is, I thought I outlined it, but here goes again. If WP says that consistency of style is one of its tenants, then this is not consistent. If the posters here say that one must stay with the original poster's spelling then, that is not consistent with policy - so then you say that the original poster trumps the WP manual of style. Ok, fine I can understand that. But - then, when one looks at one of the latest revisions, one editor basically tells anyone working on it to revise using "jewellery", which according to one of these posts is only because the original poster used it. Ok - fine again, but then again - we are going back to inconsistency because that would mean that the original poster does NOT always have the right of way because the current revisions indicate that no matter who created what section of this category, their contribution was changed to the original posters spelling. So, once again, I point out that not because I have a personal mission statement or preference - but only because of the dominant use, (I did not justify use by Americans, only pointed out the dominant search) in print and on the internet, I ask - where does the buck stop and with which rule? If this were a non -issue, as I also mentioned before, there would not be a heated debate going on about re-directing. I am seeking answers and to make WP better - not a waste of time here either, but no one seems to be coming up with an argument that holds up and makes sense in a consistent manner. Once again, I ask if you could please be a little more respectful and address what I am asking you to address. Thanks, Archie, archiemartin Archiemartin
I have to say that I found some of Grutnes' arguments funny (22:33, 23 February). He finds the "jewellery" spelling closer to the pronunciation, but I just as surely find the "jewelry" spelling closer to the way I pronounce the word. How old is that song, "You say potayto and I say potahto ... Let's call the whole thing off"? Seriously, when I look at Google results, I count 53 million "jewellery" listings and over 300 million for "jewelry", so the user-friendly argument would seem to favor the shorter version.
The venerable rule that the first user to plant his spelling flag on a new article gets to claim that article for his country's spelling is a useful way of calling the whole thing off, but we pay a price if readers are confused OR if we are left with constantly having to create redirect pages. As a minor practical matter, we probably ought to have some kind of process for surgically removing some of those flags that the brave Wikipedia explorers used to stake out spelling territory. It would probably involve first asking the originator to reconsider, a good reason to switch spelling, conformity with a reliable dictionary, proof from Google or somewhere else that one spelling is dominant, at least on the Web.
(And I assume America currently dominates the English-language Web in a way that may change as poorer nations, such as India, become richer, increasing Commonwealth spelling in Google hits.) Ultimately, it's not the end of the world to create redirect pages, just annoying. (Incidentally, when the Potayto/Potahto song was recorded in the U.S., the lyrics were sent to England, where they were recorded locally. The English had no idea from the written lyrics how the words in the song were pronounced. Much embarassment ensued when the American recordings were eventually imported. Moral of story: Never assume, certainly not about pronunciation.) Noroton 21:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Sidenote: I'm not sure if this is directly related, or just coincidental, but people have been very slowly warring on Tongue piercing about this and some other, um, more unusual elements of wording. - RedWordSmith 18:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I always spell jewellery with a double L. I honestly didn't know there was anywhere in the world where it was spelled differently. 138.217.252.28 08:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC) If you go with the "but the American spelling is more common" argument on a case by case basis, the result will be pretty much the same as banning British English from Wikipedia. That would not be a nice way to respond to all the contributions made to wikipedia by British people. Dominictimms 02:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place for this, but here goes. Are there any restrictions on off-site links - and if not, should there be? Many editors have probably seen the practical joke imitation "new message" banners that redirect to the Wiki article on practical jokes, or something similar. However, yesterday I came across one that redirected off-site to a blog page. I asked the editor to reconsider the setup, since there was no indication to a casual user that such a jump would occur. He appreciated my concerns, and reworked his pages accordingly. However, at the same time, he pointed out another user's "joke" nm banner, advising me to "Make sure your anti-virus is up to date." I didn't actually click the link, but found that it linked off-site to a CGI titled "brain.cgi" - which apparently has some reports of virus activity connected to it. Thoughts? -- Ckatz chat spy 09:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I have never supported a change more than this one. Said elements are annoying. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Not all UI changes are disruptive or confusing. This wording needs to be rethought. Take a look at User:Coelacan, where I have a username overlay. Nothing wrong with that. — coelacan talk — 21:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Gee, it's hard to think of things much worse to put on your user page than things that undermine the trust we expect people to have in the UI of the site. Much more disruptive than a nasty statement on their user page that we wouldn't allow. Why oh why we want to tiptoe around letting people spoof the UI so that we don't cut into the freedom of expression allowed on their user page I don't get. It's a small curtailment of what people are allowed with a better reason than much of what is on the current policy. — Doug Bell talk 02:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
There is one useful benefit to the practical joke you have messages. It lets the reader know that the user whose page they're looking at is, more than likely, a dick. I don't think they're worth banning on that ground alone, there are plenty of other cases of things that are rude and stupid but legal. And so there should be, because creating thou-shall-nots all the way to the border of good behaviour will inevitably mean that we overshoot sometimes, and ban some good behaviours. But given that the messages will cause some bots to stop, I agree with the prohibition, at least until there is another equally simple way for bots to know that they really have message. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm still amazed by all the angst this proposal is creating in the name of freedom on user pages. We're not "creating thou-shall-nots all the way to the border of good behaviour"—we're talking about a very specific, practical and non-content-based prohibition on spoofing the UI. There's not lots of gray area here or some dangerous slippery slope. Even without the bot issue I would think this is a no-brainer; with the bot issue this should be a slam dunk. — Doug Bell talk 12:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I consider that this div class (usermessage) has been abused, and that its abuse should be curtailed by enforcement, not by a “please don’t” message on WP:UP. Most importantly, the community is able to be elastic about interpretation of WP:UP in murky cases. If consensus is against such orange user messages, which appears to be the case, then they shall be removed. There may also have to be an MFD for all of the user subpages of the general note “Sign here if you’ve been fooled, lol!” Gracenotes T § 18:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Pros and cons of false new message boxes | |
Why to prohibit | Why not to |
---|---|
|
|
Two cents here... when I was a newbie, I clicked on those joke "new messages" banners. Now that I've been around a while, I get the joke and don't click on them. Heck, I can go in my monobook.css and make my real "new messages" appear some other color or whatever. But, for the sake of newbies (per WP:BITE), these practical jokes should not be allowed. -- Aude ( talk) 03:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I've got yet another con. When I'm on a slow computer (read: public one) and am just logging in for a few minutes (you know, just to make sure no one is calling for my head, maybe copyedit something, maybe make a follow-up comment on some talk page) these fake message bars can be really disruptive and time-consuming. They serve no positive purpose, yet they serve multiple negative ones. Luckily, I'm seeing consensus to remove them based on this thread, and will do so. Picaroon 03:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Get rid of all of them. They've been annoying for a long time now. -- Cyde Weys 04:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
P.S., David Levy, can you defend your characterization of these as "deliberately confusing and misleading others (thereby preventing them from improving the encyclopedia)."? -- Random832( t c) 04:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Folks common sense needs to apply here. To make a blanket rule that's going to block everything resembling MediaWiki functionality including lame "new message" joke alerts is just draconian. There are no doubt legitimate concerns about users spoofing certains functions of MediaWiki but I'll be hard pressed to agree with those who want to inlcude the Practical joke "new message" alert amongst those concerns. ( → Netscott) 04:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
David Levy, where did you get the impression that there is strong consensus for your block?-- Certified.Gangsta 05:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
This seems to me to be more of the same militantism that rears it's head on Wikipedia every so often. Some users seem to think Wikipedia should be as clean, stiff and dour as an English tea room or a board meeting in Japan, forgetting this is somethign most us do for FUN. Improving this project is, or at least should, not be another job, with a thousand HR decrees. It's a joke. take it case by case. Make the rule say such things should never lead to external sites, or to content of a non-family nature within wikipedia, for example Genital Piercings. But if you've got a fake 'leave me a message' up that leads to the Hand page, as in 'talk to the...', that's funny. Lame, but funny. (ish.). Tolerate it, and move on. I don't even see the associated WP:DICK in it that some here seem to. Learn to laugh. I try to remember, when I hit those things, that that user's here to have a GOOD time, and I should too. ThuranX 06:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
My thinking doesn't fit the below poll. I think fake new message banners are annoying and I think a tiny bit less of contributors that use them, but they're harmless, as long as they don't lead anywhere bad. I'd support a suggestion that they not be used, and a further statement that if they DO lead anywhere bad, anyone can remove them with a good edit summary and a note on the user's talk page, and reinsertion is not approved. That may be too nuanced, but I have non standard things in my userpages too, and I'd hate to see us all restricted to everything completely standard. ++ Lar: t/ c 21:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Why hasnt any Admin made a policy on this? Should I go around on Wikipedia saying I'm an actual Admin and then when they click on the message they get "Haa, Fooled you". This is plain stupid. Please make a policy against these fake user messages. Infact, this is wanting me to fake people that I'm an actual admin - maybe that will get the point across to the admins. -- Matt57 23:54, 13 March 2007 (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.
The result was no consensus, but my understanding is a solution was developed elsewhere. -- Random832 2 0:2 1, 1 2 Ma rch 20 07 (U TC )
There's plenty of commenting above, so please just register your position with your signature below. Leave the comments to the discussion above. ChrisGriswold removed the previous added text stating that there was no consensus, so I'd like to see if that's true or not.
Question: Should language similar to the following be added to WP:USER:
(End of straw poll)
That the real new message box should be moved outside the content box so that it cannot then be spoofed, rendering this whole thing irrelevant. Votesopinions in this section are in addition to support/oppose/neutral above.
With regards to the proposed wording, what would you all think of re-wording it to only exclude UI spoofing with malicious intent? Personally, I agree with the proposal as it stands, but re-wording it in such a fashion may at least allow us to come to a compromise consensus. -- Qarnos 10:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
A better solution is to allow individuals to disable/highlight fake message boxes if they personally wish, thereby avoiding any confrontation. For a long time, I've had this in my monobook.css:
div.usermessage a { /* make links inside other people's fake "new message" boxes show up in a 5x size red font */
background:red!important; font-size:500%;
} div.usermessage a[title="User talk:Interiot"] { /* make sure my own "new message" box shows up normally */
background:none!important; font-size:100%;
}
It makes all links in "new message" boxes show up in a very large red font, making them look more ridiculous than deceptive. -- Interiot 00:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Per the fairly clear consensus about certain aspects of the joke "new message" banner discussions I have intiated a proposal to begin crafting a guideline about them. I invite those interested in participating to join the discussion. Thanks. ( → Netscott) 18:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Stemming from the shared (and we believe consensus per the poll, etc.) concerns and after much discussion and back and forth I have added a section and subsection to WP:UP arrived at by a number of the parties involved in this. I invite those who have been following these developments to review this new section. As well as the talk that developed it. Thanks. ( → Netscott) 00:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see what the discussion is about. See WP:USER#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F. This specifically mentions:
This is even more the case if some users find something annoying. I've already removed a false message box and would have moved to blocking if the user had not been co-operative (which he was).
Tyrenius 08:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, I support blocking users on a stable guideline over which consensus was reached a long time ago, which I have copied above. Yes, users are allowed to have stuff which make people smile. They're not allowed to have stuff which annoy people, which one of the people who used to have one plainly admits is the case:
There's quite a few people here forgetting that editing is a privilege, not a right, and it's one granted for one purpose only, which is the creation of an encyclopedia. Once that priority is put back in place, then other problems sort themselves out. I suggest you forget about practical jokes, and get on with creating some good article content. Also user pages are not "private property". They belong to wikipedia. If you don't like that reality, then there's always myspace.
Tyrenius 09:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
If anything lends credence to the old adage it is this discussion. Steve block Talk 10:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Many of you feel these "jokes" are harmless. Say I found one of these jokes, and I fall for it, and I find it disruptive, what do you think of me posting a note below the "joke" saying "The above message is fake, you do not neccesarily have a new message."? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[Semantic nets & OOP/mult inheritance via changes to internal links capability...] Hi!
It'd be neat to let wiki contributors OPTIONALLY specify &/or Edit the TYPE of LINK of an INTERNAL LINK. This could eventually enable some really wonderful possibilities that I'm sure you folks are all aware of while remaining almost completely transparant to most current users/contributors.
It'd just require a change to your INTERNAL-LINK method...
I've discussed this somewhat more at length at: Talk:Internal link
I've appended an ugly text version here below ....
Thank you for your time!
Starting to build a semantic wiki with a few simple changes to the internal links feature]
With a few simple changes to the Internal Links feature, we can all start to incrementally build a wonderful semantic network version of Wikipedia!
Here's what I'm proposing initially :
When someone creates an internal link while editing a page it would create a Default link type called "Other : <stub ". But it would also open a small window with checkboxes that the person can tick (and/or others can edit later - just like the pages themselves - eg. wiki-able link-types/link descriptors).
Here are some potential basic link-types that a person could TICK off for any given internal link :
This will VERY RAPIDLY allow Wikipedia contributors to turn the existing wonderful entries into an active semantic network that one can search and do inference upon! It will also allow for multiple inheritance and other delights of object-oriented programming to be rapidly and incrementally be implemented by Wikipedia contributors.
For example :
Non small cell lung cancer is-a-subtype-of lung cancer
Dyspnea is-a symptom
Dyspnea can-be-caused-by lung cancer.
Lung cancer is-a-subtype of cancer
Cancer can-be-caused-by smoking.
Jimi Hendrix is-an-example-of a historical person
Jimi Hendrix is-an-example-of a guitarist
A guitarist Uses a guitar.
And so forth.
This OPTIONAL capability - that is initially completely transparant to MOST users will eventually allow for much more enhanced search capabilities and inference capabilities.
For example : FIND all SYMPTOMS that can-be-caused-by smoking.
The eventual possibilities are very substantial and it comes with virtually no change to most users and contributors.
A contributor who doesn't want to specify the LINK-TYPE will just leave it as OTHER : (Stub). Other folks may then come along later and EDIT the LINK TYPES adding additional ones or deleting or modifying them in typical wiki-fashion. EG. : not only are the PAGES modifiable by users, but also the LINK-TYPES.
People clicking on the internal links will still go to the same pages as before with the same experience as before. (However at a later date it may be possible - for example to do wonderful inferences and searches on specific link types.
OR other such capabilities.
More on this later, but I've got to go now.
What do you folks think ?
It should be fairly straightforward to implement! Just a change to the Internal-links method....
Any thoughts ? -- 129.78.64.100 06:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC) G. Holt
all link as the set of relation of semantic, may be applied. Your set is small. Let the link be a cause of semantic relation existence.-- Eaglesondouglas 15:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest having level-2 and above vandalism warnings send out an audible tone. A set of five beeps is my speicific idea, repeated three or more times. The idea is to give teachers a way of catching vandals in action. If they hear the tone, they can demand that people stop working on their machines while the person with the warning is located. A quick check of their web browser (or perhaps the browser's history) should quickly show whether the person in front of that machine is responsible for whatever vandlism earned the warning.
The implementation of this idea should be accompanied by a campaign to get newspapers to publish stories on the implementation of this mechanism. The tone won't be worth much if teachers and parents don't know what it means.
One more suggestion: The enabling template should be self-timestamped so that the tone will cease to be broadcast to the page's viewers after a set amount of time (say 5 to 10 minutes). (The reason for the time limit is that after more than a few minutes, the odds of this being a different user when the tome is emitted start to become substantial.) -- EMS | Talk 20:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
One of the reasons this board got created was as a venue to dovetail with this proposal. Things have been quiet at the proposal for about a month. Does anyone object to my proposal of a three month trial run? Seeking opinions, feedback, and potential refinements. Durova Charge! 22:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
It is said that our present noticeboards (mainly the various pumps and the admin board) don't scale well. The "community board" was created in an attempt to alleviate that, but unfortunately it is far from clear what the distinction is between that board and the older ones. I've temporarily suspended it to facilitate discussion about the focus of all these boards, and to prevent overlapping discussions. Please join discussion on Wikipedia talk:Community noticeboard. >Radiant< 11:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I am a fan of advanced topics in artifical intelligence. A distinction between the actual relation as automated and the application of knowledge is a fine distinction that is now able to be formulated.
According to Frege F[x,y]=x/y
by solving for the only symbol allowed to be used in his famous relation, automated inference in three orders is possible! This is new and not referenceable because it is a discovery.
Here is the solver function:
F[1,symbol]=1/symbol
where symbol is the symbol for the third abstract symbol. Note, the third order abstracted symbol or sign!
It is a fairly elegent topic and needs review by the village experts. Can I try it out? -- Eaglesondouglas 23:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I will not do anything as it is going to be showing up in automated reasoning computers soo.
Thanks -- 4.249.207.210 20:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
We should include a little page about our IRC and link to it from our sidebar. - Patricknoddy TALK (reply here)| HISTORY 23:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Although I discovered Wikipedia quite some time ago and have spent a lot of time reading generally well-written and interesting articles, I've still not found any easy-to-use manual for Wikipedia through Wikipedia. It seems to me that such an introduction should be clearly available as a link on the very first page of Wikipedia. This manual should be reasonable short so that it can be read from the beginning to the end in let's say 15 minutes. Then of course in that manual there could be many links with more detailed information about rules for editing etc. I've seen that there is a lot of information about rules, news etc etc, but it's all too detailed and dispersed for a person to grasp the essentials within a reasonable time. The risk is obviously that many people, who would be interested in contribute and edit themselves, are put off, since they can't find an easy manual for what to do and how to use it all. For example yesterday I watched a speech by the founder of Wikipedia on the homepage of Ted. He said that there is a page, which shows all changes, which are being made within Wikipedia. Also, he claimed that there are discussions for what pages should be kept and what should be deleted. However, I can’t find such pages and I can’t find any manual, which could help me finding those interesting pages. Please let me know what you think about my idea.-- Smallchanges 10:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
site:en.wikipedia.org "wiki/wikipedia"
to your search string. I'm sorry you think previous suggestions have fallen on deaf ears - like pretty much everything else here the help system is a work in progress, put together and maintained by volunteers. I'd bet any specific concern you have would get addressed if you raised it at
Help talk:Contents. You could also choose to
be bold and try to fix it yourself. BTW - you can find out all edits a given editor has made - from either their user page or talk page, click "user contributions" (in the toolbox, on the left). --
Rick Block (
talk) 01:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Rick Block and Kdammers, thanks for your quick answers and useful input. -- Smallchanges 09:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I have created a proposed policy on Wikipedia's attitude towards pedophile editors here. Wikipedia is listed as a "Corporate sex offender" at Perverted-justice.org, and I felt we needed to properly lay out our position. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 04:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Who is "Perverted Justice" and why should we care what they think? -- Cyde Weys 06:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that on many Wikipædia pages, there are glyphs that are unsupported by our font scheme. Mostly CJK charachters, runes, and the like. There are also alchemical and other symbols that are used in many topics that have to be inserted as typesize images. I propose that we get a new font that will include these graphemes, or make one, to make these things easier to edit and the pages look neater-- Whytecypress 19:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I have an Idea for Wikipedia, and it should help to reduce test editing My idea is basically this:
Stwalkerster 17:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a crazy idea that I randomly had the other day so bare with me... But I think it would be amazing if wikipedia could somehow make an application that utilized peer to peer software. In other words... store the contents of wikipedia on user computers that have the application running on their computer. Still keep up the local servers but somehow create a p2p version of wikipedia that could act as a "backup" for the site. And if the idea caught on enough we could do away with the local servers completely. It would totally revolutionize wikipedia and make it a permanent stable of the internet that would not be reliant on donations or massive local servers. Just food for thought. -- Tobyw87 21:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone every created a mediawiki site which is free?
Which allows anyone to post anything they want, and have access to all the files? I have an assbackwards system called Siteground.com, which is terrible.
This could revolutionize the way that people transfer and collect data. Kind of a yahoo, or google of the internet, based outside of the United States, with weaker or nonexistent copyright laws.
It would make wikipedia seem bassakwards.
Kind of like the internet on Enders game, it would revolutionize the way that everyone would do things, see things, etc. There are several Economist about the problems with patents, etc, which I can post offwiki. Odessaukrain 12:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Was the suggestion of using "subst:" to reduce server load informed by actual profiling? That is, did someone actually measure the non-hypothetical, real-life difference?
The suggestion initially seems plausible, until you learn a few things about computers. And the first thing to learn is that intuitive guesses about optimizing an application are almost always wrong. In fact, using "subst:" probably slows down the server since database throughput is orders of magnitude slower than CPU/RAM throughput. But until careful real-life measurements are taken, nobody can really know.
Of course, "subst:" is sometimes the desired behavior, regardless of server load issues. However other uses of "subst:" cannot be justified without hard evidence. Xerxesnine 04:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there any hard evidence based on real-life tests by the Wikipedia IT folks? There is absolutely no way to profile a system by hypothesizing about it. It's always surprising where the bottleneck is---and isn't. For example, I could equally argue that RAM/CPU cache hits on the template routines are faster than the database throughput. If you re-read my initial post, I was asking for evidence, not more dubious theorizing. Xerxesnine 05:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
As it currently stands you have to have a separate login to edit an article in a different language. As it has been explained to me this is because different languages have different administrations/rules. However, what would stop one login name from having access to all languages. The different rules and administrations would still apply to a specific language, but users who are able to edit multiple languages could do so with one login. Wikipediatoperfection 07:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I was browsing along the Homestar Runner Wiki after a look at the the Battlestar Galactica Wiki and I thought... how about cross-wiki redirects? By this I means sending people who look up Commander Adama here directly to the BSG wiki and having a link on the diambig page for Deutschmann to the joke on the H*R wiki. I suggest this because:
It would free up space on wikipedia's servers.
It would give credit for wiki-interest in things like Star Trek and Star Wars to where it belongs.
The coverage on the specialized wikis is better.
It will avoid all sorts of unnecessary redundancy.
And it will mean fewer jokes about wikipedia's focus on fictional things (I think they call it "fancruft"). I'm new to Wikipedia, so please forgive if this isn't a new idea. Misaf-Keru 01:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, OK, how about a policy that further restricts WP's info on this sort of thing but explicitly encourages ELs to other wikis? After further thought, my main point should have been thisː
• That it would add to the credibility here while simultaneously allowing fans access to more detail if they want it. Win-win. So what do you think of this proposal? Misaf-Keru 06:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
This proposal will need a change in the MediaWiki software, and will go nowhere here. File this as an enhancement request type "bug" at the Bugzilla mentioned in the header above. Jesse Viviano 22:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest we add the option to have today's picture emailed to people, so that we may send it to friends and stuff. Isn't that how featured articles work? If not, than that option should be made availale. I knwo you can do it by file, but thats so long. Tourskin 21:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
why not set up a Wiki project whereby people enter in how they were treated / cured of various ailments or injuries. This will then end up being a huge repository of case studies, enabling people to see which treatments are effective.
I have seen a number of articles that list Myspace as either a reference or, more often, an external link. I can't help but think that that looks really unencyclopedic, linking to a site with more media-enhanced problems than Wikipedia and has basically zero credibility. Why is there nothing that says Don't link to Myspace? This would definitely increase our credibility (or at least our image of credibility.) Mr.Z-man talk ¢ Review! 01:55, 18 March 2007 (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 think what we could really use, in addition to a Peer Review section, is a Grammar Review page. If an article is of solid quality, but the writing is somewhat less than adequate, it would be a handy place where wikipedians with strong grammar skills could give a PR'd page a good polish (prior to moving forward for FAC). Any thoughts on this? — RJH ( talk) 17:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm no programmer, so perhaps a bot that removes links to no-longer-existant images? AdamBiswanger1 16:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
See User:Naconkantari/cleanup. — Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 15:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
Just a reminder for the strawpoll on WP:UW about redirecting the old user warnings templates to the new system which closes tomorrow. If you have any interest in this issue please leave your comments here. Original message. Cheers Khu kri 10:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
WebCite is like the Internet Archive, but caches pages on demand, allowing you to cite the exact version that you viewed regardless of whether the page changes or goes offline. Should we be using this whenever we cite a webpage? — Omegatron 22:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
couldn't we integrate this into the {{
cite web}} template, so that editors don't need to worry about it
apparently they require you to attach yourself to each link you create
The Internet Archive has been around for years, is pretty trustworthy, and in any case, is used as a last resource.
Asking people to use it sounds like an advertisement for the site.
I have just started a article with the title mentioned above. Perhaps it would be interesting contributing\starting with me to this list; it might be fun if their is some kind of a competition between several users, to be on top of that list! Maybe some people would go and work harder, do more, contribute more, and vandalise less! So, what do you say?
the Old and respectable Kashwialariski 15:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Relevant discussion at | → Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of total stars |
(I previously posted this elsewhere, but it was too low-traffic.)
When we write new policies, can we avoid using the word "policy" in the name of the policy? Wikipedia:Attribution isn't any less of a policy even though it's not called "Wikipedia:Attribution Policy". For example, an alternative to "Wikipedia:Protection policy" might be "Wikipedia:Protection" or "Wikipedia:Article protection". — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-17 08:12Z
Hi, on the Special:Statistics page, would it be possible to get more detailed statistics available? Perhaps stating as a percentage how many of the 4 million-odd users are actually active - i.e. have made edits in the last 6 months? And the number of distinctive IP addresses have been used to edit would be brilliant too. Thanks in advance for your responses — Jack · talk · 19:08, Friday, 16 March 2007
I have proposed a change in an AfD template. Please comment at Template talk:REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD. —dgies t c 17:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm proposing to add a small subsection to Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. My proposed subsection merely states that Wikipedia articles should be summaries of their topics, not an exhaustive collection of every bit of data which exists on that topic, and that facts which are neither notable nor even interesting should not be included in a wikipedia article. While this may sound like a statement of something utterly obvious, it appears to exist nowhere within wikipedia policies or guidelines, and many new or inexperienced editors do indeed believe that adding every bit of info they can think of to an article is reasonable.
I am getting very little in the way of comments or feedback on this, so please drop by to WT:NOT#Proposal_to_add_to_Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information and support, oppose, or help amend what I'm trying to add. -- Xyzzyplugh 07:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has hundreds, if not thousands, of articles on chemical compounds, generally found in the many subcategories of Category:Chemical compounds by element. Unfortunately, many of these are permanent stubs and low on content, such as those listed here. Wikipedia:Chemical compounds has been created to discuss what to do with all this. Deletion is arguably a waste, but perhaps some articles can be combined into lists for greater comprehensiveness. Please join the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Chemical compounds. >Radiant< 16:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I've just been looking at the large number of articles whose various authors have never heard of the concept of an aesthetic layout - in other words just plain, ugly articles - badly chosen photos or diagrams that have been poorly placed - images crunched into atrocities called "infoboxes" - horizontal lines cutting the article into pieces - the list is almost endless. My proposal is that Wikipedia thinks seriously about having watchdog groups to monitor and rearrange badly designed articles. Such groups should be made up of editors who know what a good layout is - professional painters and photographers and the people who compose advertisements know what to look for. It's high time Wikipedia had a facelift. Paul venter 10:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I proposed this a while ago and it got support, but nothing came of it, so I am proposing it again. (discussion copied from the archive) Mr.Z-man talk ¢ Review! 17:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what exactly to call them, but the Polish Wikipedia has some very handy links under the edit summary box for automatic edit summaries. As I don't speak Polish and I was just there to add an interlanguage link, I don't know what most of them do, but some are:Interwiki, stub, redir, infobox, and image. These could prove helpful here. Mr.Z-man talk ¢ Review! 22:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
it has come to my attention that download.wikipedia.org isn't frequently updated nor gives it very specific downloads. SO what I would love to do is in fact make special downloads for every 'portal' on the site. I'm modest opinion, I think that it will save some GB's on the traffic counter.
And the structure isn't quit user-friendly when unpacked in a directory. So I would propose the make a directory structure that is very clear:
/root
index.html
sub-portal directory example
/portal1
-/a-z directory
--/images
---/images display html files
---/images
—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Webscriptz (
talk •
contribs) 18:05, 21 March 2007 (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.
A poll is underway at Wikipedia talk:Notability (science) concerning whether or not this guideline currently enjoys general support from the community. Please feel free to join the discussion. Mango juice talk 20:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's an idea I've had on the back burner for a while: given that an increasing number of university professors are assigning their students to edit Wikipedia article, are we ready to have a WikiProject where they can share strategies? [5] So far all that Wikipedia has done is document those examples. It looks like it could be very beneficial to this site (and to the educators) if there we created a place where they could get together and see what works best for their classrooms and for the encyclopedia. Durova Charge! 17:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#WikiProject_classroom_coordination Sign up if you're interested and we'll get this off the ground. Durova Charge! 18:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212
I'd like to propose the removal of episode summaries from Wikipedia. By this, I mean articles created specifically to summarize one single episode of a TV show-- Wikipedia is not a TV guide.
The only reason particular episodes of anything should be mentioned, in my opinion, is if they are particularly noteable. Jtrainor 05:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The fanboy issue really should be rather irrelevant, as AfDs are not a vote. Invalid arguments in an AfD (for both keep and delete), along with entries that are just votes, should really be discounted, but all too often, arn't.
A major problem with Wikipedia is that all too often, many editors (and admins!) mistake AfDs for a vote instead of a debate, with predictable consequences. Jtrainor 06:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The right way
as I understand it is how it's done now. List of episodes, expand like any other topic once a given episode has enough content per policy. Is the section starter, jtrainor, saying we just shouldn't have episode articles in general? I am confused. A TV show episode, a person, a recipe, a fish called Ralph (or Wanda)--if its notable, ATT, etc., it's entitled a fair shake at an article. Also, for the above question, is Lisa's Rival the episode notable?
Multiple
non-trivial
sources. Could probably find way more with a proper news search, that was 120 seconds on Google. -
Denny 21:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
What I'm saying is, there is no reason to list every episode of anything ever. Only particularly noteable episodes should have articles. Jtrainor 23:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
You could make the same argument about a lot of Wikipedia article, including most of the articles about movies, porn movies, and the articles for every single Pokemon character. The notability bar, rightly IMO, is set pretty low, and I imagine most TV episode articles would meet it if they came up for AfD. And to answer the question about Simpsons quotes above, some of us Simpsons watchers above the age of 14 have been trying to hold the line on those damn quote sections. An episode capsule may be one thing, but few people want to read a complete script. Natalie 22:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Eh, we list every book or movie in a series separately. TV shows are just very long series.
Owlofcreamcheese
At the moment there are plenty of protection templates, and they are not standardized in any way, both in naming and parameter usage. So I propose that we does some standardization on them.
Here are my proposal:
Example naming of template could be:
{{
protected-semi-high visible template}}
{{
pp-s-high visible template}}
→ Aza Toth 17:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea. I've been thinking we need a Wikipedia:WikiProject Template Harmonization, a parent or sibling of WP:UW. Any interest? — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-17 08:00Z
In the spirit of reducing the confusing and byzantine amount of policy pages... Wikipedia:Attack page basically tells us that attack pages are deleted. In that, it is redundant with WP:CSD, which says the same. Are there any objections to redirecting the former to latter, since it completely overlaps? >Radiant< 16:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the content is small enough to merit merging somewhere, though I don't think WP:CSD is the right place. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-17 08:04Z
Relevant discussion at | → WT:UW#Overview - Now time to finish |
Most of you are aware of the work that was done over the previous 6 months by the user warnings project WP:UW and then when handed over WP:UTM to harmonise the multi level warnings. We'd now like to wrap up this project by completing the single issue templates and tidying up the Category:User warning templates. To achieve this, one of the areas that needs greater community involvement is the redirecting of the old templates to the new ones. This is not something we will undertake lightly as a few editors are still attached to the old templates, though the majority of warnings being issued now are with the new system. If you have an opinion on the user warnings templates old or new, we'd appreciate your thoughts here please. Regards Khu kri 10:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Relevant discussion at | → Wikipedia talk:Butcher's rules |
I created an essay on how to respectfully point out an obvious error to a user. I'd like some feedback. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
When searching through some article histories, it would be extremely helpful if edits identified as vandalism would have a bold v beside them, as is the case of minor (m) edits; or bot (b) edits and new (N) pages in the Watchlist. Combined with an optional History filter which would allow me to hide Vandal edits, it would make researching an article's history far simpler. For example, the article Nothing has been a frequent target of vandals; and over the course of the month of February, large portions of the article have been changed. It is difficult to identify if they were removed by vandals (as some large portions indeed were) or if they were removed for well-explained reasons. As for identifying vandal edits: therein probably lies the tricky part. My first thought it to restrict it to admins-only, but that may create a heavy burden upon them. AntiVandalBot does a great job at catching a large volume of them, so it would be nice if special permissions could be provided for users/bots such as that. Or if it is to be a tool available to mainstream users, its use should be restricted such that only established users can mark an edit as a vandal edit. I hope the above makes sense! Sláinte! -- Bossi ( talk ;; contribs) 23:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I have been trying to produce a new search page for when there is an error. My prototype is available here tell me what you think. Click on the search box and make a search. It is pretty good. I know a few people @ ms. I will see if they will make a version where there are no advertisements. A few strings might be able to be pulled. Give me any feedback, errors or objections you have, I would really like to build on it. Sorry about the loading time, the background image is kinda biggish but i wanted it to look realistic.
thanx
symode09 14:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I have added this proposal again because nof the lack of response
symode09 04:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Are there any plans to have wikipedias in sign languageas, such as American Sign Language (ASL) or British Sign Language (BSL)?
stevo
(email removed, to protect you from spam harvesters)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.22.72 ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 9 March 2007
This isn't the right venue. Take this to the meta discussion. 142.157.19.40 22:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Editors: I am emailing about the Jewellery category. I personally have no issue with the fact that we have 2 different spelllings on WP - both English and American - as I am aware there are 2 different spellings and for me, it is not a problem. However, I do feel we are having a siginifcant issue here on WP about the English VS. American spelling and I feel I have a good case to revert to the American Spelling. So - here it is. I am a graduate student at Bard here in US. I have read and researched literally hundreds of published titles on this topic. To that aim, I am endeavoring to beef up this category and help WP. However, in the act of reading many titles over many years, I have come to conclude that the American spelling is more dominent in published works on this topic. I don't have a reasoning behind why, I just know that it is so. Because of this, I feel it is neccesary to switch back to the American spelling. Even though in OED, it is jewellery, in every major book on this topic with the exception a few published in UK, it is spelled jewelry. For example - see what is known as "the bible on jewelry," the title is: Jewelry Concepts & Technology by Oppi Untracht. The spelling used is jewelry. Another example: On Amazon, you type in both. For jewelry there are 83,868 Results, for Jewellery, there are 61,300,000 Results - that is a significant difference in published works. I am more than happy to provide a complete bibliography if need be, but in the interest of being user friendly, I ask that you consider this and let me know what you think. Thanks, Archie, archimartin Archiemartin
I find it hard to believe that WP would cater to one author as opposed to being user friendly. Also - after reading the spelling guidelines it actually looks like the intent to be consistant would trump any original author.
archie, archiemartin Archiemartin
Thanks guys - and I am leaving it alone in the sense that I am not editing anyone's writing to reflect my ideas. However, I am not leaving it alone in the sense that I think it needs to be changed. If it were not a problem we would not have this major discussion going on usage of style to have the spellings automatically transfer to the common use of the surfer, (see usage of style). I also did contact the original contributor to see what he she thinks. I truly believe there are some serious inconcistancies with not only the desire of WP to be consistant but also with trumping one contributor over the needs of the millions of users. At the end of the day - it just makes good sense - particularly with a noun. archie, archiemartin Archiemartin
Hi - First off - the spelling is not a dialect. Second, I have no issue myself with the two spellings as I said, it is WP that clearly states in the usage area that the spelling and usage should be consistant. If they, or WP does not want that because as they state, "It makes WP look unprofessional" then they should change that. I don't care for myself but you have to admit that usage, and how people surf WP is important. This is not a personal debate - this is about serving the needs of the many and not the few.
Last - there is no such thing as a lost cause. archie, archiemartin Archiemartin
To address both of your arguments - there are more uses on both Amazon and Google for the American spelling indicating that the searchability is there for the American spelling. This is not an "alternative" spelling but another one. Again - I think many of you are taking this as a personal cause or argument when it has more to do with usability as well as the WP rules and manual of style. Believe me when I say that if WP did not state that they want consistency I would not be wasting my time. As for needs - I think it is obvious that we would like to have as much consistency and fact finding as we can so, I don't see how you can ignore the fact that many people, (like myself) originally went to "jewelry" and found zip. Also - if consistency is not important then why are we allowing an editor to make a recent chnage within that article to make the entire spelling to that of jewellery, the English one.
Last, no one has addressed the real argument here which is that the one spelling is obviously more used. Go on Amazon and Google. See for yourself. Thanks, Archie, archiemartin Archiemartin
HI,
Trebor - just to be clear for the third time - I have no problem myself with the two spellings as I use them all the time. When you ask what the problem is, I thought I outlined it, but here goes again. If WP says that consistency of style is one of its tenants, then this is not consistent. If the posters here say that one must stay with the original poster's spelling then, that is not consistent with policy - so then you say that the original poster trumps the WP manual of style. Ok, fine I can understand that. But - then, when one looks at one of the latest revisions, one editor basically tells anyone working on it to revise using "jewellery", which according to one of these posts is only because the original poster used it. Ok - fine again, but then again - we are going back to inconsistency because that would mean that the original poster does NOT always have the right of way because the current revisions indicate that no matter who created what section of this category, their contribution was changed to the original posters spelling. So, once again, I point out that not because I have a personal mission statement or preference - but only because of the dominant use, (I did not justify use by Americans, only pointed out the dominant search) in print and on the internet, I ask - where does the buck stop and with which rule? If this were a non -issue, as I also mentioned before, there would not be a heated debate going on about re-directing. I am seeking answers and to make WP better - not a waste of time here either, but no one seems to be coming up with an argument that holds up and makes sense in a consistent manner. Once again, I ask if you could please be a little more respectful and address what I am asking you to address. Thanks, Archie, archiemartin Archiemartin
I have to say that I found some of Grutnes' arguments funny (22:33, 23 February). He finds the "jewellery" spelling closer to the pronunciation, but I just as surely find the "jewelry" spelling closer to the way I pronounce the word. How old is that song, "You say potayto and I say potahto ... Let's call the whole thing off"? Seriously, when I look at Google results, I count 53 million "jewellery" listings and over 300 million for "jewelry", so the user-friendly argument would seem to favor the shorter version.
The venerable rule that the first user to plant his spelling flag on a new article gets to claim that article for his country's spelling is a useful way of calling the whole thing off, but we pay a price if readers are confused OR if we are left with constantly having to create redirect pages. As a minor practical matter, we probably ought to have some kind of process for surgically removing some of those flags that the brave Wikipedia explorers used to stake out spelling territory. It would probably involve first asking the originator to reconsider, a good reason to switch spelling, conformity with a reliable dictionary, proof from Google or somewhere else that one spelling is dominant, at least on the Web.
(And I assume America currently dominates the English-language Web in a way that may change as poorer nations, such as India, become richer, increasing Commonwealth spelling in Google hits.) Ultimately, it's not the end of the world to create redirect pages, just annoying. (Incidentally, when the Potayto/Potahto song was recorded in the U.S., the lyrics were sent to England, where they were recorded locally. The English had no idea from the written lyrics how the words in the song were pronounced. Much embarassment ensued when the American recordings were eventually imported. Moral of story: Never assume, certainly not about pronunciation.) Noroton 21:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Sidenote: I'm not sure if this is directly related, or just coincidental, but people have been very slowly warring on Tongue piercing about this and some other, um, more unusual elements of wording. - RedWordSmith 18:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I always spell jewellery with a double L. I honestly didn't know there was anywhere in the world where it was spelled differently. 138.217.252.28 08:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC) If you go with the "but the American spelling is more common" argument on a case by case basis, the result will be pretty much the same as banning British English from Wikipedia. That would not be a nice way to respond to all the contributions made to wikipedia by British people. Dominictimms 02:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place for this, but here goes. Are there any restrictions on off-site links - and if not, should there be? Many editors have probably seen the practical joke imitation "new message" banners that redirect to the Wiki article on practical jokes, or something similar. However, yesterday I came across one that redirected off-site to a blog page. I asked the editor to reconsider the setup, since there was no indication to a casual user that such a jump would occur. He appreciated my concerns, and reworked his pages accordingly. However, at the same time, he pointed out another user's "joke" nm banner, advising me to "Make sure your anti-virus is up to date." I didn't actually click the link, but found that it linked off-site to a CGI titled "brain.cgi" - which apparently has some reports of virus activity connected to it. Thoughts? -- Ckatz chat spy 09:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I have never supported a change more than this one. Said elements are annoying. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Not all UI changes are disruptive or confusing. This wording needs to be rethought. Take a look at User:Coelacan, where I have a username overlay. Nothing wrong with that. — coelacan talk — 21:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Gee, it's hard to think of things much worse to put on your user page than things that undermine the trust we expect people to have in the UI of the site. Much more disruptive than a nasty statement on their user page that we wouldn't allow. Why oh why we want to tiptoe around letting people spoof the UI so that we don't cut into the freedom of expression allowed on their user page I don't get. It's a small curtailment of what people are allowed with a better reason than much of what is on the current policy. — Doug Bell talk 02:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
There is one useful benefit to the practical joke you have messages. It lets the reader know that the user whose page they're looking at is, more than likely, a dick. I don't think they're worth banning on that ground alone, there are plenty of other cases of things that are rude and stupid but legal. And so there should be, because creating thou-shall-nots all the way to the border of good behaviour will inevitably mean that we overshoot sometimes, and ban some good behaviours. But given that the messages will cause some bots to stop, I agree with the prohibition, at least until there is another equally simple way for bots to know that they really have message. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm still amazed by all the angst this proposal is creating in the name of freedom on user pages. We're not "creating thou-shall-nots all the way to the border of good behaviour"—we're talking about a very specific, practical and non-content-based prohibition on spoofing the UI. There's not lots of gray area here or some dangerous slippery slope. Even without the bot issue I would think this is a no-brainer; with the bot issue this should be a slam dunk. — Doug Bell talk 12:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I consider that this div class (usermessage) has been abused, and that its abuse should be curtailed by enforcement, not by a “please don’t” message on WP:UP. Most importantly, the community is able to be elastic about interpretation of WP:UP in murky cases. If consensus is against such orange user messages, which appears to be the case, then they shall be removed. There may also have to be an MFD for all of the user subpages of the general note “Sign here if you’ve been fooled, lol!” Gracenotes T § 18:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Pros and cons of false new message boxes | |
Why to prohibit | Why not to |
---|---|
|
|
Two cents here... when I was a newbie, I clicked on those joke "new messages" banners. Now that I've been around a while, I get the joke and don't click on them. Heck, I can go in my monobook.css and make my real "new messages" appear some other color or whatever. But, for the sake of newbies (per WP:BITE), these practical jokes should not be allowed. -- Aude ( talk) 03:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I've got yet another con. When I'm on a slow computer (read: public one) and am just logging in for a few minutes (you know, just to make sure no one is calling for my head, maybe copyedit something, maybe make a follow-up comment on some talk page) these fake message bars can be really disruptive and time-consuming. They serve no positive purpose, yet they serve multiple negative ones. Luckily, I'm seeing consensus to remove them based on this thread, and will do so. Picaroon 03:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Get rid of all of them. They've been annoying for a long time now. -- Cyde Weys 04:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
P.S., David Levy, can you defend your characterization of these as "deliberately confusing and misleading others (thereby preventing them from improving the encyclopedia)."? -- Random832( t c) 04:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Folks common sense needs to apply here. To make a blanket rule that's going to block everything resembling MediaWiki functionality including lame "new message" joke alerts is just draconian. There are no doubt legitimate concerns about users spoofing certains functions of MediaWiki but I'll be hard pressed to agree with those who want to inlcude the Practical joke "new message" alert amongst those concerns. ( → Netscott) 04:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
David Levy, where did you get the impression that there is strong consensus for your block?-- Certified.Gangsta 05:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
This seems to me to be more of the same militantism that rears it's head on Wikipedia every so often. Some users seem to think Wikipedia should be as clean, stiff and dour as an English tea room or a board meeting in Japan, forgetting this is somethign most us do for FUN. Improving this project is, or at least should, not be another job, with a thousand HR decrees. It's a joke. take it case by case. Make the rule say such things should never lead to external sites, or to content of a non-family nature within wikipedia, for example Genital Piercings. But if you've got a fake 'leave me a message' up that leads to the Hand page, as in 'talk to the...', that's funny. Lame, but funny. (ish.). Tolerate it, and move on. I don't even see the associated WP:DICK in it that some here seem to. Learn to laugh. I try to remember, when I hit those things, that that user's here to have a GOOD time, and I should too. ThuranX 06:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
My thinking doesn't fit the below poll. I think fake new message banners are annoying and I think a tiny bit less of contributors that use them, but they're harmless, as long as they don't lead anywhere bad. I'd support a suggestion that they not be used, and a further statement that if they DO lead anywhere bad, anyone can remove them with a good edit summary and a note on the user's talk page, and reinsertion is not approved. That may be too nuanced, but I have non standard things in my userpages too, and I'd hate to see us all restricted to everything completely standard. ++ Lar: t/ c 21:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Why hasnt any Admin made a policy on this? Should I go around on Wikipedia saying I'm an actual Admin and then when they click on the message they get "Haa, Fooled you". This is plain stupid. Please make a policy against these fake user messages. Infact, this is wanting me to fake people that I'm an actual admin - maybe that will get the point across to the admins. -- Matt57 23:54, 13 March 2007 (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.
The result was no consensus, but my understanding is a solution was developed elsewhere. -- Random832 2 0:2 1, 1 2 Ma rch 20 07 (U TC )
There's plenty of commenting above, so please just register your position with your signature below. Leave the comments to the discussion above. ChrisGriswold removed the previous added text stating that there was no consensus, so I'd like to see if that's true or not.
Question: Should language similar to the following be added to WP:USER:
(End of straw poll)
That the real new message box should be moved outside the content box so that it cannot then be spoofed, rendering this whole thing irrelevant. Votesopinions in this section are in addition to support/oppose/neutral above.
With regards to the proposed wording, what would you all think of re-wording it to only exclude UI spoofing with malicious intent? Personally, I agree with the proposal as it stands, but re-wording it in such a fashion may at least allow us to come to a compromise consensus. -- Qarnos 10:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
A better solution is to allow individuals to disable/highlight fake message boxes if they personally wish, thereby avoiding any confrontation. For a long time, I've had this in my monobook.css:
div.usermessage a { /* make links inside other people's fake "new message" boxes show up in a 5x size red font */
background:red!important; font-size:500%;
} div.usermessage a[title="User talk:Interiot"] { /* make sure my own "new message" box shows up normally */
background:none!important; font-size:100%;
}
It makes all links in "new message" boxes show up in a very large red font, making them look more ridiculous than deceptive. -- Interiot 00:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Per the fairly clear consensus about certain aspects of the joke "new message" banner discussions I have intiated a proposal to begin crafting a guideline about them. I invite those interested in participating to join the discussion. Thanks. ( → Netscott) 18:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Stemming from the shared (and we believe consensus per the poll, etc.) concerns and after much discussion and back and forth I have added a section and subsection to WP:UP arrived at by a number of the parties involved in this. I invite those who have been following these developments to review this new section. As well as the talk that developed it. Thanks. ( → Netscott) 00:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see what the discussion is about. See WP:USER#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F. This specifically mentions:
This is even more the case if some users find something annoying. I've already removed a false message box and would have moved to blocking if the user had not been co-operative (which he was).
Tyrenius 08:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, I support blocking users on a stable guideline over which consensus was reached a long time ago, which I have copied above. Yes, users are allowed to have stuff which make people smile. They're not allowed to have stuff which annoy people, which one of the people who used to have one plainly admits is the case:
There's quite a few people here forgetting that editing is a privilege, not a right, and it's one granted for one purpose only, which is the creation of an encyclopedia. Once that priority is put back in place, then other problems sort themselves out. I suggest you forget about practical jokes, and get on with creating some good article content. Also user pages are not "private property". They belong to wikipedia. If you don't like that reality, then there's always myspace.
Tyrenius 09:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
If anything lends credence to the old adage it is this discussion. Steve block Talk 10:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Many of you feel these "jokes" are harmless. Say I found one of these jokes, and I fall for it, and I find it disruptive, what do you think of me posting a note below the "joke" saying "The above message is fake, you do not neccesarily have a new message."? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[Semantic nets & OOP/mult inheritance via changes to internal links capability...] Hi!
It'd be neat to let wiki contributors OPTIONALLY specify &/or Edit the TYPE of LINK of an INTERNAL LINK. This could eventually enable some really wonderful possibilities that I'm sure you folks are all aware of while remaining almost completely transparant to most current users/contributors.
It'd just require a change to your INTERNAL-LINK method...
I've discussed this somewhat more at length at: Talk:Internal link
I've appended an ugly text version here below ....
Thank you for your time!
Starting to build a semantic wiki with a few simple changes to the internal links feature]
With a few simple changes to the Internal Links feature, we can all start to incrementally build a wonderful semantic network version of Wikipedia!
Here's what I'm proposing initially :
When someone creates an internal link while editing a page it would create a Default link type called "Other : <stub ". But it would also open a small window with checkboxes that the person can tick (and/or others can edit later - just like the pages themselves - eg. wiki-able link-types/link descriptors).
Here are some potential basic link-types that a person could TICK off for any given internal link :
This will VERY RAPIDLY allow Wikipedia contributors to turn the existing wonderful entries into an active semantic network that one can search and do inference upon! It will also allow for multiple inheritance and other delights of object-oriented programming to be rapidly and incrementally be implemented by Wikipedia contributors.
For example :
Non small cell lung cancer is-a-subtype-of lung cancer
Dyspnea is-a symptom
Dyspnea can-be-caused-by lung cancer.
Lung cancer is-a-subtype of cancer
Cancer can-be-caused-by smoking.
Jimi Hendrix is-an-example-of a historical person
Jimi Hendrix is-an-example-of a guitarist
A guitarist Uses a guitar.
And so forth.
This OPTIONAL capability - that is initially completely transparant to MOST users will eventually allow for much more enhanced search capabilities and inference capabilities.
For example : FIND all SYMPTOMS that can-be-caused-by smoking.
The eventual possibilities are very substantial and it comes with virtually no change to most users and contributors.
A contributor who doesn't want to specify the LINK-TYPE will just leave it as OTHER : (Stub). Other folks may then come along later and EDIT the LINK TYPES adding additional ones or deleting or modifying them in typical wiki-fashion. EG. : not only are the PAGES modifiable by users, but also the LINK-TYPES.
People clicking on the internal links will still go to the same pages as before with the same experience as before. (However at a later date it may be possible - for example to do wonderful inferences and searches on specific link types.
OR other such capabilities.
More on this later, but I've got to go now.
What do you folks think ?
It should be fairly straightforward to implement! Just a change to the Internal-links method....
Any thoughts ? -- 129.78.64.100 06:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC) G. Holt
all link as the set of relation of semantic, may be applied. Your set is small. Let the link be a cause of semantic relation existence.-- Eaglesondouglas 15:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest having level-2 and above vandalism warnings send out an audible tone. A set of five beeps is my speicific idea, repeated three or more times. The idea is to give teachers a way of catching vandals in action. If they hear the tone, they can demand that people stop working on their machines while the person with the warning is located. A quick check of their web browser (or perhaps the browser's history) should quickly show whether the person in front of that machine is responsible for whatever vandlism earned the warning.
The implementation of this idea should be accompanied by a campaign to get newspapers to publish stories on the implementation of this mechanism. The tone won't be worth much if teachers and parents don't know what it means.
One more suggestion: The enabling template should be self-timestamped so that the tone will cease to be broadcast to the page's viewers after a set amount of time (say 5 to 10 minutes). (The reason for the time limit is that after more than a few minutes, the odds of this being a different user when the tome is emitted start to become substantial.) -- EMS | Talk 20:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
One of the reasons this board got created was as a venue to dovetail with this proposal. Things have been quiet at the proposal for about a month. Does anyone object to my proposal of a three month trial run? Seeking opinions, feedback, and potential refinements. Durova Charge! 22:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
It is said that our present noticeboards (mainly the various pumps and the admin board) don't scale well. The "community board" was created in an attempt to alleviate that, but unfortunately it is far from clear what the distinction is between that board and the older ones. I've temporarily suspended it to facilitate discussion about the focus of all these boards, and to prevent overlapping discussions. Please join discussion on Wikipedia talk:Community noticeboard. >Radiant< 11:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I am a fan of advanced topics in artifical intelligence. A distinction between the actual relation as automated and the application of knowledge is a fine distinction that is now able to be formulated.
According to Frege F[x,y]=x/y
by solving for the only symbol allowed to be used in his famous relation, automated inference in three orders is possible! This is new and not referenceable because it is a discovery.
Here is the solver function:
F[1,symbol]=1/symbol
where symbol is the symbol for the third abstract symbol. Note, the third order abstracted symbol or sign!
It is a fairly elegent topic and needs review by the village experts. Can I try it out? -- Eaglesondouglas 23:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I will not do anything as it is going to be showing up in automated reasoning computers soo.
Thanks -- 4.249.207.210 20:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
We should include a little page about our IRC and link to it from our sidebar. - Patricknoddy TALK (reply here)| HISTORY 23:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Although I discovered Wikipedia quite some time ago and have spent a lot of time reading generally well-written and interesting articles, I've still not found any easy-to-use manual for Wikipedia through Wikipedia. It seems to me that such an introduction should be clearly available as a link on the very first page of Wikipedia. This manual should be reasonable short so that it can be read from the beginning to the end in let's say 15 minutes. Then of course in that manual there could be many links with more detailed information about rules for editing etc. I've seen that there is a lot of information about rules, news etc etc, but it's all too detailed and dispersed for a person to grasp the essentials within a reasonable time. The risk is obviously that many people, who would be interested in contribute and edit themselves, are put off, since they can't find an easy manual for what to do and how to use it all. For example yesterday I watched a speech by the founder of Wikipedia on the homepage of Ted. He said that there is a page, which shows all changes, which are being made within Wikipedia. Also, he claimed that there are discussions for what pages should be kept and what should be deleted. However, I can’t find such pages and I can’t find any manual, which could help me finding those interesting pages. Please let me know what you think about my idea.-- Smallchanges 10:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
site:en.wikipedia.org "wiki/wikipedia"
to your search string. I'm sorry you think previous suggestions have fallen on deaf ears - like pretty much everything else here the help system is a work in progress, put together and maintained by volunteers. I'd bet any specific concern you have would get addressed if you raised it at
Help talk:Contents. You could also choose to
be bold and try to fix it yourself. BTW - you can find out all edits a given editor has made - from either their user page or talk page, click "user contributions" (in the toolbox, on the left). --
Rick Block (
talk) 01:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Rick Block and Kdammers, thanks for your quick answers and useful input. -- Smallchanges 09:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I have created a proposed policy on Wikipedia's attitude towards pedophile editors here. Wikipedia is listed as a "Corporate sex offender" at Perverted-justice.org, and I felt we needed to properly lay out our position. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 04:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Who is "Perverted Justice" and why should we care what they think? -- Cyde Weys 06:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that on many Wikipædia pages, there are glyphs that are unsupported by our font scheme. Mostly CJK charachters, runes, and the like. There are also alchemical and other symbols that are used in many topics that have to be inserted as typesize images. I propose that we get a new font that will include these graphemes, or make one, to make these things easier to edit and the pages look neater-- Whytecypress 19:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I have an Idea for Wikipedia, and it should help to reduce test editing My idea is basically this:
Stwalkerster 17:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a crazy idea that I randomly had the other day so bare with me... But I think it would be amazing if wikipedia could somehow make an application that utilized peer to peer software. In other words... store the contents of wikipedia on user computers that have the application running on their computer. Still keep up the local servers but somehow create a p2p version of wikipedia that could act as a "backup" for the site. And if the idea caught on enough we could do away with the local servers completely. It would totally revolutionize wikipedia and make it a permanent stable of the internet that would not be reliant on donations or massive local servers. Just food for thought. -- Tobyw87 21:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone every created a mediawiki site which is free?
Which allows anyone to post anything they want, and have access to all the files? I have an assbackwards system called Siteground.com, which is terrible.
This could revolutionize the way that people transfer and collect data. Kind of a yahoo, or google of the internet, based outside of the United States, with weaker or nonexistent copyright laws.
It would make wikipedia seem bassakwards.
Kind of like the internet on Enders game, it would revolutionize the way that everyone would do things, see things, etc. There are several Economist about the problems with patents, etc, which I can post offwiki. Odessaukrain 12:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Was the suggestion of using "subst:" to reduce server load informed by actual profiling? That is, did someone actually measure the non-hypothetical, real-life difference?
The suggestion initially seems plausible, until you learn a few things about computers. And the first thing to learn is that intuitive guesses about optimizing an application are almost always wrong. In fact, using "subst:" probably slows down the server since database throughput is orders of magnitude slower than CPU/RAM throughput. But until careful real-life measurements are taken, nobody can really know.
Of course, "subst:" is sometimes the desired behavior, regardless of server load issues. However other uses of "subst:" cannot be justified without hard evidence. Xerxesnine 04:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there any hard evidence based on real-life tests by the Wikipedia IT folks? There is absolutely no way to profile a system by hypothesizing about it. It's always surprising where the bottleneck is---and isn't. For example, I could equally argue that RAM/CPU cache hits on the template routines are faster than the database throughput. If you re-read my initial post, I was asking for evidence, not more dubious theorizing. Xerxesnine 05:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
As it currently stands you have to have a separate login to edit an article in a different language. As it has been explained to me this is because different languages have different administrations/rules. However, what would stop one login name from having access to all languages. The different rules and administrations would still apply to a specific language, but users who are able to edit multiple languages could do so with one login. Wikipediatoperfection 07:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I was browsing along the Homestar Runner Wiki after a look at the the Battlestar Galactica Wiki and I thought... how about cross-wiki redirects? By this I means sending people who look up Commander Adama here directly to the BSG wiki and having a link on the diambig page for Deutschmann to the joke on the H*R wiki. I suggest this because:
It would free up space on wikipedia's servers.
It would give credit for wiki-interest in things like Star Trek and Star Wars to where it belongs.
The coverage on the specialized wikis is better.
It will avoid all sorts of unnecessary redundancy.
And it will mean fewer jokes about wikipedia's focus on fictional things (I think they call it "fancruft"). I'm new to Wikipedia, so please forgive if this isn't a new idea. Misaf-Keru 01:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, OK, how about a policy that further restricts WP's info on this sort of thing but explicitly encourages ELs to other wikis? After further thought, my main point should have been thisː
• That it would add to the credibility here while simultaneously allowing fans access to more detail if they want it. Win-win. So what do you think of this proposal? Misaf-Keru 06:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
This proposal will need a change in the MediaWiki software, and will go nowhere here. File this as an enhancement request type "bug" at the Bugzilla mentioned in the header above. Jesse Viviano 22:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest we add the option to have today's picture emailed to people, so that we may send it to friends and stuff. Isn't that how featured articles work? If not, than that option should be made availale. I knwo you can do it by file, but thats so long. Tourskin 21:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
why not set up a Wiki project whereby people enter in how they were treated / cured of various ailments or injuries. This will then end up being a huge repository of case studies, enabling people to see which treatments are effective.
I have seen a number of articles that list Myspace as either a reference or, more often, an external link. I can't help but think that that looks really unencyclopedic, linking to a site with more media-enhanced problems than Wikipedia and has basically zero credibility. Why is there nothing that says Don't link to Myspace? This would definitely increase our credibility (or at least our image of credibility.) Mr.Z-man talk ¢ Review! 01:55, 18 March 2007 (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 think what we could really use, in addition to a Peer Review section, is a Grammar Review page. If an article is of solid quality, but the writing is somewhat less than adequate, it would be a handy place where wikipedians with strong grammar skills could give a PR'd page a good polish (prior to moving forward for FAC). Any thoughts on this? — RJH ( talk) 17:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm no programmer, so perhaps a bot that removes links to no-longer-existant images? AdamBiswanger1 16:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
See User:Naconkantari/cleanup. — Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 15:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
Just a reminder for the strawpoll on WP:UW about redirecting the old user warnings templates to the new system which closes tomorrow. If you have any interest in this issue please leave your comments here. Original message. Cheers Khu kri 10:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
WebCite is like the Internet Archive, but caches pages on demand, allowing you to cite the exact version that you viewed regardless of whether the page changes or goes offline. Should we be using this whenever we cite a webpage? — Omegatron 22:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
couldn't we integrate this into the {{
cite web}} template, so that editors don't need to worry about it
apparently they require you to attach yourself to each link you create
The Internet Archive has been around for years, is pretty trustworthy, and in any case, is used as a last resource.
Asking people to use it sounds like an advertisement for the site.
I have just started a article with the title mentioned above. Perhaps it would be interesting contributing\starting with me to this list; it might be fun if their is some kind of a competition between several users, to be on top of that list! Maybe some people would go and work harder, do more, contribute more, and vandalise less! So, what do you say?
the Old and respectable Kashwialariski 15:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Relevant discussion at | → Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of total stars |
(I previously posted this elsewhere, but it was too low-traffic.)
When we write new policies, can we avoid using the word "policy" in the name of the policy? Wikipedia:Attribution isn't any less of a policy even though it's not called "Wikipedia:Attribution Policy". For example, an alternative to "Wikipedia:Protection policy" might be "Wikipedia:Protection" or "Wikipedia:Article protection". — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-17 08:12Z
Hi, on the Special:Statistics page, would it be possible to get more detailed statistics available? Perhaps stating as a percentage how many of the 4 million-odd users are actually active - i.e. have made edits in the last 6 months? And the number of distinctive IP addresses have been used to edit would be brilliant too. Thanks in advance for your responses — Jack · talk · 19:08, Friday, 16 March 2007
I have proposed a change in an AfD template. Please comment at Template talk:REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD. —dgies t c 17:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm proposing to add a small subsection to Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. My proposed subsection merely states that Wikipedia articles should be summaries of their topics, not an exhaustive collection of every bit of data which exists on that topic, and that facts which are neither notable nor even interesting should not be included in a wikipedia article. While this may sound like a statement of something utterly obvious, it appears to exist nowhere within wikipedia policies or guidelines, and many new or inexperienced editors do indeed believe that adding every bit of info they can think of to an article is reasonable.
I am getting very little in the way of comments or feedback on this, so please drop by to WT:NOT#Proposal_to_add_to_Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information and support, oppose, or help amend what I'm trying to add. -- Xyzzyplugh 07:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has hundreds, if not thousands, of articles on chemical compounds, generally found in the many subcategories of Category:Chemical compounds by element. Unfortunately, many of these are permanent stubs and low on content, such as those listed here. Wikipedia:Chemical compounds has been created to discuss what to do with all this. Deletion is arguably a waste, but perhaps some articles can be combined into lists for greater comprehensiveness. Please join the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Chemical compounds. >Radiant< 16:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I've just been looking at the large number of articles whose various authors have never heard of the concept of an aesthetic layout - in other words just plain, ugly articles - badly chosen photos or diagrams that have been poorly placed - images crunched into atrocities called "infoboxes" - horizontal lines cutting the article into pieces - the list is almost endless. My proposal is that Wikipedia thinks seriously about having watchdog groups to monitor and rearrange badly designed articles. Such groups should be made up of editors who know what a good layout is - professional painters and photographers and the people who compose advertisements know what to look for. It's high time Wikipedia had a facelift. Paul venter 10:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I proposed this a while ago and it got support, but nothing came of it, so I am proposing it again. (discussion copied from the archive) Mr.Z-man talk ¢ Review! 17:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what exactly to call them, but the Polish Wikipedia has some very handy links under the edit summary box for automatic edit summaries. As I don't speak Polish and I was just there to add an interlanguage link, I don't know what most of them do, but some are:Interwiki, stub, redir, infobox, and image. These could prove helpful here. Mr.Z-man talk ¢ Review! 22:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
it has come to my attention that download.wikipedia.org isn't frequently updated nor gives it very specific downloads. SO what I would love to do is in fact make special downloads for every 'portal' on the site. I'm modest opinion, I think that it will save some GB's on the traffic counter.
And the structure isn't quit user-friendly when unpacked in a directory. So I would propose the make a directory structure that is very clear:
/root
index.html
sub-portal directory example
/portal1
-/a-z directory
--/images
---/images display html files
---/images
—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Webscriptz (
talk •
contribs) 18:05, 21 March 2007 (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.
A poll is underway at Wikipedia talk:Notability (science) concerning whether or not this guideline currently enjoys general support from the community. Please feel free to join the discussion. Mango juice talk 20:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's an idea I've had on the back burner for a while: given that an increasing number of university professors are assigning their students to edit Wikipedia article, are we ready to have a WikiProject where they can share strategies? [5] So far all that Wikipedia has done is document those examples. It looks like it could be very beneficial to this site (and to the educators) if there we created a place where they could get together and see what works best for their classrooms and for the encyclopedia. Durova Charge! 17:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#WikiProject_classroom_coordination Sign up if you're interested and we'll get this off the ground. Durova Charge! 18:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)