This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals).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
University lecturers (like mine) do not like people citing wikipedia as a reference for numerous reasons. Admittedly for some topics the fact it's publicly editable could pose problems with differences of opinion, or a page showing a one view as being 'publicly accepted' when really it's a load of bull. But for Chemistry topics there's not often a difference of opinion. Either boranes contain boron or they don't, it's as simple as that.
This means for a lot of subjects are immune to a lot of the arguments against our beloved wikipedia. But one remains, the fact that someone could vandalise a page to put in innacurate information(Which does happen, some of my friends vandalised Lead Nitrate before I reverted it...). Also the page you use isn't neccesarily the one the lecturer looks at to check, so you get marked down for being misinterpreting the infotmation even though the page you took your information from was wrong.
One beautiful way to solve this is the Permanant Link button. The trouble is.... it's not a very visable button. Maybe it should be more prominent? It'd deal with several complaints against wikipedia. Maybe at the top? Maybe just for registered users? Maybe next to My Watchlist or something? Simondrake 23:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Bot policy rewrite for a discussion about whether the bot policy is working or failing at the moment, and possibly in need of a complete rewrite. — METS501 ( talk) 23:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Currently, a search of 'charm school' takes you only to a rock band called 'Charm School'. I suggest a disambiguation so an additional link can be added, offering a link to 'finishing school'. I have never posted here before so please let me know if I am posting improperly. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.39.160.117 ( talk) 10:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
We have hundreds of lists on x-related topics, most of them created before the category systems were implemented. With categories, those lists are obsolete: they offer no serious advantage over categories, are always less comprehensive, can be a time sink for new editors who don't realize categories are used for that, are either gigantic, split into pointless subarticles with the same problem or incomplete compared to categories... in essence, they are a relic of the past that should either be deleted or archived in some wikiproject space as a part of wikipedia history. The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of topics by country and region was while those lists are indeed obsolete, a wider community consensus should be ensured before such a mass deletion / move. In the past, such consensus was reached - to my knowledge - at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Brazil-related topics, Portal_talk:Poland/Poland-related_Wikipedia_notice_board/Archive_8#Wikipedia:List_of_Poland-related_topics. I have now prodded few dozens of articles in those categories to see if anybody is maintaining them, and I would also like to initiate the community discussion on whether we want those articles deleted, moved somewhere or left alone. Please note that while I have so far target only lists of topics by country and region, there are many, many other lists from other fields that share the same problems. I am not saying that all lists are bad; shorter ones that can be made comprehensive (like tv show episode lists) are good - but the long ones, relics of pre-category mentality, should go...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Important update: User:Mathbot can be used to generate lists of articles on a given page which are not in a given category. See usage at list of szlachta. The only problem is that adding all the subcategories to search is somewhat tiresome, I asked Oleg if the script can be updated with a switch to search through them automatically.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
People that vandalise Wikipedia habitually or use automated vandalbots to do the same, continue to erode at the hard work of thousands, creating further work for hundreds more. Some people in the public eye and therefore with widespread influence have (allegedly) actively encouraged such vandalism and contributed to the problem in a way that most users are unable.
The Computer Misuse Act 1990 of the UK states that a person is guilty of an offence if he does any act which causes an unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer with intent to prevent or hinder access to any data held in any computer or to impair the reliability of any such data in the knowledge that any modification he intends to cause is unauthorised. The Cybercrime Act 2001 of the Commonwealth of Australia states that a person is guilty of an offence if the person cause any unauthorised modification of data held in a computer. Naturally, both of these laws cover the incitement of commiting and such act.
The keyword is 'unauthorised'. The missing link between a vandal's actions and their accountability in real life is that of authorisation; if you check out |Jimbo's statement of principles, he already states that the community needs protection against real vandals. My proposal thus comprises that Jimbo's wishes are ratified and that the phrase "Vandalism of Wikipedia is forbidden" or words to that effect are added alongside the current warnings: Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL.
If this can be done, then after an initial warning of offenders (remember, I'm still talking about operators of vandal bots and certain television presenters) to satisfy the requirement for knowledge that the modification is unauthorised, the offender must cease and desist or will be reported to the appropriate authorities.
According to my understanding, this strategy could not be applied to edits coming from within the Unite States. I am unaware of the content of analagous laws of any other countries.
Please help develop this proposal by suggesting flaws, improvements, countries in which the law is compatible with the UK and AU laws and countries in which it is not. -- Seans Potato Business 03:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
What would happen to the person who posted incorectly without knowing, Would that count as vandilism or not. Kinglou135 21:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Recently there has been a large number of specialised Wikis springing up covering everything from Battlestar Galactica [1] to Nine Inch Nails [2]. Some of these Wikis are small, dare I say it, failed, projects (with minimal articles). However, others are impressive, covering their subject in more detail than Wikipedia ever could or would even want to do.
Given that a reader of a Wikipedia article is happy to read a wiki about the subject, it stands to reason that if they wanted more detail they may be happy with further wiki-based content. Furthermore from an editing point of view some articles can clog up with arguably trivial information which would be best moved to a specialised wiki.
This proposal aims to give a clear guideline on how Wikipedia editors should relate to other wikis, aiming for a mutually beneficial system.
When an article in a good wiki exists which covers the topic of the article in more detail it should be linked to in the external links section. If we're very confident, a box similar to the ones linking to Wikinews or Wikictionary could be used. This is not restricted to just the immediate topic of the wiki but other subjects within that umbrella as well (i.e. not just Battlestar Galactica but Cylon as well).
Wikis, of course, should not be used as sources, owing to reliability issues as well as copyright ones (the wiki may not share the same licences as Wikipedia). Editors are however encouraged to look at specialist wikis to see what sources they have used.
Some wikis are excellent, others not so, either yet to get of the ground, deviod of active editors, or merely copying or rephrasing Wikipedia for the majority of its content. Therefore, it is best to define what is a "good wiki"
Where a Wikipedia article needs cleanup, expansion or other improvement, wikipedia editors are encouraged to post messages at the wiki which is specific to the topic asking for assistance. The editors of the wiki are likely to be knowledgeable and enthusiastic about their subject and skilled in wikicode.
This has a dual purpose. One, preventing duplication of work in assessing wikis as above. Two, a quick reference of where to refer editors to if they create content/articles which is too niched for Wikipedia.
In the spirit of all wikis, edit mercilessly :) LukeSurl 23:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The editors at WikiProject Medicine (and the numerous related projects such as WikiProject Pharmacology) have been working on a guideline to complement the Manual of Style. The scope is those articles relating to medicine. After nine months of development and discussion, we have produced the Manual of Style (medicine-related articles). Please let us know if you have any opposition to this becoming a guideline. Your comments are welcome on the talk page. Thanks, Colin° Talk 11:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
How about this? Every year (or month, possibly), all registered Wikipedians can select from the current year's Featured Articles (articles promoted to FA status in that year) and vote on which one is the best article in all of Wikipedia. It would kind of be like the Academy Awards for Wikipedia. Would anyone support this or even care about this? Diez2 00:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
In order to login to a wikipedia project site, like wikinews, you must have an account for each site.... why not just have one account for all of the wikipedia projects? It seems much more simple. Currently I have nine, yeah thats right NINE accounts just so I can go any wiki project and edit a page. I know what you will say "That isn't to bad." well I made two typos making those accounts, what i mean is instead of Programmer8 I made Porgoammer8 or something. Also to add to the problem I have to login so many times that my fingers will fall off. Please could some admin/director fix this, it is very annoying. -programmer8
on wikinews --
on wikipedia --
On wikiqoute --
on wikimedia commons --
on wikimedia --
on wikispecies --
on wikibooks --
on wiktionary --
on wikiversity
P.S. those are all of my NINE accounts ---13:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
Quite often I see edits where nonsense has been inserted into an article, but where users seem to be experimenting rather than deliberately intending to vandalise the page. I get the impression that quite a few people new to Wikipedia click "Edit this page", then hit the keyboard at random, and then click Save, just to see what happens. I was wondering if there was any way to cut down on this, and to alert these non-malicious users to the fact they should just preview the page. One possibility would be an alert on the edit page. There is already a note saying "For testing, please use the sandbox instead", but it's in a place where no-one would ever see it. Maybe that could be promoted. OTOH, as we know, no-one ever reads instructions or notes, no matter how big and red they are, so another possibility would be to pop up an additional "do you really want to save this" prompt on the very first save during a session (provided a "session" can be identified somehow). Good idea? Bad idea? Matt 23:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
Think I've got a great idea -- Starting a history timeline (similar in concept to the book Timetables of History [see http://www.amazon.com/Timetables-History-Horizontal-Linkage-People/dp/067174271X]) as a adjunct to Wikipedia. Perhaps the first screen would be a simplified (major events only) timeline (scroll right for more recent years, left for earlier) with the capability to drill down 4 or 5 layers showing more detail in a narrower time frame.
Finally at any stage, names, events, etc. could be directly linked to wiki pages.
What do you think?
Pete Walker
Peterrwalker 05:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Timeline.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 05:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Changes were recently made to various citation templates to force a single date style for the accessdate. If users want to force a certain style, they can change it in their prefs. I don't think forcing a single style within these templates is helpful. In fact, it makes many of our better articles look very sloppy, especially when time has been taken to make dates consistent within one particular article. --- RockMFR 00:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, there is not consensus for the recent change. Was it proposed anywhere before it was made? I am going to revert it until it is clear that there is consensus in favor. CMummert · talk 01:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, so just to summarise:
Remember that, whilst a good number of editors will be logged in, almost all readers will be logged out, and not even have an account. This means they have no user preferences to set, and they get the literal 2007-01-02 date. Which is ambiguous to a person ignorant of the ISO standard, which nearly everyone is. In the US, it's easier as the date would be that way around, but elsewhere, it more naturally says 2007, 1 February. By forcing one, string version of the date to appear, at least the words are given and there is no ugliness and no ambiguity. Splash - tk 15:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I can't see from the perspective of the side advocating the status quo. How is 2007 April 14 advocating some point-of-view any more than 2007-04-14? How is this disrupting some sort of "consistency" throughout featured articles and why is that such a big deal? And if consistency is really the problem, can't all the dates simply be changed (although, again, I'm not sure why this is such a big issue)? I also don't agree that YYYY-MM-DD is "unambiguous". As Splash has said, the date change is for clarity and aesthetics. The status quo appears to be for... consistency in a few articles? -- tariqabjotu 22:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree that forcing most readers to parse "2007-02-01" is awful, but I disagree that "2007, 1 February" is natural at all; it's nearly as confusing as the numbers version, since no one actually speaks or writes that way (except maybe military types, who are plenty used to "meals, ready to eat"). Is there anything somehow wrong with [[1 February]] [[2007]]? It's parseable by the unloggedin masses, and will format for us accountholders as per our date prefs. PS: I'm an American and the day-first order doesn't bother me. It's not the most common format over here in Yankeeland, but we all recognize it and understand it just fine. Let's not be silly about "No! Down with British imperialism!", please. :-) — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont ‹(-¿-)› 00:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Please look at the Notes section of Barack Obama for an example of where one feature article displays {{accessdate}} in raw ISO format to economize on space for the retrieval date. The publish date is spelled out and wikilinked to be reformatted according to user preferences. This approach is held consistently throughout the article and follows the model produced when using this helpful tool http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/makeref.php Raw ISO accessdate format is most useful for articles like this one with many notes, where spelled out accessdates clutter the notes section and add unnecessarily to page length. To my view, nothing is broken here, so there is nothing to be fixed. Please restore the earlier consensus version that permits raw ISO accessdates to be displayed in the "Retrieved on" notation of the template:cite web. -- HailFire 11:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
There is quite a bit of disagreement regarding this change at Template talk:Cite news. There is no consensus for this change. --- RockMFR 01:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that the YYYY Month Day format is actually easier for readers to parse? Is there any evidence that anons are frequently reading accessdates in references? I really don't see any benefit to this at all. The reasons to force the formatting of a single style are completely hypothetical, while there are numerous real reasons to not format the date:
I propose an immediate revert to the previous date-format status quo until this discussion reaches consensus on date-format changes. Can we reach consensus on this interim proposal? I vote yes. -- Boracay Bill 23:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
4 in favor, 0 against immediate revert to previous consensus version. Adding {{editprotected}} to template:cite web with request for revert to "Retrieved on {{accessdate}}" displaying date in raw ISO format. -- HailFire 20:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
My understanding of the proposal seeking supporting consensus is:
As I understand it, the effect of this change would be that if an editor (1) used a citation template affected by this change and (2) supplied the accessdate parameter but (3) did not supply any accessdate data, then a user viewing this article whould see an access date with a value of the current viewing date, formatted in YYYY FullMonthName DD format. Reformatting of displayed accessdates according to date preferences set by logged-in users would be disabled by this change.
If I have mis-stated this proposal, would someone please correct my mis-statement? -- Boracay Bill 01:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been adding machine-readable metadata tags to citation templates, and it would be best for those if the dates were in bare YYYY-MM-DD format without any brackets or anything. The brackets would then be added in the visual display part of the template, to be displayed as per the user's date preferences.
Not-logged-in users should see a default format based on their geographic location. ;-)
Of course the visual side of things is much more important, but this is how I would like it to work.
Also see
Bugzilla: 4582: Use date format preference on unlinked dates, which proposes a <date>
tag (which I think is completely backwards; all plain text dates should be parsed and modified to user preferences by default, and <nowiki>
tags should be used to escape this behavior, just like any other automatic formatting). But whatever. —
Omegatron 04:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
After reading various user, talk, pump etc... discussions and giving the issue of FA articles and protection some thought, I have come up with an idea. Perhaps once an Article has reached the FA status and has survived its day on the main page maybe permanent less-than-semi-protected-but-more-just-on-editor's-and-user's-watchlist status should be enacted. In other words perhaps various "keys" should be given to the central contributers to that article and in order to edit said article an anonymous IP would have to go to one of those users pages and obtain that "key" in order to edit the page. The use of the "key" would notify the user whose "key" was used and all others with "keys" to that article. With this key system enacted, I believe that the quality of FAs might be stabilized and thereby make Wikipedia a better and more stable encyclopedia. I guess you could think of it as a sort of "active watching" or local adminship of an article. Also these keyholders might have the ability to lock an article lock an article for a period of time if they feel it necessary. I propose this because I believe that Semi is too strong and simply watchlisting to be too passive and prone to slower reverts of vandalism. Let me know if I am way off base or not with this idea.
Continually questing to make Wikipedia better Cronholm144 09:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I would also like to know if this is a proposal worthy idea, and I would love as much input as possible Cronholm144 20:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
While I sympathize with the ideas behind this proposal, I'd tend to agree it would probably be a lot of work for not too much benefit. I don't worry too much about FA's anyway (especially the main page FA), vandalism's not hard to revert, especially with the latest crop of vandalfighting tools. If anything, I'd worry more about the mass of articles that only a couple people may have ever edited. If those people leave or lose interest, chances are no one's watching it, and if RC patrol doesn't catch vandalism to it, it could stay there for quite some time. Regardless, though, if something is getting vandalized a ton, I think (semi)protection is enough to deal with it. I also think we need a lot less idea of article ownership, and I'd be very hesitant to anything that gives a very nasty but very persistent idea more weight-the idea that "major contributors" to articles somehow get more weight in deciding what edits are acceptable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Although vandalism is obviously a major nuisance, in my view one of the key strengths of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit (almost) any article with minimum fuss. Anything that obstructs that ability, and makes Wikipedia appear like the closed province of a "privileged few", is IMO a bad idea unless absolutely essential in cases where vandalism makes the existing system totally unworkable. Matt 01:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
Thanks so much for your comments. You have given me a different perspective on this issue and hopefully I can think up something better next time. I think it is safe to assume that this idea in its current form is dead. Cronholm144 05:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
A long time ago, I proposed that tables be moved out of articles and into their own Table: namespace. They would then be included in articles through a syntax similar to image syntax:
The '''world population''' is the total number of [[human being]]s alive on the planet [[Earth]] at a given time. [[Image:World population.png|thumb|Map of countries by population]] Below is a table of historical population figures shown in thousands. [[Table:Estimated world population at various dates|left]] In 2000, the [[United Nations]] estimated that the world's population
Large tables require very messy markup, and are quite intimidating for non-technical types to edit or work around. (Imagine that you're editing a wiki for the first time and aren't good with computers, and then compare the above example with the real thing, which uses inline table markup.)
I also hoped that making tables self-contained would eventually allow magic functionality for the Table: namespace, similar to the Image: or Category: namespaces, to allow for table editing that isn't based on editing wikicode directly, so users don't need to learn pipe syntax to contribute. Maybe external editors with export as .csv or .ods files? Maybe a built-in Java(Script) editor?
This was proposed, notably, before the introduction of templates, which addressed some of the same problems, but I still think it would be a valuable addition, due to the other benefits it would provide. (Even those of us who know pipe syntax would still prefer to edit tables in spreadsheet software.)
In 2005, I asked if this was a good idea, and got almost unanimous support. The developers want to know if it still has general support.
Do you still think this would be a beneficial feature? How, specifically, should we implement it? — Omegatron 23:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. On that note, during Wikimania 2006 there were also discussions for a reference namespace (as references, especially with cite templates, are also quite messy, and having a reference in separate page would allow to easily link it to many articles and check usage). Perhaps we can deal with both issues, as they are somewhat similar?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 04:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment People use template namespace for this sort of thing already, but single-use templates are frowned upon for the exact same reason you'd prefer to use them -- they hide the markeup and make it more indirect to edit. A separate table namespace could be an option though. Just use current template transclusion and have a different sort of rules for what can be included, and always make sure there's an extremely convenient link to edit it.
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy) 07:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems like the mess is just being moved from one place to another.
I think that every template which should be substituted should have the following line in the wikicode:
This way, any page which has a substituted template with that, the {{ Empty template}} will prevent the category from showing up; but if it's transcluded, then the category will show up - so such pages will be in Category:Pages which transclude templates which should be substituted. Od Mishehu 07:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Re. previous comment posted on Technical board, 17th April
I'm looking to make a template that will display a custom page when sent data - specifically to illustrate the position of a certain time in the geological time scale. I've written a template which will perform as I wish, and whilst I can include the template in a page, I hoped to be able to link a date using Template:Ma so that clicking on the year would take the user directly to a timeline with the specified year marked. I've spoken to a couple of experienced editors who are unaware of a solution to this problem. Is there any way I can carry this out? (I hope I've explained what I want clearly enough...)
Many thanks, Verisimilus 21:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether this is the best place to post this.
What are the arguments against getting
m:DynamicFunctions##arg?
I'd quite like to campaign to have it installed, since I feel it could add useful content to Wikipedia.
Verisimilus T 18:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Brazil Collaboration was created!!! João Felipe ( Let's talk! ) 21:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The current
Brazil Collaboration is . Every month a different Brazil-related topic, stub or non-existent article is picked. Please read the nomination text and improve the article any way you can. |
I think the "undo" command should make clear that simply clicking it does NOT undo an edit in the sense that many editors think it might. That is, it should be made clear that after clicking it, one still has to scroll all the way down to "save page" and click that, too. Kdammers 02:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I am a frequent and fond visitor of the Wikipedia platform. As I have already skimmed though all the featured articles I have the following suggestion:
Would it be possible to implement a specified random article search? For example;
- Most frequently viewed articles
- Articles with at least 20 lines of text (no stubs)
- Articles from certain categories only
- Excluding certain categories (no counties, cities or high schools)
Hope the input helps to create an even better Wikipedia.
A Swiss Wiki-Fan —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
85.0.102.200 (
talk) 08:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
[x] hide articles tagged stub [x] hide redirects [x] hide disambiguation pages [ ] hide non-Featured articles [ ] hide non-Good articles [ ] automatically show a random article from among the results
I'm guessing these features will be added eventually, as developer time and server resources allow. — Jonathan Kovaciny ( talk| contribs) 20:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
[x] don't select any article tagged as a stub [x] don't select a redirect [x] don't select a disambiguation page [ ] don't select anything that isn't a Good article or a Featured article [ ] don't select anything that isn't a Featured article
I think it would be a good idea to have the number of people online on the front page of wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kinglou135 ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
okay thanks anyways Kinglou135 21:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Many, many people want to learn how to learn things. I'm a psychologist, but it doesn't take a psychologist -- or parent -- to know this is true.
Kind of like getting the Almanac every year -- I don't know where to start to systematically acquire new and important information. So generally the book sits there and is used as questions arise.
There are a huge variety methods of acquiring new information. Such as: go to school until you graduate from high school, as a librarian, watch fun stuff on TV, etc.
Wikipedia has the opportunity of streamlining the process for people, helping them acquire necessary information as easily as possible.
For example, I test youngsters for reading deficits fairly regularly. Perhaps Wikipedia should have methods to remediate reading deficits.
I am interested in new science research. I'd be very interested in what people think of as cutting-edge research in science, health, environment, etc.
You may very well have such a system in place, but until I can access it, the Almanac is largely unread, the onion unpeeled, and the foreign language I want to learn is still unknown to me.
I'd be delighted to discuss this approach. CalebBurns 04:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)CalebBurns
Yours truly,
Caleb Burns, PhD
[e-mail address removed to prevent spam]
why don't wikipedia have a tool bar? like google, yahoo and ask do. i think it would be a nice idea to see what wikipedia says about topics we are searching for. and get its various services one click away on the interface. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.108.99.234 ( talk) 14:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
Sometimes I find that I want to browse all the entries within a certain category, that simultaneously fulfil another category. Is there an existing way to do that, because I certainly knw I would love to use it. If not.... who can I take this idea to? -- Mattbray 03:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Tell me what you think. Its based off of this at meta.
{{
user:Wikihermit/meta}}
Which produces:
reha | This user is a Wikipedia Rehabilist. |
Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť
(Talk) 01:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I have a proposal for "personal redirects." When we type in a page in the search bar, it looks for an article with that exact title. Well, I'm proposing an improvement to the MediaWiki software that adds options (in User Preferences) for personal redirects. For instance, if I type in American Idol into the search bar, it takes me to the American Idol article. Well, what if I was a frequent editor of that article (I'm not, this is hypothetical) and When I typed in American Idol (or even AI) into the search bar, I wanted it to take me to American Idol (season 6). Basically, there would be a table in our preferences that had a column for our preferential search term and another corresponding column for the link we want it to take us to. Something like this:
Search term | Article |
---|---|
American Idol | American Idol (season 6) |
AI | American Idol (season 6) |
Heroes | Heroes (TV series) |
Scrubs | Scrubs (TV series) |
When a search term is entered, it checks this table first and then proceeds as normal if no match is found. This will allow people who want a certain link to go directly to an article as opposed to a different article or disambig page to set Wikipedia to do this for them. Apologies if this has been suggested before. Thoughts?↔ NMajdan• talk 17:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I like browsing through hard copy encyclopaedias article by article in a sequential fashion. However, wiki does not allow this as a standard feature. Could we consider a 'go to next article' button/arrow and a 'go to previous article' button/arrow; maybe at the top or bottom of every article. Many software stacks have this feature, especially where didactic info is displayed. It would be neat, and also elegant design-wise. Lgh 23:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
When I follow a link to an image that is a redlink, it will take me to the upload file page. It used to lead to the image page where it said that the image did not exist. For example, following File:Karte Fuessen in deutschland.png will go to Special:Upload. This is annoying because, for example, I want to look at its deletion log. To do that, I must copy its name into the search box and find it there. This may also lead to a problem because new users will upload an image, not knowing how it works. We should really go back to a redlinked image goes to its non-existant image page. Although it doesn't exist, I believe that would be better. Thank you, Reywas92 Talk 18:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Heh, heh, didn't notice that. I do think that there should be a link to the image page, though. Thanks! Reywas92 Talk 19:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we all agree that if you want to delete your own page, you should be able to do so quickly. However, as the CAT:CSD becomes more and more backlogged, should we be able to have the power to delete these pages ourselves (if the user is the author of the page in question, of course)? You could even extend this idea to cover the user and user talk pages of a user. Please comment on this idea. Diez2 22:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Pages that are tagged for speedy deletion by user are easy to decide on for admins and usually get deleted quickly. However, user pages or subpages may be used or referenced elsewhere (say, in a RFC or ArbCom case) and these pages shouldn't be deletable by their author. In any case, user pages are non-urgent deletions; if you think they cause too much of a backlog in C:CSD, create an extra category for them that can be processed slower. Kusma ( talk) 12:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, these pages are essentially completed and ready to go, but I do want to hear if more people support this and/or will help out with this. Thank you! Diez2 15:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The "dismiss" notice at the top of articles should be explained (e.g., with a right-click message). The word is unclear and looks very dangerous. Wik insists on using all sorts of unexplained words (especially neologisms and ambiguous words), to the detriment of its reputation. Kdammers 01:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I changed it to "hide". John Reaves (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The current situations is that if you want to use a citation template, you can use the 'quote' attribute, to quote the relevant part of the supporting text. This helps people search and verify the veracity of a source which would otherwise necessitate reading it from the beginning, until the supporting statement was found, assuming it even exists to begin with. The problem arises when the same source is used to support more than one statement in an article. I would like to suggest that the <ref> tag is modified to allow a 'quote' attribute as well as a 'name' attribute, so each time a source is used, a new, relevant quote can be given. Otherwise, people can continue to put sources that they "think probably" support a statement, in a hurried, half-hearted attempt to improve an article (I've seen it done before and had to go through the entire text to discover that it was improperly quoted as a source). Implementing this system would at least allow people to spend less time verifying those citations that make use of the feature. -- Seans Potato Business 21:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see Wiki available in Arabic with contributions from arabic speakers (writers) in the native arabic language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.38.63.150 ( talk • contribs).
When creating a new Wikipedia page, there should be a way to see how many times the term has been searched for. This would promote the creation of demanded-for pages and help Wikipedia grow in a desirable direction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stussy D ( talk • contribs).
I recently created a new template, {{ wlink}}. Normally, links to edit a page or history links have to be formatted as external links. While this template doesn't change that, it simplifies the appearance of the code in the edit window.
A couple differences between this template and normal linking: It only works for action=, section=, and redirect= endings at the moment, but more could easily be added; and spaces in titles are replaced with + signs rather than underscores ( _ ). Also, if there is a second parameter, an extra & symbol will be added to the end of the URL.
For example, a link to edit the fifth section of Bay of Bengal with text of Bengal Bay:
In edit window | On page | |
---|---|---|
Normal method | [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bay_of_Bengal |
Bengal Bay |
With template | {{wlink|Bay of Bengal|Bengal Bay|action=edit|section=5}} |
Bengal Bay |
Should we widely use this template for internal links that need to be formatted as external? I'd like to see if there's any problems with using it that I didn't think of. Considering how much simpler and easier it makes linking, I think we should start using it unless someone brings up a major problem that we can't fix. Pyro spirit Shiny! 15:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Please use fullurl for another alternative. You may even incorporate this into your template. – Pomte 21:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Ooo, /me likes
. I agree with using fullurl and, also, you should probably wrap {{urlencode:}}
around the parameters. --
Iamunknown 06:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
This came up on WT:SIG ( in this section); there seemed to be support for requesting the developers to add a 'talk' link to the default signature, but not many users commented. What do people think about the idea of a 'talk' link by default in users' signatures? -- ais523 15:22, 18 April 2007
I like this idea and have actually been using exactly that within my own signatures for quite awhile now. Of course, it's even handier when anons actually sign... -- Thisisbossi 22:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I like this idea of having both talk and contribs by default. The only reason I started messing around with customizing my sig was to put those links in - the colors and extra links came later. I never would have bothered with colors and extra links if I didn't want the talk and contribs links. With the virulent hatred some people have for customized sigs, maybe adding those links by default would decrease the customized sigs and make everyone happier. ~ ONUnicorn 19:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not understand the point of a contribs link. Further, my signature by default goes to my talk page. Even further, I use Lupin's popup tools to click on whatever aspect of the user I want to see (including user page, user talk page, user contribs, user space, user block log). I'd prefer not see talk and contribs included by default. All you need is one link. -- Iamunknown 19:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can determine, WP:IAR was declared a policy on 23 April 2005, about a week after Jimbo made an edit where he stated in the comments that IAR is policy and always has been. Note that he did not change the formatting of WP:IAR on that edit to reflect the statement he made in the edit comments. So about a week later (give or take hours), editors at the time made changes to the body of the article that reflected that assertion.
I have asked around about that mechanism (in general). I've asked on Wikipedia_talk:IAR, and I've asked on User_talk:Jimbo_Wales, about whether what Jimbo says, goes. The edit on 18 April, 2005, when Jimbo made that editing comment, as far as I know is not actually an official declaration. Previous informational boxes on the same project page declared it a guideline, a meta-policy, a policy, a mix of all three, as well as a hoax and an AfD and an MfD.
Given the article's history, the reminders I've had that not all that Jimbo says is official, I suggested going back (in the policy information box) to some of the wording from prior that 18 April 2005 edit, that talked about IAR being part of the official body of policies and guidelines, but that didn't specify a particular role it had to play in that body, instead mentioning three: policy, meta-policy and guideline.
It was suggested I go here and ask, so here I am asking, is WP:IAR really policy? Or is it a guideline?
As a side note: What's its meaning? I'm led to believe by the various folks I've talked with about it that it's not as obvious as it looks, but at the same time, the same folks, or similar folks are saying it is. To me, it is a sort of meta-anti-rule which serves to underline the importance of consensus over process/policy, but I also know that a lot of folks who've been around Wikipedia for a long time take it at face value and use it to justify individual judgment calls in the face of consensus opposition.
Anyhow, a lot of the discussion is still quite available on the main talk page, should you choose to delve.
Thanks in advance for any and all opinions. -- MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 01:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd say that the "Ignore all rules" is a good policy, but only taken in the context that what rules exist exist so that there are clear ways to resolve conflicts and standardize form, and that otherwise, users can edit freely. Users sometimes abuse IAR by misinterpeting it as license to do whatever they feel like and break the standards Wikipedia must uphold. Nihiltres( t. c. s) 02:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Re. previous comment posted on Technical board, 17th April
I'm looking to make a template that will display a custom page when sent data - specifically to illustrate the position of a certain time in the geological time scale. I've written a template which will perform as I wish, and whilst I can include the template in a page, I hoped to be able to link a date using Template:Ma so that clicking on the year would take the user directly to a timeline with the specified year marked. I've spoken to a couple of experienced editors who are unaware of a solution to this problem. Is there any way I can carry this out? (I hope I've explained what I want clearly enough...)
Many thanks, Verisimilus 21:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether this is the best place to post this.
What are the arguments against getting
m:DynamicFunctions##arg?
I'd quite like to campaign to have it installed, since I feel it could add useful content to Wikipedia.
Verisimilus T 18:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello community, I have since been declined my request to run a new bot called BirthdayBot. Firstly, I will tell you a little about it, and then get the community's thoughts about it (as that was the suggestion made on the request).
Now it's time for your say on this. I am really enthusiastic and want this bot running, but many people say it's like a welcome bot - that's not the case - it only greets 5 users per day at a maximum, whereas a welcome bot could do thousands. Looking forward to your thoughts. Many thanks, Extranet ( Talk | Contribs) 20:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
May I suggest that every article in the top 10, 25, or even 50 of Special:Mostrevisions is move protected? Some already are. Let's use common sense: there are a lot of revisions for most of them (by definition), and there's not a chance in hell that (m)any would need to be moved. The openness of our wiki is important, but let's invite people to experience it in more constructive ways.
See the history of Adolf Hitler. Are there better reasons than "BCUZ" to move some of these pages? Gracenotes T § 01:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
With the Meta for Deletion entry on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names heading for a keep/no consensus there is a proposal to merge the functions of that board into Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Please comment at WT:RFCN. - M ask? 22:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Did you know that the village pump is really hard to find? Unless you know the shortcut you generally have to scroll up and down in the community portal hoping you'll spot the link. And when I type 'Village pump" into the search field I am redirected to an article called 'water well'. Maybe Village Pump could be made more prominent and easier to find. Lgh 04:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to create a category just to see it get deleted, so... Category:National anthem writers? Does that sound useful? Nyttend 00:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 16#Requested move. -- Random832 23:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Can we please get rid of these templates already? See Talk:Gibberellic acid, for one of many examples. — Omegatron 16:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that there are many long-term systemic problems with Wikipedia, which are not dealt with because some will "cover their backside", pretend the problems don't exist, and discussion eventually dies out, only to start up again a week or month later.
For example, on the talk page of AIV, there are complaints that we are too soft on vandals. A couple of users will pretend this problem doesn't exist, and let discussion die. A week later, someone will raise this complaint again.
There are also many who believe that some processes, such as RFA and AFD, are broken. Yet nothing is done to reform them.
If you check the list of missing Wikipedians, and read the reasons why established users leave, you will see the same few problems being mentioned over and over again. Why are these problems not resolved?
Other sites criticise Wikipedia for allegedly being anti-elitist, lacking credibility, and some admins abusing their powers. Shouldn't we do something to address these concerns?
I think we need a place for centralised discussion on such issues. This would ensure that discussion does not die out just because some pretend the problems don't exist. By creating a place where we can openly discuss problems with Wikipedia, contributors will be less tempted to join Wikipedia Watch and other anti-Wikipedia sites.
Wikis are meant to be dynamic, so problems can be quickly dealt with. However, with systemic problems, this evidently isn't the case. While unlike some, I don't believe Wikipedia is irredeemably broken, I believe that it eventually will be if we don't quickly deal with these systemic problems. Please note that I am not anti-Wikipedia - I believe it has great potential and that's why I hope these systemic problems can be dealt with.
-- Kaypoh 07:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Done. Wikipedia:Reform. All comments, edits, and additions are more than welcome. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a proposal to add a new upload link, to Project:Upload, to the sidebar. Discussion is at MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext#Proposal for mass overhaul, matching Commons. Uncle G 18:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really sure how easily this could be accomplished, or if it could be at all, but my school system has recently blocked all wikipedia images because of the adult entertainment sections of the website, it's really annoying to search for some sort of plant or animal and not be able to see what it looks like. Earlier this year I was instrumental in getting the complete ban of wikipedia revoked but I was told that there is no chance of doing that on this one unless wikipedia was willing to host all its non-school appropriate images in one place that they could then block. It does not seem like it'd be hard to have a check box that you simply check if the image is an "adult" image, but then of course I don't really know about it. If this is not possible, how hard would it be to produce a "safe" list, a list that people can go to and put "safe" image url's onto that I could compile and give to the tech department at school. They won't just ban the adult ones because wikipedia is ever changing and new pictures would be added daily. Mrstenoien 6:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
According to the tech people down at the district office blocking certain pages is not acceptable because of the ever changing nature of wikipedia. Thats why I was thinking of a whitelist of pictures instead of a blacklist, although a whitelist would be very hard to keep up to date it would be better than no pictures whatsoever, where would I go to get help compiling a list such as that? User:Mrstenoien:Mrstenoien 4:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
What do people think of this? After a stub is no longer a stub, it can be tagged with a "start tag" signifying that it is no longer short,etc etc(whatever a stub is defined as) but now a start(whatever a start is correctly defined as). There could be the same start tags as there are the same stubs (eg "disease stub" with "disease start", and once the stub gets enough content it can move on to the start tag, where more people will have ability to see it and possibly work on it. Thus once the start taged article is worked on long enough it will then go on to the next up level (but by then the article will be far better than what a typical 'start' type article looks like. I know there are already articles labeled as "starts" on their talk page, but there are also "stubs" labeled as such on their talk page as well (articles that are usually rated by their wikiproject) and furthermore, not everyone looks (or bothers) to look at the discussion page anyway (personal random choice really)(Furthermore this is not to say that a "start" tag will trigger a impulse in someone's brain to say, hey lets make this article beter, but they can also say that for the stub tag as well true?..applies to new users in particular). Unless of course youre thinking that having MORE tags is a bad thing, and now it would take FOREVER to implent into the countless "start" articles, im sure it can be achieved.(Probably with the creation of a new wiki fix up project? or bot?). So yeah, sorry if this has already been asked before or its written in the wrong place. Thanks in advance. petze 03:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
There are thousands and thoudsands of stubs, and no matter what you object, it will take a very long time to do that. There should always be an improvement impule in one's brain. Labelling something as Start rather than Stub will do nothing. IMO, the rating of articles with Featured, Good, stub, or none is fine enough, without A or B. Reywas92 Talk 03:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
At the MCB Wikiproject we are gearing up to import several databases into Wikipedia. These would include families of RNAs in collaboration with the Rfam database and the complete set of publicly-available data on each human gene in collaboration with the Novartis/GNF SymAtlas project.
I'm worried that people may object to the automated creation of these stubs on the ground of notability and wanted to float the idea here. What are people's opinions? Should we restrict this to gene families, rather than individual genes, or should we regard this as the basis for future additions as scientific knowledge grows? Each gene stub would have several references to other databases and information, an example can be seen here.
Thanks for comments. TimVickers 21:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The number depends on the level that we go into the database. I'd be most happy restricting this to genes with known or proposed functions, as these will have some literature associated with them and can therefore be easily expanded in the future. On the other hand, the simple completeness of Wikipedia having an entry for every human gene is attractive, and could help us recruit more expert editors from the science community. TimVickers 22:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Good idea, the references in the Entrez gene page could be used. TimVickers 22:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Depending on which estimate you listen to, there are about 20,000 human genes annotated at present. The bot proposal is for 10,000 of these to be imported, these are the genes for which published information is available. The question isn't really how these articles are created, that's just mechanics, but instead we need to discuss what the content will be and if this content will be useful and notable. For example, is the ITK (gene) a notable subject, or does this stub not contain enough information? TimVickers 23:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
20,000 is one in every 88 articles! I really don't think articles should be made for every one. I'm not even quite convinced that the gene families are very notable or encyclopedic. Sorry. Reywas92 Talk 00:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I choose number three. How many of them are there? Reywas92 Talk 00:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, we seem to be coming to consensus on proposal 2. This would involve the import of approximately 10,000 individual genes into stubs with 76,000 separate citations added to these stubs in order to meet WP:Reliable sources (numbers from GeneRIF statistics).
That's an interesting point Mr.Z-man, we could create a page for each GO term, and then use Wikilinks rather than external inks to the GO pages, however, then you would lose the classification information you get on GO pages such as this. I think external links are a better choice for the infoboxes (as with the standard Chembox). TimVickers 01:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Well...I hate to rain on the parade here, because it's great to see information on genetics and such, but do remember individual articles must assert, and show, notability, since we're not, among other things, a directory. I think bot-copies of a directory of genes, for however noble a purpose, would be counter to that. Now if the various information could be ordered by gene-family, with some additional information on the family, that would probably work quite a bit better. If it turns out later that a ton of information on an individual gene is available, a splitout article can always happen later. Right now, though, I'm convinced a lot of these may remain permastubs. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Might be handier to cooperate with the knewco/omegawiki/wikidata people on this kind of thing? Though I'm cool with this either way. It'll be fun. :-) -- Kim Bruning 19:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Andrew, this is somewhere I think Wikipedia can gain a great deal by drawing in expertise to add content, and the experts we recruit gaining through free and open distribution of the information they contribute. TimVickers 02:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I would second the comment above about adding more information. Dates and people in particular (ie. history). That may be difficult now, but in the future as more history is written, that may be possible. Take the story of the discovery of DNA for example. If similar stories are written in the future about the research on particular genes, then this should be added. Database and basic scientific information is good, but don't forget to add encyclopedic value (and historical context) to avoid just being a copy of a database. Carcharoth 23:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:GFDL standardization, which intends to address the legal morass of having added "Subject to disclaimers" to {{ GFDL}} and hence creating a licensing tag that is technically incompatible with the normal GFDL applied at most other projects and Commons. Comments welcome at Wikipedia talk:GFDL standardization. Dragons flight 02:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
This seems really obvious, so I'm sure it must have come up before, but I can't find it on the Perennial proposals page or elsewhere. It's really annoying to lose one's page when following links to external articles (eg from the references section), so why not force them to open in a new tab or window? Maybe by changing the way the software handles links, or by adding it as an option in the user preferences? EyeSerene TALK 10:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
In firefox, middle-click opens a page in a new tab. You already have full control yourself. I would be very irritated if you *removed* my ability to left-click and made it the same function as middle-click. :-/ The rule is: Let the user and their client determine what to do, not your site. -- Kim Bruning 15:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I've reopened discussion on this. At the moment we have no criteria. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 17:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I have been working on a new template. It is a communication aid, and not in the same boat as the uw-vandalism things. This template deals with improper speedy deletion tags apllied, which through sifting a bit through Cat:CSD, I find it becomes more and more useful. The template is temporartily here. It is the first level warning, however. I'd appreciate some feedback as to whether it really has any use, and ways to improve, etc. Evilclown93 20:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice to have a move button for images. That way if the title is wrong you could move it to the correct title instead of re-uploading the image. (I know, kinda short) «razorclaw» 18:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see Wiki available in Arabic with contributions from arabic speakers (writers) in the native arabic language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.38.63.150 ( talk • contribs).
On VP as well as in all talk pages it would be good if each post was headed with its number as it appears in the contents/hyperlinking box at the head of the whole page. For example this post's heading would read: 42. numbering posts, ie as it appears in the contents box. This is because I quite often look at a page's contents box and say to myself: I would like to look at posts 3,4,17 and 44 (for example) then I have to either memorise these numbers and the headings or scroll up and down all the time. To summarise: It would be good if the program that created the post inlcuded the post's number in the heading. Lgh 01:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I propose a new topic called "Internet Video" just like there is a "Voice over IP" Category. Currently there are a lot of apparently unrelated articles with overlapping information such as Internet TV, IPTV and even Internet video which for some surprising reason redirects to Video clip. The "Internet Video" page should contain basic information and then should link to the above mentioned pages. I can start editing the Internet Video page if that is OK. I am new to this level of contribution, so please tell me wha to do next. Oh, and if I have put this in the wrong place, please let me know where to put it. I searched all over for "Category request" and found nothing. Agupte 06:36, 7 May 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
University lecturers (like mine) do not like people citing wikipedia as a reference for numerous reasons. Admittedly for some topics the fact it's publicly editable could pose problems with differences of opinion, or a page showing a one view as being 'publicly accepted' when really it's a load of bull. But for Chemistry topics there's not often a difference of opinion. Either boranes contain boron or they don't, it's as simple as that.
This means for a lot of subjects are immune to a lot of the arguments against our beloved wikipedia. But one remains, the fact that someone could vandalise a page to put in innacurate information(Which does happen, some of my friends vandalised Lead Nitrate before I reverted it...). Also the page you use isn't neccesarily the one the lecturer looks at to check, so you get marked down for being misinterpreting the infotmation even though the page you took your information from was wrong.
One beautiful way to solve this is the Permanant Link button. The trouble is.... it's not a very visable button. Maybe it should be more prominent? It'd deal with several complaints against wikipedia. Maybe at the top? Maybe just for registered users? Maybe next to My Watchlist or something? Simondrake 23:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Bot policy rewrite for a discussion about whether the bot policy is working or failing at the moment, and possibly in need of a complete rewrite. — METS501 ( talk) 23:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Currently, a search of 'charm school' takes you only to a rock band called 'Charm School'. I suggest a disambiguation so an additional link can be added, offering a link to 'finishing school'. I have never posted here before so please let me know if I am posting improperly. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.39.160.117 ( talk) 10:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
We have hundreds of lists on x-related topics, most of them created before the category systems were implemented. With categories, those lists are obsolete: they offer no serious advantage over categories, are always less comprehensive, can be a time sink for new editors who don't realize categories are used for that, are either gigantic, split into pointless subarticles with the same problem or incomplete compared to categories... in essence, they are a relic of the past that should either be deleted or archived in some wikiproject space as a part of wikipedia history. The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of topics by country and region was while those lists are indeed obsolete, a wider community consensus should be ensured before such a mass deletion / move. In the past, such consensus was reached - to my knowledge - at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Brazil-related topics, Portal_talk:Poland/Poland-related_Wikipedia_notice_board/Archive_8#Wikipedia:List_of_Poland-related_topics. I have now prodded few dozens of articles in those categories to see if anybody is maintaining them, and I would also like to initiate the community discussion on whether we want those articles deleted, moved somewhere or left alone. Please note that while I have so far target only lists of topics by country and region, there are many, many other lists from other fields that share the same problems. I am not saying that all lists are bad; shorter ones that can be made comprehensive (like tv show episode lists) are good - but the long ones, relics of pre-category mentality, should go...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Important update: User:Mathbot can be used to generate lists of articles on a given page which are not in a given category. See usage at list of szlachta. The only problem is that adding all the subcategories to search is somewhat tiresome, I asked Oleg if the script can be updated with a switch to search through them automatically.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
People that vandalise Wikipedia habitually or use automated vandalbots to do the same, continue to erode at the hard work of thousands, creating further work for hundreds more. Some people in the public eye and therefore with widespread influence have (allegedly) actively encouraged such vandalism and contributed to the problem in a way that most users are unable.
The Computer Misuse Act 1990 of the UK states that a person is guilty of an offence if he does any act which causes an unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer with intent to prevent or hinder access to any data held in any computer or to impair the reliability of any such data in the knowledge that any modification he intends to cause is unauthorised. The Cybercrime Act 2001 of the Commonwealth of Australia states that a person is guilty of an offence if the person cause any unauthorised modification of data held in a computer. Naturally, both of these laws cover the incitement of commiting and such act.
The keyword is 'unauthorised'. The missing link between a vandal's actions and their accountability in real life is that of authorisation; if you check out |Jimbo's statement of principles, he already states that the community needs protection against real vandals. My proposal thus comprises that Jimbo's wishes are ratified and that the phrase "Vandalism of Wikipedia is forbidden" or words to that effect are added alongside the current warnings: Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL.
If this can be done, then after an initial warning of offenders (remember, I'm still talking about operators of vandal bots and certain television presenters) to satisfy the requirement for knowledge that the modification is unauthorised, the offender must cease and desist or will be reported to the appropriate authorities.
According to my understanding, this strategy could not be applied to edits coming from within the Unite States. I am unaware of the content of analagous laws of any other countries.
Please help develop this proposal by suggesting flaws, improvements, countries in which the law is compatible with the UK and AU laws and countries in which it is not. -- Seans Potato Business 03:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
What would happen to the person who posted incorectly without knowing, Would that count as vandilism or not. Kinglou135 21:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Recently there has been a large number of specialised Wikis springing up covering everything from Battlestar Galactica [1] to Nine Inch Nails [2]. Some of these Wikis are small, dare I say it, failed, projects (with minimal articles). However, others are impressive, covering their subject in more detail than Wikipedia ever could or would even want to do.
Given that a reader of a Wikipedia article is happy to read a wiki about the subject, it stands to reason that if they wanted more detail they may be happy with further wiki-based content. Furthermore from an editing point of view some articles can clog up with arguably trivial information which would be best moved to a specialised wiki.
This proposal aims to give a clear guideline on how Wikipedia editors should relate to other wikis, aiming for a mutually beneficial system.
When an article in a good wiki exists which covers the topic of the article in more detail it should be linked to in the external links section. If we're very confident, a box similar to the ones linking to Wikinews or Wikictionary could be used. This is not restricted to just the immediate topic of the wiki but other subjects within that umbrella as well (i.e. not just Battlestar Galactica but Cylon as well).
Wikis, of course, should not be used as sources, owing to reliability issues as well as copyright ones (the wiki may not share the same licences as Wikipedia). Editors are however encouraged to look at specialist wikis to see what sources they have used.
Some wikis are excellent, others not so, either yet to get of the ground, deviod of active editors, or merely copying or rephrasing Wikipedia for the majority of its content. Therefore, it is best to define what is a "good wiki"
Where a Wikipedia article needs cleanup, expansion or other improvement, wikipedia editors are encouraged to post messages at the wiki which is specific to the topic asking for assistance. The editors of the wiki are likely to be knowledgeable and enthusiastic about their subject and skilled in wikicode.
This has a dual purpose. One, preventing duplication of work in assessing wikis as above. Two, a quick reference of where to refer editors to if they create content/articles which is too niched for Wikipedia.
In the spirit of all wikis, edit mercilessly :) LukeSurl 23:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The editors at WikiProject Medicine (and the numerous related projects such as WikiProject Pharmacology) have been working on a guideline to complement the Manual of Style. The scope is those articles relating to medicine. After nine months of development and discussion, we have produced the Manual of Style (medicine-related articles). Please let us know if you have any opposition to this becoming a guideline. Your comments are welcome on the talk page. Thanks, Colin° Talk 11:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
How about this? Every year (or month, possibly), all registered Wikipedians can select from the current year's Featured Articles (articles promoted to FA status in that year) and vote on which one is the best article in all of Wikipedia. It would kind of be like the Academy Awards for Wikipedia. Would anyone support this or even care about this? Diez2 00:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
In order to login to a wikipedia project site, like wikinews, you must have an account for each site.... why not just have one account for all of the wikipedia projects? It seems much more simple. Currently I have nine, yeah thats right NINE accounts just so I can go any wiki project and edit a page. I know what you will say "That isn't to bad." well I made two typos making those accounts, what i mean is instead of Programmer8 I made Porgoammer8 or something. Also to add to the problem I have to login so many times that my fingers will fall off. Please could some admin/director fix this, it is very annoying. -programmer8
on wikinews --
on wikipedia --
On wikiqoute --
on wikimedia commons --
on wikimedia --
on wikispecies --
on wikibooks --
on wiktionary --
on wikiversity
P.S. those are all of my NINE accounts ---13:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
Quite often I see edits where nonsense has been inserted into an article, but where users seem to be experimenting rather than deliberately intending to vandalise the page. I get the impression that quite a few people new to Wikipedia click "Edit this page", then hit the keyboard at random, and then click Save, just to see what happens. I was wondering if there was any way to cut down on this, and to alert these non-malicious users to the fact they should just preview the page. One possibility would be an alert on the edit page. There is already a note saying "For testing, please use the sandbox instead", but it's in a place where no-one would ever see it. Maybe that could be promoted. OTOH, as we know, no-one ever reads instructions or notes, no matter how big and red they are, so another possibility would be to pop up an additional "do you really want to save this" prompt on the very first save during a session (provided a "session" can be identified somehow). Good idea? Bad idea? Matt 23:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
Think I've got a great idea -- Starting a history timeline (similar in concept to the book Timetables of History [see http://www.amazon.com/Timetables-History-Horizontal-Linkage-People/dp/067174271X]) as a adjunct to Wikipedia. Perhaps the first screen would be a simplified (major events only) timeline (scroll right for more recent years, left for earlier) with the capability to drill down 4 or 5 layers showing more detail in a narrower time frame.
Finally at any stage, names, events, etc. could be directly linked to wiki pages.
What do you think?
Pete Walker
Peterrwalker 05:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Timeline.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 05:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Changes were recently made to various citation templates to force a single date style for the accessdate. If users want to force a certain style, they can change it in their prefs. I don't think forcing a single style within these templates is helpful. In fact, it makes many of our better articles look very sloppy, especially when time has been taken to make dates consistent within one particular article. --- RockMFR 00:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, there is not consensus for the recent change. Was it proposed anywhere before it was made? I am going to revert it until it is clear that there is consensus in favor. CMummert · talk 01:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, so just to summarise:
Remember that, whilst a good number of editors will be logged in, almost all readers will be logged out, and not even have an account. This means they have no user preferences to set, and they get the literal 2007-01-02 date. Which is ambiguous to a person ignorant of the ISO standard, which nearly everyone is. In the US, it's easier as the date would be that way around, but elsewhere, it more naturally says 2007, 1 February. By forcing one, string version of the date to appear, at least the words are given and there is no ugliness and no ambiguity. Splash - tk 15:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I can't see from the perspective of the side advocating the status quo. How is 2007 April 14 advocating some point-of-view any more than 2007-04-14? How is this disrupting some sort of "consistency" throughout featured articles and why is that such a big deal? And if consistency is really the problem, can't all the dates simply be changed (although, again, I'm not sure why this is such a big issue)? I also don't agree that YYYY-MM-DD is "unambiguous". As Splash has said, the date change is for clarity and aesthetics. The status quo appears to be for... consistency in a few articles? -- tariqabjotu 22:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree that forcing most readers to parse "2007-02-01" is awful, but I disagree that "2007, 1 February" is natural at all; it's nearly as confusing as the numbers version, since no one actually speaks or writes that way (except maybe military types, who are plenty used to "meals, ready to eat"). Is there anything somehow wrong with [[1 February]] [[2007]]? It's parseable by the unloggedin masses, and will format for us accountholders as per our date prefs. PS: I'm an American and the day-first order doesn't bother me. It's not the most common format over here in Yankeeland, but we all recognize it and understand it just fine. Let's not be silly about "No! Down with British imperialism!", please. :-) — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont ‹(-¿-)› 00:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Please look at the Notes section of Barack Obama for an example of where one feature article displays {{accessdate}} in raw ISO format to economize on space for the retrieval date. The publish date is spelled out and wikilinked to be reformatted according to user preferences. This approach is held consistently throughout the article and follows the model produced when using this helpful tool http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/makeref.php Raw ISO accessdate format is most useful for articles like this one with many notes, where spelled out accessdates clutter the notes section and add unnecessarily to page length. To my view, nothing is broken here, so there is nothing to be fixed. Please restore the earlier consensus version that permits raw ISO accessdates to be displayed in the "Retrieved on" notation of the template:cite web. -- HailFire 11:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
There is quite a bit of disagreement regarding this change at Template talk:Cite news. There is no consensus for this change. --- RockMFR 01:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that the YYYY Month Day format is actually easier for readers to parse? Is there any evidence that anons are frequently reading accessdates in references? I really don't see any benefit to this at all. The reasons to force the formatting of a single style are completely hypothetical, while there are numerous real reasons to not format the date:
I propose an immediate revert to the previous date-format status quo until this discussion reaches consensus on date-format changes. Can we reach consensus on this interim proposal? I vote yes. -- Boracay Bill 23:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
4 in favor, 0 against immediate revert to previous consensus version. Adding {{editprotected}} to template:cite web with request for revert to "Retrieved on {{accessdate}}" displaying date in raw ISO format. -- HailFire 20:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
My understanding of the proposal seeking supporting consensus is:
As I understand it, the effect of this change would be that if an editor (1) used a citation template affected by this change and (2) supplied the accessdate parameter but (3) did not supply any accessdate data, then a user viewing this article whould see an access date with a value of the current viewing date, formatted in YYYY FullMonthName DD format. Reformatting of displayed accessdates according to date preferences set by logged-in users would be disabled by this change.
If I have mis-stated this proposal, would someone please correct my mis-statement? -- Boracay Bill 01:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been adding machine-readable metadata tags to citation templates, and it would be best for those if the dates were in bare YYYY-MM-DD format without any brackets or anything. The brackets would then be added in the visual display part of the template, to be displayed as per the user's date preferences.
Not-logged-in users should see a default format based on their geographic location. ;-)
Of course the visual side of things is much more important, but this is how I would like it to work.
Also see
Bugzilla: 4582: Use date format preference on unlinked dates, which proposes a <date>
tag (which I think is completely backwards; all plain text dates should be parsed and modified to user preferences by default, and <nowiki>
tags should be used to escape this behavior, just like any other automatic formatting). But whatever. —
Omegatron 04:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
After reading various user, talk, pump etc... discussions and giving the issue of FA articles and protection some thought, I have come up with an idea. Perhaps once an Article has reached the FA status and has survived its day on the main page maybe permanent less-than-semi-protected-but-more-just-on-editor's-and-user's-watchlist status should be enacted. In other words perhaps various "keys" should be given to the central contributers to that article and in order to edit said article an anonymous IP would have to go to one of those users pages and obtain that "key" in order to edit the page. The use of the "key" would notify the user whose "key" was used and all others with "keys" to that article. With this key system enacted, I believe that the quality of FAs might be stabilized and thereby make Wikipedia a better and more stable encyclopedia. I guess you could think of it as a sort of "active watching" or local adminship of an article. Also these keyholders might have the ability to lock an article lock an article for a period of time if they feel it necessary. I propose this because I believe that Semi is too strong and simply watchlisting to be too passive and prone to slower reverts of vandalism. Let me know if I am way off base or not with this idea.
Continually questing to make Wikipedia better Cronholm144 09:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I would also like to know if this is a proposal worthy idea, and I would love as much input as possible Cronholm144 20:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
While I sympathize with the ideas behind this proposal, I'd tend to agree it would probably be a lot of work for not too much benefit. I don't worry too much about FA's anyway (especially the main page FA), vandalism's not hard to revert, especially with the latest crop of vandalfighting tools. If anything, I'd worry more about the mass of articles that only a couple people may have ever edited. If those people leave or lose interest, chances are no one's watching it, and if RC patrol doesn't catch vandalism to it, it could stay there for quite some time. Regardless, though, if something is getting vandalized a ton, I think (semi)protection is enough to deal with it. I also think we need a lot less idea of article ownership, and I'd be very hesitant to anything that gives a very nasty but very persistent idea more weight-the idea that "major contributors" to articles somehow get more weight in deciding what edits are acceptable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Although vandalism is obviously a major nuisance, in my view one of the key strengths of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit (almost) any article with minimum fuss. Anything that obstructs that ability, and makes Wikipedia appear like the closed province of a "privileged few", is IMO a bad idea unless absolutely essential in cases where vandalism makes the existing system totally unworkable. Matt 01:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
Thanks so much for your comments. You have given me a different perspective on this issue and hopefully I can think up something better next time. I think it is safe to assume that this idea in its current form is dead. Cronholm144 05:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
A long time ago, I proposed that tables be moved out of articles and into their own Table: namespace. They would then be included in articles through a syntax similar to image syntax:
The '''world population''' is the total number of [[human being]]s alive on the planet [[Earth]] at a given time. [[Image:World population.png|thumb|Map of countries by population]] Below is a table of historical population figures shown in thousands. [[Table:Estimated world population at various dates|left]] In 2000, the [[United Nations]] estimated that the world's population
Large tables require very messy markup, and are quite intimidating for non-technical types to edit or work around. (Imagine that you're editing a wiki for the first time and aren't good with computers, and then compare the above example with the real thing, which uses inline table markup.)
I also hoped that making tables self-contained would eventually allow magic functionality for the Table: namespace, similar to the Image: or Category: namespaces, to allow for table editing that isn't based on editing wikicode directly, so users don't need to learn pipe syntax to contribute. Maybe external editors with export as .csv or .ods files? Maybe a built-in Java(Script) editor?
This was proposed, notably, before the introduction of templates, which addressed some of the same problems, but I still think it would be a valuable addition, due to the other benefits it would provide. (Even those of us who know pipe syntax would still prefer to edit tables in spreadsheet software.)
In 2005, I asked if this was a good idea, and got almost unanimous support. The developers want to know if it still has general support.
Do you still think this would be a beneficial feature? How, specifically, should we implement it? — Omegatron 23:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. On that note, during Wikimania 2006 there were also discussions for a reference namespace (as references, especially with cite templates, are also quite messy, and having a reference in separate page would allow to easily link it to many articles and check usage). Perhaps we can deal with both issues, as they are somewhat similar?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 04:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment People use template namespace for this sort of thing already, but single-use templates are frowned upon for the exact same reason you'd prefer to use them -- they hide the markeup and make it more indirect to edit. A separate table namespace could be an option though. Just use current template transclusion and have a different sort of rules for what can be included, and always make sure there's an extremely convenient link to edit it.
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy) 07:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems like the mess is just being moved from one place to another.
I think that every template which should be substituted should have the following line in the wikicode:
This way, any page which has a substituted template with that, the {{ Empty template}} will prevent the category from showing up; but if it's transcluded, then the category will show up - so such pages will be in Category:Pages which transclude templates which should be substituted. Od Mishehu 07:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Re. previous comment posted on Technical board, 17th April
I'm looking to make a template that will display a custom page when sent data - specifically to illustrate the position of a certain time in the geological time scale. I've written a template which will perform as I wish, and whilst I can include the template in a page, I hoped to be able to link a date using Template:Ma so that clicking on the year would take the user directly to a timeline with the specified year marked. I've spoken to a couple of experienced editors who are unaware of a solution to this problem. Is there any way I can carry this out? (I hope I've explained what I want clearly enough...)
Many thanks, Verisimilus 21:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether this is the best place to post this.
What are the arguments against getting
m:DynamicFunctions##arg?
I'd quite like to campaign to have it installed, since I feel it could add useful content to Wikipedia.
Verisimilus T 18:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Brazil Collaboration was created!!! João Felipe ( Let's talk! ) 21:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The current
Brazil Collaboration is . Every month a different Brazil-related topic, stub or non-existent article is picked. Please read the nomination text and improve the article any way you can. |
I think the "undo" command should make clear that simply clicking it does NOT undo an edit in the sense that many editors think it might. That is, it should be made clear that after clicking it, one still has to scroll all the way down to "save page" and click that, too. Kdammers 02:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I am a frequent and fond visitor of the Wikipedia platform. As I have already skimmed though all the featured articles I have the following suggestion:
Would it be possible to implement a specified random article search? For example;
- Most frequently viewed articles
- Articles with at least 20 lines of text (no stubs)
- Articles from certain categories only
- Excluding certain categories (no counties, cities or high schools)
Hope the input helps to create an even better Wikipedia.
A Swiss Wiki-Fan —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
85.0.102.200 (
talk) 08:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
[x] hide articles tagged stub [x] hide redirects [x] hide disambiguation pages [ ] hide non-Featured articles [ ] hide non-Good articles [ ] automatically show a random article from among the results
I'm guessing these features will be added eventually, as developer time and server resources allow. — Jonathan Kovaciny ( talk| contribs) 20:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
[x] don't select any article tagged as a stub [x] don't select a redirect [x] don't select a disambiguation page [ ] don't select anything that isn't a Good article or a Featured article [ ] don't select anything that isn't a Featured article
I think it would be a good idea to have the number of people online on the front page of wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kinglou135 ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
okay thanks anyways Kinglou135 21:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Many, many people want to learn how to learn things. I'm a psychologist, but it doesn't take a psychologist -- or parent -- to know this is true.
Kind of like getting the Almanac every year -- I don't know where to start to systematically acquire new and important information. So generally the book sits there and is used as questions arise.
There are a huge variety methods of acquiring new information. Such as: go to school until you graduate from high school, as a librarian, watch fun stuff on TV, etc.
Wikipedia has the opportunity of streamlining the process for people, helping them acquire necessary information as easily as possible.
For example, I test youngsters for reading deficits fairly regularly. Perhaps Wikipedia should have methods to remediate reading deficits.
I am interested in new science research. I'd be very interested in what people think of as cutting-edge research in science, health, environment, etc.
You may very well have such a system in place, but until I can access it, the Almanac is largely unread, the onion unpeeled, and the foreign language I want to learn is still unknown to me.
I'd be delighted to discuss this approach. CalebBurns 04:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)CalebBurns
Yours truly,
Caleb Burns, PhD
[e-mail address removed to prevent spam]
why don't wikipedia have a tool bar? like google, yahoo and ask do. i think it would be a nice idea to see what wikipedia says about topics we are searching for. and get its various services one click away on the interface. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.108.99.234 ( talk) 14:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
Sometimes I find that I want to browse all the entries within a certain category, that simultaneously fulfil another category. Is there an existing way to do that, because I certainly knw I would love to use it. If not.... who can I take this idea to? -- Mattbray 03:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Tell me what you think. Its based off of this at meta.
{{
user:Wikihermit/meta}}
Which produces:
reha | This user is a Wikipedia Rehabilist. |
Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť
(Talk) 01:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I have a proposal for "personal redirects." When we type in a page in the search bar, it looks for an article with that exact title. Well, I'm proposing an improvement to the MediaWiki software that adds options (in User Preferences) for personal redirects. For instance, if I type in American Idol into the search bar, it takes me to the American Idol article. Well, what if I was a frequent editor of that article (I'm not, this is hypothetical) and When I typed in American Idol (or even AI) into the search bar, I wanted it to take me to American Idol (season 6). Basically, there would be a table in our preferences that had a column for our preferential search term and another corresponding column for the link we want it to take us to. Something like this:
Search term | Article |
---|---|
American Idol | American Idol (season 6) |
AI | American Idol (season 6) |
Heroes | Heroes (TV series) |
Scrubs | Scrubs (TV series) |
When a search term is entered, it checks this table first and then proceeds as normal if no match is found. This will allow people who want a certain link to go directly to an article as opposed to a different article or disambig page to set Wikipedia to do this for them. Apologies if this has been suggested before. Thoughts?↔ NMajdan• talk 17:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I like browsing through hard copy encyclopaedias article by article in a sequential fashion. However, wiki does not allow this as a standard feature. Could we consider a 'go to next article' button/arrow and a 'go to previous article' button/arrow; maybe at the top or bottom of every article. Many software stacks have this feature, especially where didactic info is displayed. It would be neat, and also elegant design-wise. Lgh 23:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
When I follow a link to an image that is a redlink, it will take me to the upload file page. It used to lead to the image page where it said that the image did not exist. For example, following File:Karte Fuessen in deutschland.png will go to Special:Upload. This is annoying because, for example, I want to look at its deletion log. To do that, I must copy its name into the search box and find it there. This may also lead to a problem because new users will upload an image, not knowing how it works. We should really go back to a redlinked image goes to its non-existant image page. Although it doesn't exist, I believe that would be better. Thank you, Reywas92 Talk 18:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Heh, heh, didn't notice that. I do think that there should be a link to the image page, though. Thanks! Reywas92 Talk 19:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we all agree that if you want to delete your own page, you should be able to do so quickly. However, as the CAT:CSD becomes more and more backlogged, should we be able to have the power to delete these pages ourselves (if the user is the author of the page in question, of course)? You could even extend this idea to cover the user and user talk pages of a user. Please comment on this idea. Diez2 22:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Pages that are tagged for speedy deletion by user are easy to decide on for admins and usually get deleted quickly. However, user pages or subpages may be used or referenced elsewhere (say, in a RFC or ArbCom case) and these pages shouldn't be deletable by their author. In any case, user pages are non-urgent deletions; if you think they cause too much of a backlog in C:CSD, create an extra category for them that can be processed slower. Kusma ( talk) 12:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, these pages are essentially completed and ready to go, but I do want to hear if more people support this and/or will help out with this. Thank you! Diez2 15:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The "dismiss" notice at the top of articles should be explained (e.g., with a right-click message). The word is unclear and looks very dangerous. Wik insists on using all sorts of unexplained words (especially neologisms and ambiguous words), to the detriment of its reputation. Kdammers 01:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I changed it to "hide". John Reaves (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The current situations is that if you want to use a citation template, you can use the 'quote' attribute, to quote the relevant part of the supporting text. This helps people search and verify the veracity of a source which would otherwise necessitate reading it from the beginning, until the supporting statement was found, assuming it even exists to begin with. The problem arises when the same source is used to support more than one statement in an article. I would like to suggest that the <ref> tag is modified to allow a 'quote' attribute as well as a 'name' attribute, so each time a source is used, a new, relevant quote can be given. Otherwise, people can continue to put sources that they "think probably" support a statement, in a hurried, half-hearted attempt to improve an article (I've seen it done before and had to go through the entire text to discover that it was improperly quoted as a source). Implementing this system would at least allow people to spend less time verifying those citations that make use of the feature. -- Seans Potato Business 21:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see Wiki available in Arabic with contributions from arabic speakers (writers) in the native arabic language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.38.63.150 ( talk • contribs).
When creating a new Wikipedia page, there should be a way to see how many times the term has been searched for. This would promote the creation of demanded-for pages and help Wikipedia grow in a desirable direction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stussy D ( talk • contribs).
I recently created a new template, {{ wlink}}. Normally, links to edit a page or history links have to be formatted as external links. While this template doesn't change that, it simplifies the appearance of the code in the edit window.
A couple differences between this template and normal linking: It only works for action=, section=, and redirect= endings at the moment, but more could easily be added; and spaces in titles are replaced with + signs rather than underscores ( _ ). Also, if there is a second parameter, an extra & symbol will be added to the end of the URL.
For example, a link to edit the fifth section of Bay of Bengal with text of Bengal Bay:
In edit window | On page | |
---|---|---|
Normal method | [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bay_of_Bengal |
Bengal Bay |
With template | {{wlink|Bay of Bengal|Bengal Bay|action=edit|section=5}} |
Bengal Bay |
Should we widely use this template for internal links that need to be formatted as external? I'd like to see if there's any problems with using it that I didn't think of. Considering how much simpler and easier it makes linking, I think we should start using it unless someone brings up a major problem that we can't fix. Pyro spirit Shiny! 15:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Please use fullurl for another alternative. You may even incorporate this into your template. – Pomte 21:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Ooo, /me likes
. I agree with using fullurl and, also, you should probably wrap {{urlencode:}}
around the parameters. --
Iamunknown 06:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
This came up on WT:SIG ( in this section); there seemed to be support for requesting the developers to add a 'talk' link to the default signature, but not many users commented. What do people think about the idea of a 'talk' link by default in users' signatures? -- ais523 15:22, 18 April 2007
I like this idea and have actually been using exactly that within my own signatures for quite awhile now. Of course, it's even handier when anons actually sign... -- Thisisbossi 22:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I like this idea of having both talk and contribs by default. The only reason I started messing around with customizing my sig was to put those links in - the colors and extra links came later. I never would have bothered with colors and extra links if I didn't want the talk and contribs links. With the virulent hatred some people have for customized sigs, maybe adding those links by default would decrease the customized sigs and make everyone happier. ~ ONUnicorn 19:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not understand the point of a contribs link. Further, my signature by default goes to my talk page. Even further, I use Lupin's popup tools to click on whatever aspect of the user I want to see (including user page, user talk page, user contribs, user space, user block log). I'd prefer not see talk and contribs included by default. All you need is one link. -- Iamunknown 19:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can determine, WP:IAR was declared a policy on 23 April 2005, about a week after Jimbo made an edit where he stated in the comments that IAR is policy and always has been. Note that he did not change the formatting of WP:IAR on that edit to reflect the statement he made in the edit comments. So about a week later (give or take hours), editors at the time made changes to the body of the article that reflected that assertion.
I have asked around about that mechanism (in general). I've asked on Wikipedia_talk:IAR, and I've asked on User_talk:Jimbo_Wales, about whether what Jimbo says, goes. The edit on 18 April, 2005, when Jimbo made that editing comment, as far as I know is not actually an official declaration. Previous informational boxes on the same project page declared it a guideline, a meta-policy, a policy, a mix of all three, as well as a hoax and an AfD and an MfD.
Given the article's history, the reminders I've had that not all that Jimbo says is official, I suggested going back (in the policy information box) to some of the wording from prior that 18 April 2005 edit, that talked about IAR being part of the official body of policies and guidelines, but that didn't specify a particular role it had to play in that body, instead mentioning three: policy, meta-policy and guideline.
It was suggested I go here and ask, so here I am asking, is WP:IAR really policy? Or is it a guideline?
As a side note: What's its meaning? I'm led to believe by the various folks I've talked with about it that it's not as obvious as it looks, but at the same time, the same folks, or similar folks are saying it is. To me, it is a sort of meta-anti-rule which serves to underline the importance of consensus over process/policy, but I also know that a lot of folks who've been around Wikipedia for a long time take it at face value and use it to justify individual judgment calls in the face of consensus opposition.
Anyhow, a lot of the discussion is still quite available on the main talk page, should you choose to delve.
Thanks in advance for any and all opinions. -- MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 01:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd say that the "Ignore all rules" is a good policy, but only taken in the context that what rules exist exist so that there are clear ways to resolve conflicts and standardize form, and that otherwise, users can edit freely. Users sometimes abuse IAR by misinterpeting it as license to do whatever they feel like and break the standards Wikipedia must uphold. Nihiltres( t. c. s) 02:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Re. previous comment posted on Technical board, 17th April
I'm looking to make a template that will display a custom page when sent data - specifically to illustrate the position of a certain time in the geological time scale. I've written a template which will perform as I wish, and whilst I can include the template in a page, I hoped to be able to link a date using Template:Ma so that clicking on the year would take the user directly to a timeline with the specified year marked. I've spoken to a couple of experienced editors who are unaware of a solution to this problem. Is there any way I can carry this out? (I hope I've explained what I want clearly enough...)
Many thanks, Verisimilus 21:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether this is the best place to post this.
What are the arguments against getting
m:DynamicFunctions##arg?
I'd quite like to campaign to have it installed, since I feel it could add useful content to Wikipedia.
Verisimilus T 18:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello community, I have since been declined my request to run a new bot called BirthdayBot. Firstly, I will tell you a little about it, and then get the community's thoughts about it (as that was the suggestion made on the request).
Now it's time for your say on this. I am really enthusiastic and want this bot running, but many people say it's like a welcome bot - that's not the case - it only greets 5 users per day at a maximum, whereas a welcome bot could do thousands. Looking forward to your thoughts. Many thanks, Extranet ( Talk | Contribs) 20:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
May I suggest that every article in the top 10, 25, or even 50 of Special:Mostrevisions is move protected? Some already are. Let's use common sense: there are a lot of revisions for most of them (by definition), and there's not a chance in hell that (m)any would need to be moved. The openness of our wiki is important, but let's invite people to experience it in more constructive ways.
See the history of Adolf Hitler. Are there better reasons than "BCUZ" to move some of these pages? Gracenotes T § 01:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
With the Meta for Deletion entry on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names heading for a keep/no consensus there is a proposal to merge the functions of that board into Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Please comment at WT:RFCN. - M ask? 22:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Did you know that the village pump is really hard to find? Unless you know the shortcut you generally have to scroll up and down in the community portal hoping you'll spot the link. And when I type 'Village pump" into the search field I am redirected to an article called 'water well'. Maybe Village Pump could be made more prominent and easier to find. Lgh 04:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to create a category just to see it get deleted, so... Category:National anthem writers? Does that sound useful? Nyttend 00:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 16#Requested move. -- Random832 23:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Can we please get rid of these templates already? See Talk:Gibberellic acid, for one of many examples. — Omegatron 16:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that there are many long-term systemic problems with Wikipedia, which are not dealt with because some will "cover their backside", pretend the problems don't exist, and discussion eventually dies out, only to start up again a week or month later.
For example, on the talk page of AIV, there are complaints that we are too soft on vandals. A couple of users will pretend this problem doesn't exist, and let discussion die. A week later, someone will raise this complaint again.
There are also many who believe that some processes, such as RFA and AFD, are broken. Yet nothing is done to reform them.
If you check the list of missing Wikipedians, and read the reasons why established users leave, you will see the same few problems being mentioned over and over again. Why are these problems not resolved?
Other sites criticise Wikipedia for allegedly being anti-elitist, lacking credibility, and some admins abusing their powers. Shouldn't we do something to address these concerns?
I think we need a place for centralised discussion on such issues. This would ensure that discussion does not die out just because some pretend the problems don't exist. By creating a place where we can openly discuss problems with Wikipedia, contributors will be less tempted to join Wikipedia Watch and other anti-Wikipedia sites.
Wikis are meant to be dynamic, so problems can be quickly dealt with. However, with systemic problems, this evidently isn't the case. While unlike some, I don't believe Wikipedia is irredeemably broken, I believe that it eventually will be if we don't quickly deal with these systemic problems. Please note that I am not anti-Wikipedia - I believe it has great potential and that's why I hope these systemic problems can be dealt with.
-- Kaypoh 07:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Done. Wikipedia:Reform. All comments, edits, and additions are more than welcome. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a proposal to add a new upload link, to Project:Upload, to the sidebar. Discussion is at MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext#Proposal for mass overhaul, matching Commons. Uncle G 18:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really sure how easily this could be accomplished, or if it could be at all, but my school system has recently blocked all wikipedia images because of the adult entertainment sections of the website, it's really annoying to search for some sort of plant or animal and not be able to see what it looks like. Earlier this year I was instrumental in getting the complete ban of wikipedia revoked but I was told that there is no chance of doing that on this one unless wikipedia was willing to host all its non-school appropriate images in one place that they could then block. It does not seem like it'd be hard to have a check box that you simply check if the image is an "adult" image, but then of course I don't really know about it. If this is not possible, how hard would it be to produce a "safe" list, a list that people can go to and put "safe" image url's onto that I could compile and give to the tech department at school. They won't just ban the adult ones because wikipedia is ever changing and new pictures would be added daily. Mrstenoien 6:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
According to the tech people down at the district office blocking certain pages is not acceptable because of the ever changing nature of wikipedia. Thats why I was thinking of a whitelist of pictures instead of a blacklist, although a whitelist would be very hard to keep up to date it would be better than no pictures whatsoever, where would I go to get help compiling a list such as that? User:Mrstenoien:Mrstenoien 4:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
What do people think of this? After a stub is no longer a stub, it can be tagged with a "start tag" signifying that it is no longer short,etc etc(whatever a stub is defined as) but now a start(whatever a start is correctly defined as). There could be the same start tags as there are the same stubs (eg "disease stub" with "disease start", and once the stub gets enough content it can move on to the start tag, where more people will have ability to see it and possibly work on it. Thus once the start taged article is worked on long enough it will then go on to the next up level (but by then the article will be far better than what a typical 'start' type article looks like. I know there are already articles labeled as "starts" on their talk page, but there are also "stubs" labeled as such on their talk page as well (articles that are usually rated by their wikiproject) and furthermore, not everyone looks (or bothers) to look at the discussion page anyway (personal random choice really)(Furthermore this is not to say that a "start" tag will trigger a impulse in someone's brain to say, hey lets make this article beter, but they can also say that for the stub tag as well true?..applies to new users in particular). Unless of course youre thinking that having MORE tags is a bad thing, and now it would take FOREVER to implent into the countless "start" articles, im sure it can be achieved.(Probably with the creation of a new wiki fix up project? or bot?). So yeah, sorry if this has already been asked before or its written in the wrong place. Thanks in advance. petze 03:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
There are thousands and thoudsands of stubs, and no matter what you object, it will take a very long time to do that. There should always be an improvement impule in one's brain. Labelling something as Start rather than Stub will do nothing. IMO, the rating of articles with Featured, Good, stub, or none is fine enough, without A or B. Reywas92 Talk 03:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
At the MCB Wikiproject we are gearing up to import several databases into Wikipedia. These would include families of RNAs in collaboration with the Rfam database and the complete set of publicly-available data on each human gene in collaboration with the Novartis/GNF SymAtlas project.
I'm worried that people may object to the automated creation of these stubs on the ground of notability and wanted to float the idea here. What are people's opinions? Should we restrict this to gene families, rather than individual genes, or should we regard this as the basis for future additions as scientific knowledge grows? Each gene stub would have several references to other databases and information, an example can be seen here.
Thanks for comments. TimVickers 21:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The number depends on the level that we go into the database. I'd be most happy restricting this to genes with known or proposed functions, as these will have some literature associated with them and can therefore be easily expanded in the future. On the other hand, the simple completeness of Wikipedia having an entry for every human gene is attractive, and could help us recruit more expert editors from the science community. TimVickers 22:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Good idea, the references in the Entrez gene page could be used. TimVickers 22:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Depending on which estimate you listen to, there are about 20,000 human genes annotated at present. The bot proposal is for 10,000 of these to be imported, these are the genes for which published information is available. The question isn't really how these articles are created, that's just mechanics, but instead we need to discuss what the content will be and if this content will be useful and notable. For example, is the ITK (gene) a notable subject, or does this stub not contain enough information? TimVickers 23:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
20,000 is one in every 88 articles! I really don't think articles should be made for every one. I'm not even quite convinced that the gene families are very notable or encyclopedic. Sorry. Reywas92 Talk 00:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I choose number three. How many of them are there? Reywas92 Talk 00:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, we seem to be coming to consensus on proposal 2. This would involve the import of approximately 10,000 individual genes into stubs with 76,000 separate citations added to these stubs in order to meet WP:Reliable sources (numbers from GeneRIF statistics).
That's an interesting point Mr.Z-man, we could create a page for each GO term, and then use Wikilinks rather than external inks to the GO pages, however, then you would lose the classification information you get on GO pages such as this. I think external links are a better choice for the infoboxes (as with the standard Chembox). TimVickers 01:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Well...I hate to rain on the parade here, because it's great to see information on genetics and such, but do remember individual articles must assert, and show, notability, since we're not, among other things, a directory. I think bot-copies of a directory of genes, for however noble a purpose, would be counter to that. Now if the various information could be ordered by gene-family, with some additional information on the family, that would probably work quite a bit better. If it turns out later that a ton of information on an individual gene is available, a splitout article can always happen later. Right now, though, I'm convinced a lot of these may remain permastubs. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Might be handier to cooperate with the knewco/omegawiki/wikidata people on this kind of thing? Though I'm cool with this either way. It'll be fun. :-) -- Kim Bruning 19:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Andrew, this is somewhere I think Wikipedia can gain a great deal by drawing in expertise to add content, and the experts we recruit gaining through free and open distribution of the information they contribute. TimVickers 02:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I would second the comment above about adding more information. Dates and people in particular (ie. history). That may be difficult now, but in the future as more history is written, that may be possible. Take the story of the discovery of DNA for example. If similar stories are written in the future about the research on particular genes, then this should be added. Database and basic scientific information is good, but don't forget to add encyclopedic value (and historical context) to avoid just being a copy of a database. Carcharoth 23:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:GFDL standardization, which intends to address the legal morass of having added "Subject to disclaimers" to {{ GFDL}} and hence creating a licensing tag that is technically incompatible with the normal GFDL applied at most other projects and Commons. Comments welcome at Wikipedia talk:GFDL standardization. Dragons flight 02:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
This seems really obvious, so I'm sure it must have come up before, but I can't find it on the Perennial proposals page or elsewhere. It's really annoying to lose one's page when following links to external articles (eg from the references section), so why not force them to open in a new tab or window? Maybe by changing the way the software handles links, or by adding it as an option in the user preferences? EyeSerene TALK 10:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
In firefox, middle-click opens a page in a new tab. You already have full control yourself. I would be very irritated if you *removed* my ability to left-click and made it the same function as middle-click. :-/ The rule is: Let the user and their client determine what to do, not your site. -- Kim Bruning 15:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I've reopened discussion on this. At the moment we have no criteria. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 17:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I have been working on a new template. It is a communication aid, and not in the same boat as the uw-vandalism things. This template deals with improper speedy deletion tags apllied, which through sifting a bit through Cat:CSD, I find it becomes more and more useful. The template is temporartily here. It is the first level warning, however. I'd appreciate some feedback as to whether it really has any use, and ways to improve, etc. Evilclown93 20:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice to have a move button for images. That way if the title is wrong you could move it to the correct title instead of re-uploading the image. (I know, kinda short) «razorclaw» 18:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see Wiki available in Arabic with contributions from arabic speakers (writers) in the native arabic language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.38.63.150 ( talk • contribs).
On VP as well as in all talk pages it would be good if each post was headed with its number as it appears in the contents/hyperlinking box at the head of the whole page. For example this post's heading would read: 42. numbering posts, ie as it appears in the contents box. This is because I quite often look at a page's contents box and say to myself: I would like to look at posts 3,4,17 and 44 (for example) then I have to either memorise these numbers and the headings or scroll up and down all the time. To summarise: It would be good if the program that created the post inlcuded the post's number in the heading. Lgh 01:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I propose a new topic called "Internet Video" just like there is a "Voice over IP" Category. Currently there are a lot of apparently unrelated articles with overlapping information such as Internet TV, IPTV and even Internet video which for some surprising reason redirects to Video clip. The "Internet Video" page should contain basic information and then should link to the above mentioned pages. I can start editing the Internet Video page if that is OK. I am new to this level of contribution, so please tell me wha to do next. Oh, and if I have put this in the wrong place, please let me know where to put it. I searched all over for "Category request" and found nothing. Agupte 06:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)