This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212
i think the sex stub pic is heteronormative since it shows a symbol for a male and a female and excludes two men or two women.
any thoughts?
could a man/man and woman/woman symbo, be added in? or somthing else that represents sex like a bunch of flesh of differant people in a collage? Qrc2006 05:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
heterosexuality is not the normal state you biggot, you should be blocked for your homophobic remarks, that implies that gay people are not normal. In fact the normal state in nearly all species studied is 8 to 10% gay and bi and 90 to 92% straight. Who cares about hands, people with lees fingers are gentically defected or mamed, homosexulaity and bisexuality is natural and innate, and why should articles on gay sexuality have to have a male-female symbol on them if they are a stub? I'm not syaing we need a gajilion combinations, but the symbol could be more inclusive by for instance having 6 or 7 sex symbols in a line or circle alternating between male and female, and that way it does not imply any specific combination.
OR as i stated before a collage of pictures of legs and chests and breasts and penises and abdomens or arms intertwined might be an alternative? Qrc2006 08:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The symbol in the sex stub is as inclusive as necessary. It has a symbol for each possible participant. It is up to each sex article to describe who participates in what with whom, not the symbol itself. -- Dave 12:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to add your comments to these archived proposals.
Subject | Description |
---|---|
Dealing with vandalism | Should some editing restrictions be placed on new or unregistered users to help reduce vandalism, or at least be reviewed by others before taking effect? Should high-visibility articles be protected from editing? |
Search engine | How could Wikipedia's search engine be improved? |
Spell checker on Edit pages | Should Edit pages have a built-in spell checker? |
Always fill the summary field | Should the summary field below the edit box be required to be filled or automatically filled? |
Votes for Creation | Should there be a Votes for Creation page to complement the current Votes for Deletion? |
Subject | Description |
---|---|
Discussion format | Should Talk pages use a wiki interface or a more traditional forum format? |
... | ... |
... | ... |
Subject | Description |
---|---|
... | ... |
... | ... |
|}
Please support bug 4288 which is an enhancement that allows general tagging of revisions. This will allow user and group defined tags which can then be used for things like this project and possibly other stuff in the future. Thanks. -- Gbleem 23:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I wrote this page a few weeks ago as the beginning of what I hoped would become a guideline. Not knowing how to propose a guideline, I forgot about the page until today, where the link on {{ historical}} led me here. This page simly clarifies that episode summaries need sources like any other article. Reasons I have been given in the past that episode summaries are okay without sources:
Out of frustration that no one seems to notice that episode summariies aren't above un-ignorable WIkipedia policy, I made the page to clarify. -- Chris chat edits essays 17:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
As a user of WP, long before I though of editing, I've found this material enormously useful. For major works of any medium, there are good conventional sources; for fandom, the web has always done adequately. But for an organized system of high-quality articles , this is the place. I see no need to extensively document this, unless the fairness or accuracy of the summary is challenged. The purpose of documentation is so others can check your work. But for these topics, the episode itself is the documentation. Anyone who thinks the editor is careless automatically knows exactly where to check. Otherwise a reference would need to be given for every page of the book or frame of the video. If challenged, then it can be quoted or described. As I understand it, it might even be a copyright violation to give to paraphrase the whole. ----
The WP:NOR policy clearly states:
So use of the primary source is not original research. Original research is what creates primary sources, not what uses them. There are quite frequent cases when WP:NOR is misapplied to articles based on works of fiction and describing them, but the policy in fact directly endorses it, as long as no new fiction is introduced. CP/M comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The presentation of most WikiProjects isn't very attractive. On fr: there's a standardized presentation for projects which gives results such as this one or that one. Is there anything similar here ? Sigo 16:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Please help contribute to the See alsos straw poll. Wikipedia:See alsos is a straw poll being developed and almost ready for polling. The purpose is to find consensus on good editing technique regarding see alsos--something not listed anywhere. I'd like those interested to help improve it. Anomo 11:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Why not have a wiki for each country where local information could be put that is not important enough for an article in the global wiki, and where articles that would be considered 'vanity' in global wiki could justifiably be inserted for local personalities of interest in their own country but not globally? For example, Joe Bloggs of Nowhereville, Country X, is a local headmaster and expert on Country X legends. He doesn't rate an entry in global WP but would look dandy and relevant in the WP for country X and would be referenced there by locals (or even non-locals) who have not found him in global WP. Lgh 03:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
i could like to post the suggestion to start wikipedia for mobiles so that mobile users can also use it through wap or other such service.pl reply to my talk page as well. Yousaf465
Hi, I'm still a relative newbie, so please forgive me if this topic has come up already. I've been involved with some science/math articles and it's often difficult to find the right level; what some people find obscure and difficult to understand, other people find trivially obvious and belabored. (See Talk:Hamilton-Jacobi equations and Talk:Photon, for example.) Also, it'd be nice sometimes to show a derivation or explain something in more detail than can be covered easily in a footnote, but which might be too short for its own article. So I was thinking of using subpages for these kinds of "extended footnotes". That way, the same topic could be covered in different depths, depending on how many subpages the reader was interested in following. We could even have subpages of subpages for readers who really wanted to delve into a topic. Intuitively, I suspect that this scheme won't work, but I can't exactly say why I think so. I'd appreciate everyone's opinion about the idea, or other suggestions for multi-level articles — thanks muchly! :D Willow 15:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Consensus can sometimes be hard to achieve in practice, and often harder to measure. Consensus polling is a method of adducing consensus for a given proposal, using a structured polling method which can easily indicate how many people are in support of a proposal, and how many people are not yet in support of a proposal.
A consensus poll is unlike traditional (evil) votes, which produce winners and losers; in a consensus poll there is only one proposal, which can be edited by the participants in the poll. This method aims to help people achieve a high level of consensus, rather than a low level of consensus (such as a mere majority or supermajority). Having only a single proposal aims to ensure that participants do actually work together to achieve a result which pleases as many people as possible, rather than encouraging them to compete against each other in order for their own proposal to succeed.
More information about consensus polling can be found at consensuspolling.org, and at the MeatballWiki. I encourage people who are interested in this method to try it out; the proposal page already contains a full set of instructions for setting up a new poll. I also encourage people to leave their comments at the talk page. -- bainer ( talk) 14:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add other users to our watchlists. I know that we are supposed to WP:AGF, but if a user has been vandalising a lot recently, I think it would be a good idea to be able to keep an eye on them without having to go through to their contribs page every time. --GW_Simulations User Page | Talk 20:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I've frequently wished I could add a User's contributions page to my Watchlist. User:Zoe| (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, thought, I could see many people feeling that such a change would be creepy and encourage wikistalking. What I normally do is add their username somewhere and use that to occasionally check their contributions (popups are good for this!). After all, most of the time the RC patrollers will catch the changes, so the most important thing to do is to scan their changes for ones that are still at the top. LinaMishima 00:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I often come across the following on Wikipedia
For example, the Freewebs article has a section entitled "Use of a Freewebs website as a reference to Wikipedia". This section looks suspicious, as Wikipedia articles generally avoid self-references. However, I'm not sure whether it should be deleted.
I suggest we have a page for reporting such edits/paragraphs, where they may be double-checked by another editor. The disadvantage of this idea is that the page may eventually have a backlog. Alternatively, we could place a template on the article to alert other editors. The disadvantage is that it would be harder to monitor such a template, and that the editor who fixes the edit must also remove the template.
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I posted a message about this on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), but that page seems to be essentially dead, since no one has posted to the page at all for a day and a half. Anyway, I was hoping that I could get some help in fixing the damage done by banned user Sheynhertz-Unbayg. You can check out what happened here. -- Kjkolb 00:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
How come the state/province etc. is included in the article title proper for every US city/town, most Canadian, Australian and Japanese cities/towns, a few Chinese cities/towns and almost none for other countries? If the intention is to disambiguate, then why include the subdivision in Hakodate, Hokkaido or Revillo, South Dakota which are the only places with those names? If including the subdivision for consistency, why Sydney and not Sydney, New South Wales (a redirect) when almost all Australian places have the state?. And if Sydney in Australia is the most likely article one wants if searching for Sydney, then why Los Angeles, California? Ohwell32 10:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
A suggestion for improving Wikipedia.org:
As a non-native english speaker I often do seaches in other languages than english (most often Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian in my case). However once at the language specific sites (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page, http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forside, http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huvudsida) I have found no other way to switch search language than going back to wikipedia.org and choose a new language. It would be really, really useful to have a "switch language link" on each language specific site, that would give a list of all the other language specific sites. So please....
Best regards, Jens Lund, Denmark
PS: I am aware of the "in other languages" side box. However, this box only appears for searches that give results for the same words and only list languages with results for the current search. The cases where I most often want to switch language is when my search do NOT return a useful result, and then the side box is not available!
(This has also been posted as Ticket#2006090510004272 to info-en-o@wikimedia.org where I got a reply to make the suggestion here. By accident I also posted this on the VPT page where it might not belong. Sorry for that!) 194.239.194.210 14:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
great idea, the side bar could have a link to an advanced search page, or any search page could have it, and it could have a scroll box where u ctrl or apple key the desired languges or select all, or the side bar could have a scroll list of languages with more thna 50,000 artiles and with a to search additional languges kinda think, idk but great idea! maybe a all encompassing international wikipedia search page, click on the languages you want to search in, then do your search and click the languges you want to search within Qrc2006 03:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I had meant to take a quick survey myself, but had not gotten around to it, so I thought that first I would ask if any previous, similar policy discussions had been asked about before. First a couple of questions: What percent of new pages are listed for speedy deletion? What percent of speedy deletion pages are by first time editors? Has the general wiki-population considered blocking brand new accounts from creating pages? I myself am guilty of creating a new page or two that has been speedily deleted, and, especially, when I was newly registered, uploading a copyrighted image, unaware of the difference. Couldn't wikipedia bar a new user from creating a new page until they have a minimal amount of edits under their belt, say 25? Also, couldn't the create a page script include text stating that one should not create an article about themselves, their band, their high school (basically, everything listed on Wikipedia:List_of_bad_article_ideas? It is my understanding that the new focus of this encyclopedia is to be quality, not quantity, so these changes might be due. Wouldn't these minimally invasive policies be a substantial improvement over the consideration of edits not becoming immediately available, instead having to be approved by a trusted editor? Just my 2 cents. Autopilots 06:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Hiring full-time Wikipedians in low-wage nations
I propose that a portion of either the Wikimedia Foundation's funds or a private fund generated by Wikipedians go towards paying the salaries of full-time Wikipedia contributors in low-wage nations. These people could be chosen from among prolific active Wikipedians in these nations, or experts in certain areas could be hired and trained to address specific systematic biases. It would be relatively cheap, allowing quite a few to be hired; more importantly, many of these users would be native speakers of the language of a small Wikipedia project, allowing them to substantially push these projects forward in addition to contributing to larger projects. I believe this would also have positive repercussions on people and communities in these nations, providing a new external income source and spreading the importance of knowledge and learning. This isn't to say that there isn't also value in hiring Wikipedians in the U.S., Western Europe, Canada, Australia, etc., but the yield per dollar would probably be not quite as good. Thoughts? Deco 11:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
-- Light current 23:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reward board is a first step. CG 13:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I dont know if this is the place for this or even whether this has been discussed(if not implemented) already. My suggestion is, instead of hiring editors in low wage countries, how about gifting poor schools in poor countries where poor students study with couple of computers and internet connections on the condition that they introduce wikipedia as part of the school curriculum. Students should be expected to contribute regularly(say atleast one article every 2 weeks in a language of their choice) or alternatively the teacher should give assignments which students would be required to put on the wikipedia and earn points. This will be a great way for disadvantaged students from poor financial backgrounds to lay hands on technology, be a part of it and learn a great deal in the process Sarvagnya 09:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest that once provided with computers, the learners will naturally find projects that are appropriate and valuable, as we pereive this to be. On a less high-minded note, the reputation and skills achievable from working extensively on this project should be transferable to more renumerative situations. DGG 22:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I think we should be able to upload images to our user space, or at least have a namespace for images that would be considered in one's user space. Many people use custom images in their userspace. 'FL a RN' (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there any way to search not only wikipedia but the whole foundation including wikispecies and wikinews etc.? If not, there should be, this could only help wiki users as they can find specifically what they want. Jonwood1 15:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 15:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but I still think its a mistake on Wiki's behalf not to have an all encorporating search function! Jonwood1 15:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 15:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I have designed and developed a bot that welcomes new accounts automatically. It is currently under disucssion on the Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval page (see here for the discussion) and requires more input from the wider non-bot comunity. Please see:
I appreciate all feedback and comments - it will be held in the highest regard.
Thanks very much. Ale_Jrb talk 16:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Disagreement |
Resolution |
A bot is less personal than a person. This defeats the point of welcoming them, doesn't it? |
I do not think so as such, no. Firstly, it is highly possible they won't even realise they are being welcomed by a bot, unless the bot is set to sign its welcomes. This could be done, so a not to try and hide the fact, but still think it would help. Surely any message is better than none, where a user will feel lonely, confused and left out? Even if they ignore the welcomeness from the message, it still provides good links for the user to use. |
A bot like that would never be able to welcome everyone as if it tried, it would be to much of a server hog. What's the point then? |
It is better to welcome some users, than ignore them all. |
Some users like to go around welcoming users. You'd be stopping them from doing what they want to do. |
As I said earlier, the bot would not welcome everyone as if it were set to, it would use up quite a few resources. This would leave users that other people are welcome to welcome. Even if it were set to welcome everyone, it would not be running all the time and this in turn would leave users to welcome. Even if it were running all the time, and welcoming every single account created, people could still leave a Hello note or even a different welcome temaplte. There is nothing to stop them. |
What happens if the bot goes haywire and wastes resources by welcoming all users 50 times in a few seconds. It is a menace I tell you! |
Heh heh! Although this even is very close to impossible, there are plenty of safeguards in place. The bot is emergency shutoff compliant, as well as being able to be shut down by any normal user as well. It wouldn't happen, and if it did, it could be stopped. |
Users that haven't helped Wikipedia don't deserve to be welcomed! It would be a total waste! |
How could anyone say that? Just because they haven't made an edit doesn't mean they are not a person. Even if they never make an edit, you could save a person from depression simply by saying they are welcome somewhere. You never know what the results of your actions could be - it is always better to try. |
If it is going to be automated at all, why not let the wikipedia syustem do it? |
The software running the encyclopeida, and a bot, are two very different things. A automated message added by the Wikipedia software seems the least personal of all. A bot is less personal than a person, but slightly better. Even if the software added to the talkpage of the new user, as another user, it would not be hard for the person to figure out it is the software doing it. Also, for a bot, it is clear someone independant has gone to the trouble of writing and running it - this makes it yet more personal that an auto-message as such. Furthermore, as some users will not be welcomed by the bot running at a reasonable speed, it makes the users it does welcome feel even more special than they would normally, even before they have made the giant leap into editing. For those that are 'left out' by the bot, thy can be welcomed after their first edit as people are now, or welcomed by other users. Even if they don't get welcomed at all, some users and better than no users. |
Of course, I would not wish to do anything without a large amount of support, a be bold policy or not, and if people disagree, I shall leave it to be removed from the bot page - after all, it was just a hobby which I thought might be useful. If you haven't read what else I had to say, and wish to, it can be viewed at [ [1]].
Regards, Ale_Jrb talk 20:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I find it odd, however, that you should think I was trying to make it trick people. I am unsure of what question you were referring to, but the one about why not let Wikipedia software do it automatically, I was not saying it was a person - I said it was less personal than that. I simply said I think it is more personal than an automated message from the sopftware to everyone. It may be helpful to my future writing skill if you would be so kind as to clarify how I could better put across the ideas I have. If you wish to do so, that is - say what I could improve in the future, please do so on my talk page as I shall no longer watch this page.
Thanks again to all responses. Regards, Ale_Jrb talk 21:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Announcement: I've moved the templates Move to Wikibooks, Move to Wikibooks Cookbook, and Move to Wikisource, to Copy to Wikibooks, Copy to Wikibooks Cookbook, Copy to Wikisource. In case anyone is interested, or wishes to congratulate me or vigorously disagree. See the talk pages for each of the templates. -- Xyzzyplugh 05:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
After briefly reading User:Shanes/Why tags are evil I came running here with an idea. I propose putting all the tags listed in Template:protection templates on the page where you actually edit the article (In other words the page that comes up when you click edit this page). Why? for the reason why Shanes belives this tags are disruptive on the article page (See User:Shanes/Why tags are evil). What do you guys think? - Tutmosis 00:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I have been plodding around Wikipedia for a while, and i'd like to think that i have a decent feel for the nature of things.
I cant really fault the system; it's obvious that alot of careful consideration and planning, not to mention efficient management, has gone into the establishment of the growing internet resource that is Wikipedia.
I have but a few ideas that i'd like to air, with apologies in advance if what i say is either presumptuous, innapproprate, or simply old hat.
Firstly, i have come across several articles that are so complete and succinct, so fulfilling of any academic criterea imaginable, that i see no reason why they should continue to be open to change. These articles are often even authored by qualified experts on the subject, although it is often hard to tell- and ill get onto that in a moment. However, should it not be that such articles be given a special status? Something that prevents further direct editing to the article, so that its validity is maintained? The accumulation of such articles may provide an inspiration for further "professionalisation" of other important topics in wikipedia, contributing to the overall reliability of the site.
This should even go towards quelling the professional distrust of Wikipedia that is nurtured by private academics.
The edit-locking would not have to be as absolute as that which is declared on the articles that are subject to constant vandalism; merely something that designates it as especially meritable.
Secondly, as i briefly brought up, it is often frustrating for me to be unable to know the name author, and/or the qualifications thereof, of the article that i am reading. To be sure, this anonymity grants all authors the equal chance to submit an article that is read as credulously as the next. Yet isnt the goal for wikipedia to be self-improving? Surely, naming the creators of an article would encourage both a wider readership, and a more competitive authorship of similar articles?
Fellow wikipedians, feel free to comment, criticise (nicely :D) or even add further suggestions. Elysium 845 13:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Well there you go, years ahead of me. Another (no doubt similarly outdated) suggestion, has the creation of a "Wiktionary" been suggested? I would need to think more about how the user-editing system would work, but im sure something could be arranged. The same goes for a thesaurus (Wiki-saurus??) perhaps even - and im getting ahead of myself here - a basic translating service? (cant seem to make a digestable portamenteau out of "Wikipedia" and "Translator". Wikslator?) I havent the foggiest notion about how much of a workload this would add to the current ministry of Wikipedia.
The other immediate issue is that, if such a resource were appended, would this be getting beyond the bounds of an encyclopedia? The answer, by definition, is yes... and yet, has "Trying new things" ever been an issue for a western corporation? I say, on the internet, regularity and decorum are both increasingly endangered species - and rightly so! Elysium 845 07:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I was in History, [meaning that I was looking at a page's history [if you need more clarification, please let me know]] but instead of going to the article's talk page, I wanted to edit the article's talk page, more specifically, post. But, alas, I there was not direct button to do so. Same request; could you developers remedy this please?! Thanks! I'll post this in its own section, & I'll take these requests to Proposals. 100110100 08:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I would like to see the opinions of the community before creating a (potentally conterversal) Wikipedia page about this. As you may know, 207.118.42.253, added the the "Steve Irwin is dead LOLOLOLOL" etc. to the Steve Irwin artical earlier this morning. His antics have attracted the attention of the international news media, and IMHO the incident/207.118.42.253 deserves an artical. Opinions are appricated. Old TI-89 ( u| t| c) 19:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Strongly oppose the idea of an article drawing attention to this vandlism. See also WP:RBI. For those interested, there is discussion of the pros and cons of semiprotecting prominent timely articles against vandalism raised in a pending request for arbitration. Newyorkbrad 16:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
If you wish to get help, place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and someone will respond.
I am suggesting a similar template for placing on the talk pages of articles which require the assistance of an admin. The template would contain parameters for telling the admin what is happening and what help you need.
For example, I currently wish to place the proposed template on Talk:MapleStory, with the following message:
There is currently an edit war between two anonymous users, 219.75.107.97 and 68.78.148.16. 219.75.107.97 has violated 3RR. In addition, two other anonymous vandals, 203.45.125.4 and 203.164.95.238, are repeatedly vandalising the article. I request that the MapleStory article be semi-protected and all three IPs be blocked. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
P.S. If you are an admin, please help me with this, if the issue has not yet been resolved.
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Just so we know, there are more information found at Third Opinon and Semi-Protection Request
-- Mapletip 07:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Should they be desysopped after say 6 months?-- Light current 15:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
THey promised to deliver before they were elected, now they just sit on their hands! Its an insult to the Wikicommunity!-- Light current 20:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
A promise to be active forever is not required of anyone who wishes to become an admin. OK So I could get elected and then do nothing other than protect myself in wheelwars when attacked by people like you?! can you see my point?-- Light current 23:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Perennial proposal, I'm sure. Kim Bruning 23:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
General response to thread. I think priveliges should expire automatically after a certain period of inactivity. We think we have 1000 Admins but since most are inactive, in effect we dont. -- Light current 13:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Would it be possible for a bot or program similar to that that maintains
Most Wanted Articles to create a list of the most linked to stubs, to help target work? smurrayinch
ester(
User), (
Talk) 18:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
D'oh. Doesn't seem to be updated too often, though. Alai 17:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so here's the situtation: I was recently on an article's talk page history. But then I wanted to go to the article's history, so I clicked on article. But, unfortunatly, I went to the article page instead. So I realized I there was no way to go from a talk page's history to an article's history, and probably vice versa. Hopefully the programers could add something that could help? Was this post confusing? Please let me know on my talk page, if there's anything you don't understand. Thanks. 100110100 23:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed the following tag been placed on some articles, such as Yahoo! trolling phenomena:
This article's tone or style may not reflect the
encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. |
However, the tag does not include a link to any page regarding tone. The guide to writing better articles does not say much about tone.
For most similar tags, there is a link to the relevant policy page. For example, the word "neutrality" in the following tag:
The
neutrality of this article is
disputed. |
Perhaps we could create a policy, guideline or help page about tone, and add a link to it from the template, to help contributors who wish to improve the tone of the article.
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. I'm not pushing for a policy page that states all articles must be written in encyclopediac tone. I'm pushing for a page - probably a guideline - that offers tips to those who wish to write encyclopediac tone or improve the tone of an article. It is one thing to know an article is not NPOV, and another thing to fix the article to make it NPOV - the same applies to tone. For NPOV, there's the NPOV tutorial.
A couple of days ago, I cleaned up the lead section of the AdventureQuest article to fix some serious tone problems. As Mgm has pointed out, by reading many Wikipedia articles, I have gotten a feel for encyclopediac tone; what do you think of the tone of the new lead section? -- J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
For some reason people aren't finding the WP:VFAQ. Newbies still don't know the search index lags behind and even more fail to note the search box is case-sensitive. Perhaps we should put a helpful link to Wikipedia:Search in the search box to give them some guidance on how to use it most effectively. What do you think? - Mgm| (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia seems to have some complicated and arcane rules about case sensitivity in the search box, which means that you sometimes aren't taken to the article you're looking for unless someone had gone through the process of setting up multiple redirect pages with different combinations of case. To give just one example, searching for "wir bank" doesn't take you to the "WIR Bank" article (in fact, it doesn't even find it on the first page of the search results). Pretty much every other web search facility I've ever used is case-insensitive, and my guess is that case-insensitivity is what 99% of people want and expect 99% of the time. I think, therefore, that it's high time Wikipidea search was fixed to be entirely case-insensitive. Matt 10:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC).
This doesn't appear to be perennial, so:
If I've missed setting this option or the like, apologies; please indicate. Thanks, David Kernow 14:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
From | Bob |
---|---|
To | George |
Subject | Hello |
Message | This is a test |
From | Bob <bob@example.com> |
---|---|
To | George <george@example.com> |
Subject | Hello |
Message | This is a test |
From | Bob |
---|---|
To | George |
Send cc | Yes |
Subject | Hello |
Message | This is a test |
From | Bob <bob@example.com> |
---|---|
To | George <george@example.com> |
cc | Bob <bob@example.com> |
Subject | Hello |
Message | This is a test |
From | Bob <bob@example.com> |
---|---|
To | George <george@example.com> |
cc | Bob <bob@example.com> |
Subject | Hello |
Message | This is a test |
From | Bob <bob@example.com> |
---|---|
To | Bob <bob@example.com> |
bcc | George <george@example.com> |
Subject | Hello |
Message | This is a test |
From | Bob <bob@example.com> |
---|---|
To | Bob <bob@example.com> |
Subject | Hello |
Message | This is a test |
From | Bob <bob@example.com> |
---|---|
To | George <george@example.com> |
Subject | Hello |
Message | This is a test |
From | Bob <bob@example.com> |
---|---|
To | Bob <bob@example.com> |
Subject | Hello |
Message | You sent this message to George:
This is a test |
I don't have e-mail enabled, but if I did, and e-mailed another user through the Wikipedia-provided function, could I go to Gmail's "Sent Mail" folder and find the mail?-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed that on the English Wikipedia (in contrast to most others!) pages like Recent changes, Page history and Diff view are really hard to use and intimidating to novice users and non-geeks. I have posted a list of improvement proposals here: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Helge.at/Wording -- Helge.at 23:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Carnildo's RfA led me to wonder about separating the ability to delete pages from other admin powers. I'm pretty sure I've read discussion of this somewhere else, but I can't find that discussion at the perennial proposals page, so I thought I'd ask about it here. Carnildo seems a very clearcut case; the community can't agree to entrust him with the blocking bit, but a lot of the opposes and neutrals are indicating they'd like him to have the ability to delete pages, because of his sterling work with images.
I would assume this would require a change to the underlying software, so perhaps this discussion should be at Meta, which I'm not yet very familiar with. If the software supported it, however, then I would assume we would have an RfDb process which allow users to request only the deletion bit; RfA would still result in users being given all the current admin capabilities. Perhaps we could call users with only the deletion bit "Janitors", and have an RfJ process? Mike Christie (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I once proposed a new level of adminship, called "trial adminship", which would entrust the new admin with a basic set of admin tools, so their admin actions could be reviewed by more experienced admins (not other trial admins), and they could be subsequently promoted to "full admin". This would give Wikipedia more admins (there are plenty of backlogs which need admins to clear) with less risk. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Concerning [2], does anyone think it might make sense to bring up with the developers having a log visible to admins of who has viewed deleted edits from what articles? This would make it easy to deal with admins who are posting deleted content elsewhere. JoshuaZ 14:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand why some people want to change wikipedia to a locked site (where viewers can't see changes till they have been approved by editors).
I make the following counter Proposal:
Instead of hiding edits until they are approved, show them but label them as 'unexamined'.
Color code it as well - unexamined edits could be in pale yellow instead of bluish white.
The first line at the top of the page could say:
This page has recently been changed. It has not yet been examined for accuracy. If you suspect it is in error, click here to request a Wikipedia editor examine it.
Links to those pages could also be color coded as dark yellow, instead of the standard blue.
Gurps npc 15:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I have a proposal on the above topic. Where should it be posted?-- Light current 02:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Since Wik insists on making the instruction and guide pages extremely hard to find and use, maybe a search function for editing and use vocabulary could help. For example, some-one trying to find out what some (stupid) abbreviation (e.g., MWA) means or how to do a revert could use such a function. Kdammers 02:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be a great improvement to the "random article" feature if one could limit the articles generated to a specific catergory (or categories) as people have fields of interests, and no one is really interested in everything. It could be done in an easy to use way if once the user chose a category in wikipedia's main page, the "random article" buttom will generate only articles from that category.
Please consider
Yair Yairlavi 20:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Would implementing a way so if a 'crat blocks an admin the admin can't unblock his/her self? (other admins could still unblock). This would be a useful feature so if an admin goes on a rampage and there are no stewards around, the b'crat could temporarily "disable" their admin powers but other admins can also "reenable" them too so it would be kind of like desysoping but less powerful. GeorgeMoney ( talk) 21:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that Wikipedia users should be able to upload anything that doesn't violate copyright or have personal attacks, including ZIP files and EXE files, but downloaders of these formats should be faced with a disclaimer about viruses. 'FL a RN' (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm from Slovene Wikipedija. It's medium sized, however us is to little for any more portals. I wnt to make Portal:Help - Help portal. English Wikipedia is big and portals revive easily. On this portal I wnt to have three sections:
How does semm to you? Grettings, Mihael Simonič 09:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I have found that of course an encyclopedia must use encyclopedic, well wikipedic choice of words that are academic and even pedantic wording to get the point accross the best way possible, but i have run into some articles whose wording uses technical jargon to such an extent that the majority fo readers probably would have a hard time understanding it without looking up several words per senatnce thoughtout the article, this is why i propose a new tag for overly complex and esoteric articles so in the hardest to read places explanations could be provided in parenthases or more common but not laypeople's terms could be used in exhcnage for exessive jargon
any thoughts?
{{ readability}} or {{ too-complex}} could be it.
Qrc2006 01:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
On many of the pages on Wikipedia that I have tried to add accurate information on there have been people who are very possessive of those articles and delete any info that is put on "their" page. This is very discouraging for anyone, especially new people. I didn't find any policies on Wikipedia that deal with this problem. I believe there should be a written policy that states that article are public domain, and warns people not to become possessive of articles. I believe a lot of editing wars a the result of people believing that an article is theirs.
Thank you I was unable to find the policy before.
While that may be true for a few individuals, usually a request for comment resolves the deadlock. Most editors concede the point or look at things a different way when a consensus emerges. Durova 23:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes a person forms a strong personal attachment to an article. When this happens adding content that does not fit with that person's world view can be extremely difficult. In the case of the Alireza Jafarzadeh article, one particular editor reverted the article a couple of times a week for months. A browse through the history will show periods where one or more people took an interest in the article, improved it, saw their work repeatedly reverted and eventually gave up. Articles where two people, or groups, with opposite views edit may erupt into edit wars. Where one editor is fanatical about a POV and other editors have a mere intellectual interest it may end up as a war of attrition. It is usually the fanatic rather than the intellectuals who have the tenacity to win such a war. This is a serious flaw with the Wikipedia philosophy. -- Dave 00:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
hello,
i got an idea, may be not the first one, but: what about activating the cursor/field where u can tipe in the word to search for yet when loading the page for the first time. most people wanna find a special article, i guess, and have to click it first.
it speeds up the search and makes it a lot easier.
a good example is "dict.leo.org"
so far
thank u all for that important resource!
Sebastian Hümmeler University of Regensburg
I would like to create some lists of people of special characteristics:
The list of geniuses just got deleted. None of the reasons had anything to do with whether or not the people on the list were geniuses or not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of geniuses.
A similar fate happened to the list of polymaths not too long ago. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of polymaths.
I really liked those lists, and found them quite informative. As far as I could tell, neither of those lists included any information that wasn't included in the articles about the people listed. Both lists were about people who were leaders in their respective areas of endeavor, and very effective achievers. Just the type of people who make great mentors and great exemplars. People worth emulating. Unfortunately, those articles are gone now, and there aren't any other articles remotely similar to them that I could find on Wikipedia. (If there are, whatever you do, don't point them out, as someone may immediately try to delete them.)
I tried to create a new list of geniuses from scratch, and it was speedily deleted, so it appears the concept is being censored.
Is it acceptable to censor the above list ideas?
Are these not allowed on Wikipedia for some reason?
My question is, how would one go about creating the above lists without them being censored, AfD'd, speedily deleted, reverted, etc.?
My proposal is that we find an acceptable solution for lists of this type to exist.
Any input/advice you could provide would be most appreciated.
-- Nexus Seven 04:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC), aka The Transhumanist
I suggest we start a list here, and when it achieves the quality of an allowable list, we move it to the appropriate page. Does anyone disagree that the following individuals were geniuses?
Nexus Seven, aka The Transhumanist
Unfortunately, "genius" is a widely enough used positive term that it will be attached to people who are not associated primarily with intellectual pursuits. For example, here is a page with two published authors referring to Mohammed as a genius [3] - and if you add him, every other religious leader will want to be added. Here is a book referring to Jay Gould as a genius right in its title [4]. Here is are Wikipedia articles about musical albums referring to their artists as geniuses: The Genius of Ray Charles, Genius: The Best of Warren Zevon. And of course Genius (rapper). Are these people you intended to have on your list? Any list of people who have been referred to as geniuses by verifiable sources will contain a noticeable fraction of the content of the Wikipedia, and therefore will be useless. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Genius is unquantifiable, even though we do have standards above which a person is classified as a genius. We can't, for instance place people with genius scores on the Stanford-Binet test on the same list as people considered to be geniuses. Say Isaac Newton or Leonardo... do they (who cannot be objectively quantified) have to share list space with for instance me? I may have scored genius on the Stanford-Binet test, but I would never put myself on a par with a historic genius... who of course would never make the list because of no quantifiable objective criteria with which to categorise them. I'm not against lists, just that some of them won't work. User:Pedant 05:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I have been going around wikipedia and I have seen many articles about middle aged weapons, bronze aged buildings and modern systems reference games, saying it is featured in games like Civilization. I think these references is cruft and the game's own article should reference these weapons, buildings and systems instead. I propose we remove game references that are not highly relevant to an article. This will stop game developers plugging games all over wikipedia, which is spam, and help cut down on article size keeping the most notable parts, thus raising the quality of articles. -- Orbit One Talk| Babel 15:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I would like to cite another user who made a very good point on Talk:Saint_Basil's_Cathedral
Maybe a test that asks if a generation of people were affected by a references content of any type would be a good standard of determining if a reference is noteworthy or not. Any suggestions as to what the test should be? -- Orbit One Talk| Babel 22:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
In many cases though, they are vieled directories, which in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is more or less bannished, their removal is more than warented as a matter of policy. -- Orbit One Talk| Babel 23:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
May I offer a case for the other side? The featured list Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc began as a "popular culture" section at the end of the Joan of Arc article. It now includes - among many other categories including operas and literature - twelve separate computer games. To the best of my knowledge, the English language Wikipedia is the only resource that collects references to Joan of Arc in popular songs, television, games, anime, and manga. Joan of Arc isn't just remembered as a dusty play by George Bernard Shaw and a statue in Paris's Place des Pyramides: she's an emcee in the 2005 film Reefer Madness and Lisa Simpson plays her in a 2002 series episode. Irreverent? Certainly! Trivial? Not necessarily. This information helps parents and teachers who want to inspire interest in history. It also demonstrates Joan of Arc's continuing relevance to modern life. It's so simple to copyedit and organize and even verify these submissions that I wonder how some editors manage to take offense - and not one of the many entries I verified proved to be a hoax. Durova 16:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
It is, indeed, possible to write good "X in (popular) culture" sections or articles but it takes a lot of work and the typical such section is quite poor and possibly worse than nothing. Some of the problems:
I'm currently working on Battle of Svolder. I put a lot of time into writing the legacy/cultural references section and I'm putting that forward as my best attempt on how these sections should look like. It doesn't cover works which only mention the battle in passing, only those where it plays a large part. It's written in coherent prose and illustrated with freely licenced images. It covers works from the 15th century to the 21st, mentioning medieval poems as well as a rock song and a manga volume. Haukur 11:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to point out Talk:Hwacha as an example of what OrbitOne is referring to. Nowhere in the discussion does he allege that it is developers plugging games. He just seems to dislike game references, even when they are obviously not plugs. He, in my opinion is trying to ramrod the discussion about removing the references. For instance, he has represented that a 2 to 3 vote in favor of keeping the text in question as actually being a consensus. Not only that but he says it is a consensus to delete with only 2 votes to delete and 3 votes to keep. He characterises the text as a 'game directory' when it clearly is not. Personally, I think the game references are worthwhile, as they show the relevance in today's times of what would otherwise be an obscure medieval slingshot. I think that the more crossreferences there are, the better. If we keep the Bajoran wormhole and Muggle, certainly we can keep things that actually exist! User:Pedant 05:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Currently all categories are put in the Category: namespace, but I think we have to create a namespace (for example called "WCategory:") to separate categories only used for the Wikipedia administration from categories used for encyclopaedic articles. For example currently we distinguish Wikipedia:Portal and Portal so I think it would be more rigorous to do the same with Category:Portals and WCategory:Portals. Hence it could be more clear and homogeneous (I mean instead of having category like Category:Wikipedia templates and Category:Portals, we will have WCategory:Templates and WCategory:Portals and the top-level category will be WCategory:Administration). Moreover, since I think a such organisation is independent of language, this new namespace should be used in all Wikipedias of different languages. 16@r 00:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
i recently had to tag an article ( Carriage Hills, Richmond, California) because it was full of inaccuracies, it wasnt a hoax. But for example this person called upper middle class tract houses "estates" and said certain roads went to certain places and she was only half right. so i propose the creation of the neg tag for false statements and inconsistant numbers et cetera
The anon friendly WHOIS template.. exists now, just thought I'd let you know. Happy editing-- {anon iso − 8859 − 1 janitor} 23:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
You might be able to improve your database by letting people people request more detail in specific areas of the database. A button under subject headers, much like a poll, would make contributors aware that more detail is thought possible in a particular area.
Even allowing people to type in requests would be great.
I've brought this up before, but in the interest of permanence and citability I've now written an essay about it at User:Deco/Named topic bias. To quote: "The named topic bias is a particular natural bias possessed by all encyclopedias: a tendency to create more articles — and more detailed articles — on topics with a single, widely-agreed upon name." I'd be interested in any feedback or changes. I do not own this article, so be bold. Deco 01:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Because wikipedia takes a neutral view on its articles, it would be nice if there was a special link on each page for opinions. For example, for articles on products, the opinions page can include user reviews on whether the product works well, what are some problems they had, etc. This can also be implemented for media such as books, movies, music. Jettabebetta
I think there is a need for a new tag like "cleanup" or "advertisement" for articles whose choice of words may be easyly construed as offensive or rather are purposefully use dyspemisms and other potentially POV unconscience terms. I propose it read:
This article may be using dysphemisms and other terminology which may contsrue the conotation of the terminology to incite a POV or opinion. Please help wikipedia by finding alternative wording
The tag could be
{{ dysphemism}}
Any thoughts? Qrc2006 01:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I do believe this is a separate issue from the NPOV tag since its a subtler incidance which may be overlooked by a NPOV tag, or may remain even after NPOV cleanup and removal of said tag.
Qrc2006 01:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I often look up information on Wikipedia after viewing a History Channel special, only to find the information does not exist in an article yet. While some programs are sensational or speculative, others do have good research and can have the sources and professionals in the shows used as references for an article. Of course other perspectives need to exist if the experts are too one sided. I don't care for the views or opinions as much as the research and accuracy that some of these programs have, and would like to see the important information transcribed into an article. At least for the shows that are well referenced, well cited, and can be backed up with source checking.
Mediawiki really needs to add a spell check to the search. Like what Google does when you misspell a word, Google offers the word spelled correctly. Wikipedia needs that.
I am proposing the deletion of this system of listing free license images which is duplicative of WikiCommons. Consensus building discussion is on Wikipedia talk:List of images. Rmhermen 15:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
We have a number of Move to templates, Move to Wiktionary, Move to Wikibooks, Move to Wikisource, etc. I believe they should all be renamed to "Copy to x". First of all, the transwiki process does not move the article at all, it just copies it, so the new names would actually be accurate. Second, there is a problem with the "move to" templates, that being that people will often remove the template in order to stop what they believe will be the removal of the article from wikipedia. This is especially a problem in that there is always a backlog in the transwiki process, putting a Move to Wikibooks Cookbook tag on an article will result in it sitting there for 3 or 4 or 5 months until someone finally gets around to transwikiing it. This is a lot of time for someone else to come along and think, "no, don't delete this wonderful chocolate fudge brownie recipe!", and remove the template. And, note that some of the templates have already had their text changed so that they read, for example, "This page is a candidate to be copied to the Wikibooks Cookbook".
For those who don't understand how this whole process works: putting a Move to x template on an article will (eventually) result in someone coming along and transwikiing it to wikibooks or wikisource or wherever. This simply copies the article there. Then the article is listed here in our transwiki log, where other people will come along and decide what to do with it now that it's been transwikied. If the article contained a recipe, they may simply remove the recipe and leave the rest of the article intact. If the article is nothing but a recipe, they may decide to remove the recipe and expand the article, or they may decide to nominate the article for deletion if expansion into a real wikipedia article doesn't seem possible. As a result of the way this works, having a Move to (or Copy to) tag on an article should not be controversial, because it in itself does nothing but proposes that a copy of the article be made to elsewhere.-- Xyzzyplugh 01:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a proposal to change the anon talk page text. Please comment at MediaWiki talk:Anontalkpagetext to voice your opinion. — Mets501 ( talk) 04:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
In schools worldwide, students often hand in excellent articles of research only to have those papers locked away or trashed. Those thousands of potentially great papers could be used to further knowledge (if submitted in the form of an encyclopedic entry to Wikipedia). Since many schools (and most in the US) now have computers, it would be a natural step to combine students' efforts with the goals of Wikipedia, especially considering that Wikipedia is nonprofit.
The proposal:
A system is created for allowing schools to easily contribute students' efforts. Any teacher that intends to assign students the task of writing a research type paper (in an encyclopedic form) may ask students to find an article on Wikipedia that needs cleaning, or to be created from scratch. After the students claim their subject, the teacher can freeze those topics for the few weeks that the students will be working on them (or the students might work in the sandbox and save their work for later, so that the articles are frozen for only a few days instead, when they're ready to submit).
The teacher saves a snapshot of the original article (if there is one), and checks it against the article the student submits. After all the articles are graded (based on neutrality, grammer, etc), only the articles that receive an "A" (or "B+") are allowed for inclusion. All other articles revert back to their original state (before frozen).
While frozen, the article will be clearly identified as being worked by a student as a school project. In the talk pages, credit will go to the school, and if the student wishes, then to the student as well.
A teacher applies for special membership, and afterwards signs in with a regular username to freeze selected articles during future classroom projects. A teacher may deactivate that special membership whenever it is no longer needed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Boozerker ( talk • contribs)
The optional part is for the student to work on the assignment in the sandbox and save a copy until ready. The article isn't frozen until then, and then it'd be for only a few days (while the student uploads the article). As for teachers dismissing Wikipedia, that isn't a fact. Many teachers only recommend caution when citing from Wikipedia, and students regularly visit it. Also, any news of teachers dismissing Wikipedia is probably slightly biased and mosly pertains to the United States, but even then -- how can can anyone say for sure that many teachers wouldn't have an open mind to such a project? I know teachers who are supportive, and there's bound to be many more out there. And if students are submitting scholastically reviewed articles, the reputation of Wikipedia is bound to improve. Boozerker 01:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, no freezing then. But it might still be an excellent move to invite teachers to submit student-written articles (or cleaned-up articles). After the student writes an article, and the teacher views its preview in the sandbox format, it takes one simple click to submit the article to Wikipedia. Boozerker 01:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:School and university projects. User:Zoe| (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Teachers and students can do what they like off-Wikipedia with the Mediawiki software, and of course can integrate their newly learned knowledge and refs into any appropriate WP article. But as a former teacher, I can see real conflicts of interest between the class's needs and Wikipedia's needs. For WP's sake, I'd be really against anything that encouraged either of the following two probs:
So I strongly feel Wikipedia should be left as it is. But the suggestions for schools' own wikis are great - like a school magazine with knobs on! They can be oriented to assessment and the requirements of the learning process, rather than ruthlessly to the final outcome, and also showcase students' work (protected when finished). The more I think about it, the more better it sounds, actually. Go for it! JackyR | Talk 17:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I love wikipedia.
I want wikipedia to be: 1. open 2. comprehensive 3. accurate
There is an inherent tension between quality(as seen by an expert) and openness. A critical aspect of our wiki is its popularity, Now, if the structure of wiki is changed to make one particular version of an article more authoritative, by definition: some guy who changes something will see his change automatically reverted, or invisible or hidden under some link or etc, this is a very undesirable thing because the ONE thing that has made wiki so powerful is a new user typing: "TESTING TESTING" any change to wiki that prevents this first dip in the water is fatal... take it away and the curious user will lose interest and we him... and as big as wiki is, don't kid yourself wiki will always need new blood. So... what to do about accuracy?
I think everyone would agree with the following: the essential problem is: we don't have enough experts with enough time to go through every change, find the bad ones, revert them, AND have enough time to find and fix up bad article AND put meat on stubs. What we need is a way to improve the situation.
I am a believer in techno solutions but all improvements must be focused on the psychology of the users. I believe that JW is a visionary. In the features and policies that he has adopted; but much more importantly in the ones he hasn't adopted, he has resisted (so far) the urge to "protect" wiki thus giving it its power.
Finally I’d like to present my own proposal, which although small, has been mulled over for a long time. (please note that the wording, format or options in this proposals are just general suggestions and should be changed to whatever seems better), but essentially:
you (any user) open an article and see bad quality... you click on a link asking "does this article need improvement?"... you select options indicating the article has problem(s)... the article goes into a category of less-than-perfect articles and automatically gains a header stating "this article has been reported as not being of high quality". and it will stay that way until someone makes ANY non-minor edit to the article... at the same time a link on the main page points users (or just experts) to problem pages.
Notes:
thank you for your time Esmehwk 12:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
other suggestions: traffic counters chat rooms in the talk pages or chat rooms dedicated to particular portals etc generally more user-friendly and topic connected chartrooms
Ok, I think this is the correct format:
Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I am a semi-regular user and I just wanted to say that their should be a special section for explaining the information in laymen's terms. Several times I have tried to understand what the article is actually trying to say but I have to sift through a bunch of jargon first. Just food for thought.
We all know that Wikipedia is not censored. However, sometimes when the Random Article buttom is clicked, an inappropriate page will come up. So, I suggest that administrators could flag pages as inappropriate so that they will be excluded from the Random Article possibilities if, and only if, it is set in the user's Preferences. I hope you consider this a good idea, like I do.
FLaRN2005
(talk) 19:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
An idea like the one above was proposed before. It basicly said users who wished to not view vertain images on certain articles could set their preferences to block flagged images and when they came across such an image, flag it so others who did not want to see it couldn't either. This was rejected on censorship grounds. If a person did not like what would be non-sexual or otherwise politically charge picture, they could block it for those who do not wish to see sexually charged images. It is a flawed idea and I think the author of this proposal has not considered there are moral differences between editors. What is offensive to one isn't to another. This would be a new feild for editwars. So I to think this is a very bad idea. -- Orbit One Talk| Babel 15:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC) This is a reasonable idea, but it'll never fly. For better or worse, Wikipedia is not censored for minors or people with sensitive dispositions. Herostratus 16:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The drawback to this idea is that it creates a false aura of "safe" around everything else. Although vandalism usually gets reverted quickly, there can be no guarantee that any page is free of vandalism at any given time. Why siphon volunteer energies into an impossible goal when there is so much more we could do to make the current content better? Durova 16:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212
i think the sex stub pic is heteronormative since it shows a symbol for a male and a female and excludes two men or two women.
any thoughts?
could a man/man and woman/woman symbo, be added in? or somthing else that represents sex like a bunch of flesh of differant people in a collage? Qrc2006 05:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
heterosexuality is not the normal state you biggot, you should be blocked for your homophobic remarks, that implies that gay people are not normal. In fact the normal state in nearly all species studied is 8 to 10% gay and bi and 90 to 92% straight. Who cares about hands, people with lees fingers are gentically defected or mamed, homosexulaity and bisexuality is natural and innate, and why should articles on gay sexuality have to have a male-female symbol on them if they are a stub? I'm not syaing we need a gajilion combinations, but the symbol could be more inclusive by for instance having 6 or 7 sex symbols in a line or circle alternating between male and female, and that way it does not imply any specific combination.
OR as i stated before a collage of pictures of legs and chests and breasts and penises and abdomens or arms intertwined might be an alternative? Qrc2006 08:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The symbol in the sex stub is as inclusive as necessary. It has a symbol for each possible participant. It is up to each sex article to describe who participates in what with whom, not the symbol itself. -- Dave 12:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to add your comments to these archived proposals.
Subject | Description |
---|---|
Dealing with vandalism | Should some editing restrictions be placed on new or unregistered users to help reduce vandalism, or at least be reviewed by others before taking effect? Should high-visibility articles be protected from editing? |
Search engine | How could Wikipedia's search engine be improved? |
Spell checker on Edit pages | Should Edit pages have a built-in spell checker? |
Always fill the summary field | Should the summary field below the edit box be required to be filled or automatically filled? |
Votes for Creation | Should there be a Votes for Creation page to complement the current Votes for Deletion? |
Subject | Description |
---|---|
Discussion format | Should Talk pages use a wiki interface or a more traditional forum format? |
... | ... |
... | ... |
Subject | Description |
---|---|
... | ... |
... | ... |
|}
Please support bug 4288 which is an enhancement that allows general tagging of revisions. This will allow user and group defined tags which can then be used for things like this project and possibly other stuff in the future. Thanks. -- Gbleem 23:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I wrote this page a few weeks ago as the beginning of what I hoped would become a guideline. Not knowing how to propose a guideline, I forgot about the page until today, where the link on {{ historical}} led me here. This page simly clarifies that episode summaries need sources like any other article. Reasons I have been given in the past that episode summaries are okay without sources:
Out of frustration that no one seems to notice that episode summariies aren't above un-ignorable WIkipedia policy, I made the page to clarify. -- Chris chat edits essays 17:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
As a user of WP, long before I though of editing, I've found this material enormously useful. For major works of any medium, there are good conventional sources; for fandom, the web has always done adequately. But for an organized system of high-quality articles , this is the place. I see no need to extensively document this, unless the fairness or accuracy of the summary is challenged. The purpose of documentation is so others can check your work. But for these topics, the episode itself is the documentation. Anyone who thinks the editor is careless automatically knows exactly where to check. Otherwise a reference would need to be given for every page of the book or frame of the video. If challenged, then it can be quoted or described. As I understand it, it might even be a copyright violation to give to paraphrase the whole. ----
The WP:NOR policy clearly states:
So use of the primary source is not original research. Original research is what creates primary sources, not what uses them. There are quite frequent cases when WP:NOR is misapplied to articles based on works of fiction and describing them, but the policy in fact directly endorses it, as long as no new fiction is introduced. CP/M comm | Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The presentation of most WikiProjects isn't very attractive. On fr: there's a standardized presentation for projects which gives results such as this one or that one. Is there anything similar here ? Sigo 16:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Please help contribute to the See alsos straw poll. Wikipedia:See alsos is a straw poll being developed and almost ready for polling. The purpose is to find consensus on good editing technique regarding see alsos--something not listed anywhere. I'd like those interested to help improve it. Anomo 11:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Why not have a wiki for each country where local information could be put that is not important enough for an article in the global wiki, and where articles that would be considered 'vanity' in global wiki could justifiably be inserted for local personalities of interest in their own country but not globally? For example, Joe Bloggs of Nowhereville, Country X, is a local headmaster and expert on Country X legends. He doesn't rate an entry in global WP but would look dandy and relevant in the WP for country X and would be referenced there by locals (or even non-locals) who have not found him in global WP. Lgh 03:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
i could like to post the suggestion to start wikipedia for mobiles so that mobile users can also use it through wap or other such service.pl reply to my talk page as well. Yousaf465
Hi, I'm still a relative newbie, so please forgive me if this topic has come up already. I've been involved with some science/math articles and it's often difficult to find the right level; what some people find obscure and difficult to understand, other people find trivially obvious and belabored. (See Talk:Hamilton-Jacobi equations and Talk:Photon, for example.) Also, it'd be nice sometimes to show a derivation or explain something in more detail than can be covered easily in a footnote, but which might be too short for its own article. So I was thinking of using subpages for these kinds of "extended footnotes". That way, the same topic could be covered in different depths, depending on how many subpages the reader was interested in following. We could even have subpages of subpages for readers who really wanted to delve into a topic. Intuitively, I suspect that this scheme won't work, but I can't exactly say why I think so. I'd appreciate everyone's opinion about the idea, or other suggestions for multi-level articles — thanks muchly! :D Willow 15:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Consensus can sometimes be hard to achieve in practice, and often harder to measure. Consensus polling is a method of adducing consensus for a given proposal, using a structured polling method which can easily indicate how many people are in support of a proposal, and how many people are not yet in support of a proposal.
A consensus poll is unlike traditional (evil) votes, which produce winners and losers; in a consensus poll there is only one proposal, which can be edited by the participants in the poll. This method aims to help people achieve a high level of consensus, rather than a low level of consensus (such as a mere majority or supermajority). Having only a single proposal aims to ensure that participants do actually work together to achieve a result which pleases as many people as possible, rather than encouraging them to compete against each other in order for their own proposal to succeed.
More information about consensus polling can be found at consensuspolling.org, and at the MeatballWiki. I encourage people who are interested in this method to try it out; the proposal page already contains a full set of instructions for setting up a new poll. I also encourage people to leave their comments at the talk page. -- bainer ( talk) 14:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add other users to our watchlists. I know that we are supposed to WP:AGF, but if a user has been vandalising a lot recently, I think it would be a good idea to be able to keep an eye on them without having to go through to their contribs page every time. --GW_Simulations User Page | Talk 20:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I've frequently wished I could add a User's contributions page to my Watchlist. User:Zoe| (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, thought, I could see many people feeling that such a change would be creepy and encourage wikistalking. What I normally do is add their username somewhere and use that to occasionally check their contributions (popups are good for this!). After all, most of the time the RC patrollers will catch the changes, so the most important thing to do is to scan their changes for ones that are still at the top. LinaMishima 00:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I often come across the following on Wikipedia
For example, the Freewebs article has a section entitled "Use of a Freewebs website as a reference to Wikipedia". This section looks suspicious, as Wikipedia articles generally avoid self-references. However, I'm not sure whether it should be deleted.
I suggest we have a page for reporting such edits/paragraphs, where they may be double-checked by another editor. The disadvantage of this idea is that the page may eventually have a backlog. Alternatively, we could place a template on the article to alert other editors. The disadvantage is that it would be harder to monitor such a template, and that the editor who fixes the edit must also remove the template.
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I posted a message about this on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), but that page seems to be essentially dead, since no one has posted to the page at all for a day and a half. Anyway, I was hoping that I could get some help in fixing the damage done by banned user Sheynhertz-Unbayg. You can check out what happened here. -- Kjkolb 00:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
How come the state/province etc. is included in the article title proper for every US city/town, most Canadian, Australian and Japanese cities/towns, a few Chinese cities/towns and almost none for other countries? If the intention is to disambiguate, then why include the subdivision in Hakodate, Hokkaido or Revillo, South Dakota which are the only places with those names? If including the subdivision for consistency, why Sydney and not Sydney, New South Wales (a redirect) when almost all Australian places have the state?. And if Sydney in Australia is the most likely article one wants if searching for Sydney, then why Los Angeles, California? Ohwell32 10:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
A suggestion for improving Wikipedia.org:
As a non-native english speaker I often do seaches in other languages than english (most often Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian in my case). However once at the language specific sites (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page, http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forside, http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huvudsida) I have found no other way to switch search language than going back to wikipedia.org and choose a new language. It would be really, really useful to have a "switch language link" on each language specific site, that would give a list of all the other language specific sites. So please....
Best regards, Jens Lund, Denmark
PS: I am aware of the "in other languages" side box. However, this box only appears for searches that give results for the same words and only list languages with results for the current search. The cases where I most often want to switch language is when my search do NOT return a useful result, and then the side box is not available!
(This has also been posted as Ticket#2006090510004272 to info-en-o@wikimedia.org where I got a reply to make the suggestion here. By accident I also posted this on the VPT page where it might not belong. Sorry for that!) 194.239.194.210 14:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
great idea, the side bar could have a link to an advanced search page, or any search page could have it, and it could have a scroll box where u ctrl or apple key the desired languges or select all, or the side bar could have a scroll list of languages with more thna 50,000 artiles and with a to search additional languges kinda think, idk but great idea! maybe a all encompassing international wikipedia search page, click on the languages you want to search in, then do your search and click the languges you want to search within Qrc2006 03:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I had meant to take a quick survey myself, but had not gotten around to it, so I thought that first I would ask if any previous, similar policy discussions had been asked about before. First a couple of questions: What percent of new pages are listed for speedy deletion? What percent of speedy deletion pages are by first time editors? Has the general wiki-population considered blocking brand new accounts from creating pages? I myself am guilty of creating a new page or two that has been speedily deleted, and, especially, when I was newly registered, uploading a copyrighted image, unaware of the difference. Couldn't wikipedia bar a new user from creating a new page until they have a minimal amount of edits under their belt, say 25? Also, couldn't the create a page script include text stating that one should not create an article about themselves, their band, their high school (basically, everything listed on Wikipedia:List_of_bad_article_ideas? It is my understanding that the new focus of this encyclopedia is to be quality, not quantity, so these changes might be due. Wouldn't these minimally invasive policies be a substantial improvement over the consideration of edits not becoming immediately available, instead having to be approved by a trusted editor? Just my 2 cents. Autopilots 06:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Hiring full-time Wikipedians in low-wage nations
I propose that a portion of either the Wikimedia Foundation's funds or a private fund generated by Wikipedians go towards paying the salaries of full-time Wikipedia contributors in low-wage nations. These people could be chosen from among prolific active Wikipedians in these nations, or experts in certain areas could be hired and trained to address specific systematic biases. It would be relatively cheap, allowing quite a few to be hired; more importantly, many of these users would be native speakers of the language of a small Wikipedia project, allowing them to substantially push these projects forward in addition to contributing to larger projects. I believe this would also have positive repercussions on people and communities in these nations, providing a new external income source and spreading the importance of knowledge and learning. This isn't to say that there isn't also value in hiring Wikipedians in the U.S., Western Europe, Canada, Australia, etc., but the yield per dollar would probably be not quite as good. Thoughts? Deco 11:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
-- Light current 23:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reward board is a first step. CG 13:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I dont know if this is the place for this or even whether this has been discussed(if not implemented) already. My suggestion is, instead of hiring editors in low wage countries, how about gifting poor schools in poor countries where poor students study with couple of computers and internet connections on the condition that they introduce wikipedia as part of the school curriculum. Students should be expected to contribute regularly(say atleast one article every 2 weeks in a language of their choice) or alternatively the teacher should give assignments which students would be required to put on the wikipedia and earn points. This will be a great way for disadvantaged students from poor financial backgrounds to lay hands on technology, be a part of it and learn a great deal in the process Sarvagnya 09:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest that once provided with computers, the learners will naturally find projects that are appropriate and valuable, as we pereive this to be. On a less high-minded note, the reputation and skills achievable from working extensively on this project should be transferable to more renumerative situations. DGG 22:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I think we should be able to upload images to our user space, or at least have a namespace for images that would be considered in one's user space. Many people use custom images in their userspace. 'FL a RN' (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there any way to search not only wikipedia but the whole foundation including wikispecies and wikinews etc.? If not, there should be, this could only help wiki users as they can find specifically what they want. Jonwood1 15:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 15:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but I still think its a mistake on Wiki's behalf not to have an all encorporating search function! Jonwood1 15:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 15:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I have designed and developed a bot that welcomes new accounts automatically. It is currently under disucssion on the Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval page (see here for the discussion) and requires more input from the wider non-bot comunity. Please see:
I appreciate all feedback and comments - it will be held in the highest regard.
Thanks very much. Ale_Jrb talk 16:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Disagreement |
Resolution |
A bot is less personal than a person. This defeats the point of welcoming them, doesn't it? |
I do not think so as such, no. Firstly, it is highly possible they won't even realise they are being welcomed by a bot, unless the bot is set to sign its welcomes. This could be done, so a not to try and hide the fact, but still think it would help. Surely any message is better than none, where a user will feel lonely, confused and left out? Even if they ignore the welcomeness from the message, it still provides good links for the user to use. |
A bot like that would never be able to welcome everyone as if it tried, it would be to much of a server hog. What's the point then? |
It is better to welcome some users, than ignore them all. |
Some users like to go around welcoming users. You'd be stopping them from doing what they want to do. |
As I said earlier, the bot would not welcome everyone as if it were set to, it would use up quite a few resources. This would leave users that other people are welcome to welcome. Even if it were set to welcome everyone, it would not be running all the time and this in turn would leave users to welcome. Even if it were running all the time, and welcoming every single account created, people could still leave a Hello note or even a different welcome temaplte. There is nothing to stop them. |
What happens if the bot goes haywire and wastes resources by welcoming all users 50 times in a few seconds. It is a menace I tell you! |
Heh heh! Although this even is very close to impossible, there are plenty of safeguards in place. The bot is emergency shutoff compliant, as well as being able to be shut down by any normal user as well. It wouldn't happen, and if it did, it could be stopped. |
Users that haven't helped Wikipedia don't deserve to be welcomed! It would be a total waste! |
How could anyone say that? Just because they haven't made an edit doesn't mean they are not a person. Even if they never make an edit, you could save a person from depression simply by saying they are welcome somewhere. You never know what the results of your actions could be - it is always better to try. |
If it is going to be automated at all, why not let the wikipedia syustem do it? |
The software running the encyclopeida, and a bot, are two very different things. A automated message added by the Wikipedia software seems the least personal of all. A bot is less personal than a person, but slightly better. Even if the software added to the talkpage of the new user, as another user, it would not be hard for the person to figure out it is the software doing it. Also, for a bot, it is clear someone independant has gone to the trouble of writing and running it - this makes it yet more personal that an auto-message as such. Furthermore, as some users will not be welcomed by the bot running at a reasonable speed, it makes the users it does welcome feel even more special than they would normally, even before they have made the giant leap into editing. For those that are 'left out' by the bot, thy can be welcomed after their first edit as people are now, or welcomed by other users. Even if they don't get welcomed at all, some users and better than no users. |
Of course, I would not wish to do anything without a large amount of support, a be bold policy or not, and if people disagree, I shall leave it to be removed from the bot page - after all, it was just a hobby which I thought might be useful. If you haven't read what else I had to say, and wish to, it can be viewed at [ [1]].
Regards, Ale_Jrb talk 20:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I find it odd, however, that you should think I was trying to make it trick people. I am unsure of what question you were referring to, but the one about why not let Wikipedia software do it automatically, I was not saying it was a person - I said it was less personal than that. I simply said I think it is more personal than an automated message from the sopftware to everyone. It may be helpful to my future writing skill if you would be so kind as to clarify how I could better put across the ideas I have. If you wish to do so, that is - say what I could improve in the future, please do so on my talk page as I shall no longer watch this page.
Thanks again to all responses. Regards, Ale_Jrb talk 21:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Announcement: I've moved the templates Move to Wikibooks, Move to Wikibooks Cookbook, and Move to Wikisource, to Copy to Wikibooks, Copy to Wikibooks Cookbook, Copy to Wikisource. In case anyone is interested, or wishes to congratulate me or vigorously disagree. See the talk pages for each of the templates. -- Xyzzyplugh 05:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
After briefly reading User:Shanes/Why tags are evil I came running here with an idea. I propose putting all the tags listed in Template:protection templates on the page where you actually edit the article (In other words the page that comes up when you click edit this page). Why? for the reason why Shanes belives this tags are disruptive on the article page (See User:Shanes/Why tags are evil). What do you guys think? - Tutmosis 00:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I have been plodding around Wikipedia for a while, and i'd like to think that i have a decent feel for the nature of things.
I cant really fault the system; it's obvious that alot of careful consideration and planning, not to mention efficient management, has gone into the establishment of the growing internet resource that is Wikipedia.
I have but a few ideas that i'd like to air, with apologies in advance if what i say is either presumptuous, innapproprate, or simply old hat.
Firstly, i have come across several articles that are so complete and succinct, so fulfilling of any academic criterea imaginable, that i see no reason why they should continue to be open to change. These articles are often even authored by qualified experts on the subject, although it is often hard to tell- and ill get onto that in a moment. However, should it not be that such articles be given a special status? Something that prevents further direct editing to the article, so that its validity is maintained? The accumulation of such articles may provide an inspiration for further "professionalisation" of other important topics in wikipedia, contributing to the overall reliability of the site.
This should even go towards quelling the professional distrust of Wikipedia that is nurtured by private academics.
The edit-locking would not have to be as absolute as that which is declared on the articles that are subject to constant vandalism; merely something that designates it as especially meritable.
Secondly, as i briefly brought up, it is often frustrating for me to be unable to know the name author, and/or the qualifications thereof, of the article that i am reading. To be sure, this anonymity grants all authors the equal chance to submit an article that is read as credulously as the next. Yet isnt the goal for wikipedia to be self-improving? Surely, naming the creators of an article would encourage both a wider readership, and a more competitive authorship of similar articles?
Fellow wikipedians, feel free to comment, criticise (nicely :D) or even add further suggestions. Elysium 845 13:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Well there you go, years ahead of me. Another (no doubt similarly outdated) suggestion, has the creation of a "Wiktionary" been suggested? I would need to think more about how the user-editing system would work, but im sure something could be arranged. The same goes for a thesaurus (Wiki-saurus??) perhaps even - and im getting ahead of myself here - a basic translating service? (cant seem to make a digestable portamenteau out of "Wikipedia" and "Translator". Wikslator?) I havent the foggiest notion about how much of a workload this would add to the current ministry of Wikipedia.
The other immediate issue is that, if such a resource were appended, would this be getting beyond the bounds of an encyclopedia? The answer, by definition, is yes... and yet, has "Trying new things" ever been an issue for a western corporation? I say, on the internet, regularity and decorum are both increasingly endangered species - and rightly so! Elysium 845 07:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I was in History, [meaning that I was looking at a page's history [if you need more clarification, please let me know]] but instead of going to the article's talk page, I wanted to edit the article's talk page, more specifically, post. But, alas, I there was not direct button to do so. Same request; could you developers remedy this please?! Thanks! I'll post this in its own section, & I'll take these requests to Proposals. 100110100 08:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I would like to see the opinions of the community before creating a (potentally conterversal) Wikipedia page about this. As you may know, 207.118.42.253, added the the "Steve Irwin is dead LOLOLOLOL" etc. to the Steve Irwin artical earlier this morning. His antics have attracted the attention of the international news media, and IMHO the incident/207.118.42.253 deserves an artical. Opinions are appricated. Old TI-89 ( u| t| c) 19:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Strongly oppose the idea of an article drawing attention to this vandlism. See also WP:RBI. For those interested, there is discussion of the pros and cons of semiprotecting prominent timely articles against vandalism raised in a pending request for arbitration. Newyorkbrad 16:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
If you wish to get help, place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and someone will respond.
I am suggesting a similar template for placing on the talk pages of articles which require the assistance of an admin. The template would contain parameters for telling the admin what is happening and what help you need.
For example, I currently wish to place the proposed template on Talk:MapleStory, with the following message:
There is currently an edit war between two anonymous users, 219.75.107.97 and 68.78.148.16. 219.75.107.97 has violated 3RR. In addition, two other anonymous vandals, 203.45.125.4 and 203.164.95.238, are repeatedly vandalising the article. I request that the MapleStory article be semi-protected and all three IPs be blocked. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
P.S. If you are an admin, please help me with this, if the issue has not yet been resolved.
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Just so we know, there are more information found at Third Opinon and Semi-Protection Request
-- Mapletip 07:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Should they be desysopped after say 6 months?-- Light current 15:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
THey promised to deliver before they were elected, now they just sit on their hands! Its an insult to the Wikicommunity!-- Light current 20:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
A promise to be active forever is not required of anyone who wishes to become an admin. OK So I could get elected and then do nothing other than protect myself in wheelwars when attacked by people like you?! can you see my point?-- Light current 23:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Perennial proposal, I'm sure. Kim Bruning 23:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
General response to thread. I think priveliges should expire automatically after a certain period of inactivity. We think we have 1000 Admins but since most are inactive, in effect we dont. -- Light current 13:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Would it be possible for a bot or program similar to that that maintains
Most Wanted Articles to create a list of the most linked to stubs, to help target work? smurrayinch
ester(
User), (
Talk) 18:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
D'oh. Doesn't seem to be updated too often, though. Alai 17:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so here's the situtation: I was recently on an article's talk page history. But then I wanted to go to the article's history, so I clicked on article. But, unfortunatly, I went to the article page instead. So I realized I there was no way to go from a talk page's history to an article's history, and probably vice versa. Hopefully the programers could add something that could help? Was this post confusing? Please let me know on my talk page, if there's anything you don't understand. Thanks. 100110100 23:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed the following tag been placed on some articles, such as Yahoo! trolling phenomena:
This article's tone or style may not reflect the
encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. |
However, the tag does not include a link to any page regarding tone. The guide to writing better articles does not say much about tone.
For most similar tags, there is a link to the relevant policy page. For example, the word "neutrality" in the following tag:
The
neutrality of this article is
disputed. |
Perhaps we could create a policy, guideline or help page about tone, and add a link to it from the template, to help contributors who wish to improve the tone of the article.
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. I'm not pushing for a policy page that states all articles must be written in encyclopediac tone. I'm pushing for a page - probably a guideline - that offers tips to those who wish to write encyclopediac tone or improve the tone of an article. It is one thing to know an article is not NPOV, and another thing to fix the article to make it NPOV - the same applies to tone. For NPOV, there's the NPOV tutorial.
A couple of days ago, I cleaned up the lead section of the AdventureQuest article to fix some serious tone problems. As Mgm has pointed out, by reading many Wikipedia articles, I have gotten a feel for encyclopediac tone; what do you think of the tone of the new lead section? -- J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
For some reason people aren't finding the WP:VFAQ. Newbies still don't know the search index lags behind and even more fail to note the search box is case-sensitive. Perhaps we should put a helpful link to Wikipedia:Search in the search box to give them some guidance on how to use it most effectively. What do you think? - Mgm| (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia seems to have some complicated and arcane rules about case sensitivity in the search box, which means that you sometimes aren't taken to the article you're looking for unless someone had gone through the process of setting up multiple redirect pages with different combinations of case. To give just one example, searching for "wir bank" doesn't take you to the "WIR Bank" article (in fact, it doesn't even find it on the first page of the search results). Pretty much every other web search facility I've ever used is case-insensitive, and my guess is that case-insensitivity is what 99% of people want and expect 99% of the time. I think, therefore, that it's high time Wikipidea search was fixed to be entirely case-insensitive. Matt 10:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC).
This doesn't appear to be perennial, so:
If I've missed setting this option or the like, apologies; please indicate. Thanks, David Kernow 14:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
From | Bob |
---|---|
To | George |
Subject | Hello |
Message | This is a test |
From | Bob <bob@example.com> |
---|---|
To | George <george@example.com> |
Subject | Hello |
Message | This is a test |
From | Bob |
---|---|
To | George |
Send cc | Yes |
Subject | Hello |
Message | This is a test |
From | Bob <bob@example.com> |
---|---|
To | George <george@example.com> |
cc | Bob <bob@example.com> |
Subject | Hello |
Message | This is a test |
From | Bob <bob@example.com> |
---|---|
To | George <george@example.com> |
cc | Bob <bob@example.com> |
Subject | Hello |
Message | This is a test |
From | Bob <bob@example.com> |
---|---|
To | Bob <bob@example.com> |
bcc | George <george@example.com> |
Subject | Hello |
Message | This is a test |
From | Bob <bob@example.com> |
---|---|
To | Bob <bob@example.com> |
Subject | Hello |
Message | This is a test |
From | Bob <bob@example.com> |
---|---|
To | George <george@example.com> |
Subject | Hello |
Message | This is a test |
From | Bob <bob@example.com> |
---|---|
To | Bob <bob@example.com> |
Subject | Hello |
Message | You sent this message to George:
This is a test |
I don't have e-mail enabled, but if I did, and e-mailed another user through the Wikipedia-provided function, could I go to Gmail's "Sent Mail" folder and find the mail?-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed that on the English Wikipedia (in contrast to most others!) pages like Recent changes, Page history and Diff view are really hard to use and intimidating to novice users and non-geeks. I have posted a list of improvement proposals here: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Helge.at/Wording -- Helge.at 23:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Carnildo's RfA led me to wonder about separating the ability to delete pages from other admin powers. I'm pretty sure I've read discussion of this somewhere else, but I can't find that discussion at the perennial proposals page, so I thought I'd ask about it here. Carnildo seems a very clearcut case; the community can't agree to entrust him with the blocking bit, but a lot of the opposes and neutrals are indicating they'd like him to have the ability to delete pages, because of his sterling work with images.
I would assume this would require a change to the underlying software, so perhaps this discussion should be at Meta, which I'm not yet very familiar with. If the software supported it, however, then I would assume we would have an RfDb process which allow users to request only the deletion bit; RfA would still result in users being given all the current admin capabilities. Perhaps we could call users with only the deletion bit "Janitors", and have an RfJ process? Mike Christie (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I once proposed a new level of adminship, called "trial adminship", which would entrust the new admin with a basic set of admin tools, so their admin actions could be reviewed by more experienced admins (not other trial admins), and they could be subsequently promoted to "full admin". This would give Wikipedia more admins (there are plenty of backlogs which need admins to clear) with less risk. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Concerning [2], does anyone think it might make sense to bring up with the developers having a log visible to admins of who has viewed deleted edits from what articles? This would make it easy to deal with admins who are posting deleted content elsewhere. JoshuaZ 14:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand why some people want to change wikipedia to a locked site (where viewers can't see changes till they have been approved by editors).
I make the following counter Proposal:
Instead of hiding edits until they are approved, show them but label them as 'unexamined'.
Color code it as well - unexamined edits could be in pale yellow instead of bluish white.
The first line at the top of the page could say:
This page has recently been changed. It has not yet been examined for accuracy. If you suspect it is in error, click here to request a Wikipedia editor examine it.
Links to those pages could also be color coded as dark yellow, instead of the standard blue.
Gurps npc 15:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I have a proposal on the above topic. Where should it be posted?-- Light current 02:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Since Wik insists on making the instruction and guide pages extremely hard to find and use, maybe a search function for editing and use vocabulary could help. For example, some-one trying to find out what some (stupid) abbreviation (e.g., MWA) means or how to do a revert could use such a function. Kdammers 02:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be a great improvement to the "random article" feature if one could limit the articles generated to a specific catergory (or categories) as people have fields of interests, and no one is really interested in everything. It could be done in an easy to use way if once the user chose a category in wikipedia's main page, the "random article" buttom will generate only articles from that category.
Please consider
Yair Yairlavi 20:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Would implementing a way so if a 'crat blocks an admin the admin can't unblock his/her self? (other admins could still unblock). This would be a useful feature so if an admin goes on a rampage and there are no stewards around, the b'crat could temporarily "disable" their admin powers but other admins can also "reenable" them too so it would be kind of like desysoping but less powerful. GeorgeMoney ( talk) 21:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that Wikipedia users should be able to upload anything that doesn't violate copyright or have personal attacks, including ZIP files and EXE files, but downloaders of these formats should be faced with a disclaimer about viruses. 'FL a RN' (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm from Slovene Wikipedija. It's medium sized, however us is to little for any more portals. I wnt to make Portal:Help - Help portal. English Wikipedia is big and portals revive easily. On this portal I wnt to have three sections:
How does semm to you? Grettings, Mihael Simonič 09:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I have found that of course an encyclopedia must use encyclopedic, well wikipedic choice of words that are academic and even pedantic wording to get the point accross the best way possible, but i have run into some articles whose wording uses technical jargon to such an extent that the majority fo readers probably would have a hard time understanding it without looking up several words per senatnce thoughtout the article, this is why i propose a new tag for overly complex and esoteric articles so in the hardest to read places explanations could be provided in parenthases or more common but not laypeople's terms could be used in exhcnage for exessive jargon
any thoughts?
{{ readability}} or {{ too-complex}} could be it.
Qrc2006 01:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
On many of the pages on Wikipedia that I have tried to add accurate information on there have been people who are very possessive of those articles and delete any info that is put on "their" page. This is very discouraging for anyone, especially new people. I didn't find any policies on Wikipedia that deal with this problem. I believe there should be a written policy that states that article are public domain, and warns people not to become possessive of articles. I believe a lot of editing wars a the result of people believing that an article is theirs.
Thank you I was unable to find the policy before.
While that may be true for a few individuals, usually a request for comment resolves the deadlock. Most editors concede the point or look at things a different way when a consensus emerges. Durova 23:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes a person forms a strong personal attachment to an article. When this happens adding content that does not fit with that person's world view can be extremely difficult. In the case of the Alireza Jafarzadeh article, one particular editor reverted the article a couple of times a week for months. A browse through the history will show periods where one or more people took an interest in the article, improved it, saw their work repeatedly reverted and eventually gave up. Articles where two people, or groups, with opposite views edit may erupt into edit wars. Where one editor is fanatical about a POV and other editors have a mere intellectual interest it may end up as a war of attrition. It is usually the fanatic rather than the intellectuals who have the tenacity to win such a war. This is a serious flaw with the Wikipedia philosophy. -- Dave 00:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
hello,
i got an idea, may be not the first one, but: what about activating the cursor/field where u can tipe in the word to search for yet when loading the page for the first time. most people wanna find a special article, i guess, and have to click it first.
it speeds up the search and makes it a lot easier.
a good example is "dict.leo.org"
so far
thank u all for that important resource!
Sebastian Hümmeler University of Regensburg
I would like to create some lists of people of special characteristics:
The list of geniuses just got deleted. None of the reasons had anything to do with whether or not the people on the list were geniuses or not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of geniuses.
A similar fate happened to the list of polymaths not too long ago. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of polymaths.
I really liked those lists, and found them quite informative. As far as I could tell, neither of those lists included any information that wasn't included in the articles about the people listed. Both lists were about people who were leaders in their respective areas of endeavor, and very effective achievers. Just the type of people who make great mentors and great exemplars. People worth emulating. Unfortunately, those articles are gone now, and there aren't any other articles remotely similar to them that I could find on Wikipedia. (If there are, whatever you do, don't point them out, as someone may immediately try to delete them.)
I tried to create a new list of geniuses from scratch, and it was speedily deleted, so it appears the concept is being censored.
Is it acceptable to censor the above list ideas?
Are these not allowed on Wikipedia for some reason?
My question is, how would one go about creating the above lists without them being censored, AfD'd, speedily deleted, reverted, etc.?
My proposal is that we find an acceptable solution for lists of this type to exist.
Any input/advice you could provide would be most appreciated.
-- Nexus Seven 04:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC), aka The Transhumanist
I suggest we start a list here, and when it achieves the quality of an allowable list, we move it to the appropriate page. Does anyone disagree that the following individuals were geniuses?
Nexus Seven, aka The Transhumanist
Unfortunately, "genius" is a widely enough used positive term that it will be attached to people who are not associated primarily with intellectual pursuits. For example, here is a page with two published authors referring to Mohammed as a genius [3] - and if you add him, every other religious leader will want to be added. Here is a book referring to Jay Gould as a genius right in its title [4]. Here is are Wikipedia articles about musical albums referring to their artists as geniuses: The Genius of Ray Charles, Genius: The Best of Warren Zevon. And of course Genius (rapper). Are these people you intended to have on your list? Any list of people who have been referred to as geniuses by verifiable sources will contain a noticeable fraction of the content of the Wikipedia, and therefore will be useless. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Genius is unquantifiable, even though we do have standards above which a person is classified as a genius. We can't, for instance place people with genius scores on the Stanford-Binet test on the same list as people considered to be geniuses. Say Isaac Newton or Leonardo... do they (who cannot be objectively quantified) have to share list space with for instance me? I may have scored genius on the Stanford-Binet test, but I would never put myself on a par with a historic genius... who of course would never make the list because of no quantifiable objective criteria with which to categorise them. I'm not against lists, just that some of them won't work. User:Pedant 05:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I have been going around wikipedia and I have seen many articles about middle aged weapons, bronze aged buildings and modern systems reference games, saying it is featured in games like Civilization. I think these references is cruft and the game's own article should reference these weapons, buildings and systems instead. I propose we remove game references that are not highly relevant to an article. This will stop game developers plugging games all over wikipedia, which is spam, and help cut down on article size keeping the most notable parts, thus raising the quality of articles. -- Orbit One Talk| Babel 15:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I would like to cite another user who made a very good point on Talk:Saint_Basil's_Cathedral
Maybe a test that asks if a generation of people were affected by a references content of any type would be a good standard of determining if a reference is noteworthy or not. Any suggestions as to what the test should be? -- Orbit One Talk| Babel 22:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
In many cases though, they are vieled directories, which in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is more or less bannished, their removal is more than warented as a matter of policy. -- Orbit One Talk| Babel 23:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
May I offer a case for the other side? The featured list Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc began as a "popular culture" section at the end of the Joan of Arc article. It now includes - among many other categories including operas and literature - twelve separate computer games. To the best of my knowledge, the English language Wikipedia is the only resource that collects references to Joan of Arc in popular songs, television, games, anime, and manga. Joan of Arc isn't just remembered as a dusty play by George Bernard Shaw and a statue in Paris's Place des Pyramides: she's an emcee in the 2005 film Reefer Madness and Lisa Simpson plays her in a 2002 series episode. Irreverent? Certainly! Trivial? Not necessarily. This information helps parents and teachers who want to inspire interest in history. It also demonstrates Joan of Arc's continuing relevance to modern life. It's so simple to copyedit and organize and even verify these submissions that I wonder how some editors manage to take offense - and not one of the many entries I verified proved to be a hoax. Durova 16:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
It is, indeed, possible to write good "X in (popular) culture" sections or articles but it takes a lot of work and the typical such section is quite poor and possibly worse than nothing. Some of the problems:
I'm currently working on Battle of Svolder. I put a lot of time into writing the legacy/cultural references section and I'm putting that forward as my best attempt on how these sections should look like. It doesn't cover works which only mention the battle in passing, only those where it plays a large part. It's written in coherent prose and illustrated with freely licenced images. It covers works from the 15th century to the 21st, mentioning medieval poems as well as a rock song and a manga volume. Haukur 11:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to point out Talk:Hwacha as an example of what OrbitOne is referring to. Nowhere in the discussion does he allege that it is developers plugging games. He just seems to dislike game references, even when they are obviously not plugs. He, in my opinion is trying to ramrod the discussion about removing the references. For instance, he has represented that a 2 to 3 vote in favor of keeping the text in question as actually being a consensus. Not only that but he says it is a consensus to delete with only 2 votes to delete and 3 votes to keep. He characterises the text as a 'game directory' when it clearly is not. Personally, I think the game references are worthwhile, as they show the relevance in today's times of what would otherwise be an obscure medieval slingshot. I think that the more crossreferences there are, the better. If we keep the Bajoran wormhole and Muggle, certainly we can keep things that actually exist! User:Pedant 05:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Currently all categories are put in the Category: namespace, but I think we have to create a namespace (for example called "WCategory:") to separate categories only used for the Wikipedia administration from categories used for encyclopaedic articles. For example currently we distinguish Wikipedia:Portal and Portal so I think it would be more rigorous to do the same with Category:Portals and WCategory:Portals. Hence it could be more clear and homogeneous (I mean instead of having category like Category:Wikipedia templates and Category:Portals, we will have WCategory:Templates and WCategory:Portals and the top-level category will be WCategory:Administration). Moreover, since I think a such organisation is independent of language, this new namespace should be used in all Wikipedias of different languages. 16@r 00:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
i recently had to tag an article ( Carriage Hills, Richmond, California) because it was full of inaccuracies, it wasnt a hoax. But for example this person called upper middle class tract houses "estates" and said certain roads went to certain places and she was only half right. so i propose the creation of the neg tag for false statements and inconsistant numbers et cetera
The anon friendly WHOIS template.. exists now, just thought I'd let you know. Happy editing-- {anon iso − 8859 − 1 janitor} 23:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
You might be able to improve your database by letting people people request more detail in specific areas of the database. A button under subject headers, much like a poll, would make contributors aware that more detail is thought possible in a particular area.
Even allowing people to type in requests would be great.
I've brought this up before, but in the interest of permanence and citability I've now written an essay about it at User:Deco/Named topic bias. To quote: "The named topic bias is a particular natural bias possessed by all encyclopedias: a tendency to create more articles — and more detailed articles — on topics with a single, widely-agreed upon name." I'd be interested in any feedback or changes. I do not own this article, so be bold. Deco 01:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Because wikipedia takes a neutral view on its articles, it would be nice if there was a special link on each page for opinions. For example, for articles on products, the opinions page can include user reviews on whether the product works well, what are some problems they had, etc. This can also be implemented for media such as books, movies, music. Jettabebetta
I think there is a need for a new tag like "cleanup" or "advertisement" for articles whose choice of words may be easyly construed as offensive or rather are purposefully use dyspemisms and other potentially POV unconscience terms. I propose it read:
This article may be using dysphemisms and other terminology which may contsrue the conotation of the terminology to incite a POV or opinion. Please help wikipedia by finding alternative wording
The tag could be
{{ dysphemism}}
Any thoughts? Qrc2006 01:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I do believe this is a separate issue from the NPOV tag since its a subtler incidance which may be overlooked by a NPOV tag, or may remain even after NPOV cleanup and removal of said tag.
Qrc2006 01:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I often look up information on Wikipedia after viewing a History Channel special, only to find the information does not exist in an article yet. While some programs are sensational or speculative, others do have good research and can have the sources and professionals in the shows used as references for an article. Of course other perspectives need to exist if the experts are too one sided. I don't care for the views or opinions as much as the research and accuracy that some of these programs have, and would like to see the important information transcribed into an article. At least for the shows that are well referenced, well cited, and can be backed up with source checking.
Mediawiki really needs to add a spell check to the search. Like what Google does when you misspell a word, Google offers the word spelled correctly. Wikipedia needs that.
I am proposing the deletion of this system of listing free license images which is duplicative of WikiCommons. Consensus building discussion is on Wikipedia talk:List of images. Rmhermen 15:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
We have a number of Move to templates, Move to Wiktionary, Move to Wikibooks, Move to Wikisource, etc. I believe they should all be renamed to "Copy to x". First of all, the transwiki process does not move the article at all, it just copies it, so the new names would actually be accurate. Second, there is a problem with the "move to" templates, that being that people will often remove the template in order to stop what they believe will be the removal of the article from wikipedia. This is especially a problem in that there is always a backlog in the transwiki process, putting a Move to Wikibooks Cookbook tag on an article will result in it sitting there for 3 or 4 or 5 months until someone finally gets around to transwikiing it. This is a lot of time for someone else to come along and think, "no, don't delete this wonderful chocolate fudge brownie recipe!", and remove the template. And, note that some of the templates have already had their text changed so that they read, for example, "This page is a candidate to be copied to the Wikibooks Cookbook".
For those who don't understand how this whole process works: putting a Move to x template on an article will (eventually) result in someone coming along and transwikiing it to wikibooks or wikisource or wherever. This simply copies the article there. Then the article is listed here in our transwiki log, where other people will come along and decide what to do with it now that it's been transwikied. If the article contained a recipe, they may simply remove the recipe and leave the rest of the article intact. If the article is nothing but a recipe, they may decide to remove the recipe and expand the article, or they may decide to nominate the article for deletion if expansion into a real wikipedia article doesn't seem possible. As a result of the way this works, having a Move to (or Copy to) tag on an article should not be controversial, because it in itself does nothing but proposes that a copy of the article be made to elsewhere.-- Xyzzyplugh 01:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a proposal to change the anon talk page text. Please comment at MediaWiki talk:Anontalkpagetext to voice your opinion. — Mets501 ( talk) 04:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
In schools worldwide, students often hand in excellent articles of research only to have those papers locked away or trashed. Those thousands of potentially great papers could be used to further knowledge (if submitted in the form of an encyclopedic entry to Wikipedia). Since many schools (and most in the US) now have computers, it would be a natural step to combine students' efforts with the goals of Wikipedia, especially considering that Wikipedia is nonprofit.
The proposal:
A system is created for allowing schools to easily contribute students' efforts. Any teacher that intends to assign students the task of writing a research type paper (in an encyclopedic form) may ask students to find an article on Wikipedia that needs cleaning, or to be created from scratch. After the students claim their subject, the teacher can freeze those topics for the few weeks that the students will be working on them (or the students might work in the sandbox and save their work for later, so that the articles are frozen for only a few days instead, when they're ready to submit).
The teacher saves a snapshot of the original article (if there is one), and checks it against the article the student submits. After all the articles are graded (based on neutrality, grammer, etc), only the articles that receive an "A" (or "B+") are allowed for inclusion. All other articles revert back to their original state (before frozen).
While frozen, the article will be clearly identified as being worked by a student as a school project. In the talk pages, credit will go to the school, and if the student wishes, then to the student as well.
A teacher applies for special membership, and afterwards signs in with a regular username to freeze selected articles during future classroom projects. A teacher may deactivate that special membership whenever it is no longer needed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Boozerker ( talk • contribs)
The optional part is for the student to work on the assignment in the sandbox and save a copy until ready. The article isn't frozen until then, and then it'd be for only a few days (while the student uploads the article). As for teachers dismissing Wikipedia, that isn't a fact. Many teachers only recommend caution when citing from Wikipedia, and students regularly visit it. Also, any news of teachers dismissing Wikipedia is probably slightly biased and mosly pertains to the United States, but even then -- how can can anyone say for sure that many teachers wouldn't have an open mind to such a project? I know teachers who are supportive, and there's bound to be many more out there. And if students are submitting scholastically reviewed articles, the reputation of Wikipedia is bound to improve. Boozerker 01:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, no freezing then. But it might still be an excellent move to invite teachers to submit student-written articles (or cleaned-up articles). After the student writes an article, and the teacher views its preview in the sandbox format, it takes one simple click to submit the article to Wikipedia. Boozerker 01:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:School and university projects. User:Zoe| (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Teachers and students can do what they like off-Wikipedia with the Mediawiki software, and of course can integrate their newly learned knowledge and refs into any appropriate WP article. But as a former teacher, I can see real conflicts of interest between the class's needs and Wikipedia's needs. For WP's sake, I'd be really against anything that encouraged either of the following two probs:
So I strongly feel Wikipedia should be left as it is. But the suggestions for schools' own wikis are great - like a school magazine with knobs on! They can be oriented to assessment and the requirements of the learning process, rather than ruthlessly to the final outcome, and also showcase students' work (protected when finished). The more I think about it, the more better it sounds, actually. Go for it! JackyR | Talk 17:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I love wikipedia.
I want wikipedia to be: 1. open 2. comprehensive 3. accurate
There is an inherent tension between quality(as seen by an expert) and openness. A critical aspect of our wiki is its popularity, Now, if the structure of wiki is changed to make one particular version of an article more authoritative, by definition: some guy who changes something will see his change automatically reverted, or invisible or hidden under some link or etc, this is a very undesirable thing because the ONE thing that has made wiki so powerful is a new user typing: "TESTING TESTING" any change to wiki that prevents this first dip in the water is fatal... take it away and the curious user will lose interest and we him... and as big as wiki is, don't kid yourself wiki will always need new blood. So... what to do about accuracy?
I think everyone would agree with the following: the essential problem is: we don't have enough experts with enough time to go through every change, find the bad ones, revert them, AND have enough time to find and fix up bad article AND put meat on stubs. What we need is a way to improve the situation.
I am a believer in techno solutions but all improvements must be focused on the psychology of the users. I believe that JW is a visionary. In the features and policies that he has adopted; but much more importantly in the ones he hasn't adopted, he has resisted (so far) the urge to "protect" wiki thus giving it its power.
Finally I’d like to present my own proposal, which although small, has been mulled over for a long time. (please note that the wording, format or options in this proposals are just general suggestions and should be changed to whatever seems better), but essentially:
you (any user) open an article and see bad quality... you click on a link asking "does this article need improvement?"... you select options indicating the article has problem(s)... the article goes into a category of less-than-perfect articles and automatically gains a header stating "this article has been reported as not being of high quality". and it will stay that way until someone makes ANY non-minor edit to the article... at the same time a link on the main page points users (or just experts) to problem pages.
Notes:
thank you for your time Esmehwk 12:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
other suggestions: traffic counters chat rooms in the talk pages or chat rooms dedicated to particular portals etc generally more user-friendly and topic connected chartrooms
Ok, I think this is the correct format:
Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I am a semi-regular user and I just wanted to say that their should be a special section for explaining the information in laymen's terms. Several times I have tried to understand what the article is actually trying to say but I have to sift through a bunch of jargon first. Just food for thought.
We all know that Wikipedia is not censored. However, sometimes when the Random Article buttom is clicked, an inappropriate page will come up. So, I suggest that administrators could flag pages as inappropriate so that they will be excluded from the Random Article possibilities if, and only if, it is set in the user's Preferences. I hope you consider this a good idea, like I do.
FLaRN2005
(talk) 19:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
An idea like the one above was proposed before. It basicly said users who wished to not view vertain images on certain articles could set their preferences to block flagged images and when they came across such an image, flag it so others who did not want to see it couldn't either. This was rejected on censorship grounds. If a person did not like what would be non-sexual or otherwise politically charge picture, they could block it for those who do not wish to see sexually charged images. It is a flawed idea and I think the author of this proposal has not considered there are moral differences between editors. What is offensive to one isn't to another. This would be a new feild for editwars. So I to think this is a very bad idea. -- Orbit One Talk| Babel 15:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC) This is a reasonable idea, but it'll never fly. For better or worse, Wikipedia is not censored for minors or people with sensitive dispositions. Herostratus 16:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The drawback to this idea is that it creates a false aura of "safe" around everything else. Although vandalism usually gets reverted quickly, there can be no guarantee that any page is free of vandalism at any given time. Why siphon volunteer energies into an impossible goal when there is so much more we could do to make the current content better? Durova 16:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)