This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals).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
Just an idea I've been thinking about - not really fleshed out yet. When pages are merged, we've been pretty sloppy about maintaining attribution (both for the GFDL and for the purposes of just trying to keep track of where stuff came from). At least one page on merging ( Help:Merging and moving pages) documents the common practice of just linking to where the stuff came from. Sometimes Template:R from merge will be used to prevent stuff from being mistakenly deleted. The most careful of us will sometimes even add a list of author names or article names in a section on the talk page.
My proposal is to standardize the method of attribution. My specific idea is to create a subpage of talk pages (when necessary) to document any additional attribution. It would be located at Talk:PAGENAME/Attribution. It would be linked from the talk page using some standardized template and could maybe even be linked from the article's edit history. --- RockMFR 02:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in the discussion that is starting here. Happy‑ melon 12:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Since Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests is almost always filled to its five-request capacity, I and some other editors decided this first-come, first-served system wasn't adequate anymore, and therefore created Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Long range requests. Our proposal is simply to allow FA contributors to specify a pertinent anniversary, holiday or other date that they would like their article to be TFAed on, if possible. Someone had pointed out that The Raven, for instance, could have been TFAed on Edgar Allen Poe's birthday. Sarsaparilla ( talk) 04:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I had recently been looking at the article Fear Her Initially the article had a fair use image, Image:Fearher.jpg, this was deleted as failing to meet the guidelines for fair use
The image was then reuploaded, deleted
Then reuploaded, and deleted again
It was replaced by another image that failed to meet FU requirments
Having listed this at ifd, a protracted complaint was made against me for disruptive behaviour (later withdrawn), and the ifd " speedy closed"
The image then went to deletion review, where the closer was found to have acted improperly
The image was then relisted at ifd, and eventually deleted
Members of the wikiproject have threatened to continue to reupload copyrighted images for use in this article
This was a long and protracted process, WP is littered with thousands of copyrighted images with flawed rationales, which on the whole are cut and pastes added by users who neither understand the goal of the project or the concept of "fair use", the ammount of work taken to get rid of one copyright violation was excessive, and is not sustainable, and this abuse is moving the project away from it's goal!
It is my opinion that WP has this process round the wrong way To upload an image with an invalid fair use rationale, takes seconds, yet to get it removed takes weeks, and even then there is no guarantee it won't be back in another form.
I would propose that all non-free images with the exception of "Team and corporate logos" should go through an Image for upload process where the merits of the FU rationale are discussed beforehand, and if approved, they then become eligiable for use in article space Fasach Nua ( talk) 16:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The deletion process is damaging enough as it is, especially with BetacommandBot mindlessly tagging images for deletion. A much better solution would be to change the guidelines to clearly state the policy on screenshots for lists of episodes. Personally, I think it's fine to have a screenshots to show an episode in a list of episodes as long there is no more specific article about that episode. — Remember the dot ( talk) 23:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
When I was scrolling through the Slipknot article, I noticed that there were not one, not two, but three audio samples. Compare that to one image of the band itself. There should be some type of policy against this. -- Gp75motorsports REV LIMITER 16:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there any way to change the behavior of Wikipedia searches, such as the direct search available for Firefox, so that users are taken directly to articles rather than a list of search results (if an article exists with the name searched for), the same way the "go" button works in the Wikipedia search box?
I've posted two suggestions here in Jimbo Wales talk page about trim down vandalism & making Wiki more user friendly. Please check it. Thanks. -- Avinesh Jose ( talk) 04:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Pardon the tangent but I didn't know about that gadgets tab until now. I think that's a great idea, letting people install scripts automatically just by checking a box. Are there plans to expand it? I think "six tabs" and "watchlist since" should go in there too.
Most of my image uploads are actually just modifications (maybe I correct a mistake or improve brightness/contrast) of images that already existed on one of the Wikis, so I find it irritating to have to try to match the previous license with one available in that license list. Sometimes, the image was released under, I don't know, NiftyLicense 1.2, but times have changed and all the cool kids are now using NiftyLicense 1.3, so 1.2 isn't listed - what am I supposed to do in that situation? Technically, the original author said 1.2, and I don't think I legally have the right to change the license to 1.3 after modifying it. I propose that an option is added to the list to "use the previous version's license" which would only be available of course, when a user has clicked on the "Upload a new version of this file" link on the original image's page. -- Seans Potato Business 14:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I was outside, stripping kick wax off of my cross country skis, thinking, just thinking, and then I thought, 'Hey, Wikipedia has plenty of projects, like WikiProject Maine and such, and then it crosses my mind, how many times have I heard teachers say Wikipedia is so unreliable, you can't trust anything they say and such? TOO MANY. Then I came up with the idea for a WikiProject Classroom.
Good peoples, I am not trying to criticize the website by saying it is not reliable, I am simply telling you what is actually said in the real world- teachers fail students because they got all their info from Wikipedia, even if no other sites offer any.
I propose that when a fair use licensing statement is selected on the image upload Wikipedia:Upload, that the standard summary entry box be replaced with Template:Non-free_use_rationale.
That would at least educate new users as to what makes up a free-use rational and would increase the standardization of what FURs are used on image pages. Further, it would increase compliance with copyright laws, as now users would be aware that they are breaking fair use law by not filling in a template. This would presumably lead ot more users filling in all required fields
The summary box could either be filled with a blank template or there could be separate entry boxes for each line of the template, depending on waht would work best from a technical standpoint. Mbisanz ( talk) 04:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Well I thought I'd propose a new template. Now this isn't necessarily about voting, but I'm proposing a new user friendly template for placing a choice in deletion discussions ect. It would save having to put in the markup and also feature icons to help differentiate the different choices/decisions.
The template would be something simple along the lines of {{vote|choice}}. So if you put in {{vote|keep}}, it would turn out like:
Keep
Sometimes people are for for two things so you could have {{vote|choice|secondary choice}} which would turn out like this:
Keep/Merge
I have put in an example below of what it would look like in a deletion discussion:
Non-notable fictional spacecraft. The article has no reliable secondary sources to establish notability in the real world and fails Wikipedia:Notability. It consists mostly of a list of specifications, as one would find in a game guide, which Wikipedia is not. Pagra shtak 18:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Note This debate has been added to the
list of video game deletions.
Pagra
shtak 18:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge whatever valuable content there is into
Wing Commander IV: The Price of Freedom. Otherwise delete. --
Nick
Penguin(
contribs) 18:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete/Redirect to Wing Commander IV: The Price of Freedom.
Addhoc (
talk) 19:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable and fails
WP:Plot.
Ridernyc (
talk) 02:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course this is also applicable to other discussions as well, not just deletion ones. Well maybe the idea could use a bit of work. I'd like to know what you all think, maybe we can make a system that works. .: Alex :. 22:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Hm. I tried it out. It's kinda quite good, but it has flaws in that it adds a symbol to unrelated text in certain articles and talk pages. I also just found out that the commons uses something similar to this, but lets not bring that into it. .: Alex :. 12:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I strongly oppose this, partly on the basis of the previous TFDs. However, the larger reason is that the symbols add no context to the opinion (be it keep, delete, support, oppose, etc.) whatsoever. The only way they would be helpful is in a multilingual project, like Wikispecies, Commons, and Meta. 哦, 是吗?( O-person) 23:33, 26 December 2007 (GMT)
I don't know if this would be against wikipedia's policies, but it seems to me that there is a problem with finding contact details for companies, and especially with finding contact details that allow direct contact with a human as opposed to an automated system.
There are lists out on the web at the moment (gethuman.com) but they do not allow easy contributions from the public. This is where I think wikipedia could really improve the list. Any visitors could immediately add contact details, or change them if they become obsolete.
This wouldn't really make an encyclopedia entry though. If it's not suitable for wikipedia perhaps there are other wiki projects that would be more appropriate? Milliondead ( talk) 22:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Your initial suspicions were right: Wikipedia is not the white/yellow pages. MER-C 12:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
How about we start a new featured section for usres? There would be criteria such as edit count, contribution, and other. Juliancolton ( talk) 17:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I propose that links originating within transcluded templates have a special note beside them in the "What links here" page to reflect the fact that they're not mentioned in the body of the article. I'd like to change it to be able to identify them at a glance. This is especially an issue with large navigation templates. SharkD ( talk) 23:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I first brought this up in the technical section of the Village Pump ( here, to be specific), in order to get a first consultation on the technical implications of this matter. Seeing that there are practically none (for reasons stated in the aforementioned location), I have decided to re-submit the issue, this time here.
Ahem. I like article series boxes, and I like succession boxes—they are very useful and their appearance has greatly improved since the old days. However, I find that the transition from the article's text to the templates is usually both ugly and confusing. That is, more often than not the templates begin right after the last reference, external link, of line of text of the article, leaving no space at all and making the very last part of these articles look crowded, creating a tiring and confusing image for the reader, and practically obscuring the fact that there is not going to be any text after that point.
This, this, and this are examples of the situation I am referring to: bad template layout, bad page end construction. I have encountered worse cases, but only these examples I have been able to retrieve promptly enough.
Articles need to be able to breathe. All we need is a small gap.
The remedy is a simple one: instead of leaving only one empty line between the templates in question and their preceding text (or references list), or even no lines at all, I propose that we leave two empty lines. It is nothing complicated; I have been consistently applying this simple solution to articles (and I am active in WikiProject Succession Box Standardization so I edit quite a lot of articles purely for their templates), and I am very pleased with the result. I believe that a very simple thing like this can actually cause an improvement in the appearance of the bottom of many articles (especially larger ones, which are also more often visited); this is the last readers see of articles, and is thus quite important.
I wonder whether this small directive can be accepted by the community, how this can be done, and, if it can, in what form might it be incorporated into our editing practices. I hope that even a small matter like this one can generate fruitful discussion and eventually lead to some kind of improvement. Waltham, The Duke of 21:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I assume you're referring to something like this:
Films directed by
Peter Jackson |
---|
Bad Taste · Meet the Feebles · Braindead · Heavenly Creatures · Forgotten Silver · The Frighteners · The Lord of the Rings trilogy ( The Fellowship of the Ring · The Two Towers · The Return of the King) · King Kong · The Lovely Bones |
Academy Award for Best Picture:
Winners (2001– ) |
---|
2001: A Beautiful Mind · 2002: Chicago · 2003: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King · 2004: Million Dollar Baby · 2005: Crash · 2006: The Departed Complete List · Winners (1927–1940) · Winners (1941–1960) · Winners (1961–1980) · Winners (1981–2000) |
Using two spaces instead of one is simply a bad idea. The example above uses margin:5px auto; instead of margin:auto;. Modifying a couple of key templates would fix the issue almost universally. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 22:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought this discussion was actually interesting... Or is it just the Christmas effect? Waltham, The Duke of 17:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I have made a proposal for taking note of the primary contributor(s) to articles at FAC, for purposes of transparency (especially to non-Wikipedians) and good book-keeping. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Taking note of the primary contributor(s). Thanks.-- Pharos ( talk) 07:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Has anybody ever looked into the percentage of anonymous edits from schools that are vandalism? It sure seems like school IPs are a large portion of the vandalism. I wonder if the current policy of generally blocking schools from editing for a few hours (as opposed to the longer periods for other anonymous users) might be a bad policy? Obviously, creating a policy similar to the Open Proxy policy wouldn't make sense, but would Wikipedia benefit by requiring editors from school computers to register accounts at home before they can edit at school? Life, Liberty, Property ( talk) 07:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Please see here for a discussion regarding the Proposal of Commission for Public Complaints Against the Arbitration Committee (CPC-ArbCom). I have already gotten a few requests to investigate some interesting cases. -- CyclePat ( talk) 19:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Anonymous users don't use user pages, yet whenever you visit the talk page of an anonymous user you see an ugly red "user page" link. I've made a user script that automatically hides this link. I'm wondering if there's any interest in deploying this script for all users.
To try it out, add the following to your monobook.js (or the script file for any other skin you may be using):
/* Automatically hide "user page" link for anonymous users */ function hideAnonUserPageLink() { document.getElementById("ca-nstab-user").style.visibility = "hidden" } if (wgPageName.search(/^(User_talk:(?:(?:25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?)\.){3}(?:25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?))$/) == 0) { window.addOnloadHook(hideAnonUserPageLink) }
— Remember the dot ( talk) 03:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
/* Automatically hide "user page" link for anonymous users that do not have user pages */ function hideAnonUserPageLink() { var userPageLink = document.getElementById("ca-nstab-user") if (!window.hideAnonUserPageLinkDisabled && userPageLink.className == "new") { document.getElementById("ca-nstab-user").style.visibility = "hidden" } } if (wgPageName.search(/^(User_talk:(?:(?:25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?)\.){3}(?:25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?))$/) == 0) { window.addOnloadHook(hideAnonUserPageLink) }
— Remember the dot ( talk) 18:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
#ca-nstab-user.new {
color: #hexcode;
}
page-[namespace]_[escaped_title_here]
, but I don't know about the feasibility of regex in CSS rules. I'm not sure it's possible to do that. JavaScript would have to be used. There's just no class- or ID-based way of telling IP #ca-nstab-user
tabs from registered user tabs. Perhaps you could put in a request at Bugzilla for an "anon" class to be added to IP user and user talk pages; then you could use the selector #ca-nstab-user.anon.new
...
Tuvok
T
@
lk/
Improve me 14:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Sometimes you use the <ref> tag for notes (ie a bit more information) instead of for a reference, and i have seen articles which use the old {{note}} template to create a separate list of notes as well as of references. It should be very easy for the mw:Extension:Cite/Cite.php extensions to add <note> and <notes /> as two new hooks which work in exactly the same way as <ref> and <references /> do.
This would enable an article to maintain two lists (one of notes and one of references) as now it is either lumped together in one list, or needs to use old templating systems. For example: International Whaling Commission uses just the ref tags but some of the tags are for notes (eg number 6), so could have two lists instead.
Also, would it not be possible (maybe with a bit more work) to be able to have multiple lists of each. Ie you could have <ref1>, <ref2>, <ref3> which corresponds to <references1 />, <references2 />, <references3> which would be handy for articles such as List of Governors of Alabama which has a list below a table, and then one at the end of the article; or United Kingdom (and like many of country articles) has some notes in the infobox as well as a References section at the end of the article.
(I also raised this question at the technical village pump.) C hris_huh talk 15:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Having a section attribute would be a good way to implement this. Example usage:
<ref section="notes">hello i am a note</ref> and <ref>i'm just a regular (default) ref</ref>
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
Just an idea I've been thinking about - not really fleshed out yet. When pages are merged, we've been pretty sloppy about maintaining attribution (both for the GFDL and for the purposes of just trying to keep track of where stuff came from). At least one page on merging ( Help:Merging and moving pages) documents the common practice of just linking to where the stuff came from. Sometimes Template:R from merge will be used to prevent stuff from being mistakenly deleted. The most careful of us will sometimes even add a list of author names or article names in a section on the talk page.
My proposal is to standardize the method of attribution. My specific idea is to create a subpage of talk pages (when necessary) to document any additional attribution. It would be located at Talk:PAGENAME/Attribution. It would be linked from the talk page using some standardized template and could maybe even be linked from the article's edit history. --- RockMFR 02:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in the discussion that is starting here. Happy‑ melon 12:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Since Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests is almost always filled to its five-request capacity, I and some other editors decided this first-come, first-served system wasn't adequate anymore, and therefore created Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Long range requests. Our proposal is simply to allow FA contributors to specify a pertinent anniversary, holiday or other date that they would like their article to be TFAed on, if possible. Someone had pointed out that The Raven, for instance, could have been TFAed on Edgar Allen Poe's birthday. Sarsaparilla ( talk) 04:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I had recently been looking at the article Fear Her Initially the article had a fair use image, Image:Fearher.jpg, this was deleted as failing to meet the guidelines for fair use
The image was then reuploaded, deleted
Then reuploaded, and deleted again
It was replaced by another image that failed to meet FU requirments
Having listed this at ifd, a protracted complaint was made against me for disruptive behaviour (later withdrawn), and the ifd " speedy closed"
The image then went to deletion review, where the closer was found to have acted improperly
The image was then relisted at ifd, and eventually deleted
Members of the wikiproject have threatened to continue to reupload copyrighted images for use in this article
This was a long and protracted process, WP is littered with thousands of copyrighted images with flawed rationales, which on the whole are cut and pastes added by users who neither understand the goal of the project or the concept of "fair use", the ammount of work taken to get rid of one copyright violation was excessive, and is not sustainable, and this abuse is moving the project away from it's goal!
It is my opinion that WP has this process round the wrong way To upload an image with an invalid fair use rationale, takes seconds, yet to get it removed takes weeks, and even then there is no guarantee it won't be back in another form.
I would propose that all non-free images with the exception of "Team and corporate logos" should go through an Image for upload process where the merits of the FU rationale are discussed beforehand, and if approved, they then become eligiable for use in article space Fasach Nua ( talk) 16:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The deletion process is damaging enough as it is, especially with BetacommandBot mindlessly tagging images for deletion. A much better solution would be to change the guidelines to clearly state the policy on screenshots for lists of episodes. Personally, I think it's fine to have a screenshots to show an episode in a list of episodes as long there is no more specific article about that episode. — Remember the dot ( talk) 23:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
When I was scrolling through the Slipknot article, I noticed that there were not one, not two, but three audio samples. Compare that to one image of the band itself. There should be some type of policy against this. -- Gp75motorsports REV LIMITER 16:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there any way to change the behavior of Wikipedia searches, such as the direct search available for Firefox, so that users are taken directly to articles rather than a list of search results (if an article exists with the name searched for), the same way the "go" button works in the Wikipedia search box?
I've posted two suggestions here in Jimbo Wales talk page about trim down vandalism & making Wiki more user friendly. Please check it. Thanks. -- Avinesh Jose ( talk) 04:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Pardon the tangent but I didn't know about that gadgets tab until now. I think that's a great idea, letting people install scripts automatically just by checking a box. Are there plans to expand it? I think "six tabs" and "watchlist since" should go in there too.
Most of my image uploads are actually just modifications (maybe I correct a mistake or improve brightness/contrast) of images that already existed on one of the Wikis, so I find it irritating to have to try to match the previous license with one available in that license list. Sometimes, the image was released under, I don't know, NiftyLicense 1.2, but times have changed and all the cool kids are now using NiftyLicense 1.3, so 1.2 isn't listed - what am I supposed to do in that situation? Technically, the original author said 1.2, and I don't think I legally have the right to change the license to 1.3 after modifying it. I propose that an option is added to the list to "use the previous version's license" which would only be available of course, when a user has clicked on the "Upload a new version of this file" link on the original image's page. -- Seans Potato Business 14:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I was outside, stripping kick wax off of my cross country skis, thinking, just thinking, and then I thought, 'Hey, Wikipedia has plenty of projects, like WikiProject Maine and such, and then it crosses my mind, how many times have I heard teachers say Wikipedia is so unreliable, you can't trust anything they say and such? TOO MANY. Then I came up with the idea for a WikiProject Classroom.
Good peoples, I am not trying to criticize the website by saying it is not reliable, I am simply telling you what is actually said in the real world- teachers fail students because they got all their info from Wikipedia, even if no other sites offer any.
I propose that when a fair use licensing statement is selected on the image upload Wikipedia:Upload, that the standard summary entry box be replaced with Template:Non-free_use_rationale.
That would at least educate new users as to what makes up a free-use rational and would increase the standardization of what FURs are used on image pages. Further, it would increase compliance with copyright laws, as now users would be aware that they are breaking fair use law by not filling in a template. This would presumably lead ot more users filling in all required fields
The summary box could either be filled with a blank template or there could be separate entry boxes for each line of the template, depending on waht would work best from a technical standpoint. Mbisanz ( talk) 04:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Well I thought I'd propose a new template. Now this isn't necessarily about voting, but I'm proposing a new user friendly template for placing a choice in deletion discussions ect. It would save having to put in the markup and also feature icons to help differentiate the different choices/decisions.
The template would be something simple along the lines of {{vote|choice}}. So if you put in {{vote|keep}}, it would turn out like:
Keep
Sometimes people are for for two things so you could have {{vote|choice|secondary choice}} which would turn out like this:
Keep/Merge
I have put in an example below of what it would look like in a deletion discussion:
Non-notable fictional spacecraft. The article has no reliable secondary sources to establish notability in the real world and fails Wikipedia:Notability. It consists mostly of a list of specifications, as one would find in a game guide, which Wikipedia is not. Pagra shtak 18:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Note This debate has been added to the
list of video game deletions.
Pagra
shtak 18:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge whatever valuable content there is into
Wing Commander IV: The Price of Freedom. Otherwise delete. --
Nick
Penguin(
contribs) 18:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete/Redirect to Wing Commander IV: The Price of Freedom.
Addhoc (
talk) 19:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable and fails
WP:Plot.
Ridernyc (
talk) 02:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course this is also applicable to other discussions as well, not just deletion ones. Well maybe the idea could use a bit of work. I'd like to know what you all think, maybe we can make a system that works. .: Alex :. 22:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Hm. I tried it out. It's kinda quite good, but it has flaws in that it adds a symbol to unrelated text in certain articles and talk pages. I also just found out that the commons uses something similar to this, but lets not bring that into it. .: Alex :. 12:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I strongly oppose this, partly on the basis of the previous TFDs. However, the larger reason is that the symbols add no context to the opinion (be it keep, delete, support, oppose, etc.) whatsoever. The only way they would be helpful is in a multilingual project, like Wikispecies, Commons, and Meta. 哦, 是吗?( O-person) 23:33, 26 December 2007 (GMT)
I don't know if this would be against wikipedia's policies, but it seems to me that there is a problem with finding contact details for companies, and especially with finding contact details that allow direct contact with a human as opposed to an automated system.
There are lists out on the web at the moment (gethuman.com) but they do not allow easy contributions from the public. This is where I think wikipedia could really improve the list. Any visitors could immediately add contact details, or change them if they become obsolete.
This wouldn't really make an encyclopedia entry though. If it's not suitable for wikipedia perhaps there are other wiki projects that would be more appropriate? Milliondead ( talk) 22:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Your initial suspicions were right: Wikipedia is not the white/yellow pages. MER-C 12:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
How about we start a new featured section for usres? There would be criteria such as edit count, contribution, and other. Juliancolton ( talk) 17:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I propose that links originating within transcluded templates have a special note beside them in the "What links here" page to reflect the fact that they're not mentioned in the body of the article. I'd like to change it to be able to identify them at a glance. This is especially an issue with large navigation templates. SharkD ( talk) 23:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I first brought this up in the technical section of the Village Pump ( here, to be specific), in order to get a first consultation on the technical implications of this matter. Seeing that there are practically none (for reasons stated in the aforementioned location), I have decided to re-submit the issue, this time here.
Ahem. I like article series boxes, and I like succession boxes—they are very useful and their appearance has greatly improved since the old days. However, I find that the transition from the article's text to the templates is usually both ugly and confusing. That is, more often than not the templates begin right after the last reference, external link, of line of text of the article, leaving no space at all and making the very last part of these articles look crowded, creating a tiring and confusing image for the reader, and practically obscuring the fact that there is not going to be any text after that point.
This, this, and this are examples of the situation I am referring to: bad template layout, bad page end construction. I have encountered worse cases, but only these examples I have been able to retrieve promptly enough.
Articles need to be able to breathe. All we need is a small gap.
The remedy is a simple one: instead of leaving only one empty line between the templates in question and their preceding text (or references list), or even no lines at all, I propose that we leave two empty lines. It is nothing complicated; I have been consistently applying this simple solution to articles (and I am active in WikiProject Succession Box Standardization so I edit quite a lot of articles purely for their templates), and I am very pleased with the result. I believe that a very simple thing like this can actually cause an improvement in the appearance of the bottom of many articles (especially larger ones, which are also more often visited); this is the last readers see of articles, and is thus quite important.
I wonder whether this small directive can be accepted by the community, how this can be done, and, if it can, in what form might it be incorporated into our editing practices. I hope that even a small matter like this one can generate fruitful discussion and eventually lead to some kind of improvement. Waltham, The Duke of 21:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I assume you're referring to something like this:
Films directed by
Peter Jackson |
---|
Bad Taste · Meet the Feebles · Braindead · Heavenly Creatures · Forgotten Silver · The Frighteners · The Lord of the Rings trilogy ( The Fellowship of the Ring · The Two Towers · The Return of the King) · King Kong · The Lovely Bones |
Academy Award for Best Picture:
Winners (2001– ) |
---|
2001: A Beautiful Mind · 2002: Chicago · 2003: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King · 2004: Million Dollar Baby · 2005: Crash · 2006: The Departed Complete List · Winners (1927–1940) · Winners (1941–1960) · Winners (1961–1980) · Winners (1981–2000) |
Using two spaces instead of one is simply a bad idea. The example above uses margin:5px auto; instead of margin:auto;. Modifying a couple of key templates would fix the issue almost universally. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 22:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought this discussion was actually interesting... Or is it just the Christmas effect? Waltham, The Duke of 17:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I have made a proposal for taking note of the primary contributor(s) to articles at FAC, for purposes of transparency (especially to non-Wikipedians) and good book-keeping. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Taking note of the primary contributor(s). Thanks.-- Pharos ( talk) 07:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Has anybody ever looked into the percentage of anonymous edits from schools that are vandalism? It sure seems like school IPs are a large portion of the vandalism. I wonder if the current policy of generally blocking schools from editing for a few hours (as opposed to the longer periods for other anonymous users) might be a bad policy? Obviously, creating a policy similar to the Open Proxy policy wouldn't make sense, but would Wikipedia benefit by requiring editors from school computers to register accounts at home before they can edit at school? Life, Liberty, Property ( talk) 07:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Please see here for a discussion regarding the Proposal of Commission for Public Complaints Against the Arbitration Committee (CPC-ArbCom). I have already gotten a few requests to investigate some interesting cases. -- CyclePat ( talk) 19:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Anonymous users don't use user pages, yet whenever you visit the talk page of an anonymous user you see an ugly red "user page" link. I've made a user script that automatically hides this link. I'm wondering if there's any interest in deploying this script for all users.
To try it out, add the following to your monobook.js (or the script file for any other skin you may be using):
/* Automatically hide "user page" link for anonymous users */ function hideAnonUserPageLink() { document.getElementById("ca-nstab-user").style.visibility = "hidden" } if (wgPageName.search(/^(User_talk:(?:(?:25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?)\.){3}(?:25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?))$/) == 0) { window.addOnloadHook(hideAnonUserPageLink) }
— Remember the dot ( talk) 03:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
/* Automatically hide "user page" link for anonymous users that do not have user pages */ function hideAnonUserPageLink() { var userPageLink = document.getElementById("ca-nstab-user") if (!window.hideAnonUserPageLinkDisabled && userPageLink.className == "new") { document.getElementById("ca-nstab-user").style.visibility = "hidden" } } if (wgPageName.search(/^(User_talk:(?:(?:25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?)\.){3}(?:25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?))$/) == 0) { window.addOnloadHook(hideAnonUserPageLink) }
— Remember the dot ( talk) 18:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
#ca-nstab-user.new {
color: #hexcode;
}
page-[namespace]_[escaped_title_here]
, but I don't know about the feasibility of regex in CSS rules. I'm not sure it's possible to do that. JavaScript would have to be used. There's just no class- or ID-based way of telling IP #ca-nstab-user
tabs from registered user tabs. Perhaps you could put in a request at Bugzilla for an "anon" class to be added to IP user and user talk pages; then you could use the selector #ca-nstab-user.anon.new
...
Tuvok
T
@
lk/
Improve me 14:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Sometimes you use the <ref> tag for notes (ie a bit more information) instead of for a reference, and i have seen articles which use the old {{note}} template to create a separate list of notes as well as of references. It should be very easy for the mw:Extension:Cite/Cite.php extensions to add <note> and <notes /> as two new hooks which work in exactly the same way as <ref> and <references /> do.
This would enable an article to maintain two lists (one of notes and one of references) as now it is either lumped together in one list, or needs to use old templating systems. For example: International Whaling Commission uses just the ref tags but some of the tags are for notes (eg number 6), so could have two lists instead.
Also, would it not be possible (maybe with a bit more work) to be able to have multiple lists of each. Ie you could have <ref1>, <ref2>, <ref3> which corresponds to <references1 />, <references2 />, <references3> which would be handy for articles such as List of Governors of Alabama which has a list below a table, and then one at the end of the article; or United Kingdom (and like many of country articles) has some notes in the infobox as well as a References section at the end of the article.
(I also raised this question at the technical village pump.) C hris_huh talk 15:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Having a section attribute would be a good way to implement this. Example usage:
<ref section="notes">hello i am a note</ref> and <ref>i'm just a regular (default) ref</ref>