This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals).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
(copied from the help desk)
I'm sure this has come up in the past but I can't seem to find any of those previous discussions.
I was thinking that a lot of articles contain references to sums of money and many of those are historic. It would be great if there was a currency tag where the editor can input the amount, type and date of the currency and the wiki would automatically convert that to present day US/EU amounts while still displaying the original amount. This could be done pretty easily with a lookup table with inflation and exchange rates for various popular currencies. - Shaocaholica 21:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I just created {{ Original research2}} with a small icon, which I think should replace {{ Original research}} for the fact that large tags are ugly, bloated and self-referential, among other things, and really do marr the way Wikipedia looks sometimes. If you see what I've written on my user page as well as this discussion based on this essay, I suggest the creation of more such 'small icon' templates (which I will attempt to do if people think this is a good idea) and replacing all large templates at the top of pages using bots, which I don't know how to use and would greatly appreciate if someone made a bot to replace the tagged templates with the icon templates, so that all pages using the {{ Original research}} tag would have that changed to {{ Original research2}}, for example, although all templates using tags at the top of pages should ideally in my view be replaced with ones with small icons, of course. I'd really like to see this change the way Wikipedia looks for the better, but I thought I'd put it to users here for discussion.-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 03:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The whole point of such templates is to be noticed - a tiny icon in the corner won't be noticed, so you might as well just remove the template completely (and manually add the category). I think the templates serve a useful purpose, though, so I don't think they should be removed. -- Tango 18:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Tango and Nightgyr. Plus, I dislike the icons that are in the top corner already, and wouldn't want to see more. -- Quiddity 18:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It's far too easy to completely miss seeing icons that are in the corner of a page already - I can't remember the number of times I didn't realize an article was sprotected until I clicked Edit. Per arguments above, cleanup and other maintenance templates are intended to be noticeable - if someone finds them ugly, hopefully that'll be incentive to do something to the article to merit removing it. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 02:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
What I think would be very handy on a history page is a method that shows what past entries match the current entry. That way you can tell at a glance if the current entry had been reverted and to what prior date (without necessarily having to trust the comments). So if the matching pages could be hilighted in some manner (perhaps through the background color) it would save having to do as many page comparisons to check for vandalism. That would greatly speed up page watch checks. Thanks! — RJH ( talk) 15:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive#Add_a_.22reverting_vandalism.22_checkbox_to_the_editor_screen Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 01:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we should export articles to PDF. Does that sound good to anyone? - Patricknoddy 13:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
So? What if someone wants to say, print it? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a feature request that will help vandal patrollers. Currently you can only watch changes made to an article. What I propose is to add the ability to ‘watch’ a user or ip. In this way, when you have spotted some vandalism you can add it to you watch list and keep an eye on it for a few days to see if the vandalism is recurrent.
Currently you could improvise this with some of the third-party tooling some of the patrollers use, but it would be nice to have integrated.
What do you think about this, would it be a helpful addition? Sander123 12:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to moot some discussion here before I did anything rash and MfD'd WP:GA, but it seems to me from reading the GA criteria against the FA criteria, there is a rapid trend in the continually evolving GA project policy towards convergence with the FA process. The key catalyst that caused me to notice this was the relatively recent strict rules adopted by GA requiring adequate citation for all GAs. It appears to me that the only major substantive difference between the two mechanisms is the approval process; for all other intents and purposes the content requirements are nearly identical.
If this is so, why not consolidate these two units together, and gradually review all GAs, a la Wikipedia:Featured articles with citation problems, for promotion to FA status. Because otherwise all I can differentiate between GA and FA is that one is better for instant gratification.
(edit): I'd also suggest that GA's which fail FA criteria in a merge be re-classified as A-class articles. This means that all articles can be individually assessed at any class level, with only one (final) candidacy step in the process, for FAC.
Thank you for your time, Girolamo Savonarola 22:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Here is my revised proposal based on discussions above. There seems to be a view that the GA has become overly hampered down with bureaucracy, and to many extents apes the FA criteria and structure to a high degree, with the most notable difference being the single reviewer of GA versus the community of reviewers for FA. GA also has been a curious question in regards to its somewhat incongruous shoehorning into the assessment classes (it should be noted that the GA class was not originally proposed in assessment).
Given the more rigorous GA standards from the past, its single reviewer characteristic, and the unnecessary bureaucracy, what I propose now is a merge of GA into A-Class assessment. The standards for the two, content-wise, are nearly identical, and like GA, assessment only requires a single reviewer to judge the article against the class criteria. It makes article assessment classes more straightforward, with all classes up to A being solely based on assessment, with a final bureaucratic candidacy process only required for the top distinction, FA. Based on the current criteria, it is likely that most, if not all, of GA-class articles would qualify for A-class easily. It is also much easier to implement than kicking up the current GA's for (gradual) integration into FAC, which has been noted would be a problem without an active editor. Reassessing GA's into A-class would not face this problem.
I look forward to your comments! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 18:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Since GA has already been shoehorned into the assessment system, perhaps the rating can be repurposed as effectively a 'B+' grade. There is currently too large of a chasm between A-class ratings (which are rare, and have an associated process in some wikiprojects) and B-class ratings (in practice used for a large range of article qualities that meet the general description of 'okay', which is not at all consistent with the rating's description). This classification could imply that the meat of the GA criteria are met (neutral, stable, referenced, reasonably complete) while allowing things like omission of minor content details, mixed referencing styles or minor formatting issues, or some prose problems, all of which (I think) would generally disqualify an article from an A rating.
I'd like to see most of the bureaucratic apparatus of GA scrapped, and what remains repurposed for its original intention: identifying excellent short articles. Current practice seems to be to call almost all short articles 'start' or 'B', on the assumption that they need expansion, but some topics just don't require more than a few paragraphs. Current practice also essentially blocks these articles from FA status, with the odd rare exception for a hurricane article. Whether this assessment class should also become part of the rating system is not obvious, as the existing ratings are not length-dependent and the 1.0 project might be too far along to permit adding or removing ratings at this stage. Opabinia regalis 17:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
With the over-reaching criteria thing, a big problem with that is that discussion is rather difficult to start. Not because there's some group of people forcing GA to go one way with things, but because many people involved don't contribute to the discussions unless something really nasty happens, there's just so many candidates on the list it takes up a bunch of time :/. I for one have some things i'd like to change with the rules so that they'd go back to older, simpler versions, but I dunno how to start the discussion when sometimes people don't pay attention, and often times large chunks of rules get changed based on the discussions of maybe 3 or 4 people. Not that anyone's trying to make things bad on purpose mind you, its just discussion of process isn't very good yet.... Homestarmy 20:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah... everyone's going to want to get their hard-worked on article to be good, instead of A-class. It's an issue that's occurred to me before.-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
This discussion seems to have lost momentum, which is a shame because I think this is worth trying to sort out. Do people have objections to merging GAs into A-class, and think GAs are worth keeping separate? Trebor 16:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The first link on the page to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/opensearch_desc.php
Gives a file of the type: application/opensearchdescription+xml
It would be far better to link to http://en.wikipedia.org/
Lynx doesn't have a native viewer for this application, and I belive most browsers don't. Falcone 09:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
<link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/opensearch_desc.php" title="Wikipedia (English)" />
- most browsers don't display this, and some can presumably use it to add search box abilities. --
Random832(
t
c) 19:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I have being distressed, especially lately, but in fact throughout my tenure as a Wikipedian, by the number of fellow Wikipedians who have left our community. By that I mean those who have chosen or being forced to leave due to personal attacks and vandalism, either of their home pages or articles.
Its being my experience that ALL of those who fall under this category have being people who have added tremendously to our project, both in scope and depth. It is therefore a source of anger that ahmadans, who's tenure here is bellicose, offensive and in no way a meaningful contribution to Wikipedia, has driven so many invaulable colleges away.
Therefore, I wish to open a discussion on effective ways of dealing with such abuse. For my own part I would like to see such abusers (as opposed to the general Wiki user and contributor) banned very quickly indeed. Attacks by such abusers usually have being on-going for quite some time before a warning is given, and further time elapses with furthing warnings before a ban is evoked. Yet even then such bans have a finite duration.
My proposal is to replace the first warning with an outright infinite ban on any and all abuse. I would like to see this apply in the following cases:
In my own experinece, an Infinite Ban on abusers is the only course of action open to us. We have all seen that if a given 'contributor' begins such beheaviour they will continue with it whenever and wherever they please. Therefore, simple warnings are just not good enough. Action must be taken as soon as any abuse is detected. As with illness, prevention is better than cure. And while we cannot perhaps repair the damage abusers have committed (and which we were unable to prevent) on our fellow Wikipedians in the past, it is only in our common interest for each other and Wikipedia that we do so in future.
I would very much appreciate the thoughts of other Wikipedians on this subject. Is mise, le meas mor, Fergananim 11:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to remind, regarding this proposal, that no one is without the potential for reform. People can grow out of ridiculous vandalism, and the reason Wikipedia is successful is because of the diversity. Aceholiday 17:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Anjan Bhuyan 09:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Anjan Bhuyan
Assuming I understood your question properly, my answer is that discussions taking place on Wikipedia should revolve around its development as an encyclopedia, the development of articles, the Wikipedia-based actions of users or otherwise be located at the reference desks. Thus, unless you're talking about creating an article called 'tourism entrepreneurship development' for the purpose of presenting encyclopedic information, then I think the answer may be 'no'. -- Seans Potato Business 14:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey,
I am a student at the Indiana University. I usually look up wikipedia and its sister webpages for many of my projects and class related activities. It is of great help to me. Thank You.
The problem, rather a suggetion I would like to tell, is that you could integrate and make a common Username and password to your verious websites of the Wiki. This is a very small thing, but creating a username and password for each and every Wiki site and its sisters, like the Wikiversity, Wikimedia and others, is really a wierd feature. If it were common, it would prove useful to the users of Wikipedia and to you too. It would save some space in your servers, instead of a person having 20 records of usrenames and passwords for using wikipedia, wikiversity, wikipedia(in other languages), etc.
Thank You for your consideration.
Hardik Dani
You guys should add a feature so that content can be marked as dynamic. For example, many numerical references in the encyclopedia are continuously becoming obsolete. If there were a sort of programmability to the pages, certain information could be collected from the internet every time the page is loaded. For example, a reference in a wikipedia entry on TUMORS to the # of hits returned by an online medical database with the search of TUMORS could be dynamically checked by the wiki page, and then the info is always up-to-date. wikipedia is amazing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.218.127 ( talk • contribs).
With the continuing growth of all the Wikipedias, I feel that the "20,000 articles" mark is too low a cut-off point. I suggest that the point be changed to 25,000 instead, which (separating out those that make 50,000) would look like as follows:
This Wikipedia is written in English. Started in 2001, it currently contains 6,819,191 articles. Many other Wikipedias are available; the largest are listed below.
Complete list · Multilingual coordination · Start a Wikipedia in another language
This seems less cluttered, and adds more value to the Wikipedias that make the mark. There's always more room for expansion!
Please reply at Template talk:Wikipedialang#Cut-off point change, thanks :) Jack · talk · 09:54, Thursday, 15 February 2007
09:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to suggest adding an etymology field to the anatomical entries of Wikipedia which are in Latin. For example: "latissimus dorsi" Etymology: New Latin, literally, "broadest (muscle) of the back" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.239.234.91 ( talk) 13:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I've put together an embryonic proposal for some general reforms of how WikiProjects are set up; comments and suggestions would be very appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 20:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
After a period of inactivity, I have come back to edit Wikipedia - I was formerly ACEO, and am now ACEOREVIVED 19:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC). Can I please copy the username page of ACEO, copy and paste it on to ACEOREVIVED 19:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC) and then delete the former page? Please do not accuse me of Wikipedia: Sock puppetry, because I am not really interested in being an administrator of voting - I just wanted to edit articles on psychology and allied fields. ACEOREVIVED 19:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
According to WP:MULTI, discussion about the same thing in different places is not a good idea. Yet that often happens with XFDs—for example, a template that has the purpose of classifying a page with a category and notice (like {{ PD-old}}, if it were to be nominated for deletion, and speedy kept :) ), or the CC series (see here and here), or a list and category that are interrelated (see here and here). It would be an option at a GFD to request the deletion of some items, an not of others. Because XFDs should be discussion and not mere polling, having all items separate would restrict this true purpose.
Listing something on GFD would entail creating a dummy entry on the XFD pages (on which each individual component would already go), that would link to the GFD. In addition, the GFD entry would list what XFDs would be involved. Sure it's instruction creep, but this level of complexity is even more so existent with nominating multiple cross-namespace items for deletion.
An alternative to this proposal would do such deletions on MFD. In addition, GFDs may be extended to all group nominations of pages not in the mainspace. Any thoughts? Gracenotes T § 04:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
This isn't about young people accessing Wikipedia and possibly being corrupted. This is about when they click the "edit this page" link.
A while back I was reverting some edits by User:Ronleilaraymondfan (born 1996), and I had noticed that on the talk someone had slapped a {{ test4article}} before realized that they were dealing with a kid and therefore toned it down and added a {{ welcome}}.
Now, I'm noticing some edits by User:Fbs. 13 that require reverting or revising (e.g. factual errors, removal of content in talk pages), and the person is apparently 12.5 years old. If the person was older and writing like this, I'd honestly start slapping test templates left and right, but I feel hesitant in laying the smackdown on some kid who I think knows a lot less and is less mature than he believes.
So maybe we really should have some disclaimers when users register. I can't say that banning young editors is a good idea, but it seems that sometimes they doing stuff more associated with vandals, but we can't really slam on some kid who doesn't know any better, right? I'm sure if I was still 12 years old, I'd think I know enough to contribute and would end up doing a lot of stuff like this. Kelvinc 03:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the tone of {{ test4article}} is harsh. But, look:
There's a progression of these things. And, since AIV requires a sequence of warnings, if no-one adds a last warning they'll never be blocked. If some leeway should be given in certain cases, it should be given regardless of age. -- Random832( t c) 13:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I would say we should stop caring so much about the age and more about if are they helping or harming Wikipedia. (In case you wanted to know, I am 15) Captain panda In vino veritas 03:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
See Template:citenews for how this might be done. I think that older templates should at least be kept readable (maybe replaced with an emulation in terms of their replacements) so that old versions of articles that use them can be read. -- Random832 17:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The user pages of anons who haven't had a message posted to them yet, like User talk:69.153.37.62, should display the same IP information toolkit at the bottom as others, like User talk:65.28.166.83, do. It's a pain to have to post to the page in order to get access to the toolkit, or copy and paste the IP into a tool manually. I know there's a MediaWiki page somewhere where I can make this suggestion more directly, but I don't know where. Help? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coelacan ( talk • contribs)
How about this: if an anonymous editor makes a change that: (a) blanks most of an article, or (b) inserts an obvious vandal phrase, why not make them wait a while and then go through an extra confirmation step? I.e. the system makes an extra check for anonymous edits, taking a little extra time. If the revisions fit some criteria, after 10-15 seconds the editor is given a notice and asked if they really want to make the change. I'm betting that an immature vandal is not going to enjoy the extra wait as well as the additional confirmation, so the amount of vandalism is (hopefully) greatly reduced. — RJH ( talk) 16:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
How about this... if any edit would trigger an automatic summary (you know, the "replaced page with X" stuff) then have that edit require a captcha. Should be fairly simple... wouldn't worry real people much, but it should confound bots and slow down editors who want to blank a bunch of pages. --- J.S ( T/ C/ WRE) 03:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone help ? I have been wondering about how one would go about converging the IMDB database with Wikipedia.
I am not clear about what the implications are, but believe that the outcome (if it were succesful) would be very beneficial.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.144.251.120 ( talk • contribs)
What other commercial databases (IMDB owned by Amazon) are there that would benefit from an opportunity to consolidate with Wikipedia ?
Please list:
I think it'd be neat if there were a "Random Recent" link/function, which would show you a random article chosen from the pool of articles that have been changed recently. Perhaps if possible with a callout or second column showing the change, or perhaps changes highlighted. -:) Ozzyslovechild 03:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
In an attempt to make the search function even more user friendly I’d like to suggest a function which makes me able to redo my search in another language. For example; often when I conduct a search I type it in from the Wikipedia window in my Firefox toolbar. Naturally, this gives me an answer from the English database. If, however, the item I’m looking for is more common in the country I’m from, it’d probably give me a more extensive answer if I search that database instead. So, if it’d possible for me to redo the search just by clicking on my country’s name or flag, that’d be a great time saver.
Best, Andreas 193.13.176.149 14:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
In the article KRS Film Distributors, there has recently been sections that document the top ten films in the box office each week. Not knowing what to do with this, I've been leaving it in so far. However it's getting to the point where it is dwarfing the article about the company, and I know I've got to do something about it.
The best solutions would be to either remove it or split it in a new article. But I cannot find any such articles from any country that show lists of the ten popular films for each week.
I have the feeling that it would be encyclopaedic and suitable for Wikipedia so long as it originated form official sources and it is well referenced, but I'm not too sure. What is your opinion on this? ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ ( userpage | talk) 18:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
This was originally brought up at a notability discussion, but I moved it to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#New idea, from the notability discussion as it began to stray from notability. The proposal is explained in detail on the linked page and I would prefer comments/concerns/support be included there. In short, it is a proposal to create a new AfD comment that would put deletion on hold for borderline (weak delete) cases to allow time to bring them up to standards. If you think this would be better left on Village Pump (policy) either copy and paste it or leave me a note on my talk page. Mr.Z-man talk ¢ Review! 23:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
What is this whole requests for comment mess about? Do we need a wikipedia article on it? Why is some black people article raved about on the talk page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Proposal_re_user_RFCs
Also what about some kind of automatic link update for when proposals get archived? The talk page link should not still be pointing here...
Cyclotron 07:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
This is an automatically-generated list of cross-namespace redirects, copied from here. XNRs are generally considered to be not a good idea, although there are some exceptions if they are useful. So most of the XNRs on this list should probably be deleted.
Since this list is rather long, dropping all of them on RFD is probably not the most productive approach. Instead, let's take a leaf out of WP:PROD. I am going to advertise this list widely and leave it in place for two weeks. During those weeks, anyone who objects to a redirect's deletion should remove it from the list below (and optionally, list it on RFD for further discussion). After two weeks, the remainder could be deleted. >Radiant< 09:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
After a period of inactivity, I have returned to editing Wikipedia, but under a new username. I was formerly ACEO and am now ACEOREVIVED. Please do not accuse me of Wikipedia: Sock puppetry, as I do not have interests in voting of Wikipedia administration; I simply wished to improve some psychology articles and to edit articles on fields allied to psychology (I was especiall keen to improve the article on locus of control). As I am now under a new username, albeit as some one who will, generally, be reading rather than editing Wikipedia, can I copy and paste the information that was on ACEO on to ACEOREVIVED, and then take things from there after deleting ACEO? ACEOREVIVED 20:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, it is good of you to give full responses. Since coming back to Wikipedia editing, I have primarily devoted my attention to editing the article on locus of control theory, which certainly needed attention from an expert in psychology. My other main contribution has been to add a new category, relating to Sigmund_Freud. I guess that I come down as being more exopedian than metapedian, although if I were 100 per cent exopedian, I would not be visiting the Village Pump, would I? ACEOREVIVED 20:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
It has been surmised that a considerable quantity of vandalism arises from misuse by school children who are less inclined to appreciate the importance of the project. Since these edits are sometimes traced via their fixed IP addresses to specific schools, I suggest that these schools are contacted with details of the vandalism that has arisen from their IP, and perhaps a selection of their useful edits, if any exist.
They could hold a school assembly on the subject of Wikipedia (they may even be thankful for the idea - I've sat through separate assemblies whose main topic consisted of a watch, a glass of water and a two pound coin where the teacher must have been really scraping the barrel!), condoning constructive edits and condeming damaging ones (ideally with threat of detention). If a response is asked for and received, it might be possible to keep a list of Wikipedia-friendly schools so that further vandalism from that IP address is dealt with differently. -- Seans Potato Business 23:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
reveal Wikipedian, eyes glued to the screen, gathering sources for Cleveland steamer]
The end.
Okay, so this proposal may be sound like a good idea, but most people don't share the same appreciation of free knowledge that we do, and there's also WP:BEANS implications. Plus, many teachers dislike students that use Wikipedia, either because it's too easy to reference, or sometimes inaccurate. The Wikimedia Foundation is not-for-profit, and for it to have sponsors (like schools) seems odd. Plus, not everyone likes Wikipedia, so how would a parent react if his or her student were being held in detention for hurting an organization in which they don't believe? Fun idea, though. Maybe when we get legislation to arrest Cplot will we be able to slip this in the bill. Gracenotes T § 01:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Anyone else sick of how much time Wikipedia spends crashed? Though it is a minority of the time, we still seem to be one of the least reliable sites on the web. I'm sure this will infuriate a few people - but - would it really be so bad to have a few discrete adverts, if it means we can buy a few more servers..? There's a nice patch of whitespace on the left side of the larger pages that could fit a nice little moneymaker. If we force companies to use our colour scheme, it shouldn't distract too much. With us currently being the twelfth most vistied page on the whole web, think of the revenue! Jack · talk · 14:13, Monday, 26 February 2007
I would invite interested users to participate in a discussion to close the Community noticeboard here. IronGargoyle 00:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we shuold have a History Department. Please Submit your Ideas! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NDHS ( talk • contribs) 04:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
Its pretty obvious when you visit other sites that " Matrixism" is a farce and no doubt the reason it is restricted from being created as an article here. But there is an appropriate place for it which in my opinion is the uncyclopedia so I propose that instead of simply preventing the creation of a "Matrixism" article here that a protected redirect be placed (possibly with an official disclaimer) in the "Matrixism" article space which redirects users to the "Matrixism" article in the uncycopedia. (Even though there is nothing that can also be done about this.) Nocternal 19:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
These have been lying around for a while, so I have listed them all at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#SXC images. I figure 14 days should be more than enough to contact the photographers for any of these images we want to keep. To help out go to the category, pick a few images, then follow the source link to the image page on SXC and click the "contact user" icon (you need an acount there to do this) and request that they release the image under a suitable free license. Then put add the {{ contact|~~~~}} template on the image to make sure we don't send multiple requets to the same user. Images in the category with no comfirmed free license after a couple of weeks then be deleted (I think the standard is usualy 48 hours these days, but I can't be bothered to contact all the uploaders personaly, so I figure 14 days is a fair timeframe in this special case.
If this works out I'll propose the same is done to clean out commons:Category:Sxc-warning on Commons. -- Sherool (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that the section that no images should be used on Wikipedia:Signatures should be removed. - Patricknoddy TALK| HISTORY 12:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I have edited the article on locus of control, given that this required expertise from a psychology expert, but this article still requires attention from a health psychologist (for example, a Chartered Health Psychologist in the British Psychological Society or a professional member of Division 38 of the American Psychological Associationwho could cite some empirical data in relation to health locus of control. I believe that there is such a thing as Wiki-project: Psychology - if they could turn attention to this article on locus of control, I shall be appreciative. ACEOREVIVED 19:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion on Wikipedia talk:User categories for discussion#User en, but there are not presently many participants. I have posted on Wikipedia talk:Babel and I'm now posting here to try to gather more people to build a consensus. Issues being discussed are: Category naming conventions (should it be renamed to "Wikipedians ... etc" and if so, how in particular), and whether some of these categories should exist at all (do the -0 categories, in particular, aid collaboration in any way?) It is important to note that, first of all, this is NOT a UCFD nomination and it may not lead to one, it's just a discussion to try to get input on where to proceed next on this issue. And, second, no-one's suggesting deleting any babel boxes, only changing what (if any) categories they will add to the pages in which they are included. -- Random832 17:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Create a mirror site called "Wakipedia", one that allows editors outside your circle to create terms and explanations. Monitor occassionally to make sure nothing on Wakipedia actually makes sense! Especially if it makes more sense than Wikipedia.
To avoid Wakipedia cogency, perhaps restrict Wakipedia terms to those that do not appear on Wikipedia. That way, your editors still get to gatekeep the "standard set" of terms people consider important. Then, though, you should have no authority to edit Wakipedia. Just to make it fair.
Regards, Arthur Mellin B-1-11, US Infantry, Ft. Irwin, CA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.147.1.66 ( talk) 22:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
I am wondering if it is possible to hide information that is contained on a page between two spoiler tags. This way a person would need to click to read the rest of the text, and would prevent people from accidentally reading information they did not want to read.-- NeilEvans 00:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the existing tags have css div tags in them which you can write some custom CSS or javascript to hide.
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy) 04:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to suggest an improvement to the "Random article" navigation feature. If the following feature or something like it is already available, how do I use it? If it is not available, could someone please create it?: PROBLEM: When using the current random article feature, I find myself spending a lot of time skipping past two line biographies and descriptions of towns in the middle of nowhere, which although certainly random, are of little interest. PROPOSAL: Enhance the random article grab with the option of excluding certain categories/types/sizes of articles from the results (for example: no biographies, no articles less than xx lines, etc). Alternatively, it would be useful to be able to retrieve random articles from within specified categories (for example: only biographies, only articles greater than xx length, etc), rather than the entire Wikipedia. Another realated idea is a "Suggested article" grab for frequent users based on past page viewings. JUSTIFICATION: (Controlled) Serendipitous discovery is a major research tool at hard copy libraries, and has undoubtedly contributed greatly to the development of human culture and technology. Wikipedia is the perfect vehicle to take this tool to the next level. Thanks! Serendipitous Rex 08:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a funny a thing that you should mention this now, because I was just going to post an idea that occurred to me. I have, essentially, created a program that spits out the title of every 1000th article or so from the February data dump. I've discovered two things:
Would other people be interested in such a "random" list? How should this be implemented? As some sort of 3rd-party script hosted offsite (I might be in a position to do this), a bot that will place the list onto a user page like User:SuggestBot, a patch to MediaWiki, or what? - RedWordSmith 21:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Would this *consumer product wiki labeling* initiative be appropriate for Wikipedia.org to participate in?
WikiPPP (Product,Planet,People) will be petitioning trade organizations and governments worldwide to require a *unique* wiki website on all products, and advertising related to all products.
A unique wiki web address/URL on every product's packaging, or in a product's advertising would help consumers find and contribute environmental, humanitarian, product details, and company information about any product. Un-developed product pages would automatically be redirected to product category pages.
Some of the advantages in creating a wiki article for every product would be:
The unique wiki website required on all products and in advertising would be the main wiki URL followed by either:
For example, the unique wiki address for any product might be "WikiPPP.org/" or "WikiConsumer.org/" followed by the product-model-company name, or the product's UPC code. Such as, the URL posted on a Schwinn made bicycle, and on its shipping box might look like "wikippp.org/bicyle8851schwinn". The names could be abbreviated when needed.
Because "bicyle8851schwinn" would be a file established under for the www.wikppp.org website, it would *not* be necessary for the Schwinn company to buy a domain name for this product, or any of their other products.
In cases where companies change their names or the product name, an old page with a product's old name or a company's old name in the title could be easily redirected to the updated product page with the corrected title. This is one argument for using the UPC code to create the unique URL for products.
Some companies might prefer to buy a top level name such as www.Wikibicyle8851schwinn.org to save space on their packaging and encourage participation in the Wiki. As such, they would still be obliged to point their domain to the central "www.WikiPPP.org/bicyle8851schwinn" page.
Each of these product's wiki articles would initially be set up the company. However, the company would be obliged to leave a product page "blank" except for entering the Product Name and model, UPC code (if applicable), Product Category and Company Name. This product name followed by the company name would become the page title. Depending on the Wiki's guidelines for allowing companies to edit, it may be determined that companies would be allowed to include weblinks on the discussion page (or, dare I say, even at the bottom of the main article page). These company added links could point to product details, environmental, humanitarian, manufacturing, financial and/or other product related info pages that are owned by the company.
Of course, wiki volunteer editors can add the company's weblinks to the main article page.
As long as a specific product page remains blank after its initial creation, the product page would be redirected after ~15 seconds to an existing wiki article that describes the *category* the product is in.
The 'long' ~15 second wait before redirecting to a product category would:
Once a wiki volunteer has edited the article to include product or company related information and links, the volunteer could then stop the automatic redirect to the product category page. Environmental, humanitarian, specifications, history are examples of product related material that an editor may want to add to the page. The editor would also make sure the product was accurately categorized.
A few of the features that might be nice on each product page include:
These buttons would automatically be created and configured for the page using a script that would use the info inputted by the company when the page was set up.
Because many consumers would not be familiar with the wiki concept, the fact that anyone can edit these pages *may* need to be stated more clearly on product pages.
Editable product templates could be used to edit multiple similar product pages for a company. Plus, if companies could set up their "blank" product pages into the wiki via a "product tree" designed to categorize similar products, it would be easy to use product templates to edit multiple similar products for a company.
Guidelines could be established to exempt companies with "simple" products that are low cost, produced in limited numbers and with little variability from similar products from other companies.
An online petition will be set-up soon that consumers can sign to request *unique* wiki website on all products, and on all advertising related to products. It will probably be located on www.ThePetitionSite.Com.
Relevant links::
WikiPPP :: Product, Planet, People aka:WikiConsumer.org WikiC.org
Is there a chance in Wikitopia that this initiative might be workable here soon... eeer... or later? Greentopia 07:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The "My contribution" or "User contributions" link in the toolbox is very useful, but sometimes I'd like to take a list of articles that I (or a particular user has created. It doesn't seem like there is a filtering mechanism in place to view just those "created pages", is there? I don't think it's particular hard to add such a functionality, but it would help in fighting vandalism as well as determining a user's constructive contributions to Wikipedia. Minh T. Nguyen 23:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
In light of the Essjay debacle, it is clear the policy of anonymity here must come to an end if Wikipedia is ever to have any credibility. At a bare minimum, anyone with authority (from admins on up) should be identified to the foundation and preferably be required to give basic information about themselves to the public as a whole. Additionally, any and all contributor's should be required to submit an email address in order to open an account and an account should be required in order to post (this is basic at any other web site). As a challenge to the community, I have decided to identify myself at my user page. In my opinion, the current situation is ripe for abuse and Essjay's action's have badly damaged the credibility of Wikipedia and I no longer have complete faith in the organization and it's decision-making process. Thank you for listening. -- Jayzel 04:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I find the paranoia of people too much. Simply telling fellow editors your first name and letting us know your sex and age range isn't giving anyone any tools to track you down any more than introducing yourself at a party in real life puts you at risk. And frankly when I go to dispute resolution over a complex issue in a complex article, I do not want the mediator to be some 17 year old kid. They way things run now, that very well can happen. Anyway, without a doubt I think people in authority positions here should be required to ID themselves to the foundation. Anyone unwilling to do so should be stripped of their status ASAP. If you're THAT paranoid or secretive, we don't want you. -- Jayzel 23:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Haha, no. Remember what Jimbo said: If Essjay had merely used a pseudonym, everything would have been fine and understandable (what with people like Brandt seeking to cause real-life problems for admins). The problem is that he was a trusted member of the community with access to tools that required a great deal of trust, while at the same time he used his pseudonym's credentials during content disputes. Using a pseudonym wasn't the problem, it's using it in an unethical way during a content dispute that was the problem. (which has always been true... I'm sure a number of admins have sock puppets... this is totally in line with policy, as long as they don't use the sock puppets to try to drum up support in a content dispute or AfD) -- Interiot 23:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I propose for Wikipedia EN to add the "Did you mean?" feature to the search box similar to the one Google uses. It's great because, for instance, if you are trying to look up the biography of say health guru Jack Lalanne and you type "jack lalaine" thinking this is a close enough spelling of his name and only get 6 results that aren't related to him at all because it's not exact correct spelling his name. Then you go to Google and type "jack lalaine" and it immediately asks "Did you mean: jack lalanne," the name even being a hyperlink" and still lists the hits it finds below that for the mispelling.
It's an extremely powerful feature because not only does it help the user to get to the correct file, but it also makes the user want to go to your site in the future if they're merely trying to find the correct spelling, those giving you more exposure. But mostly it's just great to not have to know the exact spelling to find what you need. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmaruca ( talk • contribs) 01:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
I've noticed a really large increase in the number of improper nouns with capitals, such as the capitalisation throughout an article of its title wherever it appears in the body text, or perhaps that of various entities highly relevant to it (such as if I were to say Improper Nouns right here). Perhaps someone with more knowledge of SQL than I ought to start a wikiproject to this end. Articles with such things in them most likely need attention anyway because if they had recieved any amount of editing, they would soon have been cleared of these mistakes. Falcon 00:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I have proposed a new guideline (ish) for the Portal:Current events page - please comment at Wikipedia_talk:How_the_Current_events_page_works#Stories_without_links AndrewRT( Talk) 21:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add replies here
I assume this would be more a guideline than a policy, but I'm curious to know if any guideline etc exists regarding culture neutrality of WP articles? In particular, many articles appear to conform to a default American cultural POV, and I'd like to know if instances of these can be corrected inline with any particular guideline or policy? As an example, American placenames are often given without qualifying that they are located within the United States; US organisations etc are referred to directly without qualifying that they exist within the US and so on. In some ways I was able to read an ideal of cultural neutrality into the existing NPOV policy, but it goes a little beyond that in pursuing a cultural neutrality that doesn't make assumptions regarding the cultural POV of people reading any given WP article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.26.1.167 ( talk) 11:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
Is there any point having an orphan page warning on a disambiguation page? It sounds good to me that ppl link the right page, not the disambiguation page. Eg, FPLC. Hence I suggest a bot deal to these pages with orphan page and disambiguation categories. Any reason why not?
Aaadddaaammm 07:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
PS I have no idea how to make a bot, just a suggestion for someone else.
Hi, I know the idea of wiki maps is too complex... but could we at least adopt one high quality map with appropriate markings as the common map for all geographical locations. I often see small and incongruent maps on the pages of cities, etc. Can we find one very good map and just have all maps get cropped from the good map? That way we have a good map standard. Even better is if each wikipage on a physical location have longitude and latitude, and the maps be automagically cropped off the good clear map and then used as the map. It would be good to have a large scale context map and then a more zoomed-in one on the actual place check out the difference in map quality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakhalin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pusan
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.180.154.101 ( talk) 05:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
This falls into the overwhelmingly obvious category but I didn't see it at "perennial proposals." I get really frustrated when I type in "worcester MA" and get no results, type in "concord nh" and get a list of results (of which "Concord, NH" is the first), and so on. Why isn't this standardized? Why doesn't "town state" automatically redirect to "Town, State"? Why does "town state" sometimes give you a list of results and sometimes nothing? Is there a way to automatically create redirects so that for every location in the USA, "worcester ma" and "Worcester MA" and "Worcester, MA" and all other variations of capitalization and comma usage lead you directly to the correct article? Is this just too onerous to do? - 204.52.215.9 21:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd be careful with this, though, because there are many parenthetically disambiguated ones, and also potential for confusion. You might be best off going straight to Ram-man, since it was his bot that created the articles. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 16:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
In the years I've been editing Wikipedia, I continue to see many examples where editors have chosen to remove another editor's contributions, citing reasons such as NPOV, weasel words, etc. In so many of these cases, the reverting editor could instead have reworded the contribution. I would like to see this established as a policy on wikipedia, if only to allow editors to quote this and to spread the idea that reverting generally discourages editors (especially new ones) from contributing in future. -- Rebroad 12:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikisuppression of free speech? What is the point of wiping active discussions from Talk:NOR? We are discussion *whether* we should be allowed to post *to* that page? How can *that* be discussed anywhere else? The question isn't, at this point, whether we should or shouldn't be discussing it there, the question at this point is, why is the discussion being suppressed and wiped? Wjhonson 00:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I've started an essay on the subject of honesty as it relates to the project. It never seemed like the sort of thing we needed before, but perhaps there's some value to gelling community input on the issue. If you have an interest in the subject, please visit Wikipedia:Honesty. Your insight and improvement is welcome, and I hope it can be something positive. - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 22:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Seems redundant to the existing
Wikipedia:Don't create hoaxes.
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy) 04:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Why don't we broaden this, and write
Wikipedia:Act in good faith as a companion to
Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Broader policies are preferable to specific instructions, and the examples should be pretty trivially obvious.
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy) 15:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Please contribute. Thanks. Xiner ( talk, email) 15:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Who was Onetas? Well, if You look in Wik(english), You will find two pages of search-hits for "oneta" - but Onetas? Nothing. (For the curious, go to "Ephialtes.: Kdammers 05:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
From a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion I have created a draft policy for situations in which templates may be proposed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion/Template prod and discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Template prod. Thank you. —dgies t c 17:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Every now and again, someone passes around a link to a vandalised version of an article and passes it off as truth, and people get very alarmed; or people somehow stumble across history and get thoroughly confused by all the old revisions.
Thing is, when you look at it, it really isn't very clear that these revisions are actually old - we know well that they may be vandalised, or incorrect, or simply bad and not representative of our beatiful, beautiful prose... but the casual external reader doesn't, as all we do is list a small bit of text at the top, and if you're not familiar with the MediaWiki UI then it looks exactly like a live article.
..it doesn't actually say "this is an old version", does it, or explain anywhere what kept revisions are? This is, on the whole, unhelpful to our readers. Useful for our editors, but we need to remember we're not the sole audience.
I've made a somewhat more verbose explanation - see MediaWiki:Revision-info - and comments would be appreciated. What I'd like to do is get the UI to display this obviously - say, visually something as striking and apparent as the new-messages bar. Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 20:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I've trimmed it a bit for redundancy, tell me what you think. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 23:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
With no offense to Flcelloguy's boldness, it looks horrible. Merely an aesthetic judgement, but I do not want to look at text that is basically as annoying as this when looking through consecutive versions of a page and trying to concentrate on changes. Or even with current versions. I realized the latter and brought up on #wikipedia, but the discussion sort of fizzled out after a while.
Really, there is no way to make this fail-safe. I believe that if there should be no disclaimer templates on present versions of a page, they shouldn't be there on past versions, since there is no guarantee that only the past version will have a problem, and only the present one won't. (And when using "permanent link", look, there's a disclaimer template built into the interface! This is against the spirit of the guidelines, and redundant with the link below.) Gracenotes T § 15:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Would it be possible to create a disambiguation namespace for all the disambiguation "Articles"? That would make the article coint more accurate. It would just have the now title redirect to the diambiguation namespace, which then links you to hte right article like diasambiguation pages do right now. The Placebo Effect 12:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what exactly to call them, but the Polish Wikipedia has some very handy links under the edit summary box for automatic edit summaries. As I don't speak Polish and I was just there to add an interlanguage link, I don't know what most of them do, but some are:Interwiki, stub, redir, infobox, and image. These could prove helpful here. Mr.Z-man talk ¢ Review! 22:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
With respect to your article on my father, Jesse L. Lasky: there are several errors and insufficient data. I would be pleased to submit corrections if you are receptaive. Betty Lasky —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaleideon ( talk • contribs).
I don't know if I should make this suggestion here or on Technical. I have already made this request over at WP:BOTREQ but it never went anywhere. Is there anyway we could get a clone of commons:User:FlickreviewR here on en.wiki? It would be best if all images taken from Flickr were uploaded to the Commons, but many new users aren't aware of the Commons and so en.wiki gets a lot of Flickr images. Because of this, we get a lot of Flickr images that aren't allowed on Wikipedia due to their license. But, a lot of these are missed since they have to be manually caught and checked by human editors. I propose that Wikipedia adopt similar measures that exist on the Commons:
Thoughts?↔ NMajdan• talk 19:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
here is a suggestion: put up a page where you can search discussions, view the newest comments, show the most heated discussions, show the most frequently updated discussion and so on...It would also be nice if new coments were automatically highlited in each article. Maybe a special ***Pedia can be created for discussion of specific topics, maybe even put up so that new guys can discuss seperatly from more expert users. thanks. hovru -- 68.122.82.13 02:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
site:en.wikipedia.org
with your query.) As for a wiki of specific topic discussion, have you heard of
http://wikireason.net , http://debatepedia.org and
wikia:pov? For recent (article) discussions you can
see here. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by new comments highlighted. For on wiki discussions there is
meta:DPLforum, but that's never going to be enabled on wikipedia. On wikinews we use
n:template:flag to highlight important discussions, but I think there is just to many for that sort of system to work here, as well, wikizine, wikipedia-l and the signpost keeps everyone well enough informed of important happenings. Also the talk pages here are not really meeant for discussions unless they help the article develop.
Bawolff 00:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that when we place {{ SharedIPEDU}} on talk pages, that we include the link to the school or school district's website. Ideally, the link would go to their computer use policy, if they have one online. A list would have to be compiled for User:SelketBot to include links when automatically adding this template. The place where such effort would be coordinated I think is WP:CVU, so I posted messages there about this to discuss whether this is a good idea, worth the effort, or other ideas. - WP:CVU#School admin contacts and web links -- Aude ( talk) 21:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The chart below needs the blanks filled in. Some of the missing shortcuts exist, but didn't seem appropriate to add to this list (either because of lack of scope, lack of worldview, etc.). This seems like an issue for the community to resolve, as it may entail reallocation of existing shortcuts.
Just to be clear, the following shortcuts are at issue here: J, L, S, V, W, X, Y, Z.
To look at a list of possible alternative pages, see Wikipedia:List of base pages in the Wikipedia namespace.
The Transhumanist 23:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Pagename | Redirects |
---|---|
Wikipedia:Attribution (policy) | WP:A |
Wikipedia:Bots (policy) | WP:B |
Wikipedia:Copyrights (policy) | WP:C |
Wikipedia:Disambiguation (guideline) | WP:D |
Wikipedia:Editing FAQ (help page) | WP:E |
Wikipedia:Fair use (guideline) | WP:F |
Wikipedia:Glossary (help page) | WP:G |
Help:Contents (help menu) | WP:H |
Wikipedia:Introduction (help page) | WP:I |
? | |
Wikipedia:Keyboard shortcuts (help page) | WP:K |
? | |
Wikipedia:Mediation (policy) | WP:M |
Wikipedia:Notability (guideline) | WP:N |
Wikipedia:Orphaned Articles (project) | WP:O |
Wikipedia:Portal (project) | WP:P |
Wikipedia:Questions (help page, directory) | WP:Q |
Wikipedia:Redirect (how-to guideline) | WP:R |
? | |
Wikipedia:Tutorial (help page) | WP:T |
Wikipedia:Username policy (policy) | WP:U |
? | |
? | |
? | |
? | |
? |
Good idea to give popular pages short shortcuts, but I don't think we need to go at it from the other end - it's okay for some letters to not map to pages. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-17 07:49Z
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
(copied from the help desk)
I'm sure this has come up in the past but I can't seem to find any of those previous discussions.
I was thinking that a lot of articles contain references to sums of money and many of those are historic. It would be great if there was a currency tag where the editor can input the amount, type and date of the currency and the wiki would automatically convert that to present day US/EU amounts while still displaying the original amount. This could be done pretty easily with a lookup table with inflation and exchange rates for various popular currencies. - Shaocaholica 21:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I just created {{ Original research2}} with a small icon, which I think should replace {{ Original research}} for the fact that large tags are ugly, bloated and self-referential, among other things, and really do marr the way Wikipedia looks sometimes. If you see what I've written on my user page as well as this discussion based on this essay, I suggest the creation of more such 'small icon' templates (which I will attempt to do if people think this is a good idea) and replacing all large templates at the top of pages using bots, which I don't know how to use and would greatly appreciate if someone made a bot to replace the tagged templates with the icon templates, so that all pages using the {{ Original research}} tag would have that changed to {{ Original research2}}, for example, although all templates using tags at the top of pages should ideally in my view be replaced with ones with small icons, of course. I'd really like to see this change the way Wikipedia looks for the better, but I thought I'd put it to users here for discussion.-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 03:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The whole point of such templates is to be noticed - a tiny icon in the corner won't be noticed, so you might as well just remove the template completely (and manually add the category). I think the templates serve a useful purpose, though, so I don't think they should be removed. -- Tango 18:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Tango and Nightgyr. Plus, I dislike the icons that are in the top corner already, and wouldn't want to see more. -- Quiddity 18:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It's far too easy to completely miss seeing icons that are in the corner of a page already - I can't remember the number of times I didn't realize an article was sprotected until I clicked Edit. Per arguments above, cleanup and other maintenance templates are intended to be noticeable - if someone finds them ugly, hopefully that'll be incentive to do something to the article to merit removing it. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 02:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
What I think would be very handy on a history page is a method that shows what past entries match the current entry. That way you can tell at a glance if the current entry had been reverted and to what prior date (without necessarily having to trust the comments). So if the matching pages could be hilighted in some manner (perhaps through the background color) it would save having to do as many page comparisons to check for vandalism. That would greatly speed up page watch checks. Thanks! — RJH ( talk) 15:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive#Add_a_.22reverting_vandalism.22_checkbox_to_the_editor_screen Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 01:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we should export articles to PDF. Does that sound good to anyone? - Patricknoddy 13:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
So? What if someone wants to say, print it? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a feature request that will help vandal patrollers. Currently you can only watch changes made to an article. What I propose is to add the ability to ‘watch’ a user or ip. In this way, when you have spotted some vandalism you can add it to you watch list and keep an eye on it for a few days to see if the vandalism is recurrent.
Currently you could improvise this with some of the third-party tooling some of the patrollers use, but it would be nice to have integrated.
What do you think about this, would it be a helpful addition? Sander123 12:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to moot some discussion here before I did anything rash and MfD'd WP:GA, but it seems to me from reading the GA criteria against the FA criteria, there is a rapid trend in the continually evolving GA project policy towards convergence with the FA process. The key catalyst that caused me to notice this was the relatively recent strict rules adopted by GA requiring adequate citation for all GAs. It appears to me that the only major substantive difference between the two mechanisms is the approval process; for all other intents and purposes the content requirements are nearly identical.
If this is so, why not consolidate these two units together, and gradually review all GAs, a la Wikipedia:Featured articles with citation problems, for promotion to FA status. Because otherwise all I can differentiate between GA and FA is that one is better for instant gratification.
(edit): I'd also suggest that GA's which fail FA criteria in a merge be re-classified as A-class articles. This means that all articles can be individually assessed at any class level, with only one (final) candidacy step in the process, for FAC.
Thank you for your time, Girolamo Savonarola 22:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Here is my revised proposal based on discussions above. There seems to be a view that the GA has become overly hampered down with bureaucracy, and to many extents apes the FA criteria and structure to a high degree, with the most notable difference being the single reviewer of GA versus the community of reviewers for FA. GA also has been a curious question in regards to its somewhat incongruous shoehorning into the assessment classes (it should be noted that the GA class was not originally proposed in assessment).
Given the more rigorous GA standards from the past, its single reviewer characteristic, and the unnecessary bureaucracy, what I propose now is a merge of GA into A-Class assessment. The standards for the two, content-wise, are nearly identical, and like GA, assessment only requires a single reviewer to judge the article against the class criteria. It makes article assessment classes more straightforward, with all classes up to A being solely based on assessment, with a final bureaucratic candidacy process only required for the top distinction, FA. Based on the current criteria, it is likely that most, if not all, of GA-class articles would qualify for A-class easily. It is also much easier to implement than kicking up the current GA's for (gradual) integration into FAC, which has been noted would be a problem without an active editor. Reassessing GA's into A-class would not face this problem.
I look forward to your comments! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 18:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Since GA has already been shoehorned into the assessment system, perhaps the rating can be repurposed as effectively a 'B+' grade. There is currently too large of a chasm between A-class ratings (which are rare, and have an associated process in some wikiprojects) and B-class ratings (in practice used for a large range of article qualities that meet the general description of 'okay', which is not at all consistent with the rating's description). This classification could imply that the meat of the GA criteria are met (neutral, stable, referenced, reasonably complete) while allowing things like omission of minor content details, mixed referencing styles or minor formatting issues, or some prose problems, all of which (I think) would generally disqualify an article from an A rating.
I'd like to see most of the bureaucratic apparatus of GA scrapped, and what remains repurposed for its original intention: identifying excellent short articles. Current practice seems to be to call almost all short articles 'start' or 'B', on the assumption that they need expansion, but some topics just don't require more than a few paragraphs. Current practice also essentially blocks these articles from FA status, with the odd rare exception for a hurricane article. Whether this assessment class should also become part of the rating system is not obvious, as the existing ratings are not length-dependent and the 1.0 project might be too far along to permit adding or removing ratings at this stage. Opabinia regalis 17:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
With the over-reaching criteria thing, a big problem with that is that discussion is rather difficult to start. Not because there's some group of people forcing GA to go one way with things, but because many people involved don't contribute to the discussions unless something really nasty happens, there's just so many candidates on the list it takes up a bunch of time :/. I for one have some things i'd like to change with the rules so that they'd go back to older, simpler versions, but I dunno how to start the discussion when sometimes people don't pay attention, and often times large chunks of rules get changed based on the discussions of maybe 3 or 4 people. Not that anyone's trying to make things bad on purpose mind you, its just discussion of process isn't very good yet.... Homestarmy 20:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah... everyone's going to want to get their hard-worked on article to be good, instead of A-class. It's an issue that's occurred to me before.-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
This discussion seems to have lost momentum, which is a shame because I think this is worth trying to sort out. Do people have objections to merging GAs into A-class, and think GAs are worth keeping separate? Trebor 16:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The first link on the page to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/opensearch_desc.php
Gives a file of the type: application/opensearchdescription+xml
It would be far better to link to http://en.wikipedia.org/
Lynx doesn't have a native viewer for this application, and I belive most browsers don't. Falcone 09:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
<link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/opensearch_desc.php" title="Wikipedia (English)" />
- most browsers don't display this, and some can presumably use it to add search box abilities. --
Random832(
t
c) 19:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I have being distressed, especially lately, but in fact throughout my tenure as a Wikipedian, by the number of fellow Wikipedians who have left our community. By that I mean those who have chosen or being forced to leave due to personal attacks and vandalism, either of their home pages or articles.
Its being my experience that ALL of those who fall under this category have being people who have added tremendously to our project, both in scope and depth. It is therefore a source of anger that ahmadans, who's tenure here is bellicose, offensive and in no way a meaningful contribution to Wikipedia, has driven so many invaulable colleges away.
Therefore, I wish to open a discussion on effective ways of dealing with such abuse. For my own part I would like to see such abusers (as opposed to the general Wiki user and contributor) banned very quickly indeed. Attacks by such abusers usually have being on-going for quite some time before a warning is given, and further time elapses with furthing warnings before a ban is evoked. Yet even then such bans have a finite duration.
My proposal is to replace the first warning with an outright infinite ban on any and all abuse. I would like to see this apply in the following cases:
In my own experinece, an Infinite Ban on abusers is the only course of action open to us. We have all seen that if a given 'contributor' begins such beheaviour they will continue with it whenever and wherever they please. Therefore, simple warnings are just not good enough. Action must be taken as soon as any abuse is detected. As with illness, prevention is better than cure. And while we cannot perhaps repair the damage abusers have committed (and which we were unable to prevent) on our fellow Wikipedians in the past, it is only in our common interest for each other and Wikipedia that we do so in future.
I would very much appreciate the thoughts of other Wikipedians on this subject. Is mise, le meas mor, Fergananim 11:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to remind, regarding this proposal, that no one is without the potential for reform. People can grow out of ridiculous vandalism, and the reason Wikipedia is successful is because of the diversity. Aceholiday 17:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Anjan Bhuyan 09:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Anjan Bhuyan
Assuming I understood your question properly, my answer is that discussions taking place on Wikipedia should revolve around its development as an encyclopedia, the development of articles, the Wikipedia-based actions of users or otherwise be located at the reference desks. Thus, unless you're talking about creating an article called 'tourism entrepreneurship development' for the purpose of presenting encyclopedic information, then I think the answer may be 'no'. -- Seans Potato Business 14:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey,
I am a student at the Indiana University. I usually look up wikipedia and its sister webpages for many of my projects and class related activities. It is of great help to me. Thank You.
The problem, rather a suggetion I would like to tell, is that you could integrate and make a common Username and password to your verious websites of the Wiki. This is a very small thing, but creating a username and password for each and every Wiki site and its sisters, like the Wikiversity, Wikimedia and others, is really a wierd feature. If it were common, it would prove useful to the users of Wikipedia and to you too. It would save some space in your servers, instead of a person having 20 records of usrenames and passwords for using wikipedia, wikiversity, wikipedia(in other languages), etc.
Thank You for your consideration.
Hardik Dani
You guys should add a feature so that content can be marked as dynamic. For example, many numerical references in the encyclopedia are continuously becoming obsolete. If there were a sort of programmability to the pages, certain information could be collected from the internet every time the page is loaded. For example, a reference in a wikipedia entry on TUMORS to the # of hits returned by an online medical database with the search of TUMORS could be dynamically checked by the wiki page, and then the info is always up-to-date. wikipedia is amazing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.218.127 ( talk • contribs).
With the continuing growth of all the Wikipedias, I feel that the "20,000 articles" mark is too low a cut-off point. I suggest that the point be changed to 25,000 instead, which (separating out those that make 50,000) would look like as follows:
This Wikipedia is written in English. Started in 2001, it currently contains 6,819,191 articles. Many other Wikipedias are available; the largest are listed below.
Complete list · Multilingual coordination · Start a Wikipedia in another language
This seems less cluttered, and adds more value to the Wikipedias that make the mark. There's always more room for expansion!
Please reply at Template talk:Wikipedialang#Cut-off point change, thanks :) Jack · talk · 09:54, Thursday, 15 February 2007
09:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to suggest adding an etymology field to the anatomical entries of Wikipedia which are in Latin. For example: "latissimus dorsi" Etymology: New Latin, literally, "broadest (muscle) of the back" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.239.234.91 ( talk) 13:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I've put together an embryonic proposal for some general reforms of how WikiProjects are set up; comments and suggestions would be very appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 20:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
After a period of inactivity, I have come back to edit Wikipedia - I was formerly ACEO, and am now ACEOREVIVED 19:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC). Can I please copy the username page of ACEO, copy and paste it on to ACEOREVIVED 19:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC) and then delete the former page? Please do not accuse me of Wikipedia: Sock puppetry, because I am not really interested in being an administrator of voting - I just wanted to edit articles on psychology and allied fields. ACEOREVIVED 19:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
According to WP:MULTI, discussion about the same thing in different places is not a good idea. Yet that often happens with XFDs—for example, a template that has the purpose of classifying a page with a category and notice (like {{ PD-old}}, if it were to be nominated for deletion, and speedy kept :) ), or the CC series (see here and here), or a list and category that are interrelated (see here and here). It would be an option at a GFD to request the deletion of some items, an not of others. Because XFDs should be discussion and not mere polling, having all items separate would restrict this true purpose.
Listing something on GFD would entail creating a dummy entry on the XFD pages (on which each individual component would already go), that would link to the GFD. In addition, the GFD entry would list what XFDs would be involved. Sure it's instruction creep, but this level of complexity is even more so existent with nominating multiple cross-namespace items for deletion.
An alternative to this proposal would do such deletions on MFD. In addition, GFDs may be extended to all group nominations of pages not in the mainspace. Any thoughts? Gracenotes T § 04:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
This isn't about young people accessing Wikipedia and possibly being corrupted. This is about when they click the "edit this page" link.
A while back I was reverting some edits by User:Ronleilaraymondfan (born 1996), and I had noticed that on the talk someone had slapped a {{ test4article}} before realized that they were dealing with a kid and therefore toned it down and added a {{ welcome}}.
Now, I'm noticing some edits by User:Fbs. 13 that require reverting or revising (e.g. factual errors, removal of content in talk pages), and the person is apparently 12.5 years old. If the person was older and writing like this, I'd honestly start slapping test templates left and right, but I feel hesitant in laying the smackdown on some kid who I think knows a lot less and is less mature than he believes.
So maybe we really should have some disclaimers when users register. I can't say that banning young editors is a good idea, but it seems that sometimes they doing stuff more associated with vandals, but we can't really slam on some kid who doesn't know any better, right? I'm sure if I was still 12 years old, I'd think I know enough to contribute and would end up doing a lot of stuff like this. Kelvinc 03:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the tone of {{ test4article}} is harsh. But, look:
There's a progression of these things. And, since AIV requires a sequence of warnings, if no-one adds a last warning they'll never be blocked. If some leeway should be given in certain cases, it should be given regardless of age. -- Random832( t c) 13:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I would say we should stop caring so much about the age and more about if are they helping or harming Wikipedia. (In case you wanted to know, I am 15) Captain panda In vino veritas 03:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
See Template:citenews for how this might be done. I think that older templates should at least be kept readable (maybe replaced with an emulation in terms of their replacements) so that old versions of articles that use them can be read. -- Random832 17:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The user pages of anons who haven't had a message posted to them yet, like User talk:69.153.37.62, should display the same IP information toolkit at the bottom as others, like User talk:65.28.166.83, do. It's a pain to have to post to the page in order to get access to the toolkit, or copy and paste the IP into a tool manually. I know there's a MediaWiki page somewhere where I can make this suggestion more directly, but I don't know where. Help? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coelacan ( talk • contribs)
How about this: if an anonymous editor makes a change that: (a) blanks most of an article, or (b) inserts an obvious vandal phrase, why not make them wait a while and then go through an extra confirmation step? I.e. the system makes an extra check for anonymous edits, taking a little extra time. If the revisions fit some criteria, after 10-15 seconds the editor is given a notice and asked if they really want to make the change. I'm betting that an immature vandal is not going to enjoy the extra wait as well as the additional confirmation, so the amount of vandalism is (hopefully) greatly reduced. — RJH ( talk) 16:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
How about this... if any edit would trigger an automatic summary (you know, the "replaced page with X" stuff) then have that edit require a captcha. Should be fairly simple... wouldn't worry real people much, but it should confound bots and slow down editors who want to blank a bunch of pages. --- J.S ( T/ C/ WRE) 03:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone help ? I have been wondering about how one would go about converging the IMDB database with Wikipedia.
I am not clear about what the implications are, but believe that the outcome (if it were succesful) would be very beneficial.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.144.251.120 ( talk • contribs)
What other commercial databases (IMDB owned by Amazon) are there that would benefit from an opportunity to consolidate with Wikipedia ?
Please list:
I think it'd be neat if there were a "Random Recent" link/function, which would show you a random article chosen from the pool of articles that have been changed recently. Perhaps if possible with a callout or second column showing the change, or perhaps changes highlighted. -:) Ozzyslovechild 03:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
In an attempt to make the search function even more user friendly I’d like to suggest a function which makes me able to redo my search in another language. For example; often when I conduct a search I type it in from the Wikipedia window in my Firefox toolbar. Naturally, this gives me an answer from the English database. If, however, the item I’m looking for is more common in the country I’m from, it’d probably give me a more extensive answer if I search that database instead. So, if it’d possible for me to redo the search just by clicking on my country’s name or flag, that’d be a great time saver.
Best, Andreas 193.13.176.149 14:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
In the article KRS Film Distributors, there has recently been sections that document the top ten films in the box office each week. Not knowing what to do with this, I've been leaving it in so far. However it's getting to the point where it is dwarfing the article about the company, and I know I've got to do something about it.
The best solutions would be to either remove it or split it in a new article. But I cannot find any such articles from any country that show lists of the ten popular films for each week.
I have the feeling that it would be encyclopaedic and suitable for Wikipedia so long as it originated form official sources and it is well referenced, but I'm not too sure. What is your opinion on this? ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ ( userpage | talk) 18:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
This was originally brought up at a notability discussion, but I moved it to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#New idea, from the notability discussion as it began to stray from notability. The proposal is explained in detail on the linked page and I would prefer comments/concerns/support be included there. In short, it is a proposal to create a new AfD comment that would put deletion on hold for borderline (weak delete) cases to allow time to bring them up to standards. If you think this would be better left on Village Pump (policy) either copy and paste it or leave me a note on my talk page. Mr.Z-man talk ¢ Review! 23:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
What is this whole requests for comment mess about? Do we need a wikipedia article on it? Why is some black people article raved about on the talk page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Proposal_re_user_RFCs
Also what about some kind of automatic link update for when proposals get archived? The talk page link should not still be pointing here...
Cyclotron 07:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
This is an automatically-generated list of cross-namespace redirects, copied from here. XNRs are generally considered to be not a good idea, although there are some exceptions if they are useful. So most of the XNRs on this list should probably be deleted.
Since this list is rather long, dropping all of them on RFD is probably not the most productive approach. Instead, let's take a leaf out of WP:PROD. I am going to advertise this list widely and leave it in place for two weeks. During those weeks, anyone who objects to a redirect's deletion should remove it from the list below (and optionally, list it on RFD for further discussion). After two weeks, the remainder could be deleted. >Radiant< 09:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
After a period of inactivity, I have returned to editing Wikipedia, but under a new username. I was formerly ACEO and am now ACEOREVIVED. Please do not accuse me of Wikipedia: Sock puppetry, as I do not have interests in voting of Wikipedia administration; I simply wished to improve some psychology articles and to edit articles on fields allied to psychology (I was especiall keen to improve the article on locus of control). As I am now under a new username, albeit as some one who will, generally, be reading rather than editing Wikipedia, can I copy and paste the information that was on ACEO on to ACEOREVIVED, and then take things from there after deleting ACEO? ACEOREVIVED 20:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, it is good of you to give full responses. Since coming back to Wikipedia editing, I have primarily devoted my attention to editing the article on locus of control theory, which certainly needed attention from an expert in psychology. My other main contribution has been to add a new category, relating to Sigmund_Freud. I guess that I come down as being more exopedian than metapedian, although if I were 100 per cent exopedian, I would not be visiting the Village Pump, would I? ACEOREVIVED 20:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
It has been surmised that a considerable quantity of vandalism arises from misuse by school children who are less inclined to appreciate the importance of the project. Since these edits are sometimes traced via their fixed IP addresses to specific schools, I suggest that these schools are contacted with details of the vandalism that has arisen from their IP, and perhaps a selection of their useful edits, if any exist.
They could hold a school assembly on the subject of Wikipedia (they may even be thankful for the idea - I've sat through separate assemblies whose main topic consisted of a watch, a glass of water and a two pound coin where the teacher must have been really scraping the barrel!), condoning constructive edits and condeming damaging ones (ideally with threat of detention). If a response is asked for and received, it might be possible to keep a list of Wikipedia-friendly schools so that further vandalism from that IP address is dealt with differently. -- Seans Potato Business 23:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
reveal Wikipedian, eyes glued to the screen, gathering sources for Cleveland steamer]
The end.
Okay, so this proposal may be sound like a good idea, but most people don't share the same appreciation of free knowledge that we do, and there's also WP:BEANS implications. Plus, many teachers dislike students that use Wikipedia, either because it's too easy to reference, or sometimes inaccurate. The Wikimedia Foundation is not-for-profit, and for it to have sponsors (like schools) seems odd. Plus, not everyone likes Wikipedia, so how would a parent react if his or her student were being held in detention for hurting an organization in which they don't believe? Fun idea, though. Maybe when we get legislation to arrest Cplot will we be able to slip this in the bill. Gracenotes T § 01:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Anyone else sick of how much time Wikipedia spends crashed? Though it is a minority of the time, we still seem to be one of the least reliable sites on the web. I'm sure this will infuriate a few people - but - would it really be so bad to have a few discrete adverts, if it means we can buy a few more servers..? There's a nice patch of whitespace on the left side of the larger pages that could fit a nice little moneymaker. If we force companies to use our colour scheme, it shouldn't distract too much. With us currently being the twelfth most vistied page on the whole web, think of the revenue! Jack · talk · 14:13, Monday, 26 February 2007
I would invite interested users to participate in a discussion to close the Community noticeboard here. IronGargoyle 00:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we shuold have a History Department. Please Submit your Ideas! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NDHS ( talk • contribs) 04:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
Its pretty obvious when you visit other sites that " Matrixism" is a farce and no doubt the reason it is restricted from being created as an article here. But there is an appropriate place for it which in my opinion is the uncyclopedia so I propose that instead of simply preventing the creation of a "Matrixism" article here that a protected redirect be placed (possibly with an official disclaimer) in the "Matrixism" article space which redirects users to the "Matrixism" article in the uncycopedia. (Even though there is nothing that can also be done about this.) Nocternal 19:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
These have been lying around for a while, so I have listed them all at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#SXC images. I figure 14 days should be more than enough to contact the photographers for any of these images we want to keep. To help out go to the category, pick a few images, then follow the source link to the image page on SXC and click the "contact user" icon (you need an acount there to do this) and request that they release the image under a suitable free license. Then put add the {{ contact|~~~~}} template on the image to make sure we don't send multiple requets to the same user. Images in the category with no comfirmed free license after a couple of weeks then be deleted (I think the standard is usualy 48 hours these days, but I can't be bothered to contact all the uploaders personaly, so I figure 14 days is a fair timeframe in this special case.
If this works out I'll propose the same is done to clean out commons:Category:Sxc-warning on Commons. -- Sherool (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that the section that no images should be used on Wikipedia:Signatures should be removed. - Patricknoddy TALK| HISTORY 12:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I have edited the article on locus of control, given that this required expertise from a psychology expert, but this article still requires attention from a health psychologist (for example, a Chartered Health Psychologist in the British Psychological Society or a professional member of Division 38 of the American Psychological Associationwho could cite some empirical data in relation to health locus of control. I believe that there is such a thing as Wiki-project: Psychology - if they could turn attention to this article on locus of control, I shall be appreciative. ACEOREVIVED 19:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion on Wikipedia talk:User categories for discussion#User en, but there are not presently many participants. I have posted on Wikipedia talk:Babel and I'm now posting here to try to gather more people to build a consensus. Issues being discussed are: Category naming conventions (should it be renamed to "Wikipedians ... etc" and if so, how in particular), and whether some of these categories should exist at all (do the -0 categories, in particular, aid collaboration in any way?) It is important to note that, first of all, this is NOT a UCFD nomination and it may not lead to one, it's just a discussion to try to get input on where to proceed next on this issue. And, second, no-one's suggesting deleting any babel boxes, only changing what (if any) categories they will add to the pages in which they are included. -- Random832 17:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Create a mirror site called "Wakipedia", one that allows editors outside your circle to create terms and explanations. Monitor occassionally to make sure nothing on Wakipedia actually makes sense! Especially if it makes more sense than Wikipedia.
To avoid Wakipedia cogency, perhaps restrict Wakipedia terms to those that do not appear on Wikipedia. That way, your editors still get to gatekeep the "standard set" of terms people consider important. Then, though, you should have no authority to edit Wakipedia. Just to make it fair.
Regards, Arthur Mellin B-1-11, US Infantry, Ft. Irwin, CA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.147.1.66 ( talk) 22:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
I am wondering if it is possible to hide information that is contained on a page between two spoiler tags. This way a person would need to click to read the rest of the text, and would prevent people from accidentally reading information they did not want to read.-- NeilEvans 00:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the existing tags have css div tags in them which you can write some custom CSS or javascript to hide.
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy) 04:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to suggest an improvement to the "Random article" navigation feature. If the following feature or something like it is already available, how do I use it? If it is not available, could someone please create it?: PROBLEM: When using the current random article feature, I find myself spending a lot of time skipping past two line biographies and descriptions of towns in the middle of nowhere, which although certainly random, are of little interest. PROPOSAL: Enhance the random article grab with the option of excluding certain categories/types/sizes of articles from the results (for example: no biographies, no articles less than xx lines, etc). Alternatively, it would be useful to be able to retrieve random articles from within specified categories (for example: only biographies, only articles greater than xx length, etc), rather than the entire Wikipedia. Another realated idea is a "Suggested article" grab for frequent users based on past page viewings. JUSTIFICATION: (Controlled) Serendipitous discovery is a major research tool at hard copy libraries, and has undoubtedly contributed greatly to the development of human culture and technology. Wikipedia is the perfect vehicle to take this tool to the next level. Thanks! Serendipitous Rex 08:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a funny a thing that you should mention this now, because I was just going to post an idea that occurred to me. I have, essentially, created a program that spits out the title of every 1000th article or so from the February data dump. I've discovered two things:
Would other people be interested in such a "random" list? How should this be implemented? As some sort of 3rd-party script hosted offsite (I might be in a position to do this), a bot that will place the list onto a user page like User:SuggestBot, a patch to MediaWiki, or what? - RedWordSmith 21:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Would this *consumer product wiki labeling* initiative be appropriate for Wikipedia.org to participate in?
WikiPPP (Product,Planet,People) will be petitioning trade organizations and governments worldwide to require a *unique* wiki website on all products, and advertising related to all products.
A unique wiki web address/URL on every product's packaging, or in a product's advertising would help consumers find and contribute environmental, humanitarian, product details, and company information about any product. Un-developed product pages would automatically be redirected to product category pages.
Some of the advantages in creating a wiki article for every product would be:
The unique wiki website required on all products and in advertising would be the main wiki URL followed by either:
For example, the unique wiki address for any product might be "WikiPPP.org/" or "WikiConsumer.org/" followed by the product-model-company name, or the product's UPC code. Such as, the URL posted on a Schwinn made bicycle, and on its shipping box might look like "wikippp.org/bicyle8851schwinn". The names could be abbreviated when needed.
Because "bicyle8851schwinn" would be a file established under for the www.wikppp.org website, it would *not* be necessary for the Schwinn company to buy a domain name for this product, or any of their other products.
In cases where companies change their names or the product name, an old page with a product's old name or a company's old name in the title could be easily redirected to the updated product page with the corrected title. This is one argument for using the UPC code to create the unique URL for products.
Some companies might prefer to buy a top level name such as www.Wikibicyle8851schwinn.org to save space on their packaging and encourage participation in the Wiki. As such, they would still be obliged to point their domain to the central "www.WikiPPP.org/bicyle8851schwinn" page.
Each of these product's wiki articles would initially be set up the company. However, the company would be obliged to leave a product page "blank" except for entering the Product Name and model, UPC code (if applicable), Product Category and Company Name. This product name followed by the company name would become the page title. Depending on the Wiki's guidelines for allowing companies to edit, it may be determined that companies would be allowed to include weblinks on the discussion page (or, dare I say, even at the bottom of the main article page). These company added links could point to product details, environmental, humanitarian, manufacturing, financial and/or other product related info pages that are owned by the company.
Of course, wiki volunteer editors can add the company's weblinks to the main article page.
As long as a specific product page remains blank after its initial creation, the product page would be redirected after ~15 seconds to an existing wiki article that describes the *category* the product is in.
The 'long' ~15 second wait before redirecting to a product category would:
Once a wiki volunteer has edited the article to include product or company related information and links, the volunteer could then stop the automatic redirect to the product category page. Environmental, humanitarian, specifications, history are examples of product related material that an editor may want to add to the page. The editor would also make sure the product was accurately categorized.
A few of the features that might be nice on each product page include:
These buttons would automatically be created and configured for the page using a script that would use the info inputted by the company when the page was set up.
Because many consumers would not be familiar with the wiki concept, the fact that anyone can edit these pages *may* need to be stated more clearly on product pages.
Editable product templates could be used to edit multiple similar product pages for a company. Plus, if companies could set up their "blank" product pages into the wiki via a "product tree" designed to categorize similar products, it would be easy to use product templates to edit multiple similar products for a company.
Guidelines could be established to exempt companies with "simple" products that are low cost, produced in limited numbers and with little variability from similar products from other companies.
An online petition will be set-up soon that consumers can sign to request *unique* wiki website on all products, and on all advertising related to products. It will probably be located on www.ThePetitionSite.Com.
Relevant links::
WikiPPP :: Product, Planet, People aka:WikiConsumer.org WikiC.org
Is there a chance in Wikitopia that this initiative might be workable here soon... eeer... or later? Greentopia 07:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The "My contribution" or "User contributions" link in the toolbox is very useful, but sometimes I'd like to take a list of articles that I (or a particular user has created. It doesn't seem like there is a filtering mechanism in place to view just those "created pages", is there? I don't think it's particular hard to add such a functionality, but it would help in fighting vandalism as well as determining a user's constructive contributions to Wikipedia. Minh T. Nguyen 23:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
In light of the Essjay debacle, it is clear the policy of anonymity here must come to an end if Wikipedia is ever to have any credibility. At a bare minimum, anyone with authority (from admins on up) should be identified to the foundation and preferably be required to give basic information about themselves to the public as a whole. Additionally, any and all contributor's should be required to submit an email address in order to open an account and an account should be required in order to post (this is basic at any other web site). As a challenge to the community, I have decided to identify myself at my user page. In my opinion, the current situation is ripe for abuse and Essjay's action's have badly damaged the credibility of Wikipedia and I no longer have complete faith in the organization and it's decision-making process. Thank you for listening. -- Jayzel 04:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I find the paranoia of people too much. Simply telling fellow editors your first name and letting us know your sex and age range isn't giving anyone any tools to track you down any more than introducing yourself at a party in real life puts you at risk. And frankly when I go to dispute resolution over a complex issue in a complex article, I do not want the mediator to be some 17 year old kid. They way things run now, that very well can happen. Anyway, without a doubt I think people in authority positions here should be required to ID themselves to the foundation. Anyone unwilling to do so should be stripped of their status ASAP. If you're THAT paranoid or secretive, we don't want you. -- Jayzel 23:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Haha, no. Remember what Jimbo said: If Essjay had merely used a pseudonym, everything would have been fine and understandable (what with people like Brandt seeking to cause real-life problems for admins). The problem is that he was a trusted member of the community with access to tools that required a great deal of trust, while at the same time he used his pseudonym's credentials during content disputes. Using a pseudonym wasn't the problem, it's using it in an unethical way during a content dispute that was the problem. (which has always been true... I'm sure a number of admins have sock puppets... this is totally in line with policy, as long as they don't use the sock puppets to try to drum up support in a content dispute or AfD) -- Interiot 23:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I propose for Wikipedia EN to add the "Did you mean?" feature to the search box similar to the one Google uses. It's great because, for instance, if you are trying to look up the biography of say health guru Jack Lalanne and you type "jack lalaine" thinking this is a close enough spelling of his name and only get 6 results that aren't related to him at all because it's not exact correct spelling his name. Then you go to Google and type "jack lalaine" and it immediately asks "Did you mean: jack lalanne," the name even being a hyperlink" and still lists the hits it finds below that for the mispelling.
It's an extremely powerful feature because not only does it help the user to get to the correct file, but it also makes the user want to go to your site in the future if they're merely trying to find the correct spelling, those giving you more exposure. But mostly it's just great to not have to know the exact spelling to find what you need. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmaruca ( talk • contribs) 01:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
I've noticed a really large increase in the number of improper nouns with capitals, such as the capitalisation throughout an article of its title wherever it appears in the body text, or perhaps that of various entities highly relevant to it (such as if I were to say Improper Nouns right here). Perhaps someone with more knowledge of SQL than I ought to start a wikiproject to this end. Articles with such things in them most likely need attention anyway because if they had recieved any amount of editing, they would soon have been cleared of these mistakes. Falcon 00:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I have proposed a new guideline (ish) for the Portal:Current events page - please comment at Wikipedia_talk:How_the_Current_events_page_works#Stories_without_links AndrewRT( Talk) 21:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add replies here
I assume this would be more a guideline than a policy, but I'm curious to know if any guideline etc exists regarding culture neutrality of WP articles? In particular, many articles appear to conform to a default American cultural POV, and I'd like to know if instances of these can be corrected inline with any particular guideline or policy? As an example, American placenames are often given without qualifying that they are located within the United States; US organisations etc are referred to directly without qualifying that they exist within the US and so on. In some ways I was able to read an ideal of cultural neutrality into the existing NPOV policy, but it goes a little beyond that in pursuing a cultural neutrality that doesn't make assumptions regarding the cultural POV of people reading any given WP article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.26.1.167 ( talk) 11:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
Is there any point having an orphan page warning on a disambiguation page? It sounds good to me that ppl link the right page, not the disambiguation page. Eg, FPLC. Hence I suggest a bot deal to these pages with orphan page and disambiguation categories. Any reason why not?
Aaadddaaammm 07:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
PS I have no idea how to make a bot, just a suggestion for someone else.
Hi, I know the idea of wiki maps is too complex... but could we at least adopt one high quality map with appropriate markings as the common map for all geographical locations. I often see small and incongruent maps on the pages of cities, etc. Can we find one very good map and just have all maps get cropped from the good map? That way we have a good map standard. Even better is if each wikipage on a physical location have longitude and latitude, and the maps be automagically cropped off the good clear map and then used as the map. It would be good to have a large scale context map and then a more zoomed-in one on the actual place check out the difference in map quality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakhalin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pusan
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.180.154.101 ( talk) 05:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
This falls into the overwhelmingly obvious category but I didn't see it at "perennial proposals." I get really frustrated when I type in "worcester MA" and get no results, type in "concord nh" and get a list of results (of which "Concord, NH" is the first), and so on. Why isn't this standardized? Why doesn't "town state" automatically redirect to "Town, State"? Why does "town state" sometimes give you a list of results and sometimes nothing? Is there a way to automatically create redirects so that for every location in the USA, "worcester ma" and "Worcester MA" and "Worcester, MA" and all other variations of capitalization and comma usage lead you directly to the correct article? Is this just too onerous to do? - 204.52.215.9 21:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd be careful with this, though, because there are many parenthetically disambiguated ones, and also potential for confusion. You might be best off going straight to Ram-man, since it was his bot that created the articles. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 16:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
In the years I've been editing Wikipedia, I continue to see many examples where editors have chosen to remove another editor's contributions, citing reasons such as NPOV, weasel words, etc. In so many of these cases, the reverting editor could instead have reworded the contribution. I would like to see this established as a policy on wikipedia, if only to allow editors to quote this and to spread the idea that reverting generally discourages editors (especially new ones) from contributing in future. -- Rebroad 12:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikisuppression of free speech? What is the point of wiping active discussions from Talk:NOR? We are discussion *whether* we should be allowed to post *to* that page? How can *that* be discussed anywhere else? The question isn't, at this point, whether we should or shouldn't be discussing it there, the question at this point is, why is the discussion being suppressed and wiped? Wjhonson 00:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I've started an essay on the subject of honesty as it relates to the project. It never seemed like the sort of thing we needed before, but perhaps there's some value to gelling community input on the issue. If you have an interest in the subject, please visit Wikipedia:Honesty. Your insight and improvement is welcome, and I hope it can be something positive. - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 22:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Seems redundant to the existing
Wikipedia:Don't create hoaxes.
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy) 04:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Why don't we broaden this, and write
Wikipedia:Act in good faith as a companion to
Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Broader policies are preferable to specific instructions, and the examples should be pretty trivially obvious.
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy) 15:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Please contribute. Thanks. Xiner ( talk, email) 15:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Who was Onetas? Well, if You look in Wik(english), You will find two pages of search-hits for "oneta" - but Onetas? Nothing. (For the curious, go to "Ephialtes.: Kdammers 05:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
From a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion I have created a draft policy for situations in which templates may be proposed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion/Template prod and discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Template prod. Thank you. —dgies t c 17:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Every now and again, someone passes around a link to a vandalised version of an article and passes it off as truth, and people get very alarmed; or people somehow stumble across history and get thoroughly confused by all the old revisions.
Thing is, when you look at it, it really isn't very clear that these revisions are actually old - we know well that they may be vandalised, or incorrect, or simply bad and not representative of our beatiful, beautiful prose... but the casual external reader doesn't, as all we do is list a small bit of text at the top, and if you're not familiar with the MediaWiki UI then it looks exactly like a live article.
..it doesn't actually say "this is an old version", does it, or explain anywhere what kept revisions are? This is, on the whole, unhelpful to our readers. Useful for our editors, but we need to remember we're not the sole audience.
I've made a somewhat more verbose explanation - see MediaWiki:Revision-info - and comments would be appreciated. What I'd like to do is get the UI to display this obviously - say, visually something as striking and apparent as the new-messages bar. Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 20:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I've trimmed it a bit for redundancy, tell me what you think. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 23:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
With no offense to Flcelloguy's boldness, it looks horrible. Merely an aesthetic judgement, but I do not want to look at text that is basically as annoying as this when looking through consecutive versions of a page and trying to concentrate on changes. Or even with current versions. I realized the latter and brought up on #wikipedia, but the discussion sort of fizzled out after a while.
Really, there is no way to make this fail-safe. I believe that if there should be no disclaimer templates on present versions of a page, they shouldn't be there on past versions, since there is no guarantee that only the past version will have a problem, and only the present one won't. (And when using "permanent link", look, there's a disclaimer template built into the interface! This is against the spirit of the guidelines, and redundant with the link below.) Gracenotes T § 15:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Would it be possible to create a disambiguation namespace for all the disambiguation "Articles"? That would make the article coint more accurate. It would just have the now title redirect to the diambiguation namespace, which then links you to hte right article like diasambiguation pages do right now. The Placebo Effect 12:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what exactly to call them, but the Polish Wikipedia has some very handy links under the edit summary box for automatic edit summaries. As I don't speak Polish and I was just there to add an interlanguage link, I don't know what most of them do, but some are:Interwiki, stub, redir, infobox, and image. These could prove helpful here. Mr.Z-man talk ¢ Review! 22:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
With respect to your article on my father, Jesse L. Lasky: there are several errors and insufficient data. I would be pleased to submit corrections if you are receptaive. Betty Lasky —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaleideon ( talk • contribs).
I don't know if I should make this suggestion here or on Technical. I have already made this request over at WP:BOTREQ but it never went anywhere. Is there anyway we could get a clone of commons:User:FlickreviewR here on en.wiki? It would be best if all images taken from Flickr were uploaded to the Commons, but many new users aren't aware of the Commons and so en.wiki gets a lot of Flickr images. Because of this, we get a lot of Flickr images that aren't allowed on Wikipedia due to their license. But, a lot of these are missed since they have to be manually caught and checked by human editors. I propose that Wikipedia adopt similar measures that exist on the Commons:
Thoughts?↔ NMajdan• talk 19:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
here is a suggestion: put up a page where you can search discussions, view the newest comments, show the most heated discussions, show the most frequently updated discussion and so on...It would also be nice if new coments were automatically highlited in each article. Maybe a special ***Pedia can be created for discussion of specific topics, maybe even put up so that new guys can discuss seperatly from more expert users. thanks. hovru -- 68.122.82.13 02:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
site:en.wikipedia.org
with your query.) As for a wiki of specific topic discussion, have you heard of
http://wikireason.net , http://debatepedia.org and
wikia:pov? For recent (article) discussions you can
see here. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by new comments highlighted. For on wiki discussions there is
meta:DPLforum, but that's never going to be enabled on wikipedia. On wikinews we use
n:template:flag to highlight important discussions, but I think there is just to many for that sort of system to work here, as well, wikizine, wikipedia-l and the signpost keeps everyone well enough informed of important happenings. Also the talk pages here are not really meeant for discussions unless they help the article develop.
Bawolff 00:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that when we place {{ SharedIPEDU}} on talk pages, that we include the link to the school or school district's website. Ideally, the link would go to their computer use policy, if they have one online. A list would have to be compiled for User:SelketBot to include links when automatically adding this template. The place where such effort would be coordinated I think is WP:CVU, so I posted messages there about this to discuss whether this is a good idea, worth the effort, or other ideas. - WP:CVU#School admin contacts and web links -- Aude ( talk) 21:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The chart below needs the blanks filled in. Some of the missing shortcuts exist, but didn't seem appropriate to add to this list (either because of lack of scope, lack of worldview, etc.). This seems like an issue for the community to resolve, as it may entail reallocation of existing shortcuts.
Just to be clear, the following shortcuts are at issue here: J, L, S, V, W, X, Y, Z.
To look at a list of possible alternative pages, see Wikipedia:List of base pages in the Wikipedia namespace.
The Transhumanist 23:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Pagename | Redirects |
---|---|
Wikipedia:Attribution (policy) | WP:A |
Wikipedia:Bots (policy) | WP:B |
Wikipedia:Copyrights (policy) | WP:C |
Wikipedia:Disambiguation (guideline) | WP:D |
Wikipedia:Editing FAQ (help page) | WP:E |
Wikipedia:Fair use (guideline) | WP:F |
Wikipedia:Glossary (help page) | WP:G |
Help:Contents (help menu) | WP:H |
Wikipedia:Introduction (help page) | WP:I |
? | |
Wikipedia:Keyboard shortcuts (help page) | WP:K |
? | |
Wikipedia:Mediation (policy) | WP:M |
Wikipedia:Notability (guideline) | WP:N |
Wikipedia:Orphaned Articles (project) | WP:O |
Wikipedia:Portal (project) | WP:P |
Wikipedia:Questions (help page, directory) | WP:Q |
Wikipedia:Redirect (how-to guideline) | WP:R |
? | |
Wikipedia:Tutorial (help page) | WP:T |
Wikipedia:Username policy (policy) | WP:U |
? | |
? | |
? | |
? | |
? |
Good idea to give popular pages short shortcuts, but I don't think we need to go at it from the other end - it's okay for some letters to not map to pages. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-17 07:49Z