This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212
I have raised this issue before but I have to again. One or more users have been using some Wikipedia images, which are otherwise used validly in articles, as a means of vandalising other articles. Sexual images, particularly two images of penises, are being used to vandalise user pages. While the vandals have been blocked over and over again, because of their IP numbers they can only be blocked for short times.
Is there any way that potentially controverial images could have their usage restricted, so that they can only be used of relevant articles? Perhaps this could be done by means of a form of protection on the image, which would mean that, once protected, it could not be added to, or removed from, a page except by an admin? So for example, a protection could be placed in the penis images, meaning that no changes could take place on their file, so preventing the images from being linked to any page not already linked. A lot of time is being wasted reverting the vandal's insertion of the image over and over again on people's pages. Already some minor (but valid) images have had to be deleted because they were being used non-stop on other pages to vandalise them. There is a real danger that the likes of the penis images may end up having VfDs proposed because users see their deletion as the only way to stop the vandalism. Given that they are genuine and useful images when used in context, it would be a great pity to have to delete them. But unless some way can be found to stop their usage for vandalism purposes users may well go the deletion route having exhausted all other possibilities to stop the vandalism. FearÉIREANN\ (caint) 05:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry but having 40 users pages targeted for penises continually, having a penis put on a featured article, having a Wikipedia article that has been sourced internationally in publications changed to replace all its images with pictures of penises and star wars images, is not a minor matter. If it was only a once off, done occasionally we might laugh it off. But we cannot lock up to 50 articles and user pages constantly to stop that asshole. But it has got so serious that people will delete those images off Wikipedia entirely and/or place a long term block on the AOL IPs he uses, even though that would inconvenience hundreds of people. Already one teacher has privately indicated that he can no longer let his students look at our articles in class because he never knows whether a particular article about a historic figure or news event has a penis or a vagina placed in it. FearÉIREANN\ (caint) 21:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
You can make fun, David, or Chmod, or whatever your name is. Imagine if you worked behind the counter in a store. A woman with a young child complains about some porn magazines prominantly displayed behind the counter. You casually slur, "Yeah, the kid'll be scarred for life." -- Now, you know that that woman will never return to this store. Maybe you don't care, you just work here. But the owner of the store, your boss, will certainly care. He doesn't want to lose a potential customer. He will, in this order: 1) Fire you, and then 2) Remove the magazines. You protest: "Hey! That woman was wrong!" and he'll say, "Maybe. But her money just walked out the door. Right or wrong, I'm going to do what she wants." -- Now apply that to Wikipedia. The "money" in this case is actually prestige and respect. If Wikipedia doesn't get that then we're all wasting our time working on it. Now, Wikipedia is either a serious research tool or several thousand pages of graffiti. I'd like to think that it's the former. Your attitude, however, suggests that it's the latter. -- Ravenswood 07:27, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Jtdirl's proposal. Hardly a day passes that there isn't some penis vandalism, and although it's usually reverted very quickly there's always a chance that someone will stumble upon the page before that happens, perhaps a child perhaps not. Either way there's a good chance that that someone's opinion of Wikipedia will plummit. As Solipsist says, it is much easier to monitor the uploading of questionable images than it is to monitor the use of the images already on the site. -- Canderson 7 01:13, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Everyone is missing the point. I can create and upload potentially questionable images as fast as you put weird restrictions on their use. {chuckle} at the idea that anyone is currently deterred from uploading. Anyway, it's almost as disruptive to stick a fully-clothed Princess Leia on the George Bush page as it would be to put there an illustration of mooning.
Some content needs to be flagged -- you may not like that, but it's a rational compromise. See Toby. As far as uploads and vandalism in general is concerned, it is far past time for us to stop leaving all doors wide open to every passerby. We ought to have learned long ago that doing so means that the first several hundred rooms will have pee in all the corners.
I don't want to charge readers $24.95 a month to be Wikipedian Editors. I support openness in general; I even support limited anon editing. But the keyword is limited. We need to throttle anons and new users; we need to put liberal, but realistic limits on what they can do and how fast they can do it. By "realistic", I mean that we must control vandalism down to the point at which we can keep up with it. Obviously -- when complaints of this nature surface and drag on for days -- the problem is out of control.
Just as materialistic concerns cannot be allowed to destroy our ideals, idealism cannot be allowed to destroy our real value to the larger world. — Xiong 熊 talk * 22:54, 2005 August 22 (UTC)
I think the real point is that we don't have the ability to watchlist the addition of images to pages from the image end. By watching an Image, we should be alerted not only to changes in the description page, but changes in which pages the image is included in. That is the software change we need to implement, not locking images.
However, in regards to locking specific filenames to specific pages, I think that would be fine(if, as Xiong explained, not particularly effective) specifically because it would be easily circumventable by uploading new copies. JesseW 01:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Why not lock image uploads to official users (logged in) then? Or have a dynamic user evaluation, where users can vote for articles and the respective writers get a reputation to gain rights (i.e modify images)? This could also be achieved by looking a the activity profile of a user. -- BoP 09:15:49, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
I vote that all new image submissions should be flagged. Then, an admin could 'okay' it to be used. In the case of potentially offensive images, they should be permanently flagged and only show up on pages admins have okayed them to be on. That is, under my proposal, you could upload and use images exactly like you do now, but for A. new images, and B. potentially offensive images, an admin (or perhaps a certain number of votes by regular users) would have to 'unlock' them before they would show up. That way, if you visited an article on say George Bush, and it had a penis picture linked to it, you could have it just display a white background or some message until the pic was cleared. the1physicist 19:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Most vandalism gets reverted in a few minutes, but some remain unnoticed for months. I recently reverted a 4-month old vandalism in Angelina Jolie. I once remember reverting a 1-year old vandalism. I was wondering if there is a meta page which has got entries of vandalisms which are found very late. I could add this entry there. We can also have an association of Wikipedians who would pore through edit histories looking for unrevereted vandalisms. Jay 22:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I suggest that when the "view source" link of a protected page is accessed, it should show the reason for protection given by the administrator who last protected the page.
For example, instead of:
"This page has been locked to prevent editing; there are a number of reasons why this may be so, please see Wikipedia:Protected page."
The message should say something like:
"This page has been locked to prevent editing by non-administrators. The administrator who last protected the page gave the reason: visibility reasons."
Pages protected from moves only should show a similar message:
"This page has been locked to prevent moving by non-administrators. The administrator who last protected the page gave the reason: frequent vandalism."
Pages protected by default should have the message:
"Due to the software design, this page has been protected by default."
Also, when you click "view source", it also says "edit this page" in the title. It may be confusing for new users. -- Ixfd64 00:46, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
If I create an article and create a link to 'painting' but put the visible link text as 'art', the reader is going to expect to see an article on art, not painting, which may not be how that article has been written. The destination should either include the expected content or the link be changed. This seems difficult to identify. If the 'What links here' results showed the link text, it would be easier to review article content and links to ensure the quality is maintained. If this takes up too much processor time it could be a new option. Joe1011010 12:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Extended categorys:
From a conversation on User_talk:Grutness#Category:British_Hills_by_Height. A potential example is: Category:British_Hills_by_Height
Can I suggest a change the way a category is handled
Name | Elevation | Country | Type | First Ascent |
---|---|---|---|---|
Mount Victoria | 150m | New Zealand | Volcano | 2005/07/30 |
Mount Wellington | 151m | New Zealand | Volcano | 2005/07/31 |
Mount Albert | 152m | New Zealand | Volcano | 2005/07/32 |
AND (but no so easily) a better idea still would be to embed some java script so that this table can be sorted ANYWAY that a user desired by clicking on any one cell in the heading:
Name | Elevation | Country | Type | First Ascent |
---|
Frankly, this change would involve recoding part of the PHP engine. I could do this if required.
Any takers?
¢ NevilleDNZ 03:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC) ¢
That looks very similar to the following proposal:
It seems that the problem of categories, lists, series boxes, navigation bars etc. could be resolved in a structured way, just by building a basic semantic system. Here the proposal:
It would structure the content in an efficient mannor, while keeping it transparent and easy to maintain. This way the mess with categories, lists, navigation bars, etc. would find a "happy ending", finally...
I definitely would second your proposal! But do not forget an option to trunctuate/shift properties that surpass the width of the screen (maybe with Java/ECMAscript?) -- BoP 08:31:34, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
I agree with the problem that categories usually are build bottom up, which means that you've got to have an article on these. On the other hand you have to ask yourself if the information stored in the list already makes it worth to have a lemma on its own. In your example the links for the lemmata (i.e. Mount Pirongia) are already in the list, but the lemmata are just not generated, which makes no difference. In the proposal above it was not ment to store the properties within the lemma, but within the category - also to reduce the number of table-lookups. Therfore the List of New Zealand mountains by height would become a - Category:mountains, property:Country="New Zealand", sort:elevation>1000m So all the lookups can be done within the category, even if one wants to add this information into the lemma. In case you want to access the property within the lemma you write:
instead of: {{category_mountain|globe=earth|region=NZ|elevation=0962}} inside the article inside the category "{property:height category:Mountain:Name="Mount Pirongia"}" and get the height updated from the category. This way a change in the list of New Zealand mountains would update all the entries in the lemma. And you can maintain the full list in the category. Templates like "mountains in mexico over 1000 metres" would then be a similar lookup in the category.
I personally think that an article on "mountains in NZ over 1000m" is a nonsense as a lemma and should be a database lookup instead (which is not supported now, but is essential to structured information IMHO). To perfect the idea one would have to be able to update the information also within the article, which would be generated dynamically by the engine:
to update the category entry within the article by stating the obvious: {{category_mountain|globe=earth|region=NZ|elevation=0962}}
If there would be a template for inserting a database lookup, that can be edited from within every call, one could easily place a "list of NZ-mountains" by placing a static lookup into an article (like: {{tablelookup category_mountain|globe=earth|region=NZ|elevation>0962 format:Name|longitude|latitudue|elevation sortby:Name}}), that is expanded by the engine. One can maintain the list by editing the list itself, which would open the editor with the expanded list to manipulate the entries inside the category. An adjustment in the online editor, that gives you a dropdown list of properties for the categories of the current lemma to insert would complete the functionality needed to reduce errors. It is obvious that Wikipedia has to go one step further, not to become frozen in time. We should reduce clutter like formatting statements for table generation and concentrate on content and semantics. -- BoP 13:38:46, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
I happened to be on the German version of Wikipedia; their links are in blue, like the English version, but without underlining (unless the pointer is placed directly over them). I have long thought that with all of the links present (in blue and with underlines) the text in English articles is often not very readable. The text in the German version, with links simply in blue, is much easier to read, as well as having a much better look to it. Can the English-version links be made to look like those in the German one?
I posted this previously in the General Complaints page, but got only a short reply to the effect that the particular editor liked it that way, and that links on the Internet have underlines. That still doesn't answer the question of why the German Wikipedians chose to do things differently. S. Neuman 15:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I second the proposal, and propose a new item under the mics -- selective underlining.
If I choose selective underlining, All EXTERNAL links (links to resources outside of Wikipedia), as well as EXTRA-BODY links (links in the Category section, table of contents, left and top menus, boxes, etc should keep their underlining, since in those places underlines do not interfere with reading. But all internal links within the main body of the article should be deunderlined.
This will both keep recognizing and browsing important items easy, and make reading large amounts of text easier, without constant underlines. Elvarg 06:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
From the page: Obviously we should have categories about feminism, race activists, LGBT liberalists etc. That is not being debated here. People who have made important contributions for equal rights should obviously be recognized as such. The issue here is whether it's appropriate to classify everybody as such, e.g. "scientists by race", or if it's more appropriate to combine those into "scientists" since that is the more important trait. See Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality Steve block talk 08:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Reverts without real explanations are contrary to good practice. Nevertheless, they seem to be common. However, this problem could be alleviated by upgrading the software to: (1) add a field for explanations; (2) tally the reverts which lack an explanation by each registered user; and (3) post the results for all to see. Thus, a frequently offensive practice might be minimized. 162.84.72.171 02:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
How do we know this percentage? Editors would still be free to explain or not -- real information about the practice would just become available, perhaps for the first time. Or, would you rescind the following? "Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_resolution 162.84.72.171 21:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree that you shouldn't have to take additional time to write an edit summary for vandalism or ignorance, and this proposal doesn't require it. Editors would still be free to write a summary or not. We're not under deadlines here, so we can afford time to respect sincere contributors. While you are apparently not one of the offenders, the proposed change would facilitate identifying them. Unexplained reverts discourage contributors. Registered users seem to revert more frequently than anons. However, registration does not automatically make one a superior editor. And, of course, today's anons are tomorrow's registered users and admins. 162.84.72.171 22:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Quite accidentally I noted unintended "revert wars" on "Image:Logo.gif". People upload a logo without checking what's already there. I uploaded this, instead: File:Pleasedont.gif
and notified a couple of users that used the image, even re-named one user's image on his behalf. I also checked "Image:Logo.jpg" and "Image:Logo.png", and did the same. No links should have been left hanging, except for one user's user pages, and I've informed him/her on the talk page.
It goes without saying that images with generic names must be protected for this scheme to work. Please check here to see if the above image has been changed since I originally posted this.
Would this procedure be a good idea for other generic image file names? (such as "Photo.jpg", "Image.gif" etc.)?
Let's discuss this on Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Generic_image_file_names. Thanks! -- Janke | Talk 17:33:23, 2005-08-31 (UTC)
At the beginning of becoming a Wikipedian, I found that the amount of pages / information about editing and moderating pages so immense. So, I propose that all pages that help on the creation and editing of pages (eg Template Messages) require a "template tag" at the top.
My "template tag" is this:
As you can see by the above template proposal, I also plan to create an Editors' Portal. This will give the low-down on different pages (Templates, Tutorials etc.) that an editor can use.
Also, because all pages that display that template will link to the editors' portal, one can use the What links here feature to see a complete list of Editors' Resources. My proposed portal preview is available below.
Why not link just to the Community Portal? Because so many pages already link to it. If just editors' resources link to it, then the What links here feature will just contain editors' resources. Proposed portal will contain certain major editors' resources grouped into boxes.
I'm confused by this(probably my problem): Isn't everything in the Wikipedia namespace other than policy and guidelines, discussion and debate pages, humor and fun, a Editor's resource? Isn't that the default status for a page in the Wikipedia namespace? While creating a nice list of resources is useful (and we already have quite a few({{ welcome}}, Category:Wikipedia(although this still needs quite a bit of cleanup), the Manual of Style, and Help:Contents), it is not(AFAIK) difficult to identify a page as being "to help edit pages". Could you expand on this? JesseW 05:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
An alternative to the portal idea is to have the editors' resource pages link to a page that redirects to the community portal, along with a separate link: "Complate list of er pages" which links to the What links here of the redirect page.
-- Heebiejeebieclub 18:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Found at User_talk:TheMessenger and moved here - The Uninvited Co., Inc.
Greetings and salutations to my fellow Wikipedians. I am writing to you today as an appeal for higher standards of editing here on Wikipedia. Today Wikipedia is filled with infighting, vandalism, trolling, and the insertion of false information into otherwise good articles. If the current course of Wikipedia remains unaltered I fear the project will soon fail. There are steps we as Wikipedians can take to prevent this course, but I do not think the community at large will take them without drastic measures. This brings me to why I am here.
I represent the Cabale de Wikipedia or CDW. Yes, we did purposefully choose our name to mock the fictious Wikipedia Cabal. Our purpose here is simple: since Wikipedia has not listened to reason or properly dealt with the threats it faces we will dedicate ourselves to making it see what needs to be done through other means. Discussion has failed, consensus has failed, it is now time for action.
Let me admit up front that our means will be in direct violation of WP:POINT. We realize this and it makes us very sad. We will deserve to be banned from editing. Those of us who hold administrator powers will deserve to have it stripped. It's taken a long time for all of us to come to an agreement, but finally after witnessing the recent Willy on Wheels resurgence we feel we have no other choice. We cannot allow Wikipedia to remain the sort of place where this can happen. Action needs to be taken. If we need to bring Wikipedia to it's proverbial knees to prove what needs to be done, so be it. We are willing to do what needs to be done.
What I am talking about is a Reign of Terror on Wikipedia by the CDW. We've taken months to write scripts to aid us in severly impedeing Wikipedia's progress, we've recruited almost a hundred users, and we have many administrators within our ranks. We are poised to vandalize Wikipedia in such a way that will make Willy on Wheels seem a minor nusiance in comparison. Think of what Willy could do with administrator rights. That will happen. Think of what would happen if suddenly from fifty or more servers world wide, the GNAA decided to vandalize Wikipedia. That will happen. We will bring Wikipedia to a standstill.
But again, we don't want to do this. That is why we're sending this message, and why we're going to tell you what must be done. We promise not to start our proactive campaign until after October 1st. If the needs of Wikipedia have been met by then, we will call off our crusade and turn ourselves in before we begin. What we want is only what is best for Wikipedia.
Here is a list of our requests:
I invite all users to discuss this message, but request it be left intact. Someone will no doubt VfD this article. It probably should be VfD'ed. But at the very least people need to read this and start discussing what needs to be changed on Wikipedia.
Until October 1st, TheMessenger 18:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I was with you up to #5. #5 is one of those "what's a POV" things that is the very source of a lot of the paralysis that keeps the vandals running free and the trolls well fed, and trying to make a no mercy policy on that is hard, if not impossible. The rest seem cool to me, but so long as democracy is necessary for any change and quorum is not and democracy is responsible for any move that reduces the democracy, there's no hope. There is no power structure in place that could meet these demands because there is no power structure in place that would have made them unnecessary. Geogre 18:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
No offense, but you're a bit of an odd one, you know that? :/ CAPS LOCK 18:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:How to create policy for the constructive way of getting things changed. The "demands" presented here have been discussed before as proposals and rejected. In particular, "anonymous editing should be blocked" has never gotten any significant support. The "campaign" threats are irrelevant and disruptive, but while they're confined to your talk page I'm certain nobody will overestimate their importance.
The proposals contained in this message have been brought up many times, and they've always failed (see Wikipedia:Village pump (perennial proposals)). You're free to start yet another discussion on them at the village pump, provided you do so without threats of vandalising or disruption, which I will revert on sight. If you feel "discussion" and "consensus" have failed, you're free not to edit Wikipedia. You are not, however, free to vandalize it, or threaten to do so. Troll in your own time. JRM · Talk 19:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
"Since Wikipedia has not listened to reason or properly dealt with the threats it faces we will dedicate ourselves to making it see what needs to be done through other means." Like, for instance, creating your own fork of Wikipedia, making your own rules for it, and showing the rest of us how to do it right? FreplySpang (talk) 19:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
I suppose there is another way: simply keep going, reverting vandals as they come, and leaving the project when you feel burnt out. If you feel burnt out, this doesn't mean Wikipedia has failed. It just means that you need a wikiholiday. Wikipedia has not "failed", it is prospering. Yes, WoW is a nuisance, we don't need any more disruption to agree to that. As long as there are people willing to clean up after him, fine. What if admins just boycott the cleaning-up for some time? That would put pressure on the project without qualifying as WP:POINT. If enough admins simply went on strike with such demand, it would have some effect, and nobody could blame them. Your 'main' demand, rolling back of all edits by a particular user, within time limits, is a decent proposal for a software update. That's up to the developers, you cannot pressure the editor community into a software update. dab (ᛏ) 20:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, and I want a pony. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 21:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, as dab says, we are powerless to implement new tools. That's up to the developers; you could try contacting them. As for anonynomous IP editing- that is one of the major strengths of Wikipedia. If we started limiting editing priviledges, articles would develop much slower. Most anon IP edits are good; only a small percentage are problematic. Also, I do wish you wouldn't threaten mass vandalism; this blackmail will not accomplish anything, besides getting yourself blocked and creating more work. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
This is just some kid trolling. Probably the same one who claimed that vandalism would start on the 25th August. (I av't remeber the username of that one)
Theresa Knott
(a tenth stroke) 22:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Is anyone else reminded of a combination of John Gault and a sooky, overzealous 6-year-old? Slac speak up! 05:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I wonder whether perhaps this is User:-Ril-, who has always been fond of claiming ownership of an account with administrative rights, and who is fond of ascribing POV motives to the actions of admins. In any case, the threat rings hollow, since it implies that the pro-disruption group includes two or more admins, which I doubt. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Several thoughts about this discussion:
Agree with Nowhither , at some point, large-scale vandalism, possibly originating from a stolen admin account, will happen sooner or later. Hopefully WP syadmis are preparing for this. Are they? Who knows?
Meanwhile, much of the burden of revieweing edits could be improved with better tools. For example, I would love to know if one of my trusted collegues has already reviewed the same edit I'm reviewing. This would greatly reduce my review burden, and allow me to monitor many, many, many more articles. linas 23:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
If you think you can do things better, then by all means, give it a shot. There's nothing preventing you and Willy from running your own en.cabalepedia.org with whatever rules you want. Copy all of our content over to it. It's free, remember? Use your supposed script-writing expertise to mirror any changes made to the real wikipedia into a buffer on your site, where they can be reviewed before going live. Keep the things you like and throw away the things you don't. Restrict people from editing, only allow editors with PhDs, give everyone the ability to delete pages permanently and ban each other; no one is stopping you.
Since your methods are so superior, they will naturally lead to a migration of editors from here to there, your 'pedia will reach critical mass and will start growing faster than ours! Before long you'll be the first result in google searches. Then you will have won and we will all be proven wrong! (Hell, maybe we could "compromise" with them by hosting such a "social experiment" fork on our own servers. They can have their own little 'pedia for free in exchange for not having an incentive to vandalize (as if the incentive to vandalize actually had anything to do with this...) If they prove that their way is better by example, we can implement the same changes here.)
There are lots of people who agree with your ideas (I agree with some of them), but they're not going to be implemented like this. Sorry. If no one will listen to your demands through normal channels, then your demands are probably unreasonable. Try challenging your own ideas instead of trying to force them on everyone else.
Threats will get you nowhere. Good luck with your stupid crusade. Thanks in advance for wasting everyone's time. Omegatron ( talk) 23:55, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
You know those months you spent writing scripts to vandalise Wikipedia, and gathering an army of hundreds of editors ready to unleash a catastrophe on the project like never seen before? Maybe those months would have been better spent actually writing the feature you're asking for, rather than attempting to extort someone else into writing it for you.
Of course, this isn't the first time someone has threatened Wikipedia with total destruction unless their demands are met. Who can forget the Wikibomb? Well OK, maybe lots of people can forget it, since it kind of failed to go off. I found both that threat and this one pretty amusing. -- Tim Starling 04:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
I would like to propose adding a "permalink" in the Sidebar. Since permanent links to the current version are now possible, I think it would be a useful addition for people who want to link to a version that they can be guaranteed is not vandalism. See meta:MediaWiki:Permalink-url. Angela . 06:32, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
I don't quite understand what this is, Ang; do you mean someone would pick what permalink to go there? Or would it be a permalink to the current version displayed? -- Golbez 09:35, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
[http://permalink.whatever Wikipedia article X as of 16:13, 21 August 2005]
It should be noted that "permalinks" don't work for categories (the list of members may change) even though they misleadingly show up on category pages. -- Beland 02:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I would like the ability to watch a single section instead of an entire article. I made some minor changes to huge articles, like Tea and Terrorism:Talk. I would like to be notified if the sections I changed are touched, but don't want to be inundated each day with dozens of changes elsewhere in the article. Not having to sift thru all that would improve my Wiki contribution efficiency considerably. What do you think, should we propose this to the developers ? StuRat 23:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I think it could be done in a much simpler way. The section name is already reported under the watchlist, now there would just be a filter to only report those sections on the watchlist. For example, if I am watching "Common bean;(→Green beans)" it could report:
Common bean;(→Green beans)
But not:
Common bean;(→Sources)
If the section is moved, this should still work. If the name changes, it would work for the rename operation, but after that, the user would need to add the new section name to the watchlist (unless we also automated this process). StuRat 01:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I am trying to figure out how to make this suggestion:
All time references should include either a direct reference to either the time actually referenced or a direct reference to the time from which the relative time reference is made. Soft time references ("soon", "recent past", "a little while") should try to be avoided due to the ambiguity of the time referenced. If a soft time reference cannot be avoided, the time referenced from ("soon" from what time point?). For example, "now" should always be referenced to the time written, if that is what is intended.
To simplify the reading of the articles, it's possible that the time references can remain soft or ambiguous, but they should (must?) include a hard reference within the "meta data" such that the time referenced or the time relative anchor is shown as a rollover in a normal web browser.
The article that prompted this suggestion is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM64T where it references "soon" with no "time anchor".
My apologies if this is in the wrong location: this is my first ever post to wikipedia. (signature added upon request) GSmith 21:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
When an Arabic or Hebrew interwiki link is a disambiguation link (with a part within parentheses), the parentheses don't display properly in the browser text editor due to Unicode bidirectional algorithm issues.
For a proposed workaround, please see: Village pump (technical)#Arabic.2FHebrew: a proposed solution to Unicode bidirectional algorithm woes in the text editor
Ideally, interwiki link bots should be aware of this workaround and not tamper with it (not remove the embedded HTML comments within the interwiki link).
-- Curps 12:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Proposal:
Rename all articles containing the string "multi-" to the shorter form "multi", in other words, multi-X to multiX.
Example: rename the current article Multi-paradigm programming language to "Multiparadigm programming language".
Reasons:
This already seems to occur in Wikipedia. See the case: Multi-platform redirect to Multiplatform.
In English, at least in US English, hyphenating after the prefix "multi" is unnecessary, except when the subject word starts with the letter "i", or is a proper noun starting with a capital letter. (I am not a grammarian or English instructor. I am a part-time newspaper reporter.)
Is this the correct or best place to post such requests, or is there some more suitable location?
Thank you.
Does any policy/guideline exist for the naming of such list? Because currently everything is a real mess
Variants include:
(for a larger sampling see User:Fornadan/slby)
I think a consistent naming of these lists should be strived for because often you are interrested in comparing several of them. Currently you usually have to guess the right name. IMO they should be moved to "List of rulers of X" or "Rulers of X" since then you'd avoid problems with changing titles & female rulers Fornadan (t) 12:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
CSD A7 (non-notable bios) has come up for discussion a good deal during deletion and undeletion debates. At Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Interpretation of WP:CSD A7 (non-notable bios) is a proposal to clarify the interpretation of this critrion, and particularly the meaning of "Claim of notability". Please read it and comment if you are at all interested. DES (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Having spent some time reverting and reporting vandals I think it high time we had a better way of identifying them. I would like to see any vandal who has been blocked to be tagged so that in future use of the account or IP is highlighted so that vandal edits are obvious. Indeed these edits could even be streamed to a new vandal change page. There would of course be a way to remove the vandal tag but it would require some significant contribution (and retribution). -- Rjstott 10:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps someone might comment how often vandals re-offend after a block expires as this would estbalish whether this change has value! Looking at the block logs it definitely happens.-- Rjstott 07:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I was reading how much time and effort is spent on reverting vandalism and I had an idea. I'm a layman in all things software related, but still I wonder if this would be possible and would like to hear your thoughts about the it's effectiveness. The idea is this: every time a vandal was blocked from editing he would still see the "edit this page" on the page and be allowed to vandalize whatever pages he'd like. Of course in reality the changes he'd make after he was blocked would only appear to him on his screen and wouldn't in reality be saved on the wiki. This could potentially waste a big amount of vandalizing time and effort, but if the flagging of a vandal isn't accurate this could also mean that a lot of legitimate edits would be lost. Anyway, I'd like to hear what you think about it, would it be practical, is it possible, would it be a deterrence? Serodio 04:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
After about a month of editing articles at Wikipedia, I’m finally getting a general understanding of how the articles are related to each other and how to navigate to them. And that’s only because I’ve spent an inordinate amount of time trying to figure it out. Now, you might say that I’m just particularly slow in such things as finding my own aspects of the situation, but I dare say the navigation structure of this web site deserves at least half the credit. It’s not that a very impressive amount of thought and effort hasn’t gone into addressing the issue, but I believe most visitors would agree it still needs a little work.
The categorization schemes at Wikipedia:Category schemes focus on Wikipedia as an encyclopedia that happens to be on a web site, while navigation schemes focus on Wikipedia as a web site that happens to hold an encyclopedia. Categorization schemes focus mainly on the logic, while navigation schemes focus mainly on the usability of a web site. As a web site, I would expect Wikipedia to have a top-level navigation scheme, based on the primary categorization scheme, that would help me move about logically and quickly.
I expect there at least three general ways to add a topical navigation menu to every page. The first way is “simple.” Add template:Categorybrowsebar to the top of every Wikipedia page. The amount of useful information crammed into these two lines is invaluable and should be available from any page. If it’s placed at the top of every (or at least one) style sheet, and possibly reduced in size a bit, it would be universally accessible and take up a minimum of page space. Most importantly, novices and experts alike would have the full range of Wikipedia’s category schemes at their fingertips no matter which page they were reading.
A second way would be to add the eight main categories plus “ Other indexes” to the box in the navigation sidebar. That might be the easiest to implement, but space might be an issue (not that it isn’t with the other options too ;-).
A more sophisticated version of implementing the "navigation menu on every page" suggestion would be to use a drop-down menu. If I were going to merge the categorization and navigation schemes at Wikipedia, I would place a drop-down menu that contained the main categories and subcategories (whatever they happened to be at the time) across the top of every page. As a “ninth” category, I would add a “Browse by” button that listed the second row of the Category browse bar, plus maybe a few more, since the space issue would be addressed by the drop-down structure of the navigation menu. If this version is more difficult to implement than either of the other two, perhaps they can be implemented in stages. – RDF 21:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Example removed because of very long line. See here. Bovlb 15:18:47, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
If you want to keep the normal sitenotice text, remove the "https://" from the last line. If you want the sitenotice to be before the template, change the = sign after innerHTML to =+ -- pile0nades talk | contribs 21:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I have fixed the script. It didn't work because it depended on the siteNotice div which apparently has been removed. So it now inserts the HTML before the first h1 element in the page. It can be found here: [1] It is the one at the bottom. Just copy the function and replace yours with it. -- pile0nades talk | contribs 02:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks to Pile0ades, we now have at least one working example of a topical navigation menu bar at the top of every page for all Wikipedian users! It looks like the template at Template:Categorybrowsebaroneline. Now, who would actually decide whether or not to try this out at the global level? — RDF talk 08:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I am just wondering if you are interested in the proposal Semantics because it would drastically help for lower ranked category navigation. -- BoP 09:51:50, 2005-09-11 (UTC)
In a related conversation ( [2]), R.Koot preferred having the categories across the top and the browse pages in the sidebar navigation box. That works for me too. A question that still remains for me is, who decides to implement something like this that requires modifying protected pages? — RDF talk 22:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
It would really help if there was a button that adds '''{{subst:PAGENAME}}''' to the text area (for editing pages). This would really help people who are starting articles in the main namespace. It would greatly benefit lazy editors, such as me. :) -- Ixfd64 09:31, 2005 September 10 (UTC)
Is there (scope for) on of these Wikipedia:Wikipedian of the month things? Where the creme de la creme get a monthly pat on the back from the community? I dont wanna go making a whole page and then have it rfded. Cheers pedians -- Wonderfool t (c) 23:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Why don't we do it? I realize people editing closed VFDs is rare, but it happens. ~~ N ( t/ c) 14:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Yep. Editing doesn't really screw stuff up, only the top copy is changed and the history remains. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 14:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, then, in the event that I'm promoted to admin, would people mind if I protected VfDs when closing them? ~~ N ( t/ c) 18:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I think that the actual image and the image description should have seperate protections. Currently, protecting an image protects both the image itself and the description. However, vandalizing an image description will have no impact on the articles that use the image. -- Ixfd64 08:22, 2005 September 6 (UTC)
I do a lot of new page patrol, and I don't see any evidence that new users (or some established users) pay any attention to our notices about restrictions on adding copyright material. Assuming good faith, I believe that this is because of ignorance and a genuine desire to help build an encyclopedia. I propose that we revise the notices on the edit screens and file uploads so that they give a very simple, clear, and direct message at the top of the page. Something like:
Do not copy text or images from other websites or from printed sources. Only in certain limited circumstances is it possible to reuse existing material; unless you are sure you have permission, do not copy the work of others. If you do not understand the copyright issues involved, please contribute only your own work. |
I realise that this sounds more restrictive than the current policy, but new contributors don't seem to stop and read all that copyright stuff. This is short and sweet and should at least give them pause. Hopefully it will cut down on the WP:CP backlog. The notice should have a distinguishing class/id so that experienced users can suppress it. Comments? Bovlb 02:10:50, 2005-09-02 (UTC) Modified per Superm401. Bovlb 05:43:20, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
-- Superm401 | Talk 02:47, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
THANK YOU
This is a badly needed warning/notice. Our anonymous helpers starting articles simply do not understand this. Some may just ignore our current warning but surely many just don't see it. The "do not submit..." warning is at the bottom of many crowded lines of instructions. A random contributer could easily miss it. support 08:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I have very mixed feelings about this. Yes, the insertion of copyrighted material into Wikpedia is a pain but (1) I really don't want this thing staring me in the face every time I edit, 2) it is an extreme oversimplification of the copyright issues involved, (3) "contribute only your own work" seems like an invitation for original research. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:45, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Looking like that, the notice is way too harsh. Someone might interpret a notice like that as a faux pas, and you might deter him/her from using Wikipedia, or worse, provoke him/her into committing vandalism. Denelson 83 05:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I like the proposed notice. Some people just don't understand that most web sites are copyrighted and you can't copy from them. mrholybrain 15:28, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
I had a thought for improving disambig pages. <snipped>-- Ashenai 13:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I have recently discovered that some books used to reference articles were alvailabe as e-books (non-free). Is there any objection if I add a link to the editors site in the articles ? Ericd 15:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
To help standardize supreme court cases (particularily, but not necessarily, US ones) I've put up two straw polls at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases ( here and here). One is to standardize our method of linking court citations and the other is to standardize the info box used. Both mainly concern readability and usefulness to regular users, so opinions from those who rarely read these pages are just as important as those from those who don't. Thanks. Telso 21:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
I have noticed that Wikipedia and its sister websites list Bosnian ("Bosanski"), Croatian, and Serbian as seperate languages. As any linguist will tell you these are merely dialects of Serbo-Croatian. Indeed the term "Bosnian" (referring to the language) had not even entered the vernacular until the recent war in Yugoslavia. To suggest that it is a sperate language would be like saying that there should be an "American" section on the site, seperate from the English one. The most politically neutral and linguistically accurate method of organizing this would be to have a "Serbo-Croatian (Cyrillic Alphabet)" section and a "Serbo-Croatian (Roman Alphabet)" section (those two names are only tentative proposals, as they pose certain difficulties). The current system isolates pro-seperatist and pro-Serbian groups, so that it is difficult to ensure that articles be politically neutral, as they ought to be. That is, one may write articles biased against Serbia in the Bosnian encyclopedia without fear of correction, and vice-versa. One final note: Slovenian and Macedonian are in fact distinct languages and not dialects, and so deserve their own sections, as they have now. (preceding unsigned comment by Hipcat ( talk · contribs) )
אַ שפּראַך איז אַ דיאַלעקט מיט אַן אַרמײ און פֿלאָט -- Mwalcoff 18:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Blatant copyvio material, and consider voting, thanks. Martin 15:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
I think that we need a new namespace for non-image media files. It may be somewhat confusing to new users when they see sound files in the "Image" namespace. Having sound files in the "Image" namespace is also somewhat deceptive. -- Ixfd64 02:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Voting has started for a new Wikimedia sister project proposal called Wikiversity. This is a request for anybody that is interested to cast a vote either in support or opposition to this new project proposal. The results of this vote will determine if this project will be started on its own seperate group of wikis as a Wikimedia sister project, together with approval from the Wikimedia Foundation Board. Discussion about this proposal should take place on the Wikiversity discussion page.
Please see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Non-notable Internet entities. ~~ N ( t/ c) 21:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
The watchlist doesn't show if a page on it has been moved. Is there a reason for this? I have not found this bug on bugzilla, and since I can't stay logged in on bugzilla I can't post it as a new bug there. So I thought I'd just ask here first in case someone has an answer up front.
Fred- Chess 13:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Who am I to make a review of Wikipedia? Noone I guess. None-the-less, with my insight as software developer I would like to state the following. In the words of another user, "I am still debating how credible Wikipedia can be as source". Loads and loads of wonderful information that people work long hours on to create. A plethora of knowledge at your finger tips. Grand! But, I find that pages are too volatile! That everyone can edit articles is a great philosophy, but when someone has spent those long hours researching a subject, marking information with creditable sources, only to have an anonymous user or opinionated new user come by and change relevant information without doing any research into the subject, is almost vandalism. Ok, that each article has people watching over it, but I don't believe that through the collective watchful eye that errors are always reverted. 1642 turns quickly into 1942. When someone edits an article wrongly in such a way it often points out a weak sentence, but it still points to the fact that each article has to be constantly "guarded" by people knowledgable about its subject. And how long do such errors remain unchanged? Which school boy is going to get an 'F' because the date was stated wrong on his book report? Vandalism is easy to spot, but subtle erroneous changes in facts are not.
So, what is the solution to this? A concrete answer there is not and the developers and foundation will decide, but I think articles after reaching a certain point should be less edittable forcing other editors to mark discuss pages instead of the main article. Having people work hard to get the article they are working on into this less volatile state might be an added incentive. This non-volatiles state could be a state in between peer review and featured article.
Of course, this is only one possible solution and there are other concepts, but I will leave it at this. -- None-of-the-Above 07:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
For example, suppose we have three ratings: 1, 2, 3, with 3 being the best. Say the Monday version of an article is rated 3; then everyone who looks at it sees the same article. Now a new user (with user-rating 1) edits it on Tuesday. The Tuesday version is necessarily rated 1, since no version of an article can have a rating higher than that of its most recent editor. Now viewers with minimums of 2 or 3 see the Monday version, while viewers with minimum 1 will see the Tuesday version. Those who the article can edit any version they want, just as they can now, although most will probably want to edit the Tuesday version. Continuing: On Wednesday a mid-level user with rating 2 looks at the article, decides the Tuesday editor did not do such great work, and fixes it up. So the Wednesday version has rating 2. Now viewers with a minimum of 1 or 2 see the Wednesday version, while those with a minimum of 3 see the Monday version. Lastly, on Thursday, a super-user with rating 3 checks the article out, and decides it is top quality. He edits it, doing little or nothing, and the result has rating 3. Once again, all viewers see the same version.
Actually, I would add one more feature to this: a high-level user who edits an article could give the result a rating less than his user rating. For example, if a 3 user edits a 1 article, improves it a little, but thinks it still needs work by someone more knowledgeable, he might want to give his edit a 2 rating.
Lastly, I'll note that your "release" system is essentially the same as mine, only there are exactly 2 levels: non-release and release. And maybe that is all we need ... In any case, the result is that most people using (but not editing) Wikipedia will never even see vandalism.
And maybe this discussion should go somewhere else?
— Nowhither 00:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Under the current setup, if an editor makes a change that shows up on my watchlist, and I go examine the edit, and I agree with the edit, there is no mechanism for me to say "that was a good edit", and therefore no way for others to determine how much scrutiny a particular edit received. Therefore, my preferred (minimalist) solution is:
I think this simple change, with some encouragement to people to go ahead and review things, would be a big step forward. Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 22:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I think it would be a great idea if you made a toolbar for Internet Explorer!!! Not a bad idea right?
I've noticed that many people tend to add dictionary-only entries to Wikipedia, even though such content belongs on Wiktionary instead. However, many articles link to such entries, and people will definately search for dictionary-only entries on Wikipedia.
Therefore, I think that it's time to use {{ wi}} on all dictionary-only entries. This will bring two benefits:
What do you think of this suggestion? -- Ixfd64 05:51, 2005 September 12 (UTC)
I sent an e-mail to info after reading the article in wired magazine about the criticism that wikipedia is not taken seriously as an academic source. I wrote up a proposal to add academia controled pages in parallel with the publicly contributed pages.
Please take a look at tell me what you think:
Academic Verification Proposal
I am sure this is an issue being addressed elsewhere an I would be happy to discuss this matter with other people.
Given that featured articles are meant to represent the best Wikipedia has to offer, should they not stand out? I'm not saying have them all shout "Hey, I'm a featured article!" but I've long thought a rosette at the top of a page saying "Featured Article" would draw attention to the fact that this is the standard that we are aiming for. I'm terrible at drawing, and being a newcomer I don't know how to go about it, but does anyone think this is a good idea? - David McCormick 20:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
This my proposal. It's like a bot flag, kind of. Holding this flag means that administrators and users can be less concerned that the person is a vandal or a new user. Such a flag is more considered as recognized as fine Wikipedians. Kind of like mentors, in sense they could teach other new users to be more expertise or something like that. If users turn bad, the flag should be easily removed. This should allow the hiding of such users from RC patrol, or exclusively showing these users in the RC patrol. This way you can sort the experts from the newbies and vandals. Since, not all experts are sysops, but they can be marked off with this flag.
Obtaining this flag should be done through community consensus with the backing of one administrator (likely the one reviewing the consensus). -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I have been wandering the wiki-wilderness today and have crossed from wikipedia to meta-wiki to the german wikipedia and realized that I have a separate account for each. Is there any way we could have one account for all wikipedia-related projects, in all languages? I think that this would simplify greatly the constant logging in as you cross from project to project and language to language. Clarkefreak ∞ 23:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Is there a template message to tag a page of equations to be translated from math formula to plain english?
Such as: Math2english (example template)
This article's
formula needs to be translated to the
English language.
|
A simple case would be:
1+1=2 one plus one equals two;
a more complex one would be:
This wouldn't replace the formula, but be in addition to it. It may be helpful to people not skilled in mathematics. Thanks. JDR 16:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
An interesting idea. Of course, some very complex equations can't easily be converted to plain English, like those with lots of nested parens. StuRat 10:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
This would be nice, but would only work for the simplest kinds of formulae — the resonant frequency one given above is about as complex as would viably be intelligible in words. I would envisage particular difficulty in producing a clear way of 'speaking' functions with complicated arguments. - Splash 16:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Note that the benefit from using sentences in the example provided was that it defined the variables. You don't need sentences for that:
The definitions could even include links, to make them as useful as possible. Perhaps we need a template meaning "please define the variables used in this formula". StuRat 19:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
The template is a poor solution to a real problem. The editing guidelines already suggest avoiding unnecessary symbols, and contributors to mathematics articles regularly discuss criteria for best practice. An article that uses a resonant frequency formula without explaining its terms almost certainly needs more than a formula "translation"; using undefined symbols is bad practice in every context I know. (Obvious exceptions include π, arithmetic operators, and the like.) Suggestions of links inside formulae are scary; they can cause confusion and unreadability with default formatting of links. MathML, now half a decade old, has formal mechanisms (in its content markup) for adding meaning to symbols. Even when that becomes available, it will be no substitute for good writing. To request that, we already have templates. For anything else, I'd like to see concrete examples of articles where this kind of template might be used now. Notation serves a purpose; we would not want to tackle complicated mathematics writing without notation any more than we would want to build a house without blueprints. However, a smart architect does not expect the client to "see" a building from its plans; nor should a smart mathematics explanation omit the intuition behind the equations. -- KSmrq T 23:05, 2005 August 30 (UTC)
Translated formulas are useful for blind users, whose text-reading software can't make sense of images or text formatted with tables and superscripts. Non-user 11:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
This proposal echoes a larger proposal that I had thought of making. I've been trying to learn a little bit about set theory and computer system modeling lately. But when I read many of these articles, they are clearly written for Computer Science 301 and higher students at your higher learning institution of choice. That would be great for me if I were such a student. I'm not. I'm just trying to understand a new idea, which I thought was the raison d'être of Wikipedia. Instead, I'm finding that in order to even understand the article (not the topic of the article, just the article itself), I'm following page after page of links. To a point, this is expected for new topics, and I oblige.
I propose a policy that suggests to editors that any articles that are not readily understandable by the layperson or unedumicated[sic] professional such as myself (perhaps because the topic itself is not easily understood) be prefaced with some sort of indication of the educational prerequisites that will be demanded of the reader in order to proceed. I'm sure that there's some kind of WikiSpeak to explain what I'm suggesting, but hopefully I made myself clear.
With such a Reader Prerequisite template, the articles that contain Math markup will probably not need so much translation to English. Upon stumbling across the formal definition of Petri Nets, (I can read most of the math markup, I think) I would first see that I am expected to have first understood advanced set theory and what class I'm going to need to take at the local college before I should try to finish the article. -- RedCrystal 23:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Here are my two cents. The use of TeX-generated graphics exclusively to show mathematical statements is just plain out-of-date... We should be using nested <object> elements with MathML. Let a PNG/GIF be displayed as alternate content, with an alt attribute in plain English if at all possible. WP should allow for input in Tex (using an automated conversion to MathML) or in straight-up MathML. The plain English is very important for users who utilize screen readers. Also, plain English expressions should describe the statement, not its representation, preferably using a stack expression methodology. For example, the quadratic formula would be expressed:
"The standard form of a rational quadratic polynomial is the equation of the sum of the sum of the product of A and the square of x and the product of B and x and C and 0, where A, B and C are integer constants and x is a rational variable. Z is a root of a rational quadratic polynomial if and only if Z is equal to the quotient of the sum or difference of the opposite of B and the square root of the difference of the square of B and the product of the product of 4 and A and C and the product of 2 and A."
Since this English expression refers only to operations and not to symbols of operators, there is no possible ambiguity. Everyone should be able to reconstruct what I just said in their favorite notation. If not, please go talk to your high school algebra teacher :-). -- Mm35173 18:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Just want to make a (slightly irrelevant) note: writing a mathematics formula in plain english can help non-english speakers (such as me) get familiar with english terminology when it comes to formulae. Sure, I know that what I call "συν" in greek is "plus" in english, but (for example) how do you call "e εις την x" (is it exp(x)?) in english??? How do I speak f(x)? In greek it is "f του x". Is it "f function of x" in english?? Irrelevant and offtopic note, but I wrote it anyway! Michalis Famelis 21:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I think this is only useful for very simple formulas. I think its use in RLC circuit is unnecessary; if you can't read that formula, are you going to be messing around with tuned circuits? Also I think the template needs a link to more information; when I first read the template, I thought it was a sarcastic comment about the formulas being confusing. Links to formula and English language are unhelpful. Pfalstad 23:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
navigation
Here's an idea. Why not add a new category called "Category:Higher risk of vandalism" as a sub-category of Category:Wikipedia? It'd be somewhat analogous to Category:Wikipedia featured content. This "higher risk" category could have subcategories like recently slashdotted, etc. The purpose of the category would be to note articles which appear to have a higher risk of being vandalized, and thus watched more closely. This would be a useful warning to readers, who would know to a little careful of such things, and would also hint to vandal-watchers to think about adding it to their watch list. If it works well, the "Recently Changed" list could specially mark any modification to an article in that category. I could easily add the category and see how it works, but I thought it'd be good to hear any constructive comments first. In particular, a better name or taxonomy would be great. Then we can add it, and see if it's actually useful (and drop it if it isn't). -- Dwheeler 14:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Has someone hashed out how to handle varying units of measurement in templates? I understand that it supports consistency to have the units in the template, rather than leaving them out, but Metric is not always appropriate. I'm specifically looking at the River template, which assumes metric and can't be changed. This isn't a good fit for, say, the Mississippi; all of the units in the article are given in English units (then Metric).
Please point me in the right direction if there's a better venue for this issue. Thanks, — Papayoung 05:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Most search engine Portals and Websites have a link banner/search box, google for example ( http://www.google.com/searchcode.html) . Wikipedia should make one available to the public, a copy of the existing code should do, I have copied it myself for my WikiAtlas page ( http://tiamat58.tripod.com/WikiAtlas.htm) I am happy to take this page down if there is a problem.
What I was wondering is why Wikipedia hadn't made a forum. It would be an excellent place for people to discuss certain things, get ideas for articles proofread and all those kinds of things.
I understand the motivation of the current campaign against untagged pictures, but I don't understand why no one is making any effort to contact the people who uploaded them. I recently discovered that dozens of images I uploaded over a year ago, before any such standard was in place, and for which I provided clear information about provenance but not the current tags (which didn't exist at the time) have been deleted. I only found out by looking at the articles in question, because no one tried notifying me and because I don't customarily watchlist images.
Frankly, this pisses me off. It's not like I'm generally hard to reach (although I am about to take a 5-day break, my first in over a year).
I've often removed dubious images in the past, myself. But I've never done this without attempting to contact the uploader. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I've removed Jimbo's ill-conceived and rude attempt to dictate policy. If there is a good reason for images to be deleted outside WP:IFD, it should be discussed publicly. ‣ᓛᖁ ᑐ 22:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I have no interest to participate in a wiki where the founder is established as a dictator in fact rather than simply in humor. I will not continue editing. ‣ᓛᖁ ᑐ 02:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
A few comments seem worth making on several issues raised.
❝There's no point in acting all surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years, so you've had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaints, and it's far too late to start making a fuss about it now.❞
A little food for thought. -- KSmrq T 04:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Would it be technicaly possible to make images remain red-linked until tagged in some way? Fornadan (t) 22:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Moved from Wikipedia talk:Village pump
what would you guys think of adding in the placeopedia website into wikipedia. see www.placeopedia.com . we can at least do it better than them because we have more users. hans863
Please see Template_talk:GFDL#Subject_to_disclaimers!? -- Sanbec 08:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I propose that Wikipedia should change the background color to black and the font to white. This would be much easier on the eyes, seeing as staring at a white moniter is much akin to staring at a light bulb. This isn't an issue on most sites, but considering Wikipedia is a research site, people can spend many hours reading articles here, and it would just make common sense.
The m:Gallery of user styles on meta has some examples of skins with light text on a dark background if you would prefer that. You can of course create your own - see m:help:User style. Thryduulf 07:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I know I am not the first person to point out the problem that Wikipedia articles are often too technical for the layman. I consider myself to be a fairly well-educated person, but the article at Zipf's Law, for example, is completely unintelligible to me.
I think the reason for this problem with Wikipedia is editors' tendendency to write for themselves rather than to imagine an intended audience. Take the article on American football. The people likely to read this article are non-Americans who know little about the sport and are looking for basic information. Yet some editors insist on adding details on the most obscure aspects of the game, such as one-point safeties, fair-catch kicks and other minutia.
One way to resolve this problem is to think of Wikipedia in a hierarchical sense. Articles on general topics -- the kind you'd find in World Book -- can be considered "top-level" articles. These articles should provide a basic overview of the subject for someone completely unfamiliar with the subject. The reader should not have to read another article in order to understand a top-level one.
Articles on more-technical subjects could be considered "tributaries" of the top-level articles. A reader should be able to understand a tributary article after reading the associated top-level article. The article on American-football strategy, of course, cannot be aimed at someone completely unfamiliar with the game. But it should be written to be generally comprehensible to someone who has read American football. We could even have a template: "If you are unfamiliar with the topic of American football, you might want to consider reading that article before trying this one."
You could also have second-level tributaries -- Zone defenses (football) as a subsidiary of American-football strategy. Or you could expect readers to read two higher-level articles. And if the overall meaning is clear, you can just bluelink some terms (like "OECD" in the nex paragraph) rather than explain every single word. But the important thing to remember is that readers must not be forced to go chasing links all over Wikipedia in order to understand a single article.
Of course, it doesn't matter how a hierarchy of articles is organized if they are written in an incomprehensible manner. Editors should always write articles as if they are going to be read by average people. Fewer than one-fourth of Americans 15 years or older have a bachelor's degree, and the average adult in OECD countries has 10 years of education. Yet some people edit Wikipedia like they think everyone has a Ph.D.
I understand that there might be some information that merits inclusion in Wikipedia even though it cannot be made easy for normal people to understand, such as the equations in the Zipf's Law article. But the beginning of every article should explain in simple language what the subject is and why it is important. The math can go at the end for the people interested. Mwalcoff 02:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I've now started the project; please see WikiProject:General Audience if you would like to join. ‣ᓛᖁ ᑐ 08:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Administrators can, with one click, revert pages to the last version not edited by a particular user. However, if two or more users make bad edits to the same page in a row, then the administrators will still have to revert using the "mortal" way.
Also, if one user reverts a page, and an administrator reverts right after, the page might get reverted back to the bad version.
Therefore, I suggest a function that allows an administrator to revert to a particular version with ease. In the page history, each revision would have a "revert to this version" link. When an administrator clicks the link, the page will be reverted to the specified version.
The summary would be something like Reverted to version as of 19:59, July 3, 2005 UTC by (user name).
If regular users could revert images this way, I don't see why an administrator should not be able to do the same with pages. -- Ixfd64 21:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
On occassion during patrol I'd come across a POV edit that the normal test templates didn't really address directly. I want to create a new template patrollers could use to more specifically address them. It would tell/direct them to the neutrality sections of Wikipolicy, and elaborate that established articles go through discussion and consensus prior to contentious additions/changes being made. - Roy Boy 800 05:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Note: Yes, I know this proposals includes software changes and yes, I know that changes to the software should go on Bugzilla. But right now I'm just testing the waters what the community thinks of the proposal I wish to make.
Reading #Making featured articles stand out above, I started thinking: The point Raul654 makes against metadata is (probably - correct me if I'm wrong) backed by Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, and rightly so. Now one big reason for avoiding self-references is that reusers can just take the articles and, well, use them, so we should keep the database clean. However, there are numerous cases of self-reference that are accepted (stub and cleanup templates) or even encouraged (i.e. I'd say the interlanguage links are pretty heavy self-references, and no-one has proposed to remove those from featured articles yet). The rest go on talk pages, but they don't actually refer to the talk page. Now, what if we had a namespace that would attach to an article just like the Talk: namespace, but was intended for metadata? So, on the top of Article there would be a link to Metadata:Article.
That page would include any metadata that applies to the article, which would mean:
Now, if we have this metadata collected in one place, we can choose how to display it. That would require some changes to the software, but I think no really big ones: I would propose that the Metadata: page is just automatically prepended to the wikitext when the article or the talk page is requested. Of course, not all metadata should appear on both. The solution to this would be markup, and I think Metadata:Article could look something like this (the comments are only for illustration):
<articletop>{{cleanup}} {{POV}}</articletop> <!-- This is shown at the top of the article --> <articlebottom>{{stub}}</articlebottom> <!-- This is shown at the bottom of the article --> {{fac}} {{pr}} <!-- everything not marked up is automatically shown on the talk page... --> [[de:Artikel]] [[Category:Articles]] <!-- ...unless it's an interlang or a category, then it's parsed on the article only -->
It would be even better, of course, if templates like {{ stub}} could actually include its own placement markup, making the maintenance of the metadata easier, e.g.:
<articlebottom>This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.</articlebottom>
Templates that contribute content, like navigation templates, would remain where they are right now, in the article itself, as would any metadata template that needs exact placement ({{ sect-stub}} comes to mind).
That would neatly solve the "keep our database as reusable as possible" dilemma, since any reuser would just have to drop the Metadata: namespace, and we could choose to highlight. On the other hand, it would add significant instruction creep, and yet another namespace, and it would add another database call to any article or talk page. But since I've already thought this up, I'd like to hear if this idea has any merit at all.
Thank you for your time, -- grm_wnr Esc 21:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
One negative implication of this would be that it would require two database queries (one to get Metadata:$1 and the other to get $1) where we now have one. — Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ( talk) 22:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Another problem I foresee would be when stubs are expanded into full articles. I doubt many editors would bother (or even remember) to go into the metadata to remove a stub tag. It would also increase the workload on us stub sorters (now: open article, edit article text and template, save; new method: open article, open metadata, edit article to correct sloppy text, edit metadata to change template; save both). Similar problems would occur when adding categories to articles. Perhaps the simplified form of this system is more viable - keep it to just article and talk pages, but add in metadata commands to the templates so that no matter where on a page a template was added, it would turn up at the right point on the page (a bit like with category links now). Grutness... wha? 02:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
How often do you search for an article but all the good information gets drowned in pages and pages of redirects? An article may have 10 or may of these annoying pages along with it. Although they're a lifesaver when useing "go", they are just the opposite when using "search". My idea: find some way to give the option to ignore redirects on the search result page. HereToHelp 23:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC) Who'ss with me?
The cherished goal of NPOV for Wikipedia often seems to be getting farther and farther away from realization. One of the most intractible problems is that POV warfare is carried on in a highly organized basis, not only in the editing, but oftentimes in administrative functions as well. It takes the form of what have been described variously as WikiCliques or POV posses, which generally have one or more Designated Administrators, administrators who carefully avoid direct participation in specific conflicts, but will intervene with administrative powers on the side of their respective teammates. An example of such behavior is what I call the Protection Racket, where admins watch the Requests for Protection page in order to protect the versions desired by their buddies, and POV warriors time protection requests so as to intersect periods when their Designated Admins are on patrol.
At present, the remedies are inadequate. Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship seems very unwieldy and is seldom used. So, I am making the following proposal:
I think that there ought to be a higher echelon of administrators, whom I propose be called ombudsmen, who would be held to a far higher standard of propriety and neutrality than present administrators. A member who becomes an ombudsman could lose that status at the slightest hint of partisanship in any dispute where ombudsman powers are invoked. And here are what I propose ombudsman powers should consist of:
1. The authority to discipline admins by imposing temporary bans on their use of admin powers, just as admins may temporarily ban ordinary editors from editing. This authority would be used when admins are found to be using their authority to further the POV-pushing of their allies.
2. The authority to temporarily intervene into POV disputes by setting ground-rules for conflict resolution in specific articles (this idea needs some refining; my intention is to take some of the load off of the mediation and arbitration committees, and speed conflict resolution.) -- HK 15:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Repast The Tempest (Insane Clown Posse) Formal amendment Hay sweep Actual effects of invading Iraq W. Ralph Basham Adam bishop Harrowlfptwé Brancacci Chapel Acacia ant(Pseudomyrmex ferruginea) Cyberpedia Principles of Mathematics Moss-troopers Gunung Lambak
All of the articles above are created by people as a "test". On average there are 2-20 of these posts that keeps admins busy unnecesarily. All pages have one thing in common they are less than 16 bytes. 15 bytes is a magical number because it is the smallest article size posible to have a redirect. or #redirect A = 15 chars. -- Cool Cat Talk 02:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
We already have a way to detect such pages. That'll be my bot in #en.wikipedia.vandalism . It is trivial to add it a function to make it delete any page newly created with less than 15 bytes. I intend to do so, objections? -- Cool Cat Talk 02:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
It might be a good thing to avoid deleting anything that's a template. One example is a {{deletedpage}}
(which happens to be 15 chars, but no reason it couldn't have been shorter). Or, it might theoretically be possible to have a very short template that performs some logic based on the {{PAGENAME}}. --
Curps 09:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Pages created in the past 10 minutes: Jamie Lidell Katy Lennon Cassa Rosso
Exeptions bot will not delete:
Given that how large (in bytes) should a newly created article be written to be kept?
objection to 15 limit - Please note: During debate on potential deletion of stub template redirects at WP:SFD and WP:TFD it is often easier - so as not to get the "this may be deleted" message on the real template - to replace the redirect message with a simple template message. Thus, if a redirect to {{ a}} was being debated, the nominated template would contain the text {{tfd}}{{a}}. 12 characters. Then there's pages containing simply {{copyvio}} - 11 characters. I can't think of any smaller possibilities, but they may exist - and 15 is thus too big! Grutness... wha? 01:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Will this bot automatically post an explaination to creator's talk pages explaining why their page was deleted? Perhaps it should, if that's feasible. -- Aquillion 16:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I have been requested by Cool Cat for his assistance, but in light that Cool Cat doesn't have admin powers, I have taken upon myself to write this bot. I have decided three levels for this bot: 15 bytes that are not redirects or templates will be deleted automatically by the bot. 42 bytes are automatically marked with {{ db}} with the delete reason of "Bot detected new article less than 42 bytes, possibly spam." Anything under 1k will be marked with the generic stub template. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
We are trying to develop a new proposal that would, in a nutshell, mean that we have a new level of block which would allow an IP address to be blocked from anonymous, but allow registered editing.
This is impportant so please get involved!
See Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal.
thanks - Martin 21:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Every time I search for an article, I see all the different results, many of them are very simmilar, and many of them will redirect to the same article. However, I always read a few of the less simmilar results and wonder if they are a separate article or not, and I usually end up clicking on a few of them, and end up visiting the same article multiple times, to my annoyance. I was just wondering if it would be possible to put a little line saying 'redirects to:_____' beside each search result, to easily determine which of the results will take you to a different article. Let me know what you think. -- Someones life 08:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212
I have raised this issue before but I have to again. One or more users have been using some Wikipedia images, which are otherwise used validly in articles, as a means of vandalising other articles. Sexual images, particularly two images of penises, are being used to vandalise user pages. While the vandals have been blocked over and over again, because of their IP numbers they can only be blocked for short times.
Is there any way that potentially controverial images could have their usage restricted, so that they can only be used of relevant articles? Perhaps this could be done by means of a form of protection on the image, which would mean that, once protected, it could not be added to, or removed from, a page except by an admin? So for example, a protection could be placed in the penis images, meaning that no changes could take place on their file, so preventing the images from being linked to any page not already linked. A lot of time is being wasted reverting the vandal's insertion of the image over and over again on people's pages. Already some minor (but valid) images have had to be deleted because they were being used non-stop on other pages to vandalise them. There is a real danger that the likes of the penis images may end up having VfDs proposed because users see their deletion as the only way to stop the vandalism. Given that they are genuine and useful images when used in context, it would be a great pity to have to delete them. But unless some way can be found to stop their usage for vandalism purposes users may well go the deletion route having exhausted all other possibilities to stop the vandalism. FearÉIREANN\ (caint) 05:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry but having 40 users pages targeted for penises continually, having a penis put on a featured article, having a Wikipedia article that has been sourced internationally in publications changed to replace all its images with pictures of penises and star wars images, is not a minor matter. If it was only a once off, done occasionally we might laugh it off. But we cannot lock up to 50 articles and user pages constantly to stop that asshole. But it has got so serious that people will delete those images off Wikipedia entirely and/or place a long term block on the AOL IPs he uses, even though that would inconvenience hundreds of people. Already one teacher has privately indicated that he can no longer let his students look at our articles in class because he never knows whether a particular article about a historic figure or news event has a penis or a vagina placed in it. FearÉIREANN\ (caint) 21:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
You can make fun, David, or Chmod, or whatever your name is. Imagine if you worked behind the counter in a store. A woman with a young child complains about some porn magazines prominantly displayed behind the counter. You casually slur, "Yeah, the kid'll be scarred for life." -- Now, you know that that woman will never return to this store. Maybe you don't care, you just work here. But the owner of the store, your boss, will certainly care. He doesn't want to lose a potential customer. He will, in this order: 1) Fire you, and then 2) Remove the magazines. You protest: "Hey! That woman was wrong!" and he'll say, "Maybe. But her money just walked out the door. Right or wrong, I'm going to do what she wants." -- Now apply that to Wikipedia. The "money" in this case is actually prestige and respect. If Wikipedia doesn't get that then we're all wasting our time working on it. Now, Wikipedia is either a serious research tool or several thousand pages of graffiti. I'd like to think that it's the former. Your attitude, however, suggests that it's the latter. -- Ravenswood 07:27, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Jtdirl's proposal. Hardly a day passes that there isn't some penis vandalism, and although it's usually reverted very quickly there's always a chance that someone will stumble upon the page before that happens, perhaps a child perhaps not. Either way there's a good chance that that someone's opinion of Wikipedia will plummit. As Solipsist says, it is much easier to monitor the uploading of questionable images than it is to monitor the use of the images already on the site. -- Canderson 7 01:13, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Everyone is missing the point. I can create and upload potentially questionable images as fast as you put weird restrictions on their use. {chuckle} at the idea that anyone is currently deterred from uploading. Anyway, it's almost as disruptive to stick a fully-clothed Princess Leia on the George Bush page as it would be to put there an illustration of mooning.
Some content needs to be flagged -- you may not like that, but it's a rational compromise. See Toby. As far as uploads and vandalism in general is concerned, it is far past time for us to stop leaving all doors wide open to every passerby. We ought to have learned long ago that doing so means that the first several hundred rooms will have pee in all the corners.
I don't want to charge readers $24.95 a month to be Wikipedian Editors. I support openness in general; I even support limited anon editing. But the keyword is limited. We need to throttle anons and new users; we need to put liberal, but realistic limits on what they can do and how fast they can do it. By "realistic", I mean that we must control vandalism down to the point at which we can keep up with it. Obviously -- when complaints of this nature surface and drag on for days -- the problem is out of control.
Just as materialistic concerns cannot be allowed to destroy our ideals, idealism cannot be allowed to destroy our real value to the larger world. — Xiong 熊 talk * 22:54, 2005 August 22 (UTC)
I think the real point is that we don't have the ability to watchlist the addition of images to pages from the image end. By watching an Image, we should be alerted not only to changes in the description page, but changes in which pages the image is included in. That is the software change we need to implement, not locking images.
However, in regards to locking specific filenames to specific pages, I think that would be fine(if, as Xiong explained, not particularly effective) specifically because it would be easily circumventable by uploading new copies. JesseW 01:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Why not lock image uploads to official users (logged in) then? Or have a dynamic user evaluation, where users can vote for articles and the respective writers get a reputation to gain rights (i.e modify images)? This could also be achieved by looking a the activity profile of a user. -- BoP 09:15:49, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
I vote that all new image submissions should be flagged. Then, an admin could 'okay' it to be used. In the case of potentially offensive images, they should be permanently flagged and only show up on pages admins have okayed them to be on. That is, under my proposal, you could upload and use images exactly like you do now, but for A. new images, and B. potentially offensive images, an admin (or perhaps a certain number of votes by regular users) would have to 'unlock' them before they would show up. That way, if you visited an article on say George Bush, and it had a penis picture linked to it, you could have it just display a white background or some message until the pic was cleared. the1physicist 19:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Most vandalism gets reverted in a few minutes, but some remain unnoticed for months. I recently reverted a 4-month old vandalism in Angelina Jolie. I once remember reverting a 1-year old vandalism. I was wondering if there is a meta page which has got entries of vandalisms which are found very late. I could add this entry there. We can also have an association of Wikipedians who would pore through edit histories looking for unrevereted vandalisms. Jay 22:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I suggest that when the "view source" link of a protected page is accessed, it should show the reason for protection given by the administrator who last protected the page.
For example, instead of:
"This page has been locked to prevent editing; there are a number of reasons why this may be so, please see Wikipedia:Protected page."
The message should say something like:
"This page has been locked to prevent editing by non-administrators. The administrator who last protected the page gave the reason: visibility reasons."
Pages protected from moves only should show a similar message:
"This page has been locked to prevent moving by non-administrators. The administrator who last protected the page gave the reason: frequent vandalism."
Pages protected by default should have the message:
"Due to the software design, this page has been protected by default."
Also, when you click "view source", it also says "edit this page" in the title. It may be confusing for new users. -- Ixfd64 00:46, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
If I create an article and create a link to 'painting' but put the visible link text as 'art', the reader is going to expect to see an article on art, not painting, which may not be how that article has been written. The destination should either include the expected content or the link be changed. This seems difficult to identify. If the 'What links here' results showed the link text, it would be easier to review article content and links to ensure the quality is maintained. If this takes up too much processor time it could be a new option. Joe1011010 12:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Extended categorys:
From a conversation on User_talk:Grutness#Category:British_Hills_by_Height. A potential example is: Category:British_Hills_by_Height
Can I suggest a change the way a category is handled
Name | Elevation | Country | Type | First Ascent |
---|---|---|---|---|
Mount Victoria | 150m | New Zealand | Volcano | 2005/07/30 |
Mount Wellington | 151m | New Zealand | Volcano | 2005/07/31 |
Mount Albert | 152m | New Zealand | Volcano | 2005/07/32 |
AND (but no so easily) a better idea still would be to embed some java script so that this table can be sorted ANYWAY that a user desired by clicking on any one cell in the heading:
Name | Elevation | Country | Type | First Ascent |
---|
Frankly, this change would involve recoding part of the PHP engine. I could do this if required.
Any takers?
¢ NevilleDNZ 03:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC) ¢
That looks very similar to the following proposal:
It seems that the problem of categories, lists, series boxes, navigation bars etc. could be resolved in a structured way, just by building a basic semantic system. Here the proposal:
It would structure the content in an efficient mannor, while keeping it transparent and easy to maintain. This way the mess with categories, lists, navigation bars, etc. would find a "happy ending", finally...
I definitely would second your proposal! But do not forget an option to trunctuate/shift properties that surpass the width of the screen (maybe with Java/ECMAscript?) -- BoP 08:31:34, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
I agree with the problem that categories usually are build bottom up, which means that you've got to have an article on these. On the other hand you have to ask yourself if the information stored in the list already makes it worth to have a lemma on its own. In your example the links for the lemmata (i.e. Mount Pirongia) are already in the list, but the lemmata are just not generated, which makes no difference. In the proposal above it was not ment to store the properties within the lemma, but within the category - also to reduce the number of table-lookups. Therfore the List of New Zealand mountains by height would become a - Category:mountains, property:Country="New Zealand", sort:elevation>1000m So all the lookups can be done within the category, even if one wants to add this information into the lemma. In case you want to access the property within the lemma you write:
instead of: {{category_mountain|globe=earth|region=NZ|elevation=0962}} inside the article inside the category "{property:height category:Mountain:Name="Mount Pirongia"}" and get the height updated from the category. This way a change in the list of New Zealand mountains would update all the entries in the lemma. And you can maintain the full list in the category. Templates like "mountains in mexico over 1000 metres" would then be a similar lookup in the category.
I personally think that an article on "mountains in NZ over 1000m" is a nonsense as a lemma and should be a database lookup instead (which is not supported now, but is essential to structured information IMHO). To perfect the idea one would have to be able to update the information also within the article, which would be generated dynamically by the engine:
to update the category entry within the article by stating the obvious: {{category_mountain|globe=earth|region=NZ|elevation=0962}}
If there would be a template for inserting a database lookup, that can be edited from within every call, one could easily place a "list of NZ-mountains" by placing a static lookup into an article (like: {{tablelookup category_mountain|globe=earth|region=NZ|elevation>0962 format:Name|longitude|latitudue|elevation sortby:Name}}), that is expanded by the engine. One can maintain the list by editing the list itself, which would open the editor with the expanded list to manipulate the entries inside the category. An adjustment in the online editor, that gives you a dropdown list of properties for the categories of the current lemma to insert would complete the functionality needed to reduce errors. It is obvious that Wikipedia has to go one step further, not to become frozen in time. We should reduce clutter like formatting statements for table generation and concentrate on content and semantics. -- BoP 13:38:46, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
I happened to be on the German version of Wikipedia; their links are in blue, like the English version, but without underlining (unless the pointer is placed directly over them). I have long thought that with all of the links present (in blue and with underlines) the text in English articles is often not very readable. The text in the German version, with links simply in blue, is much easier to read, as well as having a much better look to it. Can the English-version links be made to look like those in the German one?
I posted this previously in the General Complaints page, but got only a short reply to the effect that the particular editor liked it that way, and that links on the Internet have underlines. That still doesn't answer the question of why the German Wikipedians chose to do things differently. S. Neuman 15:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I second the proposal, and propose a new item under the mics -- selective underlining.
If I choose selective underlining, All EXTERNAL links (links to resources outside of Wikipedia), as well as EXTRA-BODY links (links in the Category section, table of contents, left and top menus, boxes, etc should keep their underlining, since in those places underlines do not interfere with reading. But all internal links within the main body of the article should be deunderlined.
This will both keep recognizing and browsing important items easy, and make reading large amounts of text easier, without constant underlines. Elvarg 06:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
From the page: Obviously we should have categories about feminism, race activists, LGBT liberalists etc. That is not being debated here. People who have made important contributions for equal rights should obviously be recognized as such. The issue here is whether it's appropriate to classify everybody as such, e.g. "scientists by race", or if it's more appropriate to combine those into "scientists" since that is the more important trait. See Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality Steve block talk 08:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Reverts without real explanations are contrary to good practice. Nevertheless, they seem to be common. However, this problem could be alleviated by upgrading the software to: (1) add a field for explanations; (2) tally the reverts which lack an explanation by each registered user; and (3) post the results for all to see. Thus, a frequently offensive practice might be minimized. 162.84.72.171 02:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
How do we know this percentage? Editors would still be free to explain or not -- real information about the practice would just become available, perhaps for the first time. Or, would you rescind the following? "Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_resolution 162.84.72.171 21:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree that you shouldn't have to take additional time to write an edit summary for vandalism or ignorance, and this proposal doesn't require it. Editors would still be free to write a summary or not. We're not under deadlines here, so we can afford time to respect sincere contributors. While you are apparently not one of the offenders, the proposed change would facilitate identifying them. Unexplained reverts discourage contributors. Registered users seem to revert more frequently than anons. However, registration does not automatically make one a superior editor. And, of course, today's anons are tomorrow's registered users and admins. 162.84.72.171 22:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Quite accidentally I noted unintended "revert wars" on "Image:Logo.gif". People upload a logo without checking what's already there. I uploaded this, instead: File:Pleasedont.gif
and notified a couple of users that used the image, even re-named one user's image on his behalf. I also checked "Image:Logo.jpg" and "Image:Logo.png", and did the same. No links should have been left hanging, except for one user's user pages, and I've informed him/her on the talk page.
It goes without saying that images with generic names must be protected for this scheme to work. Please check here to see if the above image has been changed since I originally posted this.
Would this procedure be a good idea for other generic image file names? (such as "Photo.jpg", "Image.gif" etc.)?
Let's discuss this on Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Generic_image_file_names. Thanks! -- Janke | Talk 17:33:23, 2005-08-31 (UTC)
At the beginning of becoming a Wikipedian, I found that the amount of pages / information about editing and moderating pages so immense. So, I propose that all pages that help on the creation and editing of pages (eg Template Messages) require a "template tag" at the top.
My "template tag" is this:
As you can see by the above template proposal, I also plan to create an Editors' Portal. This will give the low-down on different pages (Templates, Tutorials etc.) that an editor can use.
Also, because all pages that display that template will link to the editors' portal, one can use the What links here feature to see a complete list of Editors' Resources. My proposed portal preview is available below.
Why not link just to the Community Portal? Because so many pages already link to it. If just editors' resources link to it, then the What links here feature will just contain editors' resources. Proposed portal will contain certain major editors' resources grouped into boxes.
I'm confused by this(probably my problem): Isn't everything in the Wikipedia namespace other than policy and guidelines, discussion and debate pages, humor and fun, a Editor's resource? Isn't that the default status for a page in the Wikipedia namespace? While creating a nice list of resources is useful (and we already have quite a few({{ welcome}}, Category:Wikipedia(although this still needs quite a bit of cleanup), the Manual of Style, and Help:Contents), it is not(AFAIK) difficult to identify a page as being "to help edit pages". Could you expand on this? JesseW 05:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
An alternative to the portal idea is to have the editors' resource pages link to a page that redirects to the community portal, along with a separate link: "Complate list of er pages" which links to the What links here of the redirect page.
-- Heebiejeebieclub 18:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Found at User_talk:TheMessenger and moved here - The Uninvited Co., Inc.
Greetings and salutations to my fellow Wikipedians. I am writing to you today as an appeal for higher standards of editing here on Wikipedia. Today Wikipedia is filled with infighting, vandalism, trolling, and the insertion of false information into otherwise good articles. If the current course of Wikipedia remains unaltered I fear the project will soon fail. There are steps we as Wikipedians can take to prevent this course, but I do not think the community at large will take them without drastic measures. This brings me to why I am here.
I represent the Cabale de Wikipedia or CDW. Yes, we did purposefully choose our name to mock the fictious Wikipedia Cabal. Our purpose here is simple: since Wikipedia has not listened to reason or properly dealt with the threats it faces we will dedicate ourselves to making it see what needs to be done through other means. Discussion has failed, consensus has failed, it is now time for action.
Let me admit up front that our means will be in direct violation of WP:POINT. We realize this and it makes us very sad. We will deserve to be banned from editing. Those of us who hold administrator powers will deserve to have it stripped. It's taken a long time for all of us to come to an agreement, but finally after witnessing the recent Willy on Wheels resurgence we feel we have no other choice. We cannot allow Wikipedia to remain the sort of place where this can happen. Action needs to be taken. If we need to bring Wikipedia to it's proverbial knees to prove what needs to be done, so be it. We are willing to do what needs to be done.
What I am talking about is a Reign of Terror on Wikipedia by the CDW. We've taken months to write scripts to aid us in severly impedeing Wikipedia's progress, we've recruited almost a hundred users, and we have many administrators within our ranks. We are poised to vandalize Wikipedia in such a way that will make Willy on Wheels seem a minor nusiance in comparison. Think of what Willy could do with administrator rights. That will happen. Think of what would happen if suddenly from fifty or more servers world wide, the GNAA decided to vandalize Wikipedia. That will happen. We will bring Wikipedia to a standstill.
But again, we don't want to do this. That is why we're sending this message, and why we're going to tell you what must be done. We promise not to start our proactive campaign until after October 1st. If the needs of Wikipedia have been met by then, we will call off our crusade and turn ourselves in before we begin. What we want is only what is best for Wikipedia.
Here is a list of our requests:
I invite all users to discuss this message, but request it be left intact. Someone will no doubt VfD this article. It probably should be VfD'ed. But at the very least people need to read this and start discussing what needs to be changed on Wikipedia.
Until October 1st, TheMessenger 18:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I was with you up to #5. #5 is one of those "what's a POV" things that is the very source of a lot of the paralysis that keeps the vandals running free and the trolls well fed, and trying to make a no mercy policy on that is hard, if not impossible. The rest seem cool to me, but so long as democracy is necessary for any change and quorum is not and democracy is responsible for any move that reduces the democracy, there's no hope. There is no power structure in place that could meet these demands because there is no power structure in place that would have made them unnecessary. Geogre 18:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
No offense, but you're a bit of an odd one, you know that? :/ CAPS LOCK 18:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:How to create policy for the constructive way of getting things changed. The "demands" presented here have been discussed before as proposals and rejected. In particular, "anonymous editing should be blocked" has never gotten any significant support. The "campaign" threats are irrelevant and disruptive, but while they're confined to your talk page I'm certain nobody will overestimate their importance.
The proposals contained in this message have been brought up many times, and they've always failed (see Wikipedia:Village pump (perennial proposals)). You're free to start yet another discussion on them at the village pump, provided you do so without threats of vandalising or disruption, which I will revert on sight. If you feel "discussion" and "consensus" have failed, you're free not to edit Wikipedia. You are not, however, free to vandalize it, or threaten to do so. Troll in your own time. JRM · Talk 19:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
"Since Wikipedia has not listened to reason or properly dealt with the threats it faces we will dedicate ourselves to making it see what needs to be done through other means." Like, for instance, creating your own fork of Wikipedia, making your own rules for it, and showing the rest of us how to do it right? FreplySpang (talk) 19:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
I suppose there is another way: simply keep going, reverting vandals as they come, and leaving the project when you feel burnt out. If you feel burnt out, this doesn't mean Wikipedia has failed. It just means that you need a wikiholiday. Wikipedia has not "failed", it is prospering. Yes, WoW is a nuisance, we don't need any more disruption to agree to that. As long as there are people willing to clean up after him, fine. What if admins just boycott the cleaning-up for some time? That would put pressure on the project without qualifying as WP:POINT. If enough admins simply went on strike with such demand, it would have some effect, and nobody could blame them. Your 'main' demand, rolling back of all edits by a particular user, within time limits, is a decent proposal for a software update. That's up to the developers, you cannot pressure the editor community into a software update. dab (ᛏ) 20:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, and I want a pony. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 21:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, as dab says, we are powerless to implement new tools. That's up to the developers; you could try contacting them. As for anonynomous IP editing- that is one of the major strengths of Wikipedia. If we started limiting editing priviledges, articles would develop much slower. Most anon IP edits are good; only a small percentage are problematic. Also, I do wish you wouldn't threaten mass vandalism; this blackmail will not accomplish anything, besides getting yourself blocked and creating more work. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
This is just some kid trolling. Probably the same one who claimed that vandalism would start on the 25th August. (I av't remeber the username of that one)
Theresa Knott
(a tenth stroke) 22:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Is anyone else reminded of a combination of John Gault and a sooky, overzealous 6-year-old? Slac speak up! 05:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I wonder whether perhaps this is User:-Ril-, who has always been fond of claiming ownership of an account with administrative rights, and who is fond of ascribing POV motives to the actions of admins. In any case, the threat rings hollow, since it implies that the pro-disruption group includes two or more admins, which I doubt. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Several thoughts about this discussion:
Agree with Nowhither , at some point, large-scale vandalism, possibly originating from a stolen admin account, will happen sooner or later. Hopefully WP syadmis are preparing for this. Are they? Who knows?
Meanwhile, much of the burden of revieweing edits could be improved with better tools. For example, I would love to know if one of my trusted collegues has already reviewed the same edit I'm reviewing. This would greatly reduce my review burden, and allow me to monitor many, many, many more articles. linas 23:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
If you think you can do things better, then by all means, give it a shot. There's nothing preventing you and Willy from running your own en.cabalepedia.org with whatever rules you want. Copy all of our content over to it. It's free, remember? Use your supposed script-writing expertise to mirror any changes made to the real wikipedia into a buffer on your site, where they can be reviewed before going live. Keep the things you like and throw away the things you don't. Restrict people from editing, only allow editors with PhDs, give everyone the ability to delete pages permanently and ban each other; no one is stopping you.
Since your methods are so superior, they will naturally lead to a migration of editors from here to there, your 'pedia will reach critical mass and will start growing faster than ours! Before long you'll be the first result in google searches. Then you will have won and we will all be proven wrong! (Hell, maybe we could "compromise" with them by hosting such a "social experiment" fork on our own servers. They can have their own little 'pedia for free in exchange for not having an incentive to vandalize (as if the incentive to vandalize actually had anything to do with this...) If they prove that their way is better by example, we can implement the same changes here.)
There are lots of people who agree with your ideas (I agree with some of them), but they're not going to be implemented like this. Sorry. If no one will listen to your demands through normal channels, then your demands are probably unreasonable. Try challenging your own ideas instead of trying to force them on everyone else.
Threats will get you nowhere. Good luck with your stupid crusade. Thanks in advance for wasting everyone's time. Omegatron ( talk) 23:55, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
You know those months you spent writing scripts to vandalise Wikipedia, and gathering an army of hundreds of editors ready to unleash a catastrophe on the project like never seen before? Maybe those months would have been better spent actually writing the feature you're asking for, rather than attempting to extort someone else into writing it for you.
Of course, this isn't the first time someone has threatened Wikipedia with total destruction unless their demands are met. Who can forget the Wikibomb? Well OK, maybe lots of people can forget it, since it kind of failed to go off. I found both that threat and this one pretty amusing. -- Tim Starling 04:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
I would like to propose adding a "permalink" in the Sidebar. Since permanent links to the current version are now possible, I think it would be a useful addition for people who want to link to a version that they can be guaranteed is not vandalism. See meta:MediaWiki:Permalink-url. Angela . 06:32, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
I don't quite understand what this is, Ang; do you mean someone would pick what permalink to go there? Or would it be a permalink to the current version displayed? -- Golbez 09:35, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
[http://permalink.whatever Wikipedia article X as of 16:13, 21 August 2005]
It should be noted that "permalinks" don't work for categories (the list of members may change) even though they misleadingly show up on category pages. -- Beland 02:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I would like the ability to watch a single section instead of an entire article. I made some minor changes to huge articles, like Tea and Terrorism:Talk. I would like to be notified if the sections I changed are touched, but don't want to be inundated each day with dozens of changes elsewhere in the article. Not having to sift thru all that would improve my Wiki contribution efficiency considerably. What do you think, should we propose this to the developers ? StuRat 23:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I think it could be done in a much simpler way. The section name is already reported under the watchlist, now there would just be a filter to only report those sections on the watchlist. For example, if I am watching "Common bean;(→Green beans)" it could report:
Common bean;(→Green beans)
But not:
Common bean;(→Sources)
If the section is moved, this should still work. If the name changes, it would work for the rename operation, but after that, the user would need to add the new section name to the watchlist (unless we also automated this process). StuRat 01:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I am trying to figure out how to make this suggestion:
All time references should include either a direct reference to either the time actually referenced or a direct reference to the time from which the relative time reference is made. Soft time references ("soon", "recent past", "a little while") should try to be avoided due to the ambiguity of the time referenced. If a soft time reference cannot be avoided, the time referenced from ("soon" from what time point?). For example, "now" should always be referenced to the time written, if that is what is intended.
To simplify the reading of the articles, it's possible that the time references can remain soft or ambiguous, but they should (must?) include a hard reference within the "meta data" such that the time referenced or the time relative anchor is shown as a rollover in a normal web browser.
The article that prompted this suggestion is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM64T where it references "soon" with no "time anchor".
My apologies if this is in the wrong location: this is my first ever post to wikipedia. (signature added upon request) GSmith 21:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
When an Arabic or Hebrew interwiki link is a disambiguation link (with a part within parentheses), the parentheses don't display properly in the browser text editor due to Unicode bidirectional algorithm issues.
For a proposed workaround, please see: Village pump (technical)#Arabic.2FHebrew: a proposed solution to Unicode bidirectional algorithm woes in the text editor
Ideally, interwiki link bots should be aware of this workaround and not tamper with it (not remove the embedded HTML comments within the interwiki link).
-- Curps 12:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Proposal:
Rename all articles containing the string "multi-" to the shorter form "multi", in other words, multi-X to multiX.
Example: rename the current article Multi-paradigm programming language to "Multiparadigm programming language".
Reasons:
This already seems to occur in Wikipedia. See the case: Multi-platform redirect to Multiplatform.
In English, at least in US English, hyphenating after the prefix "multi" is unnecessary, except when the subject word starts with the letter "i", or is a proper noun starting with a capital letter. (I am not a grammarian or English instructor. I am a part-time newspaper reporter.)
Is this the correct or best place to post such requests, or is there some more suitable location?
Thank you.
Does any policy/guideline exist for the naming of such list? Because currently everything is a real mess
Variants include:
(for a larger sampling see User:Fornadan/slby)
I think a consistent naming of these lists should be strived for because often you are interrested in comparing several of them. Currently you usually have to guess the right name. IMO they should be moved to "List of rulers of X" or "Rulers of X" since then you'd avoid problems with changing titles & female rulers Fornadan (t) 12:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
CSD A7 (non-notable bios) has come up for discussion a good deal during deletion and undeletion debates. At Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Interpretation of WP:CSD A7 (non-notable bios) is a proposal to clarify the interpretation of this critrion, and particularly the meaning of "Claim of notability". Please read it and comment if you are at all interested. DES (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Having spent some time reverting and reporting vandals I think it high time we had a better way of identifying them. I would like to see any vandal who has been blocked to be tagged so that in future use of the account or IP is highlighted so that vandal edits are obvious. Indeed these edits could even be streamed to a new vandal change page. There would of course be a way to remove the vandal tag but it would require some significant contribution (and retribution). -- Rjstott 10:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps someone might comment how often vandals re-offend after a block expires as this would estbalish whether this change has value! Looking at the block logs it definitely happens.-- Rjstott 07:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I was reading how much time and effort is spent on reverting vandalism and I had an idea. I'm a layman in all things software related, but still I wonder if this would be possible and would like to hear your thoughts about the it's effectiveness. The idea is this: every time a vandal was blocked from editing he would still see the "edit this page" on the page and be allowed to vandalize whatever pages he'd like. Of course in reality the changes he'd make after he was blocked would only appear to him on his screen and wouldn't in reality be saved on the wiki. This could potentially waste a big amount of vandalizing time and effort, but if the flagging of a vandal isn't accurate this could also mean that a lot of legitimate edits would be lost. Anyway, I'd like to hear what you think about it, would it be practical, is it possible, would it be a deterrence? Serodio 04:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
After about a month of editing articles at Wikipedia, I’m finally getting a general understanding of how the articles are related to each other and how to navigate to them. And that’s only because I’ve spent an inordinate amount of time trying to figure it out. Now, you might say that I’m just particularly slow in such things as finding my own aspects of the situation, but I dare say the navigation structure of this web site deserves at least half the credit. It’s not that a very impressive amount of thought and effort hasn’t gone into addressing the issue, but I believe most visitors would agree it still needs a little work.
The categorization schemes at Wikipedia:Category schemes focus on Wikipedia as an encyclopedia that happens to be on a web site, while navigation schemes focus on Wikipedia as a web site that happens to hold an encyclopedia. Categorization schemes focus mainly on the logic, while navigation schemes focus mainly on the usability of a web site. As a web site, I would expect Wikipedia to have a top-level navigation scheme, based on the primary categorization scheme, that would help me move about logically and quickly.
I expect there at least three general ways to add a topical navigation menu to every page. The first way is “simple.” Add template:Categorybrowsebar to the top of every Wikipedia page. The amount of useful information crammed into these two lines is invaluable and should be available from any page. If it’s placed at the top of every (or at least one) style sheet, and possibly reduced in size a bit, it would be universally accessible and take up a minimum of page space. Most importantly, novices and experts alike would have the full range of Wikipedia’s category schemes at their fingertips no matter which page they were reading.
A second way would be to add the eight main categories plus “ Other indexes” to the box in the navigation sidebar. That might be the easiest to implement, but space might be an issue (not that it isn’t with the other options too ;-).
A more sophisticated version of implementing the "navigation menu on every page" suggestion would be to use a drop-down menu. If I were going to merge the categorization and navigation schemes at Wikipedia, I would place a drop-down menu that contained the main categories and subcategories (whatever they happened to be at the time) across the top of every page. As a “ninth” category, I would add a “Browse by” button that listed the second row of the Category browse bar, plus maybe a few more, since the space issue would be addressed by the drop-down structure of the navigation menu. If this version is more difficult to implement than either of the other two, perhaps they can be implemented in stages. – RDF 21:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Example removed because of very long line. See here. Bovlb 15:18:47, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
If you want to keep the normal sitenotice text, remove the "https://" from the last line. If you want the sitenotice to be before the template, change the = sign after innerHTML to =+ -- pile0nades talk | contribs 21:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I have fixed the script. It didn't work because it depended on the siteNotice div which apparently has been removed. So it now inserts the HTML before the first h1 element in the page. It can be found here: [1] It is the one at the bottom. Just copy the function and replace yours with it. -- pile0nades talk | contribs 02:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks to Pile0ades, we now have at least one working example of a topical navigation menu bar at the top of every page for all Wikipedian users! It looks like the template at Template:Categorybrowsebaroneline. Now, who would actually decide whether or not to try this out at the global level? — RDF talk 08:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I am just wondering if you are interested in the proposal Semantics because it would drastically help for lower ranked category navigation. -- BoP 09:51:50, 2005-09-11 (UTC)
In a related conversation ( [2]), R.Koot preferred having the categories across the top and the browse pages in the sidebar navigation box. That works for me too. A question that still remains for me is, who decides to implement something like this that requires modifying protected pages? — RDF talk 22:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
It would really help if there was a button that adds '''{{subst:PAGENAME}}''' to the text area (for editing pages). This would really help people who are starting articles in the main namespace. It would greatly benefit lazy editors, such as me. :) -- Ixfd64 09:31, 2005 September 10 (UTC)
Is there (scope for) on of these Wikipedia:Wikipedian of the month things? Where the creme de la creme get a monthly pat on the back from the community? I dont wanna go making a whole page and then have it rfded. Cheers pedians -- Wonderfool t (c) 23:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Why don't we do it? I realize people editing closed VFDs is rare, but it happens. ~~ N ( t/ c) 14:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Yep. Editing doesn't really screw stuff up, only the top copy is changed and the history remains. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 14:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, then, in the event that I'm promoted to admin, would people mind if I protected VfDs when closing them? ~~ N ( t/ c) 18:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I think that the actual image and the image description should have seperate protections. Currently, protecting an image protects both the image itself and the description. However, vandalizing an image description will have no impact on the articles that use the image. -- Ixfd64 08:22, 2005 September 6 (UTC)
I do a lot of new page patrol, and I don't see any evidence that new users (or some established users) pay any attention to our notices about restrictions on adding copyright material. Assuming good faith, I believe that this is because of ignorance and a genuine desire to help build an encyclopedia. I propose that we revise the notices on the edit screens and file uploads so that they give a very simple, clear, and direct message at the top of the page. Something like:
Do not copy text or images from other websites or from printed sources. Only in certain limited circumstances is it possible to reuse existing material; unless you are sure you have permission, do not copy the work of others. If you do not understand the copyright issues involved, please contribute only your own work. |
I realise that this sounds more restrictive than the current policy, but new contributors don't seem to stop and read all that copyright stuff. This is short and sweet and should at least give them pause. Hopefully it will cut down on the WP:CP backlog. The notice should have a distinguishing class/id so that experienced users can suppress it. Comments? Bovlb 02:10:50, 2005-09-02 (UTC) Modified per Superm401. Bovlb 05:43:20, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
-- Superm401 | Talk 02:47, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
THANK YOU
This is a badly needed warning/notice. Our anonymous helpers starting articles simply do not understand this. Some may just ignore our current warning but surely many just don't see it. The "do not submit..." warning is at the bottom of many crowded lines of instructions. A random contributer could easily miss it. support 08:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I have very mixed feelings about this. Yes, the insertion of copyrighted material into Wikpedia is a pain but (1) I really don't want this thing staring me in the face every time I edit, 2) it is an extreme oversimplification of the copyright issues involved, (3) "contribute only your own work" seems like an invitation for original research. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:45, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Looking like that, the notice is way too harsh. Someone might interpret a notice like that as a faux pas, and you might deter him/her from using Wikipedia, or worse, provoke him/her into committing vandalism. Denelson 83 05:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I like the proposed notice. Some people just don't understand that most web sites are copyrighted and you can't copy from them. mrholybrain 15:28, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
I had a thought for improving disambig pages. <snipped>-- Ashenai 13:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I have recently discovered that some books used to reference articles were alvailabe as e-books (non-free). Is there any objection if I add a link to the editors site in the articles ? Ericd 15:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
To help standardize supreme court cases (particularily, but not necessarily, US ones) I've put up two straw polls at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases ( here and here). One is to standardize our method of linking court citations and the other is to standardize the info box used. Both mainly concern readability and usefulness to regular users, so opinions from those who rarely read these pages are just as important as those from those who don't. Thanks. Telso 21:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
I have noticed that Wikipedia and its sister websites list Bosnian ("Bosanski"), Croatian, and Serbian as seperate languages. As any linguist will tell you these are merely dialects of Serbo-Croatian. Indeed the term "Bosnian" (referring to the language) had not even entered the vernacular until the recent war in Yugoslavia. To suggest that it is a sperate language would be like saying that there should be an "American" section on the site, seperate from the English one. The most politically neutral and linguistically accurate method of organizing this would be to have a "Serbo-Croatian (Cyrillic Alphabet)" section and a "Serbo-Croatian (Roman Alphabet)" section (those two names are only tentative proposals, as they pose certain difficulties). The current system isolates pro-seperatist and pro-Serbian groups, so that it is difficult to ensure that articles be politically neutral, as they ought to be. That is, one may write articles biased against Serbia in the Bosnian encyclopedia without fear of correction, and vice-versa. One final note: Slovenian and Macedonian are in fact distinct languages and not dialects, and so deserve their own sections, as they have now. (preceding unsigned comment by Hipcat ( talk · contribs) )
אַ שפּראַך איז אַ דיאַלעקט מיט אַן אַרמײ און פֿלאָט -- Mwalcoff 18:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Blatant copyvio material, and consider voting, thanks. Martin 15:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
I think that we need a new namespace for non-image media files. It may be somewhat confusing to new users when they see sound files in the "Image" namespace. Having sound files in the "Image" namespace is also somewhat deceptive. -- Ixfd64 02:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Voting has started for a new Wikimedia sister project proposal called Wikiversity. This is a request for anybody that is interested to cast a vote either in support or opposition to this new project proposal. The results of this vote will determine if this project will be started on its own seperate group of wikis as a Wikimedia sister project, together with approval from the Wikimedia Foundation Board. Discussion about this proposal should take place on the Wikiversity discussion page.
Please see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Non-notable Internet entities. ~~ N ( t/ c) 21:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
The watchlist doesn't show if a page on it has been moved. Is there a reason for this? I have not found this bug on bugzilla, and since I can't stay logged in on bugzilla I can't post it as a new bug there. So I thought I'd just ask here first in case someone has an answer up front.
Fred- Chess 13:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Who am I to make a review of Wikipedia? Noone I guess. None-the-less, with my insight as software developer I would like to state the following. In the words of another user, "I am still debating how credible Wikipedia can be as source". Loads and loads of wonderful information that people work long hours on to create. A plethora of knowledge at your finger tips. Grand! But, I find that pages are too volatile! That everyone can edit articles is a great philosophy, but when someone has spent those long hours researching a subject, marking information with creditable sources, only to have an anonymous user or opinionated new user come by and change relevant information without doing any research into the subject, is almost vandalism. Ok, that each article has people watching over it, but I don't believe that through the collective watchful eye that errors are always reverted. 1642 turns quickly into 1942. When someone edits an article wrongly in such a way it often points out a weak sentence, but it still points to the fact that each article has to be constantly "guarded" by people knowledgable about its subject. And how long do such errors remain unchanged? Which school boy is going to get an 'F' because the date was stated wrong on his book report? Vandalism is easy to spot, but subtle erroneous changes in facts are not.
So, what is the solution to this? A concrete answer there is not and the developers and foundation will decide, but I think articles after reaching a certain point should be less edittable forcing other editors to mark discuss pages instead of the main article. Having people work hard to get the article they are working on into this less volatile state might be an added incentive. This non-volatiles state could be a state in between peer review and featured article.
Of course, this is only one possible solution and there are other concepts, but I will leave it at this. -- None-of-the-Above 07:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
For example, suppose we have three ratings: 1, 2, 3, with 3 being the best. Say the Monday version of an article is rated 3; then everyone who looks at it sees the same article. Now a new user (with user-rating 1) edits it on Tuesday. The Tuesday version is necessarily rated 1, since no version of an article can have a rating higher than that of its most recent editor. Now viewers with minimums of 2 or 3 see the Monday version, while viewers with minimum 1 will see the Tuesday version. Those who the article can edit any version they want, just as they can now, although most will probably want to edit the Tuesday version. Continuing: On Wednesday a mid-level user with rating 2 looks at the article, decides the Tuesday editor did not do such great work, and fixes it up. So the Wednesday version has rating 2. Now viewers with a minimum of 1 or 2 see the Wednesday version, while those with a minimum of 3 see the Monday version. Lastly, on Thursday, a super-user with rating 3 checks the article out, and decides it is top quality. He edits it, doing little or nothing, and the result has rating 3. Once again, all viewers see the same version.
Actually, I would add one more feature to this: a high-level user who edits an article could give the result a rating less than his user rating. For example, if a 3 user edits a 1 article, improves it a little, but thinks it still needs work by someone more knowledgeable, he might want to give his edit a 2 rating.
Lastly, I'll note that your "release" system is essentially the same as mine, only there are exactly 2 levels: non-release and release. And maybe that is all we need ... In any case, the result is that most people using (but not editing) Wikipedia will never even see vandalism.
And maybe this discussion should go somewhere else?
— Nowhither 00:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Under the current setup, if an editor makes a change that shows up on my watchlist, and I go examine the edit, and I agree with the edit, there is no mechanism for me to say "that was a good edit", and therefore no way for others to determine how much scrutiny a particular edit received. Therefore, my preferred (minimalist) solution is:
I think this simple change, with some encouragement to people to go ahead and review things, would be a big step forward. Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 22:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I think it would be a great idea if you made a toolbar for Internet Explorer!!! Not a bad idea right?
I've noticed that many people tend to add dictionary-only entries to Wikipedia, even though such content belongs on Wiktionary instead. However, many articles link to such entries, and people will definately search for dictionary-only entries on Wikipedia.
Therefore, I think that it's time to use {{ wi}} on all dictionary-only entries. This will bring two benefits:
What do you think of this suggestion? -- Ixfd64 05:51, 2005 September 12 (UTC)
I sent an e-mail to info after reading the article in wired magazine about the criticism that wikipedia is not taken seriously as an academic source. I wrote up a proposal to add academia controled pages in parallel with the publicly contributed pages.
Please take a look at tell me what you think:
Academic Verification Proposal
I am sure this is an issue being addressed elsewhere an I would be happy to discuss this matter with other people.
Given that featured articles are meant to represent the best Wikipedia has to offer, should they not stand out? I'm not saying have them all shout "Hey, I'm a featured article!" but I've long thought a rosette at the top of a page saying "Featured Article" would draw attention to the fact that this is the standard that we are aiming for. I'm terrible at drawing, and being a newcomer I don't know how to go about it, but does anyone think this is a good idea? - David McCormick 20:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
This my proposal. It's like a bot flag, kind of. Holding this flag means that administrators and users can be less concerned that the person is a vandal or a new user. Such a flag is more considered as recognized as fine Wikipedians. Kind of like mentors, in sense they could teach other new users to be more expertise or something like that. If users turn bad, the flag should be easily removed. This should allow the hiding of such users from RC patrol, or exclusively showing these users in the RC patrol. This way you can sort the experts from the newbies and vandals. Since, not all experts are sysops, but they can be marked off with this flag.
Obtaining this flag should be done through community consensus with the backing of one administrator (likely the one reviewing the consensus). -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I have been wandering the wiki-wilderness today and have crossed from wikipedia to meta-wiki to the german wikipedia and realized that I have a separate account for each. Is there any way we could have one account for all wikipedia-related projects, in all languages? I think that this would simplify greatly the constant logging in as you cross from project to project and language to language. Clarkefreak ∞ 23:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Is there a template message to tag a page of equations to be translated from math formula to plain english?
Such as: Math2english (example template)
This article's
formula needs to be translated to the
English language.
|
A simple case would be:
1+1=2 one plus one equals two;
a more complex one would be:
This wouldn't replace the formula, but be in addition to it. It may be helpful to people not skilled in mathematics. Thanks. JDR 16:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
An interesting idea. Of course, some very complex equations can't easily be converted to plain English, like those with lots of nested parens. StuRat 10:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
This would be nice, but would only work for the simplest kinds of formulae — the resonant frequency one given above is about as complex as would viably be intelligible in words. I would envisage particular difficulty in producing a clear way of 'speaking' functions with complicated arguments. - Splash 16:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Note that the benefit from using sentences in the example provided was that it defined the variables. You don't need sentences for that:
The definitions could even include links, to make them as useful as possible. Perhaps we need a template meaning "please define the variables used in this formula". StuRat 19:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
The template is a poor solution to a real problem. The editing guidelines already suggest avoiding unnecessary symbols, and contributors to mathematics articles regularly discuss criteria for best practice. An article that uses a resonant frequency formula without explaining its terms almost certainly needs more than a formula "translation"; using undefined symbols is bad practice in every context I know. (Obvious exceptions include π, arithmetic operators, and the like.) Suggestions of links inside formulae are scary; they can cause confusion and unreadability with default formatting of links. MathML, now half a decade old, has formal mechanisms (in its content markup) for adding meaning to symbols. Even when that becomes available, it will be no substitute for good writing. To request that, we already have templates. For anything else, I'd like to see concrete examples of articles where this kind of template might be used now. Notation serves a purpose; we would not want to tackle complicated mathematics writing without notation any more than we would want to build a house without blueprints. However, a smart architect does not expect the client to "see" a building from its plans; nor should a smart mathematics explanation omit the intuition behind the equations. -- KSmrq T 23:05, 2005 August 30 (UTC)
Translated formulas are useful for blind users, whose text-reading software can't make sense of images or text formatted with tables and superscripts. Non-user 11:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
This proposal echoes a larger proposal that I had thought of making. I've been trying to learn a little bit about set theory and computer system modeling lately. But when I read many of these articles, they are clearly written for Computer Science 301 and higher students at your higher learning institution of choice. That would be great for me if I were such a student. I'm not. I'm just trying to understand a new idea, which I thought was the raison d'être of Wikipedia. Instead, I'm finding that in order to even understand the article (not the topic of the article, just the article itself), I'm following page after page of links. To a point, this is expected for new topics, and I oblige.
I propose a policy that suggests to editors that any articles that are not readily understandable by the layperson or unedumicated[sic] professional such as myself (perhaps because the topic itself is not easily understood) be prefaced with some sort of indication of the educational prerequisites that will be demanded of the reader in order to proceed. I'm sure that there's some kind of WikiSpeak to explain what I'm suggesting, but hopefully I made myself clear.
With such a Reader Prerequisite template, the articles that contain Math markup will probably not need so much translation to English. Upon stumbling across the formal definition of Petri Nets, (I can read most of the math markup, I think) I would first see that I am expected to have first understood advanced set theory and what class I'm going to need to take at the local college before I should try to finish the article. -- RedCrystal 23:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Here are my two cents. The use of TeX-generated graphics exclusively to show mathematical statements is just plain out-of-date... We should be using nested <object> elements with MathML. Let a PNG/GIF be displayed as alternate content, with an alt attribute in plain English if at all possible. WP should allow for input in Tex (using an automated conversion to MathML) or in straight-up MathML. The plain English is very important for users who utilize screen readers. Also, plain English expressions should describe the statement, not its representation, preferably using a stack expression methodology. For example, the quadratic formula would be expressed:
"The standard form of a rational quadratic polynomial is the equation of the sum of the sum of the product of A and the square of x and the product of B and x and C and 0, where A, B and C are integer constants and x is a rational variable. Z is a root of a rational quadratic polynomial if and only if Z is equal to the quotient of the sum or difference of the opposite of B and the square root of the difference of the square of B and the product of the product of 4 and A and C and the product of 2 and A."
Since this English expression refers only to operations and not to symbols of operators, there is no possible ambiguity. Everyone should be able to reconstruct what I just said in their favorite notation. If not, please go talk to your high school algebra teacher :-). -- Mm35173 18:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Just want to make a (slightly irrelevant) note: writing a mathematics formula in plain english can help non-english speakers (such as me) get familiar with english terminology when it comes to formulae. Sure, I know that what I call "συν" in greek is "plus" in english, but (for example) how do you call "e εις την x" (is it exp(x)?) in english??? How do I speak f(x)? In greek it is "f του x". Is it "f function of x" in english?? Irrelevant and offtopic note, but I wrote it anyway! Michalis Famelis 21:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I think this is only useful for very simple formulas. I think its use in RLC circuit is unnecessary; if you can't read that formula, are you going to be messing around with tuned circuits? Also I think the template needs a link to more information; when I first read the template, I thought it was a sarcastic comment about the formulas being confusing. Links to formula and English language are unhelpful. Pfalstad 23:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
navigation
Here's an idea. Why not add a new category called "Category:Higher risk of vandalism" as a sub-category of Category:Wikipedia? It'd be somewhat analogous to Category:Wikipedia featured content. This "higher risk" category could have subcategories like recently slashdotted, etc. The purpose of the category would be to note articles which appear to have a higher risk of being vandalized, and thus watched more closely. This would be a useful warning to readers, who would know to a little careful of such things, and would also hint to vandal-watchers to think about adding it to their watch list. If it works well, the "Recently Changed" list could specially mark any modification to an article in that category. I could easily add the category and see how it works, but I thought it'd be good to hear any constructive comments first. In particular, a better name or taxonomy would be great. Then we can add it, and see if it's actually useful (and drop it if it isn't). -- Dwheeler 14:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Has someone hashed out how to handle varying units of measurement in templates? I understand that it supports consistency to have the units in the template, rather than leaving them out, but Metric is not always appropriate. I'm specifically looking at the River template, which assumes metric and can't be changed. This isn't a good fit for, say, the Mississippi; all of the units in the article are given in English units (then Metric).
Please point me in the right direction if there's a better venue for this issue. Thanks, — Papayoung 05:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Most search engine Portals and Websites have a link banner/search box, google for example ( http://www.google.com/searchcode.html) . Wikipedia should make one available to the public, a copy of the existing code should do, I have copied it myself for my WikiAtlas page ( http://tiamat58.tripod.com/WikiAtlas.htm) I am happy to take this page down if there is a problem.
What I was wondering is why Wikipedia hadn't made a forum. It would be an excellent place for people to discuss certain things, get ideas for articles proofread and all those kinds of things.
I understand the motivation of the current campaign against untagged pictures, but I don't understand why no one is making any effort to contact the people who uploaded them. I recently discovered that dozens of images I uploaded over a year ago, before any such standard was in place, and for which I provided clear information about provenance but not the current tags (which didn't exist at the time) have been deleted. I only found out by looking at the articles in question, because no one tried notifying me and because I don't customarily watchlist images.
Frankly, this pisses me off. It's not like I'm generally hard to reach (although I am about to take a 5-day break, my first in over a year).
I've often removed dubious images in the past, myself. But I've never done this without attempting to contact the uploader. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I've removed Jimbo's ill-conceived and rude attempt to dictate policy. If there is a good reason for images to be deleted outside WP:IFD, it should be discussed publicly. ‣ᓛᖁ ᑐ 22:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I have no interest to participate in a wiki where the founder is established as a dictator in fact rather than simply in humor. I will not continue editing. ‣ᓛᖁ ᑐ 02:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
A few comments seem worth making on several issues raised.
❝There's no point in acting all surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years, so you've had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaints, and it's far too late to start making a fuss about it now.❞
A little food for thought. -- KSmrq T 04:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Would it be technicaly possible to make images remain red-linked until tagged in some way? Fornadan (t) 22:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Moved from Wikipedia talk:Village pump
what would you guys think of adding in the placeopedia website into wikipedia. see www.placeopedia.com . we can at least do it better than them because we have more users. hans863
Please see Template_talk:GFDL#Subject_to_disclaimers!? -- Sanbec 08:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I propose that Wikipedia should change the background color to black and the font to white. This would be much easier on the eyes, seeing as staring at a white moniter is much akin to staring at a light bulb. This isn't an issue on most sites, but considering Wikipedia is a research site, people can spend many hours reading articles here, and it would just make common sense.
The m:Gallery of user styles on meta has some examples of skins with light text on a dark background if you would prefer that. You can of course create your own - see m:help:User style. Thryduulf 07:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I know I am not the first person to point out the problem that Wikipedia articles are often too technical for the layman. I consider myself to be a fairly well-educated person, but the article at Zipf's Law, for example, is completely unintelligible to me.
I think the reason for this problem with Wikipedia is editors' tendendency to write for themselves rather than to imagine an intended audience. Take the article on American football. The people likely to read this article are non-Americans who know little about the sport and are looking for basic information. Yet some editors insist on adding details on the most obscure aspects of the game, such as one-point safeties, fair-catch kicks and other minutia.
One way to resolve this problem is to think of Wikipedia in a hierarchical sense. Articles on general topics -- the kind you'd find in World Book -- can be considered "top-level" articles. These articles should provide a basic overview of the subject for someone completely unfamiliar with the subject. The reader should not have to read another article in order to understand a top-level one.
Articles on more-technical subjects could be considered "tributaries" of the top-level articles. A reader should be able to understand a tributary article after reading the associated top-level article. The article on American-football strategy, of course, cannot be aimed at someone completely unfamiliar with the game. But it should be written to be generally comprehensible to someone who has read American football. We could even have a template: "If you are unfamiliar with the topic of American football, you might want to consider reading that article before trying this one."
You could also have second-level tributaries -- Zone defenses (football) as a subsidiary of American-football strategy. Or you could expect readers to read two higher-level articles. And if the overall meaning is clear, you can just bluelink some terms (like "OECD" in the nex paragraph) rather than explain every single word. But the important thing to remember is that readers must not be forced to go chasing links all over Wikipedia in order to understand a single article.
Of course, it doesn't matter how a hierarchy of articles is organized if they are written in an incomprehensible manner. Editors should always write articles as if they are going to be read by average people. Fewer than one-fourth of Americans 15 years or older have a bachelor's degree, and the average adult in OECD countries has 10 years of education. Yet some people edit Wikipedia like they think everyone has a Ph.D.
I understand that there might be some information that merits inclusion in Wikipedia even though it cannot be made easy for normal people to understand, such as the equations in the Zipf's Law article. But the beginning of every article should explain in simple language what the subject is and why it is important. The math can go at the end for the people interested. Mwalcoff 02:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I've now started the project; please see WikiProject:General Audience if you would like to join. ‣ᓛᖁ ᑐ 08:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Administrators can, with one click, revert pages to the last version not edited by a particular user. However, if two or more users make bad edits to the same page in a row, then the administrators will still have to revert using the "mortal" way.
Also, if one user reverts a page, and an administrator reverts right after, the page might get reverted back to the bad version.
Therefore, I suggest a function that allows an administrator to revert to a particular version with ease. In the page history, each revision would have a "revert to this version" link. When an administrator clicks the link, the page will be reverted to the specified version.
The summary would be something like Reverted to version as of 19:59, July 3, 2005 UTC by (user name).
If regular users could revert images this way, I don't see why an administrator should not be able to do the same with pages. -- Ixfd64 21:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
On occassion during patrol I'd come across a POV edit that the normal test templates didn't really address directly. I want to create a new template patrollers could use to more specifically address them. It would tell/direct them to the neutrality sections of Wikipolicy, and elaborate that established articles go through discussion and consensus prior to contentious additions/changes being made. - Roy Boy 800 05:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Note: Yes, I know this proposals includes software changes and yes, I know that changes to the software should go on Bugzilla. But right now I'm just testing the waters what the community thinks of the proposal I wish to make.
Reading #Making featured articles stand out above, I started thinking: The point Raul654 makes against metadata is (probably - correct me if I'm wrong) backed by Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, and rightly so. Now one big reason for avoiding self-references is that reusers can just take the articles and, well, use them, so we should keep the database clean. However, there are numerous cases of self-reference that are accepted (stub and cleanup templates) or even encouraged (i.e. I'd say the interlanguage links are pretty heavy self-references, and no-one has proposed to remove those from featured articles yet). The rest go on talk pages, but they don't actually refer to the talk page. Now, what if we had a namespace that would attach to an article just like the Talk: namespace, but was intended for metadata? So, on the top of Article there would be a link to Metadata:Article.
That page would include any metadata that applies to the article, which would mean:
Now, if we have this metadata collected in one place, we can choose how to display it. That would require some changes to the software, but I think no really big ones: I would propose that the Metadata: page is just automatically prepended to the wikitext when the article or the talk page is requested. Of course, not all metadata should appear on both. The solution to this would be markup, and I think Metadata:Article could look something like this (the comments are only for illustration):
<articletop>{{cleanup}} {{POV}}</articletop> <!-- This is shown at the top of the article --> <articlebottom>{{stub}}</articlebottom> <!-- This is shown at the bottom of the article --> {{fac}} {{pr}} <!-- everything not marked up is automatically shown on the talk page... --> [[de:Artikel]] [[Category:Articles]] <!-- ...unless it's an interlang or a category, then it's parsed on the article only -->
It would be even better, of course, if templates like {{ stub}} could actually include its own placement markup, making the maintenance of the metadata easier, e.g.:
<articlebottom>This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.</articlebottom>
Templates that contribute content, like navigation templates, would remain where they are right now, in the article itself, as would any metadata template that needs exact placement ({{ sect-stub}} comes to mind).
That would neatly solve the "keep our database as reusable as possible" dilemma, since any reuser would just have to drop the Metadata: namespace, and we could choose to highlight. On the other hand, it would add significant instruction creep, and yet another namespace, and it would add another database call to any article or talk page. But since I've already thought this up, I'd like to hear if this idea has any merit at all.
Thank you for your time, -- grm_wnr Esc 21:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
One negative implication of this would be that it would require two database queries (one to get Metadata:$1 and the other to get $1) where we now have one. — Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ( talk) 22:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Another problem I foresee would be when stubs are expanded into full articles. I doubt many editors would bother (or even remember) to go into the metadata to remove a stub tag. It would also increase the workload on us stub sorters (now: open article, edit article text and template, save; new method: open article, open metadata, edit article to correct sloppy text, edit metadata to change template; save both). Similar problems would occur when adding categories to articles. Perhaps the simplified form of this system is more viable - keep it to just article and talk pages, but add in metadata commands to the templates so that no matter where on a page a template was added, it would turn up at the right point on the page (a bit like with category links now). Grutness... wha? 02:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
How often do you search for an article but all the good information gets drowned in pages and pages of redirects? An article may have 10 or may of these annoying pages along with it. Although they're a lifesaver when useing "go", they are just the opposite when using "search". My idea: find some way to give the option to ignore redirects on the search result page. HereToHelp 23:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC) Who'ss with me?
The cherished goal of NPOV for Wikipedia often seems to be getting farther and farther away from realization. One of the most intractible problems is that POV warfare is carried on in a highly organized basis, not only in the editing, but oftentimes in administrative functions as well. It takes the form of what have been described variously as WikiCliques or POV posses, which generally have one or more Designated Administrators, administrators who carefully avoid direct participation in specific conflicts, but will intervene with administrative powers on the side of their respective teammates. An example of such behavior is what I call the Protection Racket, where admins watch the Requests for Protection page in order to protect the versions desired by their buddies, and POV warriors time protection requests so as to intersect periods when their Designated Admins are on patrol.
At present, the remedies are inadequate. Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship seems very unwieldy and is seldom used. So, I am making the following proposal:
I think that there ought to be a higher echelon of administrators, whom I propose be called ombudsmen, who would be held to a far higher standard of propriety and neutrality than present administrators. A member who becomes an ombudsman could lose that status at the slightest hint of partisanship in any dispute where ombudsman powers are invoked. And here are what I propose ombudsman powers should consist of:
1. The authority to discipline admins by imposing temporary bans on their use of admin powers, just as admins may temporarily ban ordinary editors from editing. This authority would be used when admins are found to be using their authority to further the POV-pushing of their allies.
2. The authority to temporarily intervene into POV disputes by setting ground-rules for conflict resolution in specific articles (this idea needs some refining; my intention is to take some of the load off of the mediation and arbitration committees, and speed conflict resolution.) -- HK 15:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Repast The Tempest (Insane Clown Posse) Formal amendment Hay sweep Actual effects of invading Iraq W. Ralph Basham Adam bishop Harrowlfptwé Brancacci Chapel Acacia ant(Pseudomyrmex ferruginea) Cyberpedia Principles of Mathematics Moss-troopers Gunung Lambak
All of the articles above are created by people as a "test". On average there are 2-20 of these posts that keeps admins busy unnecesarily. All pages have one thing in common they are less than 16 bytes. 15 bytes is a magical number because it is the smallest article size posible to have a redirect. or #redirect A = 15 chars. -- Cool Cat Talk 02:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
We already have a way to detect such pages. That'll be my bot in #en.wikipedia.vandalism . It is trivial to add it a function to make it delete any page newly created with less than 15 bytes. I intend to do so, objections? -- Cool Cat Talk 02:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
It might be a good thing to avoid deleting anything that's a template. One example is a {{deletedpage}}
(which happens to be 15 chars, but no reason it couldn't have been shorter). Or, it might theoretically be possible to have a very short template that performs some logic based on the {{PAGENAME}}. --
Curps 09:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Pages created in the past 10 minutes: Jamie Lidell Katy Lennon Cassa Rosso
Exeptions bot will not delete:
Given that how large (in bytes) should a newly created article be written to be kept?
objection to 15 limit - Please note: During debate on potential deletion of stub template redirects at WP:SFD and WP:TFD it is often easier - so as not to get the "this may be deleted" message on the real template - to replace the redirect message with a simple template message. Thus, if a redirect to {{ a}} was being debated, the nominated template would contain the text {{tfd}}{{a}}. 12 characters. Then there's pages containing simply {{copyvio}} - 11 characters. I can't think of any smaller possibilities, but they may exist - and 15 is thus too big! Grutness... wha? 01:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Will this bot automatically post an explaination to creator's talk pages explaining why their page was deleted? Perhaps it should, if that's feasible. -- Aquillion 16:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I have been requested by Cool Cat for his assistance, but in light that Cool Cat doesn't have admin powers, I have taken upon myself to write this bot. I have decided three levels for this bot: 15 bytes that are not redirects or templates will be deleted automatically by the bot. 42 bytes are automatically marked with {{ db}} with the delete reason of "Bot detected new article less than 42 bytes, possibly spam." Anything under 1k will be marked with the generic stub template. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
We are trying to develop a new proposal that would, in a nutshell, mean that we have a new level of block which would allow an IP address to be blocked from anonymous, but allow registered editing.
This is impportant so please get involved!
See Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal.
thanks - Martin 21:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Every time I search for an article, I see all the different results, many of them are very simmilar, and many of them will redirect to the same article. However, I always read a few of the less simmilar results and wonder if they are a separate article or not, and I usually end up clicking on a few of them, and end up visiting the same article multiple times, to my annoyance. I was just wondering if it would be possible to put a little line saying 'redirects to:_____' beside each search result, to easily determine which of the results will take you to a different article. Let me know what you think. -- Someones life 08:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)