![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I wish to translate materials from the English 'pedia and use them on the Chinese 'pedia. Do I need to acknowledge it? If so, how? --Menchi 23:45 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)
Can someone trim the Village Pump down? It's over 32k, and I can't post a question (or, for that matter, trim it myself) -- Crenner 02:49 May 11, 2003 (UTC)
The pump is 39 ko full. Letting my comment here right now.
I find some of the edits made today by http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=66.82.44.235 quite suspicious. Could someone knowledgeable look at them please ? Anthere
I'm not sure where the right place to ask this is. I asked a question at Wikipedia talk:Disruption. Could someone perhaps have a look at it? Thanks... -- Timwi 20:37 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Could someone clean the pump please ? Anthere 04:51 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
The Reference desk is very sleepy. I think that it should be linked to in the big, bold Related pages heading up at the top.
move to wikipedia talk:village pump
I know someone out there likes archiving and cleaning the pump.. it's time.. -- Dante Alighieri 00:36 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
It would be really helpful if we could protect the village pump during archiving and just one person archives it. Otherwise the edit conflicts make it nigh on impossible. Good idea? CGS 22:41 21 Jul 2003 (UTC). [[Wikipedia:Village pump
Should all queries on the page now be given titles so the TOC works properly? It doesn't seem so useful if half the questions aren't listed in it. Angela 00:34, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
You may have noticed that there is now a "Post a comment" feature for talk pages. The advantages of this feature are:
The Village Pump, unfortunately, is not in the Talk: namespace, so the "Post a comment" feature is not available there. I propose moving it into the Talk: namespace and redirecting the main page there. Any objections? —Eloquence 01:27, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Remainder of discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Software updates
As there are an awful lot of entries on the Village Pump about the new features, it may be better to create a separate page for them. There are now 64 sections on the page. I would do it but I need to get up for work in four hours! Angela 01:45, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
There were always 33 really, it's just that some of them had been duplicated due to a little bug (now fixed by Eloquence). -- Camembert
See Wikipedia:Software updates -- Jiang
I find the name to be a little obscure. Maybe we should have a sentence or two of explanation... maybe something about scuttlebutt... or maybe that's even more obscure. - Smack 00:30, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I have moved the pump to the talk namespace so the "Post a comment" feature can be used. This makes attaching comments easier, as it does not require loading the entire page and it cannot trigger edit conflicts. —Eloquence 01:26, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)
This page seems to now have spent a time in the Meta, where I found it quite easily except it moved again before I could finish my editing. The link from the talk page that said it was to the Meta then brought me back here. Confused? I was for a while. I suggest a cooling-off period and some more discussion before any more moves. Andrewa 02:29, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
My comments above apply to the page to which they were first posted, of course. That is, the 'view meta page' link took me instead to w:Village Pump, which is what I meant by 'this page'. Still confused? Andrewa 17:13, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Hmmm. And as I write this, the link below labelled 'view meta page' still links to
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump
which is not in the Meta space of course, at least not right now. Trivial point I guess. Andrewa 16:05, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Are we going to continue to keep the pump a reasonable size, or just let it grow now that we can edit by section? CGS 14:13, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC).
move to wikipedia talk:village pump
Can people please remember to update the list of moved discussions when they move a discussion off the page? It's hard work keeping the list up to date retrospectively. — Paul A 04:18, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
If you're going to leave the moved-to notices inline, please leave them with headers as well, even if it does make the TOC longer.
The currently popular bullet-point moved notes keep getting absorbed by the preceding sections (because people go to add to the bottom of a section and fail to realise that the bullet point is supposed to comprise a new section).
—
Paul A 09:19, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
User:David.Monniaux accused me of incorrectly moving his notice on the Village Pump regarding inaccuracies in the Association page, see the disucssion: here
What is one to do in the case of such an accusation? Alex756 19:26, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
It would be nice if there was a way to get to the bottom of this page as it tends to get rather large (even if you click on the last section of the TOC, which itself might be too large, the last section could be long). On my talk page ( User talk:Dori), I just made a new section and linked to that, but every time someone uses the post a comment link, the bottom will not be at the bottom anymore. Does anyone have any ideas on how to accomplish this? I also tried using html anchors, but that didn't work. Maybe I'm the only one who gets annoyed at the scrolling :) ¬ Dori 18:00, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by the variety of performance I get from wikipedia. On my machine at home, on a DSL ethernet, the pages do not come up at all. At work, with a T2 there is no difficulty; etc. Is this a cookies thing? Mkmcconn 16:54, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Might have something to do with mru/mtu settings, needs to be much less than 1500 for dsl, especially if you nat a lan. Which os? Gabriel Wicke 02:31, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Is the header on the village pump obsolete now we aren't having regular server problems? Could it be reduced to just include the Post a question link? Angela . 07:46, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Given the number of 'where can I buy dogs' questions that appear here, do we need a Wikipedia:Ask Wikipedia page? I think it a good idea. Anyone agree? Bmills 13:15, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
(moved from the village pump itself)
The pump fills up quickly, and Recent Changes is harder to work with. A year ago, I could put a question in the comment line of an edit and hope that someone would catch it, but these days I wonder how long before it is seen. Therefore, I suggest we create "faculty rooms", which would be like Village Pumps centered on different subjects. To start with, maybe just science / humanities / arts, but see how it goes from there. These would be places to discuss new projects and mention pages that need attention --
Tarquin 13:58, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
(end moved text)
I strongly object to the WP:VP/sectionname idea. Do not use subpages! If the content needs to be kept, find a proper title for it; it doesn't need to be kept as a subpage of the village pump. Perhaps people need to be encouraged to start the discussion elsewhere and just link to it here. For exmaple, if it's a question about copyrights, discuss it on wikipedia talk:copyrights. I don't think <32kb is a reasonable aim. Less than 70 would be good though. Angela . 20:33, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think new faculty areas are needed. We already have too many pages in the Wikipedia namespace, and the vast majority of what goes on the village pump could have been placed on one of those pages, with a link to it from the pump to gain people's attention. For example, "animated gif" could have been written at wikipedia talk:image use policy, "orphaned redirects" at wikipedia talk:redirect, "US national archives photos - public domain?" at wikipedia talk:copyrights, "How to use new Extended Image Syntax" at wikipedia talk:Extended image syntax, "Fanny Kaplan vs Fanya Kaplan" at talk:Fanya Kaplan and so on.
There is very little here that can not be placed on an existing page. I don't see the need to create further confusion with new pages. Angela . 22:00, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)
One way to take a few bytes off this page is to move all the static header info to one of those {{msg:blah}} things in the MediaWiki namespace (like was done with the sandbox until recently; see MediaWiki:Sandbox). Other than that, I guess we should just be vigilant in moving older (oldish?) discussion. -- Minesweeper 22:18, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
In principle I favour having one central location to discuss all these issues: It is easier for both the users and the administrators that must take care of it. However, if we have come to the point that it is no longer possible to manage it as a single page, then three subdivisions are apparent. The page currently seems to deal with:
Maybe one or more of these general categories could be moved to a different space.
As for the idea of faculty rooms, I like it a lot. Seeing as I limit my contributions to the business and economics faculty, it is a natural for me. However, most of the issues on the VP are not limited to any one faculty, so this may not be a good application for faculty rooms. mydogategodshat 22:45, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Minesweeper that we can place the VP header in a MediaWiki message and I support its implementation. Also, the header is too big and could be smaller. Sennheiser's suggestion about subpages is interesting but it may create confusion. What if two sections/discussions have the same name? So I would suggest not to implement this subpage idea. Angela says "I don't think <32kb is a reasonable aim. Less than 70 would be good though." but 70Kbytes is too big. Several browsers have problem editing >32kb pages. Not all users have high speed net connections and many of them pay for each minute they are online or for each megabyte they download. Pages that I would participate more if they were not so big include the village pump, the reference desk, the votes for deletion and the current events. Also, it is very difficult to edit a huge page and search for text in it while you edit it. Sections help, of course. It would be very nice if no page was bigger than 32kb. I am opposed to the use of the word Faculty, but the idea is interesting. We should consider creating a page like Wikipedia:Forum with sub-fora for ore specific subjects. Newcomers may don't understand what VP and Reference desk is. Certainly they don't understand the reference desk and so they put questions in VP. But everyone understands what a forum is, so we can have Wikipedia Forum which will include a category for Wikipedia-related questions (Village pump), a category for general encyclopaedical questions (Reference desk) etc. The linkto the forum will be included in the main page. The newcomer will visit the Forum page and choose a sub-forum to post his/her message. If we choose good names and write nice explanations, we will get rid of Referencedesk-questions in Village pump. Currently RD and VP are unrelated with each other, except from the links at the top of the pages which many newcomers don't read. Making VP and RD as subcategories of a Forum will help to make newcomers consider in which category they should post. . ·. Optim 23:04, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC) .· .
If, as is claimed, most of the content on the pump can be moved to more suitable places, then may I suggest that we adopt a more stringent archiving policy. I recommend that no topic be archived until at least 3 full days after the most recent addition to the discussion. Any topic that belongs elsewhere can of course be relocated immediately, with an appropriate link in the moved discussions table. The moved discussions table should always be at least 3 days long (actually 4, to ensure 3 full days), with older notes being archived as they currently are.
This will, of course, require a clear and concise statement at the top of the page to ensure that people know how it works, possibly replacing some of the existing notes (or as a separate article if more appropriate). It will also mean that anyone archiving will have to check the topics a little more carefully, rather than just removing the top n topics. If this is too much work then don't archive.
If this solves the problem, then great. If not then we have demonstrated by example that the pump is too busy to remain as a single page.
Finally - good work on the msg tag Angela. However, it seems to me that the size of the page when editing is the smaller problem, and that a lot of mentions have been made to download time, which of course this won't fix. Still a good action though. -- HappyDog 23:56, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
In reply to angela: I realize that main wikipedia articles shouldn't have subpages, but the village pump is an entirely different issue. All the reasons against subpages in your article don't apply to the use of the village pump. I realize that this is probably not a perfect solution, but you need to realize that (realistically) we have no other choice when dealing with issues that might not fall under any category. Sometimes a discussion changes direction so it might not be appropriate to be in Wikipedia:copyrights in the end. If pages fell under categories, we wouldn't need the village pump! On another issue Minesweeper said:
My suggestion, which several others have also made, is that we should be more proactive in moving conversations to appropriate existing pages with a link from the pump. Perhaps it would help to make it plain that people are welcome and even encouraged to do this, I have been reluctant to initiate it myself for fear of treading on toes. I think if we do this the pump could be kept below 32K, it's the few long conversations that take the space. I think a similar principle should be applied to VfD. Andrewa 01:46, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It's under 32kb now. I haven't looked after the village pump for the last couple of weeks, and it seems that whilst other people have been looking after it, each person has a different way of dealing with it. Perhaps we need some agreed-on ways of doing the archiving. Some questions...
I also think the guidelines should also note that pointless things need not be archived. If something has been fixed, just delete it. If something is already covered by the help pages, delete it. etc. Any objections? Angela . 03:51, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
Currently the pump looks more like a list of headers for moved discussions and topics still very active yesterday disappeared. I doubt this is the purpose. -- User:Docu
I notice that the interlanguage links were moved off the pump and over to MediaWiki:Villagepump to save KB. However, am I the only one noticing that they don't actually show up on the Village pump unless they are actually located on the page? They should be moved back otherwise... -- Minesweeper 13:36, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
We can add one-line sumamries of the discussions we move from VP to other pages. How do you rthink? example: for "Openoffice software documentation" we could add the summary (before the link to the openoffice talk page): "A discussion on whether Wikipedia should host software documentation for OpenOffice". Optim 15:07, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Sennheiser was annoyed when he saw that material, of which he contributed to, was deleted from the page without being moved. In place of the discussion, was something even more annoying. The text had been replaced with "see FAQ at top of page." It took Sennheiser more than 5 minutes to find this FAQ, which was much more annoying than being directed to the old discussion. Whoever did this terrible thing should be ashamed of himself/herself. Sennheiser ! 00:03, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I put a question on here two days ago, and it's already been deleted. I had to dig through the history to find out that somebody had responded to it. I realize that the Pump is a busy place, but please give the people who post questions at least a couple of days to read the responses before you delete things! RickK 01:50, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I've moved a section under the heading "Thumbnail size" to the Pump itself, which is the place to talk about this kind of thing. This is the page for talking about the Pump. (confusing, I know) - IMSoP 17:37, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Why are we making the pump redirect to itself? I am confused. -- Wapcaplet 19:54, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Would it be possible for people to put a timestamp on notes of moved discussions, to make it easier to track when things happened. (In fact I'd be in favour of having more timestamps available all over the place, it can be very difficult to track a conversation when stuff is spatchcocked into the middle.) -- Phil 09:08, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia:Village Pump#dari and Farsi
Quoted from an e-mail:
"I visited the "Wikipedia" website, and I found something needs to be corrected.
From the many languages presented, I chose Chinese (the traditional one), I found out that it's not really traditional Chinese but a mix.
There are Simplified Chinese characters and Traditional Chinese characters from which you can choose.
And, when I went to traditional Chinese, I found out that it's not really traditional Chinese but a mix of traditional Chinese with simplified Chinese.
In this case, Wikipedia made a big mistake!
I want to protest about it but I don't know how to contact them and tell them to correct it.
If there are two Chinese languages (tranditional and simplified) on the website, then it should be very clear which one is which.
If I choose to read traditional Chinese, why are there many simplified Chinese characters in it?
And if there are simplified Chinese characters in the traditional Chinese languages, then it shouldn't be called traditional Chinese.
It's very confusing.
I grew up with traditional Chinese so it's very difficult for me to read the other one.
I don't like it at all."
Can anyone explain why Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese is getting mixed up? Is there a way to clarify the difference for contributors?
This is a knotty problem, but my guess is that the Wikipedia will be much more useful if this problem could be addressed.
Please respond if anyone has any thoughts.
-- Anon
Possibly more text got removed than intended, that's why I rolled back the edit. -- User:Docu
Following a question about the "Remote Possibilities" game...
Isn't it a bit odd that so many questions of this sort get asked. What is about our pages that causes people to think we can answer these sorts of things? And besides the Oscars were held on the 29th and All about Eve and Titanic still jointly have the most nominations (14), IIRC. Lord of the Rings equals Ben-Hur and Titanic in having the most wins (11). Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:28, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Could someone explain the {{msg:protected}} on this page? What page is protected? Apparently not this one... -- Spikey 20:19, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm annoyed. From the summary above:
So why on earth do I now have to dig through archive sub-pages to find a link to a discussion which was on the pump just 2 days ago? Please, please, let's have a proper policy on this and stick to it. Moving discussion may be necessary to keep the pump usable, but visible pointers are equally necessary if it is to be useful! - IMSoP 18:20, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It sounds a nice idea to say "leave links to moved discussions", but leave them for how long? There was a complaint about one section I moved that was relating to a question a week old. This was on a day that the pump had exceeded 150kb. I removed 78 sections. Do you really want 78 headers left in place, in addition to the 40 that remained after the archiving? I used to do that, but it just isn't realistic anymore. The pump was only archived yesterday, and already it is 80kb again. Endless headers are not the solution, and this is not a question of motivation. It really is time for a more radical change to this page.
Ignoring my own objections at the end of January [1], I now re-propose mydogategodshat's idea of splitting the village pump into
I'm not sure these are the best category titles, but I do now think splitting the page is necessary. 150kb is not acceptable, and neither is having 100 section headers. It's useless. As these subpages get too large, we need to further specialise and have additional subpages, but I think for now between three and five would be a good start. Angela . 08:50, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I wish to translate materials from the English 'pedia and use them on the Chinese 'pedia. Do I need to acknowledge it? If so, how? --Menchi 23:45 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)
Can someone trim the Village Pump down? It's over 32k, and I can't post a question (or, for that matter, trim it myself) -- Crenner 02:49 May 11, 2003 (UTC)
The pump is 39 ko full. Letting my comment here right now.
I find some of the edits made today by http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=66.82.44.235 quite suspicious. Could someone knowledgeable look at them please ? Anthere
I'm not sure where the right place to ask this is. I asked a question at Wikipedia talk:Disruption. Could someone perhaps have a look at it? Thanks... -- Timwi 20:37 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Could someone clean the pump please ? Anthere 04:51 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
The Reference desk is very sleepy. I think that it should be linked to in the big, bold Related pages heading up at the top.
move to wikipedia talk:village pump
I know someone out there likes archiving and cleaning the pump.. it's time.. -- Dante Alighieri 00:36 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
It would be really helpful if we could protect the village pump during archiving and just one person archives it. Otherwise the edit conflicts make it nigh on impossible. Good idea? CGS 22:41 21 Jul 2003 (UTC). [[Wikipedia:Village pump
Should all queries on the page now be given titles so the TOC works properly? It doesn't seem so useful if half the questions aren't listed in it. Angela 00:34, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
You may have noticed that there is now a "Post a comment" feature for talk pages. The advantages of this feature are:
The Village Pump, unfortunately, is not in the Talk: namespace, so the "Post a comment" feature is not available there. I propose moving it into the Talk: namespace and redirecting the main page there. Any objections? —Eloquence 01:27, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Remainder of discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Software updates
As there are an awful lot of entries on the Village Pump about the new features, it may be better to create a separate page for them. There are now 64 sections on the page. I would do it but I need to get up for work in four hours! Angela 01:45, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
There were always 33 really, it's just that some of them had been duplicated due to a little bug (now fixed by Eloquence). -- Camembert
See Wikipedia:Software updates -- Jiang
I find the name to be a little obscure. Maybe we should have a sentence or two of explanation... maybe something about scuttlebutt... or maybe that's even more obscure. - Smack 00:30, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I have moved the pump to the talk namespace so the "Post a comment" feature can be used. This makes attaching comments easier, as it does not require loading the entire page and it cannot trigger edit conflicts. —Eloquence 01:26, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)
This page seems to now have spent a time in the Meta, where I found it quite easily except it moved again before I could finish my editing. The link from the talk page that said it was to the Meta then brought me back here. Confused? I was for a while. I suggest a cooling-off period and some more discussion before any more moves. Andrewa 02:29, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
My comments above apply to the page to which they were first posted, of course. That is, the 'view meta page' link took me instead to w:Village Pump, which is what I meant by 'this page'. Still confused? Andrewa 17:13, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Hmmm. And as I write this, the link below labelled 'view meta page' still links to
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump
which is not in the Meta space of course, at least not right now. Trivial point I guess. Andrewa 16:05, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Are we going to continue to keep the pump a reasonable size, or just let it grow now that we can edit by section? CGS 14:13, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC).
move to wikipedia talk:village pump
Can people please remember to update the list of moved discussions when they move a discussion off the page? It's hard work keeping the list up to date retrospectively. — Paul A 04:18, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
If you're going to leave the moved-to notices inline, please leave them with headers as well, even if it does make the TOC longer.
The currently popular bullet-point moved notes keep getting absorbed by the preceding sections (because people go to add to the bottom of a section and fail to realise that the bullet point is supposed to comprise a new section).
—
Paul A 09:19, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
User:David.Monniaux accused me of incorrectly moving his notice on the Village Pump regarding inaccuracies in the Association page, see the disucssion: here
What is one to do in the case of such an accusation? Alex756 19:26, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
It would be nice if there was a way to get to the bottom of this page as it tends to get rather large (even if you click on the last section of the TOC, which itself might be too large, the last section could be long). On my talk page ( User talk:Dori), I just made a new section and linked to that, but every time someone uses the post a comment link, the bottom will not be at the bottom anymore. Does anyone have any ideas on how to accomplish this? I also tried using html anchors, but that didn't work. Maybe I'm the only one who gets annoyed at the scrolling :) ¬ Dori 18:00, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by the variety of performance I get from wikipedia. On my machine at home, on a DSL ethernet, the pages do not come up at all. At work, with a T2 there is no difficulty; etc. Is this a cookies thing? Mkmcconn 16:54, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Might have something to do with mru/mtu settings, needs to be much less than 1500 for dsl, especially if you nat a lan. Which os? Gabriel Wicke 02:31, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Is the header on the village pump obsolete now we aren't having regular server problems? Could it be reduced to just include the Post a question link? Angela . 07:46, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Given the number of 'where can I buy dogs' questions that appear here, do we need a Wikipedia:Ask Wikipedia page? I think it a good idea. Anyone agree? Bmills 13:15, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
(moved from the village pump itself)
The pump fills up quickly, and Recent Changes is harder to work with. A year ago, I could put a question in the comment line of an edit and hope that someone would catch it, but these days I wonder how long before it is seen. Therefore, I suggest we create "faculty rooms", which would be like Village Pumps centered on different subjects. To start with, maybe just science / humanities / arts, but see how it goes from there. These would be places to discuss new projects and mention pages that need attention --
Tarquin 13:58, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
(end moved text)
I strongly object to the WP:VP/sectionname idea. Do not use subpages! If the content needs to be kept, find a proper title for it; it doesn't need to be kept as a subpage of the village pump. Perhaps people need to be encouraged to start the discussion elsewhere and just link to it here. For exmaple, if it's a question about copyrights, discuss it on wikipedia talk:copyrights. I don't think <32kb is a reasonable aim. Less than 70 would be good though. Angela . 20:33, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think new faculty areas are needed. We already have too many pages in the Wikipedia namespace, and the vast majority of what goes on the village pump could have been placed on one of those pages, with a link to it from the pump to gain people's attention. For example, "animated gif" could have been written at wikipedia talk:image use policy, "orphaned redirects" at wikipedia talk:redirect, "US national archives photos - public domain?" at wikipedia talk:copyrights, "How to use new Extended Image Syntax" at wikipedia talk:Extended image syntax, "Fanny Kaplan vs Fanya Kaplan" at talk:Fanya Kaplan and so on.
There is very little here that can not be placed on an existing page. I don't see the need to create further confusion with new pages. Angela . 22:00, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)
One way to take a few bytes off this page is to move all the static header info to one of those {{msg:blah}} things in the MediaWiki namespace (like was done with the sandbox until recently; see MediaWiki:Sandbox). Other than that, I guess we should just be vigilant in moving older (oldish?) discussion. -- Minesweeper 22:18, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
In principle I favour having one central location to discuss all these issues: It is easier for both the users and the administrators that must take care of it. However, if we have come to the point that it is no longer possible to manage it as a single page, then three subdivisions are apparent. The page currently seems to deal with:
Maybe one or more of these general categories could be moved to a different space.
As for the idea of faculty rooms, I like it a lot. Seeing as I limit my contributions to the business and economics faculty, it is a natural for me. However, most of the issues on the VP are not limited to any one faculty, so this may not be a good application for faculty rooms. mydogategodshat 22:45, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Minesweeper that we can place the VP header in a MediaWiki message and I support its implementation. Also, the header is too big and could be smaller. Sennheiser's suggestion about subpages is interesting but it may create confusion. What if two sections/discussions have the same name? So I would suggest not to implement this subpage idea. Angela says "I don't think <32kb is a reasonable aim. Less than 70 would be good though." but 70Kbytes is too big. Several browsers have problem editing >32kb pages. Not all users have high speed net connections and many of them pay for each minute they are online or for each megabyte they download. Pages that I would participate more if they were not so big include the village pump, the reference desk, the votes for deletion and the current events. Also, it is very difficult to edit a huge page and search for text in it while you edit it. Sections help, of course. It would be very nice if no page was bigger than 32kb. I am opposed to the use of the word Faculty, but the idea is interesting. We should consider creating a page like Wikipedia:Forum with sub-fora for ore specific subjects. Newcomers may don't understand what VP and Reference desk is. Certainly they don't understand the reference desk and so they put questions in VP. But everyone understands what a forum is, so we can have Wikipedia Forum which will include a category for Wikipedia-related questions (Village pump), a category for general encyclopaedical questions (Reference desk) etc. The linkto the forum will be included in the main page. The newcomer will visit the Forum page and choose a sub-forum to post his/her message. If we choose good names and write nice explanations, we will get rid of Referencedesk-questions in Village pump. Currently RD and VP are unrelated with each other, except from the links at the top of the pages which many newcomers don't read. Making VP and RD as subcategories of a Forum will help to make newcomers consider in which category they should post. . ·. Optim 23:04, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC) .· .
If, as is claimed, most of the content on the pump can be moved to more suitable places, then may I suggest that we adopt a more stringent archiving policy. I recommend that no topic be archived until at least 3 full days after the most recent addition to the discussion. Any topic that belongs elsewhere can of course be relocated immediately, with an appropriate link in the moved discussions table. The moved discussions table should always be at least 3 days long (actually 4, to ensure 3 full days), with older notes being archived as they currently are.
This will, of course, require a clear and concise statement at the top of the page to ensure that people know how it works, possibly replacing some of the existing notes (or as a separate article if more appropriate). It will also mean that anyone archiving will have to check the topics a little more carefully, rather than just removing the top n topics. If this is too much work then don't archive.
If this solves the problem, then great. If not then we have demonstrated by example that the pump is too busy to remain as a single page.
Finally - good work on the msg tag Angela. However, it seems to me that the size of the page when editing is the smaller problem, and that a lot of mentions have been made to download time, which of course this won't fix. Still a good action though. -- HappyDog 23:56, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
In reply to angela: I realize that main wikipedia articles shouldn't have subpages, but the village pump is an entirely different issue. All the reasons against subpages in your article don't apply to the use of the village pump. I realize that this is probably not a perfect solution, but you need to realize that (realistically) we have no other choice when dealing with issues that might not fall under any category. Sometimes a discussion changes direction so it might not be appropriate to be in Wikipedia:copyrights in the end. If pages fell under categories, we wouldn't need the village pump! On another issue Minesweeper said:
My suggestion, which several others have also made, is that we should be more proactive in moving conversations to appropriate existing pages with a link from the pump. Perhaps it would help to make it plain that people are welcome and even encouraged to do this, I have been reluctant to initiate it myself for fear of treading on toes. I think if we do this the pump could be kept below 32K, it's the few long conversations that take the space. I think a similar principle should be applied to VfD. Andrewa 01:46, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It's under 32kb now. I haven't looked after the village pump for the last couple of weeks, and it seems that whilst other people have been looking after it, each person has a different way of dealing with it. Perhaps we need some agreed-on ways of doing the archiving. Some questions...
I also think the guidelines should also note that pointless things need not be archived. If something has been fixed, just delete it. If something is already covered by the help pages, delete it. etc. Any objections? Angela . 03:51, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
Currently the pump looks more like a list of headers for moved discussions and topics still very active yesterday disappeared. I doubt this is the purpose. -- User:Docu
I notice that the interlanguage links were moved off the pump and over to MediaWiki:Villagepump to save KB. However, am I the only one noticing that they don't actually show up on the Village pump unless they are actually located on the page? They should be moved back otherwise... -- Minesweeper 13:36, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
We can add one-line sumamries of the discussions we move from VP to other pages. How do you rthink? example: for "Openoffice software documentation" we could add the summary (before the link to the openoffice talk page): "A discussion on whether Wikipedia should host software documentation for OpenOffice". Optim 15:07, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Sennheiser was annoyed when he saw that material, of which he contributed to, was deleted from the page without being moved. In place of the discussion, was something even more annoying. The text had been replaced with "see FAQ at top of page." It took Sennheiser more than 5 minutes to find this FAQ, which was much more annoying than being directed to the old discussion. Whoever did this terrible thing should be ashamed of himself/herself. Sennheiser ! 00:03, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I put a question on here two days ago, and it's already been deleted. I had to dig through the history to find out that somebody had responded to it. I realize that the Pump is a busy place, but please give the people who post questions at least a couple of days to read the responses before you delete things! RickK 01:50, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I've moved a section under the heading "Thumbnail size" to the Pump itself, which is the place to talk about this kind of thing. This is the page for talking about the Pump. (confusing, I know) - IMSoP 17:37, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Why are we making the pump redirect to itself? I am confused. -- Wapcaplet 19:54, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Would it be possible for people to put a timestamp on notes of moved discussions, to make it easier to track when things happened. (In fact I'd be in favour of having more timestamps available all over the place, it can be very difficult to track a conversation when stuff is spatchcocked into the middle.) -- Phil 09:08, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia:Village Pump#dari and Farsi
Quoted from an e-mail:
"I visited the "Wikipedia" website, and I found something needs to be corrected.
From the many languages presented, I chose Chinese (the traditional one), I found out that it's not really traditional Chinese but a mix.
There are Simplified Chinese characters and Traditional Chinese characters from which you can choose.
And, when I went to traditional Chinese, I found out that it's not really traditional Chinese but a mix of traditional Chinese with simplified Chinese.
In this case, Wikipedia made a big mistake!
I want to protest about it but I don't know how to contact them and tell them to correct it.
If there are two Chinese languages (tranditional and simplified) on the website, then it should be very clear which one is which.
If I choose to read traditional Chinese, why are there many simplified Chinese characters in it?
And if there are simplified Chinese characters in the traditional Chinese languages, then it shouldn't be called traditional Chinese.
It's very confusing.
I grew up with traditional Chinese so it's very difficult for me to read the other one.
I don't like it at all."
Can anyone explain why Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese is getting mixed up? Is there a way to clarify the difference for contributors?
This is a knotty problem, but my guess is that the Wikipedia will be much more useful if this problem could be addressed.
Please respond if anyone has any thoughts.
-- Anon
Possibly more text got removed than intended, that's why I rolled back the edit. -- User:Docu
Following a question about the "Remote Possibilities" game...
Isn't it a bit odd that so many questions of this sort get asked. What is about our pages that causes people to think we can answer these sorts of things? And besides the Oscars were held on the 29th and All about Eve and Titanic still jointly have the most nominations (14), IIRC. Lord of the Rings equals Ben-Hur and Titanic in having the most wins (11). Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:28, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Could someone explain the {{msg:protected}} on this page? What page is protected? Apparently not this one... -- Spikey 20:19, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm annoyed. From the summary above:
So why on earth do I now have to dig through archive sub-pages to find a link to a discussion which was on the pump just 2 days ago? Please, please, let's have a proper policy on this and stick to it. Moving discussion may be necessary to keep the pump usable, but visible pointers are equally necessary if it is to be useful! - IMSoP 18:20, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It sounds a nice idea to say "leave links to moved discussions", but leave them for how long? There was a complaint about one section I moved that was relating to a question a week old. This was on a day that the pump had exceeded 150kb. I removed 78 sections. Do you really want 78 headers left in place, in addition to the 40 that remained after the archiving? I used to do that, but it just isn't realistic anymore. The pump was only archived yesterday, and already it is 80kb again. Endless headers are not the solution, and this is not a question of motivation. It really is time for a more radical change to this page.
Ignoring my own objections at the end of January [1], I now re-propose mydogategodshat's idea of splitting the village pump into
I'm not sure these are the best category titles, but I do now think splitting the page is necessary. 150kb is not acceptable, and neither is having 100 section headers. It's useless. As these subpages get too large, we need to further specialise and have additional subpages, but I think for now between three and five would be a good start. Angela . 08:50, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)