Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PgdeLC (talk | contribs) at 17:22, 28 April 2011 (→re New Users and new articles). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcut
This page is for discussion about the village pump only. You may want one of the village pump subpages above, or one of the links on the village pump main page. Irrelevant discussions will be moved or removed.

Is this the right place for software modification proposals?

A lot of the proposals on the project page involve programming changes. I don't see comments from developers about feasibility, the amount of work required to implement the changes, and other priorities for the developers' time. Without that essential input, making and discussing proposals for what more they should do for us isn't all that meaningful, or at least is missing a very important element. Is this the right place for these discussions? Finell (Talk) 16:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, WP:VPT and Bugzilla are better places for asking for programming changes. Proposals is properly used for establishing the consensus needed to change something on the dev's side (as well as our side, of course). I know the dev's read WP:VPT, but I don't know if they read VPP. They occasionally comment there as well. --Izno (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So why the heck does WP:VPT say "This page is not for new feature requests. Bugs and feature requests should be made at the BugZilla or the Village pump proposals page because there is no guarantee developers will read this page." -- which I interpret as meaning, "If you don't understand BugZilla, then post all proposals that require any programming changes at VPP, because the devs read VPP, but not VPT"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because whoever wrote it didn't know what they were talking about. Mr.Z-man 21:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part, this is a silly place for technical proposals that require changes to MediaWiki. The English Wikipedia isn't the only site that uses MediaWiki; the results of a poll here aren't especially meaningful to the developers. At best, it will influence a developer who has ties to this project. Proposals to enable existing features that are disabled by default or proposals to install a MediaWiki extension should be made here, as these require little coding work and only only affect this project. People certainly can make proposals for technical changes here, but they should know that consensus here is no guarantee it will be done and ideally, people should ask about feasibility before they make the proposal. Mr.Z-man 21:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a developer, I have an idea about feasibility - however, that doesn't mean I'll want to spend the time to make a feature work with Wikipedia (or encourage others to) until I know that editors will support its inclusion. Making a proposal here seems to be a reasonable part of requirements gathering, especially for features that will have wider implications for editors. GreenReaper (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving problem!

I just found that there is an Archive48 and Archive 48 I don't know how you handle the archives here, but I guess thats not how it should be. Greets --Dbenzhuser (talk) 10:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody? Leaving it this way, means that nobody will find those 45 proposals on the first of the two pages ever again. --Dbenzhuser (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've notified the bot owners responsible. I'll merge the archives after they've had a chance too look at it and figure out what went wrong. —Ruud 01:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the archiving, it was missing a space. I'll fix the archives now. Gimme a minute. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another archiving problem?

Please forgive me if this is a false alarm. But Archive 58 ends at 20 February, and Archive 59 starts at 7 March. Seems the messages in between are lost (about 17 days). I made a proposal in 28 February and I can't find it in the archives - that's how I noticed the problem. Also I noticed that Archive 59 is missing the header: {{Wikipedia:Village pump/Archive header}} - Ark25 (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check the page history. ClueBot III has been archiving the archive, moving old topics to a new page. Reach Out to the Truth 03:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I checked and it looks like the bot simply deleted the proposals, instead of archiving them. Because I can't find those proposals in the Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 59 Ark25 (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it deleted them. That's part of the archiving process. Old discussions from Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 59 have been "archived" to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 59/Archives/ 48. Incorrectly, obviously. Reach Out to the Truth 04:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh, archiving the archive ! Seems my proposal it's not even in the Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 59/Archives/ 48. Thanks for help. Anyways, someone should tell the guy, before he's making more Hodge-podge. Also, would be good if someone checks for other errors like that. It's a pity to mess the archives. Ark25 (talk) 04:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for a new sister project for Wikipedia

I am not really sure is quite the right place to propose this, but there has been something which has been on my mind over this year (2010). If you go to Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not, you will be informed that Wikipedia is not a "how-to" manual. Well, that is as maybe, but how about starting a sister-project to enable such things? We have a Wikimedia Incubator to propose Wikipedias in new languages - go to List of Wikipedias and you will see examples of Wikipedias in various languages which have been proposed successfully here (I believe a Lakota Wikipedia has been under discussion here, but I do not think that anything came of it). I wonder whether we could start a Wikimedia Incubator to propose new projects other than Wikipedias, which be brand new ideas to Wikis? Perhaps the Wikimedia Foundation would have to be informed.

My personal suggestion for a related Wiki "how to" project would be a Wiki Recipe book. I am sure that many people have used the net for recipes, and the concept of a Wiki recipe book to me, sounds quite intriguing. So, shall we see to some sister-projects that really are "how-to" manuals? I know that there are several sister-projects to Wikipedia, such as Wikiquotes, Wikinews, Wikiversity, Wiktionary and Wikispecies, but none of them seem to be how-to manuals. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would the Wiki Cookbook be what you're after? – iridescent 20:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, yes, it seems as if it is there. Having gone to Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not after typing that suggestion, I see that there is where it says that Wikipedia is not a "how-to" manual, it does mention Wikibooks. Many thanks for the information, it is appreciated. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a good idea to start something like Wikihow but they seem to do a good job over there so it might not be needed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics Study Questions & Answers

X is of order 2 iff x = x-1,i need the solution of this theorom, can anybody help me please???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonia.idrees (talk • contribs) 12:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong forum. Try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics. -- Ϫ 23:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging old proposals for categorization

I think we should consider tagging old proposals with a template such as {{Dormant}} so that they get properly categorized (apart from Category:Wikipedia rejected proposals because they weren't really rejected, just went stale). This way stale proposals that haven't received adequate discussion and input may be much more easily found and revived by browsing through the category. We could add another bullet point in the top menu instructing readers to tag their proposals if they go dormant. Meanwhile we can search through the archives and tag others that maybe potentially important. -- Ϫ 23:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re New Users and new articles

I have edited a few articles. This is simple. I would also like to create several articles, the only thing that is currently stopping me is the form, format and how to cite sources. I have read the pro-forma Q&A on this subject but would prefer to see a test article on the 'learning' page to show a new user/editor how to proceed with the various sigills used fro citations and sources. In this respect i would like guidance from a seasoned veteran and think that expert guidance would be of benefit to me. PgdeLC (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump_(proposals)&oldid=426412677"