Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ihavenolife (talk | contribs) at 03:29, 29 July 2006. 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
The proposals section of the village pump is used to discuss new ideas and proposals that are not policy related (see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) for that).

Recurring policy proposals are discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (perennial proposals). If you have a proposal for something that sounds overwhelmingly obvious and are amazed that Wikipedia doesn't have it, please check there first before posting it, as someone else might have found it obvious, too.

Before posting your proposal:

  • If the proposal is a change to the software, file a bug at Bugzilla instead. Your proposal is unlikely to be noticed by a developer unless it is placed there.
  • If the proposal is a change in policy, be sure to also post the proposal to, say, Wikipedia:Manual of style, and ask people to discuss it there.
  • If the proposal is for a new wiki-style project outside of Wikipedia, please go to m:Proposals for new projects and follow the guidelines there. Please do not post it here. These are different from WikiProjects.


Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved here. These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

New magicword <<DYNDATETIME|ZONE>>

NOTE: To avoid my text being interpreted as code, I replaced all curly brackets ({{) with triangular brackets (<<). They really should be curly brackets in the actual implementation.

BACKGROUND:

Many articles have specific dates and times in them. Currently these dates are fixed as simple text, and all users, regardless of their timezones, see the same number.

In many cases this is the way it should be, e.g. historical articles, events where the time of the day is important etc. But in many other cases, mostly in current event and schedule-specific articles, the ultimate objective is to convey the actual time of the event to the reader, as opposed of presenting the perspective of a local time.

For example:

"On January 1, 19XX, at 16:00PM country A declared war on country B."

In this case, the local time is important, to show the historical perspective. This date and time should stay constant to all readers, and not be adjusted for timezone.

But in another example:

"The semi-final is scheduled on August 10, 2006 at 16:00 PST"

The focus is more reader oriented than local oriented. The objective is to let the reader know when exactly the event takes place, for example so they can watch it in real time.

PROPOSAL:

For accomplishing the latter case, have a magicword of the following format:

<<DYNDATETIME|ZONE>>

For example, the article text contains:

<<2006-08-10 16:00|PST>> (Let's not get in a fight over the date format in the tag, it can be MMDD or DDMM or whatever, that's not the point of this suggestion.

What this would do is convert the displayed date and time according the user's timezone settings in Wikipedia (preferences -- time zone). It would then display the date to the user according to their specifications under preferences under "date format" section.

Thus, a user with time zone of -8 and long date preferences would see on the page something like:

August 10, 2006 16:00 GMT-8

A user with the same style but in timezone +3 would see:

August 11, 2006 03:00 GMT+3

And a user with short date preferences and offset 0 would see:

2006-08-11 00:00 GMT

In a nutshell, it would make dates displayed more dynamic, more suitable to user preferences, and most importantly, timezone-adjustable. So next time, for example, I won't have to recalculate all the times on my favorite football match when reading Wikipedia.

Of course, ALL CONVERSIONS WILL BE DONE BY HAND AS APPLICABLE. I am not suggesting that a bot do that, because in many articles the date and time should stay as they are (that is simple text). This is not intended to be a lighting-fast change, but rather gradual introduction in articles which could benefit from dynamically-adjusted times, mostly indended for current events and especially sports and other competitions.

Of course, we could also make a format like <<DYNDATETIME|FIXED>>, where it would adjust the style of date and time, but not adjust it for timezone.

Finally, users should be able to turn autoadjustments on or off in their time/date preference settings. If they turn it off, they will always see date and time for the same zone which was written in the article. And article writers, when writing dates and times using this magicword, should always use local time for the event as the base case.

Elvarg 18:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, do not write in all caps in your proposal. It is considered rude. Now, about the proposal; I disagree. All events should have the local time of the place where the event took place, instead of the reader's local time. It is much more confusing when, for example, there's a sports game, and you write: "the game was a night game, starting at 6:00 AM EST," or something of that sort. — Mets501 (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mets501. The current practice is, in my view, better than this proposal. — Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mets501 has a great point. I'll also throw in the monkey wrench of Old Style and New Style dates which make an automated date or time conversion process for the years 1582-1752 difficult or impossible. --ElKevbo 04:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh just a comment, you can just use "nowiki" in "<" and ">" instead of using "<" and ">". Unfortunately, I can't type that in without it disappearing. --Terrancommander 04:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<nowiki> blah blah blah code code code </nowiki> --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 00:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World map

I was wondering about the plausability of some sort of Wikipedia Atlas, where simply clicking on the country links to the article. I've created a (very rough) proof of concept at User:Smurrayinchester/Map (only Iceland, England, Wales and Scotland have been set up so far). smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 12:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem to work quite well, though it will break down when the geography gets a bit more unusual. Your version does seem quite a bit better than my own somewhat functional clickable map prototype at Wellington Street. - SimonP 20:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there will always be geographical areas where control is contested or controversial (Taiwan and Israel being two contemporary examples). But that's unavoidable and we'd just need a policy to deal with it consistently like every other group in the world (particularly the map makers).
It's also important to recognize that a map is a snapshot in time. Add a slidebar at the bottom or some other interface that allows one to change the date and the map change, too, and then you'd have a really cool tool. Add some way to explain why the map changes over time (grey zones for areas in dispute which link to the article describing the dispute?) and you've got a real winner. --ElKevbo 04:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your proof of concept is quite elegant! — Reinyday, 14:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

New User categories

Hello,

My Question relates to the possibility to add a category such as category:public lectures in Town (replacing public lectures by org. name & town by the real name of the location) and invite user to add their user accounts in it ? (relating them with a main article Template:catmore which shall describe the community as a wikipedia encyclopedic article).

The aim is to give some newbies the feature of registering as members of that group, so that they could meet thereafter.

My point is to add brand new users that share the follow-up of philosophy-related lectures ; those are not the teachers, but they search a place to share the knowledge they acquired throughout a community.

I proposed wikipedia, which I know through another wiki identity. So that I just started this account creation to enhance their initiation to the wiki (people come from the course, and are basically unaware of wikipedia guidelines).

Yours,

--Lilliputian 12:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, but I'm not sure if I understand what you're proposing. I'll give my best try, though. You've attended (or will attend) classes or lectures of some sort, and a large number of people from those classes have joined (or will join) Wikipedia? And you're proposing a category or categories to help the people from these class(es) find each other and communicate? Am I right? Luna Santin 08:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you've got the idea; I assume that a simple user box in a user's page would be enough to group them using the noinclude ; category:acme user stuff. Later idea is to handle collaborative work through the wiki environment (this is not a negative "group ideology" thing, Let's say the lectures help understand many things about the past & the way history is currently told : hence, historiography by nation instead of one history). Overall issue shall not be reduced to History, though.
Anyway, is a user box the answer ?
--Lilliputian 15:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
note : talks can continue there.

New accounts

Hello! I was amazed by how there is no verification to sign-up. It's pleasant that there is no e-mail hassle but a keyboard verification might be good to keep off the spam. Thanks! — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pawel z Niepolomic (talk • contribs) .

The commenter is probably suggesting the use of captchas during signup. The one possible use for this that I can think of is preventing massive automated account creation for the purpose of bypassing semiprotection. Deco 14:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly believe that there should be e-mail address verification, so that if a member misbehaves, not only can the account be blocked, but so can the e-mail address, so they would have to get a new address, which is easy to do, but is time consumming and annoying, so it would act as a deterent. -Wser 15:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is perfectly sensible. Also, I assumed we already used captchas, because when I signed up on some other language wikipedias they did. Martin 15:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Omg i never realised we didn't use Captcha's, Simple does, and other WP's do.. Maybe it would be good..? --Deon555|talk 00:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History Tab usability

The History tab is very daunting for new users; it's very busy and just about everything can be clicked on, so it's confusing as to what one should do. At a minimum, there should be a link to Help:Page history in some obvious place near the top.

Are there any other ways it could be made more usable or intuitive? Could there be a "simple" and "advanced" version of the history tab (chosen in My Preferences) so that new users would see only the most essential information (hiding the "talk|contribs" links for each user, for example)? Could it be redesigned into more of a table format so the columns could be labeled? I know a lot of this would involve a MediaWiki software change, but I thought I'd get some feedback here first. — Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 04:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin please at least add a link to Help:Page history? It would help a lot of people and would hardly be any trouble at all. If you want to go a little further, I would suggest changing the current History page text from:
To view a previous version, click the date for that version.

Legend: (cur) = difference with current version, (last) = difference with preceding version, m = minor edit

... to ...
All versions of this article are listed here in reverse-chronological order.
  • To view a specific version, click a date.
  • To compare an old version with the current version, click cur.
  • To compare a version with its predecessor, click last.

Minor edits are denoted as m. For more help, see Help:Page history.

Thank you! — Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 22:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like this idea. I've long been concerned that Wikipedia's processses are too opaque to new editors and outside observers.--Pharos 22:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. Not every newbie is a moron or a computer illiterate. Write wordy tutorials for people who want them, but don't cut interface functionality because you assume people are incompetent. Disclaimer, I do in general hate Wikipedia's tendency to talk down to readers, link "difficult" words, go off on illustrative "dumbing down" tangents, etc., we are an encyclopedia, not high-school-level education software (unlike, arguably, simple:). dab (ᛏ) 22:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia processes are a lot less "obvious" than you, as a well-experienced user, may think. Every time major news organizations have written feature articles on Wikipedia, they have demonstrated some fundamental misunderstanding of the system.--Pharos 23:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think more explanations is enough. The history interface is useful and shouldn't be dumbed down but it isn't obvious. Not saying that it is hard to understand just that it isnn't obvious which is fine. The a bit longer explanantion should be enough but it is hard for me as a wikipedian to judge. Jeltz talk 23:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and would give strong support to this proposal. When I first looked at the History tab, I was blown away by it. It was only by experimenting for a while that I managed to bumble through it. I think A short explaination would be perfect and would help a lot. Perhaps it'd also be good to include a short sentence on how to revert pages, too. I remember reading about reverting all over Wikipedia but having to hunt through several layers of help pages before I arrived at an explaination of how to revert something.Lor 09:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changes made to the protected message at MediaWiki:Histlegend -- it looks a bit bulky, but definitely more helpful than what was there previously. We'll see how others like it. — Catherine\talk 17:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any option on how to remove that in one's preferences? It's just too big. Wouldn't just a link to Help:Page history be sufficient? Garion96 (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like it myself, but I can see that it might be informative for new users. But if it stays, it should be possible to turn it off in ones monobook or somewhere. Shanes 18:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say but UGH!. This huge box simply wastes a full third of the space on the history screen. What's more important: the history or the instructions? It should be a small link, or at least a single line (as it was before). I'm not opposed to the idea, just to the amount of space it wastes. For now, I'm reverting to the previous revision, but keeping the link to the help page (which is a good idea). --cesarb 18:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Btw, I agree with keeping the link. Garion96 (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good compromise. The Help link is prominent, but the header doesn't eat up all my screen real estate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With due respect to the editors involved in this, I find this change to the page history an extremely unpleasant one. On a 1024x768 screen, it puts this legend directly smackdab near the center of the screen, where the eye naturally goes for whatever they're searching (in this case, history data). The amount of spacing and whitespace makes it an unusually large box. It makes extremely prominent functionality that most Wikipedians know after a short period of time. At the very, very least, please put a CSS class around it so that people can display:none it in their monobook.css file. —  Mike (talk • contribs) 18:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about the following (with a border around it for visibility), since each user only has to learn how to use the History page once. There's no need to see the Legend every time, is there?
For help using this page, see Help:Page history.
— Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 18:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again: what's more important: the history or the instructions? Drawing attention away from the history and towards the instructions is plain wrong in this case. Less visibility is better. --cesarb 18:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The instructions are the first thing that a new user should see, since the page by itself is far from intuitive. By the time a user becomes comfortable using the page history, the instruction link (even if it is a visual standout because of a border) will no longer be prominent because our brains are wired to ignore things that aren't needed and don't change. A highly visible link to the instructions will become less visible to each user as time passes.
After seeing the "bulky" instructions put to use temporarily, I agree that they were too much, and I now prefer the very succinct "For help using this page ..." notice. This reduces use of screen real estate without cutting usability. I also agree with Mike that it should have CSS class so people can display:none it if they wish. — Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 19:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The instructions should definitely be visible, after all, why even bother with them if they aren't? I like the new, more succinct notice though. For myself at least, the current: "Legend: (cur) = difference with current version, (last) = difference with preceding version, m = minor edit." is/was extremely confusing. We need a more visible link to the help at least. --Lor 21:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
shoving instructions into people's faces is patronizing. Don't assume every newbie is a moron. Place an unobtrusive "help" link for people who need it, but for the love of god don't clutter a perfectly user-friendly layout with infoboxes and talking office clips! dab (ᛏ) 00:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with vandals

I see that a lot of the warnings to vandals have been standardised ("Thank you for experimenting..."). I think that including the following sentence in the standard response can further reduce the frequency of vandalism:

"If you feel the need to be funny, try editing on Uncyclopedia. Uncyclopedia is a parody of Wikipedia where anyone can add jokes or funny pictures to articles."

- sYndicate talk 12:50, 09 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support this in the first warning (apart from blatant vandal). Why don't you go over to the template talk page and suggest it? --Oldak Quill 19:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any vandal templates? -  sYndicate talk  23:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Vandalism — Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 16:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found it, thanks Jonathan. -  sYndicate talk  03:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annoying "new messages" boxes

On various User and Talk pages, for example, GeorgeMoney (in the past) and Moeron (now), I have found fake "You have new messages" boxes. My proposal:

  1. Put something into the relevant policy, that although it isn't, lists this as an example of what is not allowed.
  2. Eradicate the existing ones (bot maybe?)
  3. If the problem still persists, have the developers make a change to the software that disables the real new messages boxes (user preference) and showing new messages other ways, such as the background color of the talk page link.

Seems to have come from this: User:Zappa.jake/templates/new_messages Invitatious (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; the practice of spoofing the "new messages" alert is juvenile and irritating. I have asked a few users to remove them, but apparently their amusement at tricking others outweights my irritation and time wasted. It's rude, to say the least. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One time I was on someone's talkpage and they made a what they called a "joke" and it forced me to laugh for several seconds when I could have been using that time to write the encyclopedia, so I'm proposing a NO JOKES AT ALL policy.

Seriously, come on... this is too much. Let it be. If someone you interact with has one, let them know of your displeasure and let peer pressure work its magic... vote against them if they ever come to RfA if you like... but making this a policy issue is overkill. — Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I also find the spoofs annoying. Maybe it was funny the first few times, but it long since lost any appeal it had. However, the comment above makes me wonder. Is it possible right now to alter my style sheet so that real message boxes appear to be a non-standard color? Dragons flight 03:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can change the settings for the "usermessage" class to your liking. Unfortunately, most (all?) of the people involved are aware of this, and use the same class in the div tag for the fake bar. Kirill Lokshin 05:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the real notice in the page in relation to the other classes and IDs? Invitatious (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bunchofgrapes, that was unhelpful. Just because I don't find a particular action amusing does not mean I lack a sense of humor. At the hospital at which I work, we must use Internet Explorer, which means I don't have access to a tabbed browser. Furthermore, and I'm not sure why, but loading Wikipedia pages (even going back and forth in the history) takes at least 15-20 seconds, sometimes more. To go to someone's page (the most recent time for me was responding to an unblock request due to being autoblocked), seeing the message, and following the link wastes at least 30 seconds to a minute while I sit and watch the screen. It may not seem like a lot but it really is quite irritating. Your analogy is not accurate; laughing out of amusement is enjoyable; staring at my's computer screen waiting for pages to load because a user thought it would be amusing to deceive me is not enjoyable to me. In general, I am opposed to any spoofing of or interfering with the standard Wikipedia interface; this includes obscuring the standard layout with absolutely positioned divs, using protection templates on pages that aren't protected, forging notifications, and so on. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised, truthfully, that this is considered this permissible under the existing rules. Spoofing the Wikipedia interface in order to confuse other editors is plainly disruptive behavior; we shouldn't need new pages of rules specifically forbidding it to say that. There's some room for jokes, of course, but if someone objects or indicates that they find it genuinely confusing then it ought to be fixed. --Aquillion 15:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly childish. Disruptive... maybe. The bottom line is not to go to "new message" pages if you're on a user page, but even that's annoying. Those of us armed with WP:POPUP escape that, of course.TheGrappler 16:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, this is annoying, it shouldn't be accepted as WP intends to be a serious project and these childish behaviour add to the non-respect of the encyclopedia. It shouldn't be a stand-alone policy but be added to some existing unaccepted behaviour page. Lincher 17:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If some people find it disruptive I understand, but let's not call these people childish or disruptive for doing something that they honestly thought was innocent and playful. Only vandals enjoy wasting people's time. If you just tell them that some people find it confusing, I'm sure they'll understand and remove it - if you make a giant fuss about it they'll just go on the defensive. Deco 23:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I see the new messages indicator, I always eyeball the destination of the link before I click to it. Not sure if your browser selection doesn't display the link distance if your hover your mouse over it, though. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always do that now whenever I see one on a user page (with popups). I would still like to get rid of these anyway. Invitatious (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommend removing it on sight, dropping them a note, and protecting their page for awhile if they fail to take the hint. Faking the interface is dangerous and disruptive. --Improv 12:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the real "new messages" box is suboptimal in any case, since it looks like part of an article and can interfere with layout testing (especially if you need to determine the height of a page). I'd suggest changing the "my talk" link to read "my new messages." This would work on all skins. SeahenNeonMerlin 18:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, something like this (maybe with different wording, or the option to change the tab color, but this basic idea) is the obvious way to go. Gavia immer 18:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to the original subject, I would class this as talk page vandalism. I feel that there are two possible options:
  1. An outright ban
  2. Make all users who post these use a different colour background.
Personally, I prefer the first option. --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 18:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guys! Chill! It's not that bad, if you hover over the link at it says "Special:MyTalk", it's fake. If it says "User_talk:XXX", where XXX is your name.. It's obviously real, it takes 3 seconds. Sure i'll admit i've stuck that on my page b4, but come on, it doesn't kill you... Does it? --Deon555|talk 00:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's just very annoying the first couple of times you encounter it, and it does seem rather, uh, beneath the dignity of this project. Hmmm! Wikipedia has dignity? I've got to think some more about that. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 01:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11/03/2004 Spanish Trains Bombing

Warning for English users and Administrators :

There exists in Spain a small group of fanatics who think that the Madrid Train Bombing March 11th bombing was done by the current Spanish governement that was at that time the opposition party. They have now landed on English wikipedia and have started to shape the article to fit their madness.

They have many picturesque and bizzarre ways to state this non-sense and some variations involving secret services from France or Basque terrorist organisations (you will get painfully familiar with this crap so it is no needed that I give you details). The only solution is to block them and all their IPs. If you do not do this ASAP you will have all their rambling atrocities written again and again. In Spanish Wikipedia we are sick of these guys trolling tactics regarding a so sensitive issue. A more soft solution, could be to give them a special page for their deliriums as had been done with other conspiranoics. It is up to you. My message is that I cannot double my activity and control this nuts in English Wikipedia and many colleagues in the Spanish wikipedia are in the same situation. So it is up to you what to do between the next given three posibilities.

1-Allow them to publicize their aberrations spoiling the credibility of Wikipedia (currently happening)

2-Give them a page to at least have the damage controlled

3-Block them forever.

The 11-M were islamic terrorist actions as anyone with brain can see so I do not thing they will convince nobody but is really anoying to see their dirty lies shown as the truth. If someone wants to do something, please do it understanding that netiquette is used by them as a tool for their trolling. Enjoy.

--Igor21 16:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC) link addedFilceolaire 22:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article-specific dispute that should be resolved through Talk:11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings and, if all else fails, through Requests for arbitration. You might solicit admin attention on Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard. In any case, this is not a proposal. Deco 03:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US Cities in French-language Wikipedia

A bot is currently needed to create articles on US Towns and counties on foreign language wikis. Much of North America is absent from these wikis. Policy has already been adopted in order to counter eurocentric and francocentric editing. ADM

Hmmm - a specific effort to increase systemic bias? I'm not impressed unless you're also planning to run a bot adding cities and towns from every other country in the world to these wikis. Grutness...wha? 00:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how adding North American cities to the other language wikis is adding systemic bias? I find your comment unbelievably offensive, Grutness. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not nearly as offensive as I find the suggestion of deliberately favouring (oh, sorry, that would be favoring, wouldn't it?) one country in all language wikipedias at the expense of the rest of the world. And I bet I'm not alone in that thought. I've no objection to a bot creating articles on places worldwide on other language wikipedias, but suggestng that it shoulld be done for one country and one country alone seems apallingly parochial. Hell, the original suggestion didn't even mention the possibility of adding places in both the US and Canada to bump up the number of North American articles - no, it was the US alone. Grutness...wha? 02:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, last I looked, North America was not a country. And I am boggled at the prospect of intentionally omitting information on any wiki because you personally don't like the country it comes from. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nitpicking. There was absolutely no reason to switch the region on him. Partially a slip on Grutness's part, since he assumed that since the United States was specifically mentioned, it usurped the definition of North America, but I probably would have made the same mistake myself. — Edward Z. Yang(Talk) 22:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ack, unexpected tab reset, whooops. (Comment retracted). — Edward Z. Yang(Talk) 22:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point on both counts. North America is not a country - so why did the original suggestion imply that the way to improve coverage of this region was by adding only US places, omitting Canada, and, for that matter, how would adding information about just one part of the world reduce any form of bias? It would simply replace it with another bias. There is no reason at all why Canada should be omitted from this plan, or anywhere else for that matter. There is no way that adding information about only one country can counter systemic bias - it will simply skew the encyclopedia in another dirction. This scheme, if done, should be worldwide, not simply for the US. This is not a US encyclopedia. As to whether I personally like or dislike a country, that has no relevance whatsoever to my views on whether this idea would address the problems it sets out to address. I would feel exactly the same way if someone suggested adding information from my own country in order to reopresent its continent under the guise of removing a Eurocentric bias. Turn it around. How would you feel if someone was to say "let's remove the Eurocentric bias of the french language wikipedia by adding articles for everywhere in China with a population over 1000 - but not add anything from the rest of the world". Would it remove systemic bias? No. It would replace a bias in one direction with a bias in to directions. What if they said "let's make the French language Wikipedia represent Asia more fairly by adding places in China." Would that make it fairly represent Asia? No. it would only bias the Asian articles in favour of one country. so, as I said, originally, before you got hot under the collar about it - "I'm not impressed unless you're also planning to run a bot adding cities and towns from every other country in the world to these wikis." Grutness...wha? 03:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I would expect other wikis to endeavor to eventually create articles on all cities around the world, so it is not a choice between adding cities in the U.S. or adding cities in the rest of the world. The English Wikipedia can and does welcome articles on cities from around the world. If we could get a bot to create articles on all of the cities in France or Argentina, we'd be thrilled. Also, cities in the U.S. are apparently what the other Wikipedias are lacking, so they would be countering bias on their Wikipedia by adding them. What is on other Wikipedias, like the English Wikipedia, is irrelevant because they are completely separate and most people are not multilingual. We should not cover the just the U.S., U.K., Australia and New Zealand cities in the English Wikipedia, Spain and Latin America in the Spanish Wikipedia and China in the Chinese Wikipedia. I don't know why the bot proposal is currently limited to the U.S., but it might have something to do with our readily available computerized records, which would be useful when using a bot to create articles. Finally, what they are talking about needs to be made clear. North America is not made up of the U.S. alone, or even the U.S. and Canada. It also includes Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama. -- Kjkolb 03:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(post edit conflict) As I already said, we (the English Wikipedia), would love it if we could get a bot to create articles on cities, even if it was from a single country, no matter where in the world it is. We don't have to chose which cities to cover. We intend to get around to them all eventually. -- Kjkolb 03:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may help this discussion to point out that many of the current articles on U.S. towns and cities were originally produced by Rambot using information pulled from the United States Census Bureau and other U.S. government agencies. As not all countries provide similar information, or place copyright restrictions on the information that effectively prevent wholesale usage of the information, it may not be reasonable to expect similar automated article generation for non-U.S. locations. I would suggest the requester contact the bot owner for information on current translation efforts. --Allen3 talk 03:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, more articles is always a good thing, and generated articles from public domain US census data is relatively easy for a bot. If this exists in a machine-readable form for Canada or other countries, great, but I'm not sure if it does. It's complete bullocks to say that creating articles on US cities is somehow biased. If we can do it easilly, we should. Applies to articles on cities from any country. --W.marsh 22:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Creating articles on only US cities - which is the original proposal - is extremely biased; this is a comment I stand by and nothing to do with oxen. Grutness...wha? 22:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So we should create no articles instead of creating some articles? That's a terrible approach. If someone wants to create some good articles, the last thing we should do is tell them not to. --W.marsh 22:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite clearly not what I said. Creating some articles is always better than creating none (assuming they're encyclopedic), but creating some in a balanced way, rather than specifically favouring one topic, is far better still, and creating articles on only one area while ignoring all other areas is bad, especially if it is done by bot in such a way that theoretically thousands of articles could be created on one area, and even more so when it would be simple to create articles on a large number of places from across the planet. All of them exist in machine readable form - a form called called "Wikipedia articles". Anywhere which has an en.wiki article could easily have an equivalent created in French by bot as a babelfish-like translation at least. Those articles would be no worse than a lot of the garbled-English articles which are readily cleaned up on en.wiki. There is no reason on Earth to only limit this to one area. Grutness...wha? 06:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm shocked at Grutness's take here. We should not add articles about US cities to other pediae? Because their cities aren't here yet? Then maybe they should get off their non-American asses and get cracking, I'd love to see an article here for every city, town, village and hamlet in the whole damn world, but until that happens, that's no reason to not add info about American cities, towns, villages and hamlets to other pediae. Please tell me I misinterpreted something. --Golbez 20:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly didn't read much of what I wrote. I am not complaining that US cities are being added to other Wikipedias. All I am saying is that the argument given for what it will achieve is fatally flawed - and that is something I would say whether it was your country, my country or anyone's country that had articles marked down as potentional additions. The original comment was that US cities and only US cities should be added in order to counter systemic bias. hink about that for a moment. Say you have a French language wikipedia with 1000 articles on places in France and 100 on places in the rest of the world. Adding 1000 places in the US isn't going to reduce systemic bias - it will simply split it in two directions. There will now be 1000 articles each on two countries and 100 on places in the rest of the world. Would systemic bias on the English language wikipedia be removed or lowered by adding 50,000 stubs articles on places in China? No, it would simply skew the bias in a different direction. An argument was then given that it was easy to add places in the US by bot, to which I answered that it was easy to add places from anywhere by bot. And if it is easy to do that, then that is a far better thing to do that simply concentrate on adding information from one country - adding places from throughout the world will attack systemic bias in a far more effective way that adding places from any one country, irrespective of what country it is. Why do it for just the US when you can just as easily do it for everywhere? Grutness...wha? 06:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, quality of machine translation. Second, why specifically US cities? CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 21:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one ever said machine translation; that was an assumption. And because those are the cities we have the most info for. There is absolutely zero reason to say no to a U.S. city bot just because you're annoyed it doesn't have cities from Guatemala. Make your own bot if you can find the info, sheesh. --Golbez 21:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we have the bot ready and waiting, with a lot of human-written French-language info, let's press the Start button. If not, time would be better be spend to find adequate info for other countries. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 23:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware we could only spend effort on one thing at a time. --Golbez 23:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we can spend effort on multiple things, we should spend it on multiple things - that means not only U.S. cities. If not, we still would better focus on wider coverage and not specifically our country. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 00:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you would oppose running a bot to add US city information to other pedia solely because it doesn't also add Canadian, Congolese, and Korean cities as well. WE can do multiple things; however, I have no problem with a single user (or bot) having a singular focus. If you want more, make your own bot. --Golbez 01:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I in no way oppose it. Just press the Start button, it would only help.
But if there is no such button and no complete bot, then I really consider development of such a biased bot to be an ineffective way of spending time. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 02:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is incorrect. It's not biased, it has a concentration. If I only edited USA-related articles, would I be biased? No, I would be editing what I know. Your witch-hunt for bias in every possible situation is abundantly clear. --Golbez 03:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not witchhunt. If we have the bot already or need just to tune it, I support starting it (as mentioned below, if no objections arise, of course). If we do not have the bot, we'd better develop a bot for a wider scope of subjects. It's that simple. I just see no point in limiting the bot to the US cities. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 05:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of this discussion is academic as what we say and decide here (in this wiki) may not be accepted by other wikis. The only way to do things in other wikis is by abiding to their rules. Yes, as strange as it may sound, they all don't operate by the same rules as this one. Bots that create articles may need to be approved by the community of that wiki. If I remember correctly, that is the case of the Spanish wiki. I tend to remember some time ago someone there proposing a bot to create articles in the Spanish wiki about .... I do not remember, I think it was about French districts or something along those lines. There was a debate about allowing such bot and I think there was even a vote on the matter (do not remember the end result). Summarizing, I think we cannot decide here for the other wikis. Anagnorisis 04:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added tags/templates be seen in summary

I propose that the addition of tags such as NPOV tags and cleanup tags or any other tags be also duplicated (by the mediawiki or the wikipedia) in the summary box. This would help in two things, first, to know which version of the article was POV-oriented in order to work with the history more easily ans also, it would allow bots to recognize these tags right in the summary box thus helping with the FA and GA criteria. Lincher 19:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That might be expensive in server processing. At first glance, the diff between the old and new versions could be parsed for well-formed templates in the new, but not the old version. However, if a template was not entered correctly, it wouldn't be picked up because a well-formmed template did not show in the diff. If the template was corrected on a later effort, it still would not be picked up in the diff. To avoid this, the program would have to parse all of the new version noting templates, then parse all of the old version, and then compare the lists of templates to see what well-formed templates were in the new version, but not the old. The program would also have to deal with templates being moved around in the article. And all of this processing would have to be performed on every edit. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 20:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fast answer. Didn't know it was THAT tough to do and that it would consume that much server processing. Well, it was an idea. I'll ring in if I have less expensive ones. Altough we can now ignore the idea, it would be nice to have somekind of a bot that would search articles that are added a tag like cleanup or NPOV to monitor the GA and FA lists. Lincher 01:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you delete the talk page?

I originally wrote this to the technical page of the VP... it seems technical considerations have been addressed successfully, so I'm bringing it here to the proposals page. One thing I've run foul of two or three times when deleting pages is forgetting to check whether there was a discussion page... sometimes leaving a lone talk page floating in the void. I propose putting a message in large friendly letters on the "page deletion complete" page which will come up if there's an undeleted talk page that needs dealing with. Grutness...wha? 22:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some talk pages shouldn't be deleted... per WP:CSD, if "they contain deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere or notes that would help in creating an article". Other than that, yeah... generally there's no point of keeping talk pages that I'm aware of. Some kind of warning would be helpful I guess so admins can check... though I'm not sure if the software supports it right now? --W.marsh 00:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was all gone over at Wikipedia: Village pump (technical)#Did you delete the talk page?. It seems that it can be done. As for some pages needing to be kept, that was also mentioned, and there was a suggestion that some kind of {{deletedsubject-because}} template could be added to the talk pages kept to expalin why they were kept, which sounds a good idea to me. Grutness...wha? 00:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, why not? Titoxd(?!?) 23:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

change the power structure of wikipedia

I move to simplify the de-sysopping process and to establish clear and easy criteria for the Rf adminship. Unlike stated in all statements of how wikipedia should work, there is a group of editors who are a sort of an "inner group" on wikipedia, and these are the admins. They do not always follow the policies, they interpret them as they like and use their privileges in content disputes, especially if there is no admin on the other side (because in that case there will be no wheel warring). In my opinion, any editor who reaches 1000 mainspace edits and has no history of vandalism or uncivility should be given the administrator status, without long and stupid discussions if he/she really "needs the mop". Arguments like "I dont see where he could use the admin quack" are only used by people who are exceptionally zealous and proud of what good they have done on wikipedia. Look for what they did in real world and you will find that they are 15, have problems at school because they spend all the time RC patrolling, RfA discussing, AfD nominating, prodding etc. But they believe that wikipedia is the real good of today's world. Admin privileges should be easy for everyone to reach and equally easy to lose, should one prove, that he is not capable of having some responsibility. Azmoc 15:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I think that it may too easy to reach adminship. Admins are entrusted with certain tools that can be misused. Mere edit counts do not establish that someone can be trusted with those tools. I could rack up 1,000 more edits in Main space in a couple of weeks if I wanted to, but that would mean nothing about my understanding of Wikipedia. Understanding of Wikipedia and judgment are important considerations in choosing an admin, edit count is not. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 15:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It takes a lot more than a specific quantity of edits and the ability to avoid calling someone a jerkface to justify entrusting a user with the ability to prevent others from editing, be it by blocking users or protecting pages. Too many people would be inclined to use these tools as bludgeons in content disputes with new / anonymous users. -/- Warren 15:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again the case of a supposedly brand-new user, who has yet to make any edits to article space, trying to tell us how to run Wikipedia. Yawn. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again a supposedly silly comment from someone who thinks he/she is running wikipedia. Yawn. It is possible to be editing without an username for a long time, then create one. I said, adminship should be easy to gain and easy to lose, your arrogant ad personam argument now violates the NPA in case I am experienced and BITE in case I am not, and in my opinion, you should lose your admin privileges now and re-gain them when you learn how to behave. Azmoc 08:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are exactly the type of person who would use his privileges in a content/conduct dispute. I find your stated belief that you are running wikipedia more than the other (yet inexperienced) users unbelievable. Azmoc 08:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Azmoc, are we supposed to believe that you have come here with suggestion after less than a week on the project and almost no mainspace contributions? Special:Contributions/Azmoc refers. Have you previously edited under another account? It would help to see your full edit history. Also, please remain civil. Just zis Guy you know? 12:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The cabal rejects this proposal. That is all. Just zis Guy you know? 12:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, who I am, or under which IP I have edited before is no bussiness of yours. I will ignore your elitist ad personam argumenting, you should however note, that any ad personam argument is considered uncivil. I could also place a warning template on your talkpage. Your comment above doesn't concern the content of my proposal, just me. Stop that please. Azmoc 12:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read WP:TINC? There is no cabal. There never was. Just zis Guy you know? 08:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While the identity of a person should not and does not affect the validity of arguments given by them, there is another side to Ad Hominem that is valid. Being busy Wikipedians, we don't have time to read/comment on every proposal that flies our way (the size of this proposal page is a tribute to this). Senior Wikipedians have what is called a BS-detector, which helps them quickly go through proposals like these and find the ones worth thinking and discussing about. A common indicator is a low-level of contributions. If a person with 50 edits and a person with 5000 edits have a proposal, whose would I read first, think about and comment on? Seniority gets preferential treatment in terms of consideration.
This is extremely important, and writing up a proposal, getting the necessary consensus on it, and putting it into action is an extremely labor-intensive process. If we tested every proposal that came by... we'd have no time for editing Wikipedia!
Nevertheless, occasionally, a "newbie" comes up with a good idea. If it doesn't seem immediately good to senior contributors, he will have to fight for it. Dalbury and Warren have come up with a good responses to your proposal, yet you have not addressed any of his concerns. Please do so. :-)
By the way, Zoe, please don't bite the newbies. — Edward Z. Yang(Talk) 15:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't bite newbies. I do, however, bite sockpuppets. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith then. Are abrasive comments really that hard to avoid? -- bcasterline • talk 20:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when they are in response to people with vested interests in stirring up trouble and not in creating an encyclopedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The desysopping process is quite simple. If you cause serious disruption to Wikipedia, you will end up desysopped. Most admins are perfectly reasonable, and thus willing to discuss any decisions people would wish to clarify in an appropriate forum, and would welcome input from their peers. I see no value in having clearly defined standards at RFA, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, being an admin requires more and less than simply ticking boxes on a checklist. It requires the trust of your peers. Steve block Talk 22:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sombody emailed me about this discussion here, because of the sockpuppet suspicions against Azmoc, and because he was unsure if it was me (obvious similarities in username). So, for the record: it's not me! If I wanted a sockpuppet, I'd pick a less obvious name... Azate 03:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think he's Ackoz (talk • contribs • [page moves] • block user • [block log]), who stopped editing just before Azmoc started and was active on some of the same content, and who appears to have fallen foul of at least one admin (per block log). Sounds like garden-variety rouge admin abuse with a dash of sockpuppetry thrown in, nothing new. Just zis Guy you know? 07:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
mmmm potatoes. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 00:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organized cleanup effort

I recently looked at Wikipedia:Cleanup and said to myself, "Wow, that's a lot of articles." After a bit of glancing about, I found that on average there's about 4 or 5 articles listed for cleanup in any given day. I then looked at Category:Cleanup from June 2005, and realized how unintimidating that list looked compared to the huge list of two thousand plus (I don't even want to guess how large it is). I searched around a bit to see if there was an organized wikiproject to deal with cleanup, and found Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce, though it appears to be long dead/dying and I don't particularlly like the way it's set up myself. Basically, I have in mind a wikiproject that would act similar to WP:AID, only there would be one article from the category of pages in need of cleanup a day(starting from June 2005 and moving towards more recent months). This would mean that, should it get dedicated people, there is a specific goal of at least 7 articles getting cleaned up a week, meaning the backlog would slowly deteriorate. This would take some effort to get started, such as getting people who are interested in glancing at the page every once in a while to see if the current article in need of cleanup has not been looked at. How does that sound? I am more than willing to start such an effort myself. Cowman109Talk 23:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that would get people doing more maintenence work and dealing with our extensive backlogs is a good thing, so I'd support anyone who can do that. You might try revitalizing the existing cleanup taskforce/project though, one centralized effort works best, I think... better able to get and maintain the critical mass of volunteers needing to keep a project going. As for your one a day approach, I hate to say it but an article is tagged for cleanup every few minutes, so you'd need to clean up quite a few every day just to compensate for the new stuff being added to the queue. --W.marsh 00:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right. I was foolishly going by the list at Wikipedia:Cleanup. You're right that the extent of the cleanup additions is much larger, so the goals could start out small (ie one a day) and once it grows, could focus perhaps on more at a time. The only problem I see with changing the cleanup taskforce is that it's a completely different method (and looking at it further, it appears to have a complex system of assigning certain pages to members that is completely different from my proposed method. I don't think cleanup should necessarily be restricted to certain categories, and believe that anyone could theoretically go into any article needing cleanup and improve it in some way. If I created a project like this, I fear it would be an alternate process (similar to how we have 3 current different forms of going through a mediation process:WP:MEDCAB, WP:MEDCOM,WP:GUERRILLA). Cowman109Talk 00:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You might be interested in the maintenance collaboration. Maurreen 05:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another idea, which is beyond my technical ability, might be pie in the sky. We could have a button for "random cleanup" or "random article needing special attention" that could link to articles tagged to note serious problems. Maurreen 05:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting users from vandals by highlighting in red the most recent additions/changes to an article.

I was reading about how the creators of the movie Elephants Dream relied on Wikipedia to help create subtitles. They needed the Catalan word for Catalan. They wound up using an offensive word that a vandal had placed on the Catalan language page.

It occurs to me that users of Wikipedia might be helped by highlighting in red that text that has been recently altered (say within 2 days). This would alert them to suspect or unstable content.

Such as scheme also has the additional benefit of bringing users' attention to new parts of articles that relate to currently developing events without forcing them to skim the entire article looking for changes. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.88.76.22 (talk • contribs) .

Well highlighting in red might have some theoretical usefulness for purposes of editing, but it would be a terrible thing in terms of keeping encyclopedia articles looking like encyclopedia articles, and for purposes of being able to be read by members of the general public without something glaring interrupting the flow of reading. It would be a form of imposed textual self-reference.
Your suggestion is really to fix a problem which doesn't exist because we already have such an ability, albeit with one easy additonal step, but in a far more systemized way than just showing changes for the last two days. We and you don't need to skim the entire article looking for changes. Go to any article and click on the history tab on top. This field allows you to compare text in any two versions of an article in lo and behold, changes are in red! This also functions with a Watchlist, which allows us to monitor all pages we have "watched" for changes. You can only access this feature if you sign up for an account.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that unstable/recent information should not look like it's (yet) part of an encyclopedia article. It should cause an interruption in flow so that users don't get burned like the subtitler did for Elephants Dream. Besides, if a page is stable for two days, nothing would be highlighted. The article will look like a reliable page from an encyclopedia.
Dynamic, changing, unstable, vadalized articles don't deserve to look "pure". They need to express to the casual reader that the reader needs to be on the alert. That should be Wikipedia's way of helping to protect its credibility.
The point is to help the average user that comes to Wikipedia looking for reliable information. Very few average users even bother looking through the history of changes. They look at what is on the main article page and believe that to be the best of what Wikipedia has to offer on the subject. And they don't want to sign-up for an account just so they can follow a developing story. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.88.73.35 (talk • contribs) .
Well, they probably should look at the history tab. I believe Jimbo has said himself that people should not cite Wikipedia for hard facts. People should know better and use Wikipedia as a reference, and then double check such information (which is why citations are so important). Cowman109Talk 16:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments remind me of those of auto-makers before seat belts and soft dashboards. They believed that drivers should simply drive more safely. They had to change the way they make their cars, though, and auto fatalities per auto have greatly declined over the years.
At the moment, Wikipedia is like early automakers and our sub-titler from Elephant Dreams is an early victim. Oh, sure, he should have checked multiple sources for the translation of a single word, but he didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.88.73.35 (talk • contribs)
You can help you know. Sign up for an account and put some pages on your watchlist. Then, check them for vandalism. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes (~). Best, JChap (Talk) 01:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think highlighting might not be such a bad idea; it is easier than calling up the history and diffing (although Wikipedia:Popups do make history and diffing more convenient). I'd suggest, though, making it optional. Put in a link that says "highlight recent unpatrolled edits." (If there were no new unpatrolled edits, this link would be hidden. Edits by admins would be assumed to be self-patrolled.) This could be implemented using CSS and JavaScript: new edits would have a special CSS class, but one that doesn't have any CSS properties unless the user wants it to. Also make it a user preference, where it would be on by default.
Only, instead of something that looks confusingly similar to a red link (like this one), why not use a mild highlight with a border, so that it can also apply to tables, images, block elements, and already coloured text?
One could extend it further. If a category or interlanguage link has recently been added, highlight it. Maybe consider a different highlight for links to pages with new unpatrolled changes.
I think a jumble of highlighting would be overwhelming to the casual user. And I'm afraid attaching a class for age information to each chunk of text in the rendered page might be expensive for the servers.
However, if it's technically possible, I'd certainly find it useful as a proofreader/vandalfighter. Maybe it's something you could choose in Preferences, or add with a javascript plug-in (like navigation popups). Or perhaps we could add a link/button/toolbox item on the article, allowing the user to "highlight recent changes to this article" (so that it's not just restricted to logged in users). An interesting idea! — Catherine\talk 15:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative proposal that I've brought up before is to have Wikipedia show visitors the most recent version of the page that survived at least X hours without being editted, where X is some value that is greater than the amount of time it takes to identify and revert most vandalism. This would ensure that most vandalism never reaches the pages shown to people who are just visiting. Dragons flight 18:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But if the visitor were inspired to try adding something to the article, they would have to find the most recent version to do so. This could be a big inhibiter in recruiting new editors. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 20:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any sort of consensus on how long it takes for an article to to achieve 'stability' from vandalism (the most-vandalism-is-reverted-in-five-minutes is bollocks, in my view). In addition, you'd exclude valid (sourced) information that was added in the last X hours. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calculator

This is supposed to be the sum total of human knowledge, so how about a calculator function in the search window, that would follow something like this format: Calc:3*12.7. I know it would require a dramatic software change, and I know most computers have a calculator function, but any way this could be achieved would be a step closer to universal knowledge. AdamBiswanger1 17:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why, when Google already has a very powerful calculator? No use reinventing the wheel. — Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 18:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I suppose that dictionary.com is 100x more reliable than Wiktionary, one can find most of the primary sources on Wikisource on Google. The periodic table is online plenty of places, so why include it on Wikipedia? It is more of an idealized effort to include information on all branches of human knowledge, regardless of what else is on the internet. AdamBiswanger1 19:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not meant to be the sum total of human knowledge. It's an encyclopedia, and there is lots of factual information we leave out (phone listings, baseball box scores, etc.) There's no reason for the answer to 134*897 to be in an encyclopedia. Andrew Levine 23:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why the harsh response? Do you see any harm in including a calculator, or do you simply want to conform to the rigid definition of "encyclopedia" for mere principle. There is certainly something wrong with including "phone listings and baseball box scores", and those comparisons are absurd and entirely irrelevant to the argument. Wikipedia is a place where people get answers, and anything in the field of academia should certainly not be excluded. AdamBiswanger1 01:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We need to stay focused. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." A calculation tool falls outside this scope. The harm would come from the fact that it'd consume valuable developer and test time when they should be more focused on tools that would make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Nobody is going to think to go to an encyclopedia to get an answer to 134*897, because an encyclopedia isn't a logical place to go for that... so why would our developers waste time on this? -/- Warren 04:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What operating system has a web browser and doesn't have a calculator? --John Nagle 04:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think all the benefits of having our own calculator can be achieved by having WP:RD/MATH link to Google's calculator help page. If wiki editing required specialized calculators, we could consider hosting them at the toolserver, but I don't think it does. SeahenNeonMerlin 18:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block templates

{{block}} includes instructions for what to do if you are blocked; most of the other block templates do not. It also includes text addressed solely to admins, which is arguably unnecessary (should be in the text of the Unblock page instead). I propose that we standardise on a form of words for all block templates to point to a single Help subpage on what to do if you find yourself blocked, listing the unblock-l list, emailing the blocking admin, {{unblock}} and how to use it; also we should amend the templates to automagically include the name of the blocking admin and for preference a {{{duration}}} argument. Just zis Guy you know? 16:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the blocked user gets most of that stuff in the block message when they try to edit. (MediaWiki:Blockedtext), so I would suggest adding that lot to block templates is pretty redundant. --pgk(talk) 21:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also the people who seem to get the most legitimate use of the unblock systems are the cases of collateral damage, where they won't have a block template on their own talk page. --pgk(talk) 22:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still think there's merit in giving them this information before they are stymied in trying to edit (and incidentally make the block warnings more consistent at the same time). Just zis Guy you know? 20:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Neutrality Project

I'm currently working on creating (exactly, recreating) the Wikipedia Neutrality Project, or WNP. Its purpose would be to deal with articles containing significant bias, and in general ensure sufficient neutrality for all articles.

I also plan to make WNP the primary group to help editors resolve disagreements about whether POV-related templates are in place on specific articles. I believe this is really needed, since there's no procedure for this, and many editors hesitate to make such changes alone, or, worse, jump into edit wars about this. (We have dispute resolution methods, but they are focused on more serious issues).

To be specific, I suggest following types of action:

  • Review. Any editor can post a request, and the article will be reviewed by our members, making suggestions or just changing POV-related details.
  • Watch. Articles with frequently appearing significant bias will be added on a collective watchlist to be checked by our members time to time.
  • Assessment. We will discuss and suggest whether a POV template should be placed or removed on a specific article. This is what's really needed, since there's no procedure for this, and many editors hesitate to make such changes alone.
  • Dispute resolution. We will provide quick suggestions for resolution of NPOV disputes in cases where there is no personal conflict, but just contradicting views on a subject.
  • Correction. When we find an article with significant POV issues, we'll repair it, neutralizing biased statements, replacing speculations with reliable information, checking for adequate representation of views, and ensuring article no longer has a general bias.

If you are interested and want to join the WNP, just visit the project page.

All of this is for now not decided: something might be added, removed or changed. Please comment if there are any objections to our proposed tasks, or any suggestions.

CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 03:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way you have phrased this makes it sound like you want WNP to own POV-related templates. If that is so, you will meet considerable opposition. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 11:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course, I mean no ownership or any extra rights. We'll just provide a quick third opinion to resolve disagreements, and, if debate goes on, join the discussion. Actually, anyone can do it, WNP would just be a place to ask.
However, if there still are objections, I'd like to know. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 16:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then why do you say, I also plan to make WNP the primary group for deciding whether POV-related templates are in place on specific articles? No, that isn't nearly Ownership. Oh, wait, yes, it is. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, now I understand it sounds too bold. I'll rephrase it, then. Is now anything wrong in the proposals? CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 12:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is becoming hot. Any assistance in making this page more neutral would be appreciated. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 22:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Choosing intentional red links.

Perhaps spelling suggestions for the search engine?

I think that Wikipedia users would benefit greatly from a "Did you mean" feature added to searches. Most search engines (e.g. google, yahoo, etc.) have a feature that suggests a different spelling to the search terms in case you mispelled a word. It is quite annoying to search something on Wikipedia and have no spelling suggestions. In one such case, I actually had to revert to searching for my desired topic on Google just to get the correct spelling. To cite an example of what I am trying to say, lets say you would like to search for "xylem" (a biological term) and spell is zylem, it is highly unlikely that the user would guess to substitute the "z" for an "x" when the word is clearly pronounced "zylem". Perhaps this addition has already been discussed and denied or in the works; I have no idea, I do know that this would be greatly appreciated though. Any thoughts or comments please let me know. Thanks. Patbaseball2221 01:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whose version of English gets precedent? If somebody types in colr, do we suggest color or colour? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whichever the choice, it would be more user friendly than the current implementation. Many users I know use Google for almost every search on Wikipedia. It is almost invariably faster to google "apollo project wikipedia" than to try and find the same article via the "search" box in the project. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Village pump (perennial proposals)#Better search feature, please see bugzilla:974. Until such time as this exists in Wikipedia's search engine (and I would not recommend holding your breath until then), you can use google (or most any other search engine) restricting its results to the wikipedia site. For example, adding "site:wikipedia.org" to a google search does this. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Is it really that hard to add that feature??? Patbaseball2221 01:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The challenge in better searching is not supplying suggestions, but supplying useful, relevant suggestions. Simply substituting X for Z, as in your example, would turn up frequently spurious results. Deco 01:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult enough that it's not trivial, and searching is a distinctly secondary feature of the software. These two things combined mean it does not occupy a high position in the prioritized list of requested changes to the software. Most of the software development is done by volunteers. The Wikimedia Foundation currently has only two developers on its payroll, see meta:Wikimedia staff. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swap Tab

This is a great idea I have. Instead of swapping pages the old way, what if there's a swap tab that takes you to a page where you swap it with an existing article? This would eliminate A to C B to A C to B delete C snd would be easier to non-administrative users. This optoin would only be available to registered users, like me and anyone else with a login. It could also be reverted. Would it be possible? Pronoun 10:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but rarely useful. Deco 01:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more practical to include it into move tab, suggesting swap if target exists. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 22:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a good idea. I've happened upon this scenario a few times, and it would have been considerably less time-consuming to have a swap feature like this. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 05:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Historical information

Wikipedia:Historical information (WP:HIST) is a proposed guideline which is still very much a work in progress. I ask people to contribute to it and/or its talk page.—msh210℠ 06:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have been using your “Wikipedia-the free encyclopedia” over the internet quite frequently.

I must say that it is one of the perfect places to get complete information on an article.

To further improve the wikipedia, I would suggest that you upgrade and develop your software so as to include “A view and listen to the correct pronunciation of all the words” in the encyclopedia+. This can easily be done by clicking the “Sound icon along with the phonetic spelling next to each individual word.”

Hope you approve of my suggestion as it will be a benefit to many.

Awaiting an early reply.

Yours sincerely,

Minoo.

There are already such links for some hard to pronounce words, but like any other aspect of Wikipedia improving coverage in this respect simply relies on people volunteering to do it on a case by case basis. It should also be noted that in English the "correct" pronunciation of even basic words is often a controversial matter. Calsicol 00:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General User Survey

I am trying to revitalize meta:General User Survey. In essence this would be a Wikimedia-wide polls of users, giving us much needed statistics about the editors (us :)). The sooner this is done, the better for all of us. Any assistance appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably be beneficial to a few things currently being discussed on the Wikipedia. What sort of assistance do you need? I suppose we need foundation permission? How do we get that? Steve block Talk 15:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a great idea! How do we go about doing it? —Mets501 (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An award to the most unique, most organized, and overall best userpages in Wikipedia! Viva La Vie Boheme 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Esperanza/Programs#User_Page_Award :) Cowman109Talk 18:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Doesn't this divert the point of the encyclopedia to something like blogging where we give as much credit to Userpages as articles (It shouldn't be the case on an encyclopedia). Lincher 18:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And there is already a userpage barnstar. Herostratus 05:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pornography warning

NOTE: Don't be scared off just because I have the word "pornography" in the name; I don't mean to describe anything like that.

I was wondering if we could get a pornography warning just like we have a spoiler warning: {{spoiler}}.

I looked at Wikipedia:Pornography; appearantly Wikipedia's reaction to pornography was to keep it, but only so long as it's encyclopedia-like. Well, Wikipedia also has spoilers, but we're allowed to warn people who don't want to see them. Can we warn people who don't want to see any pornography also?
If no one disagrees, I wouldn't mind making this warning myself. --Jonathan talk 22:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed AT LENGTH and the answer is no, absolutely not. Raul654 22:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it justs a terrible idea. If an image is just random out of context porn, it should be here per inclusion standards anyway. Pornagraphic related topics are part of the encyclopedia if notable, since it is not censored. Nude/sex-related images will be included wherever they add informative value, as again, this encyclopedia is not censored and strives to be "the sum of all human knowledge".Voice-of-All 23:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, we'd eliminate all spolier warnings. - Nunh-huh 23:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I somtimes find those "plot details follow" warnings kind of silly. If you don't want it spoiled, either don't read the article, or maybe just glance through the intro.Voice-of-All 23:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if there were a "safe for work" mode. WP may not be censored, but most of our workplaces are. --W.marsh 00:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have warnings for outside links that contain porn, as we should. But I don't think this is a good idea, per above. As Nunh-huh notes, it would be much better if all spoiler warnings were excised (and the content replaced by relevant content that didn't spoil unnecessarily). zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll copy and paste in an answer I gave last week to a suggestion that Wikipedia pages with offensive content should bear a warning label.
We don't censor Wikipedia, but we try to adhere to a 'Principle of Least Astonishment'. That is, material that under some circumstances might be considered offensive or inappropriate for minors should only appear in articles and locations where one might reasonably expect to find such content.
In other words, if someone goes looking for the article fuck, one should not be surprised that the article contains profanity. Similarly, a reader that goes to the article list of sex positions might reasonably expect to encounter descriptions and diagrams of sex acts. On the other hand, one wouldn't expect to find pictures of sex acts in our article on Minnesota, and such images would be removed.
The disclaimer that you propose is, unfortunately, much too general to be useful. It might best be applied to all of Wikipedia — in fact, it's part of our Content disclaimer. Trying to decide whether or not content should bear a specific additional warning is an invitation to endless argument:
You can see the problem. If someone is going to look at a particular article, we try to ensure that the images and text are appropriate to that article; that's the best we can do. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, it's impossible to decide what ought to bear a warning, and individuals who go looking for an article about the penis ought not be surprised to find a picture of one there.
Note also that such a system would be impossible to maintain without major changes to the Wikipedia software—how do you evaluate whether an image is pornographic, add the label, and make sure that the image and label aren't changed? Individuals attempting to rely on such a censorship mechanism would encounter periodic failures (technical, social, vandalism- or newbie-related) and be exposed to objectionable content anyway (resulting in angry parents screaming at us). Vandals would start labelling harmless images as pornography or graphic sex, just to black out the pictures in articles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and that too :). We give minimal considerations for shock value, such as not bothering to remove images of cloud pictures that are not necessary but removing shock images that are pointless, or moving high stigma pages down on the page somewhat or making a link to them if the article is to small for the first method. Thats about all we should do, as anything else, as TenOfAllTrades has shown, would spiral into impracticallity.Voice-of-All 00:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I follow your logic about how if you go looking for obscenity you'd find it. I'm not going to try to make a pornography warning. Thanks for discussing this! --Jonathan talk 01:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant talk

The lines distinguishing unrelated points and related ones are unclear. In the space of 5 - 6 hours, some guy(s) deleted 3 of my comments on the talk page of this article, saying it is irrelevant. I can't be bothered to search through all the edits of that page during that period of time to revert my edits, but I hope something can be done to distinguish this line further. Like that, anyone, including anons, can just delete someone else's comment on the basis that it is irrelevant. --Terrancommander 04:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even considered acceptable to remove your own comments from an article's talkpage, much less someone else's. The only exception to this (that I'm aware of) would be blatant vandalism. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 22:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, in this case, I raised a discussion about the strength of the participants. Its relevant, isn't it? --Terrancommander 04:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It took me a while, but I found it. Yes, your comments were relevant and if they were deleted it was not good form. It's possible that they were simply archived, I didn't dig that deep, but I see you got to it before I did :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile/PDA version of wikipedia?

I love using wikipedia, but my biggest peeve is needing a computer to use it at. I have a palm pilot and a cellphone but viewing and searching topics on wiki is a huge hassle. The screen does not resize correctly, and many other problems arrise.

I have seen PDA/mobile versions of many news sites, including google's homepage.

Is it possible to convert pages of wiki to something like a mobile version? (small width, small page size, less photos, and perhaps some special code?)

What has been shared about this is at Wikipedia:Browser notes#PDA & cell phone browsers (and the page it references, Wikipedia:Wikipedia on PDAs). If you find anything else useful, please share your findings on these pages! -- Rick Block (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Service awards

Not really a proposal, just a series of barnstars for service -- time and number of edits. Like most barnstars, this is generally discussed on the barnstar page: Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals#Editor service awards. But this is a just a heads up to get more comment, if anyone finds the idea odious or otherwise, before moving these into template space. (A post for a significantly different version of this was made here on July 11.) Herostratus 06:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editcountitis is evil. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This heavily promotes editcountitis, which we seem to be struggling enough with on RFA's. A user's worth should not be measured by their editcounts - someone may have made 199 mainspace edits but those edits could have all been making featured articles from scratch, for all we know, and promoting people to make many smaller edits promotes quantity over quality. Also, I don't believe such a project should be converted to the template namespace. If anything, I believe it should remain userfied as it has nothing to do with the main article space. Cowman109Talk 20:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arrgh, the whole editcountitis thing. Sure we want downplay edit counts to a certain extent but let's not go overboard. A high edit count is not bad. We don't want to actively discourage editors from increasing their edit count, for crying out loud. Yet the whole "editcountitis is bad" meme seems almost to veer into that territory. A user's edit count is information. Does it tell us something about that editor? Yes it does. Does it tell us everything about that editor? No of course not. It's a piece of information. People can make of it what they will.
I mean, I count my edits, and every time I pass a milestone I feel good. I guess I'm supposed to feel guilty about that or something, but I don't. It is part of my motivation - not a huge part, but not totally insignificant either. I don't make edits just to increase my edit count, but if some people do then I don't see a huge harm in that. After all minor edits are useful too. Anyway I don't think too many people are going to be like Well I'm gonna make a ton of quick edits to make Tutnum. It's just a barnstar after all.
Will this encourage some people to work harder? It would me, a little bit. I don't see how it would discourage anybody. I'm just a regular Joe and I like status-conferring baubles. People do, you know. That's just human.
Also, knowing at a glance that I'm dealing with a 10,000 edit editor or a three-year editor is useful information. And finally, if you don't like service awards then don't use them. Herostratus 08:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support this idea. As for editcountitis, remember that the "X years service" is here to take care of it. Real disruptive users get blocked in such a long time. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 11:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A very interesting proposal. Surely it will be much easier to understand what type are you dealing with, and deal with him as he deserves. To make it even easier to weight people's arguments, we can also auto-add a small picture with stars to signatures. Of course, for commissioned administrators it should be different.
Also, if it becomes accepted, we can save time and improve design by learning from people who have much more experience with this sort of thing, and we also should keep consistency with widespread similar systems. This will also simplify the RfAs.
The only minor difference would be that they don't award ranks for how many times you have pulled the trigger.
Wikipedia Petty Officer CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 13:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
It's an interesting idea, but as several people said above, it would promote editcountitis. If you would remove the edit count requirements and simply leave the "months of activity" requirement for each one, and possibly a couple of other prerequisites (e.g. months on a WikiProject, months on the Welcoming Committee, etc.), then that would be perfect to me. C. M. Harris 12:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But then, we'll end up with seniorityitis, as is present in labor unions. :) Seriously, though, I think this editcountitis thing is way overblown as a concern, and I have no problem with it being one point of data used as part of this award process. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 13:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we already have userboxes one can place on his page, to inform others that he has, say, over 3000 edits, and everyone can write when he joined. If he wants. Many users actually prefer to be more modest. There's no need for a special award, and editcountitis isn't a good thing. There are editors who just write articles in a text editor, check them and insert in Wikipedia, and one edit of such editor is worth tens of average edits. There are users who hang out at AfD, throwing around "delete per nom" without even reading the article, and I value of such edits is below zero.
Another concern is that value of editor isn't measured by his edit count. There is a number of editors who are experts in some subjects, and they usually only work on these subjects. They tend to have a low edit count (<1000), but are very valuable to Wikipedia. The principle of equality we use today is the most effective available, and any deviations from it, be it ranking by age in WP, edit count, length of signature or whatever other unimportant detail, can make WP more "closed", drawing away new users. Actually, awards for time or editcount would only encourage people who are already encouraged enough, while somewhat discouraging others, since they would "rank" less. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 18:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the flip side, recognition for one's work is part of what we would find in a community. We're not just robots here creating a Wikipedia; we're human beings. The idea that we're all equal sounds all right in terms of our rights here, but in terms of what we all contribute, that is obviously untrue. Some contribute more than others, and they should be lauded. I am not an advocate of using any particular kind of measurement by itself; instead, a combination of multiple measurements with a good dose of community sentiment would normally ensure we end up picking the right people for such an award. An award winner is not "more than equal" than others; they are simply recognized for their extraordinary contribution--and others may aspire to that same position in response. To backhandedly suggest that every last one of us is contributing to the Wikipedia out of 100% selflessness is just not reality. People who do a lot of good work should be noted for it. That's a Good Thing. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 02:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And I entirely support awards for featured articles, awards for a lot of help on some topic, and so on. It's just about the fact that neither age nor edit count show actual value of contributions. There's nothing extraordinary in making a few thousands edits, if they consist of votes, category mass-correction, bot-assisted edits, reverts. People who really need to be recognized are ones who made major and good edits, not just many. Actually, if there was some way to count amount of contributed text, it would be not perfect, but at least acceptable criteria; but just edit count is extremely inaccurate. So, let's award people for accomplishments, and not just number of edits and time since registration. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 15:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about an award for writing and/or promoting an FA for quite a some time, but I was unable to come up with a satisfactory design... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this proposal is that it promotes 'mindless' editting, using the AWB and such. Just because someone doesn't have a gazillion edits doesn't mean they aren't appreciated. Anyone can receive a barnstar, no matter how long you have been here. This promotes a 'rank' system where people who make tens of thousands of semi-automated edits receive awards, while the article writers do not. Now I am not suggesting that spell checking and other automated edits are bad, just that an award that promotes one line of editing will discourage editors from pursuing the other, equally necessary paths. To a newbie the thought of making 50000 edits just to be be able to perceive him/herself as an equal is very discouraging. Prodego talk 02:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is actually reading my position before responding, so I will move onto other topics. Cheers! —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 02:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many editors have been around for 5 years? And how many have made over 10,000 edits? Or are you deliberately making the awards extremely hard to get? Editcountitis is a slight concern. However, a larger concern is a bias in favour of people who make a large amount of minor edits, such as spelling corrections or vandalism reverts. The cards will be stacked against editors who focus on quality and make major edits, such as writing articles. One important goal in giving awards is not just to recognize quality, but to encourage the editor to "keep it up". Although I always take pride in my work, and that is what keeps me going, I would rather have recognition from the community. I would rather the barnstars system have a makeover. I do agree with the good intentions of the proposal, though, but this is not the best method. I am planning to draw up a proposal regarding editor development, which I agree Wikipedia is slightly weak in. One important thing to note, however, is that such awards should be only a social construct, and should not give a recipent a tangible advantage when editing Wikipedia. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia sections

I think that we should eliminate all trivia sections in articles. Most of the time (see The Colbert Report for examples of this) the Trivia section of an article is simply a repository for unencyclopedic factoids that aren't important enough to go into a different section or their own section. C. M. Harris 14:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But since we already have a rule that content should be encyclopedic, there's no need for a new policy. HenryFlower 14:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now, we just need consensus that trivia is not encyclopedic. Personally, I believe that trivia is covered by Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but that section does not mention trivia by name, and many editors will argue to keep the trivia, preventing consensus to remove it on most pages. I think it's better for now to require proper references, which will push the rumors and urban legends out of the trivia sections. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 17:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see "Wikipedia Popular Culture" as a separate system, like Wookipedia but bigger. Then transwiki almost all popular music, TV, game, sports, and movie content over there. The main Wikipedia would retain only historically significant items, at the Academy Award for Best Picture/Best Actor level. The Popular Culture Wikipedia would have lower standards, allowing all the fancruft that fans love to put in, plus all those garage band articles we have to constantly fight to keep out of the main Wikipedia. This would keep the fans happy while substantially reducing the cleanup effort needed on the main Wikipedia. --John Nagle 18:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, how many wikis should we split Wikipedia into? Imagine WP would consist mostly of historians. In this case, it would contain detailed data about every battle, every old city, every reform, every invention. The history events would be covered in series of articles and in such detail that the reader would think he was there himself. And there would be information about single divisions in specific battles, and about life of every historycally important person. And, yes, there would be deletionists running around and "deleting nn cruft", keeping unimportant historic details out of Wikipedia.
But that's actually not just "what could be".
As Wikipedia grows, most famous subjects get covered, and it comes to articles on less notable subjects or details. Yes, we could delete them and split. But... just what's the point? Does Wikipedia aim to be just "something like Britannica, but free"? If so, we're just wasting time. And we're lying that we aim to be Sum of human knowledge, if really we just try to be a summary of what everyone already knows. Remember, we're not publishing on paper, and there is no limit to size, because the more subjects we cover, the more popular we are, and the more power we have. So, what's the point of restricting coverage?
CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 18:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I totally agree with the no trivia in article idea ... I always though it was coverd by the WP:NOT too but they keep fighting to have their trivia section in articles. In the GA project we have come to the consensus that there will be no trivia section in articles and the FA will probably ask that as well in a near future as it is unencyclopedic and being, almost all the time, list items it is tough to read that section as there is no prose and sometimes no logic between one item and the other. Lincher 18:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've advocated a new project called WikiTrivia. Like it or not, many people vastly prefer getting and contributing information in a fast, 1-3 sentence bulletted format rather than "boring" prose. Insert gripe about the MTV generation. At any rate, people like Trivia-style information and we shouldn't totally discount that... a project just for trivia would probably be quite popular, and we could send it the endless trivia people add to WP articles. I'm mostly serious about this, in case anyone's wondering... --W.marsh 19:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes yes. This is a perennial proposal. There's a draft proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections. Deco 19:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The current system is not working. There is far too much trivia in articles. It does not help to add every meaningless reference made to whatever in a pop song; lists of such things are undigested research notes, not a valid part of a finished article. Calsicol 00:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps true, but many aspects of articles-in-progress could be characterized as "undigested research notes". I think it's helpful to have them there as an interim solution, until they can be properly integrated (or discarded, as necessary). Deco 13:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If trivia is factual and kept to a reasonably small size within an article, I think it adds a certain "coolness quotient" to an article. I am one of those who argues that we need to be on the guard against having an encyclopedia that is so dry that it scares away all but the most academic of individuals. Of course, I would also argue that it's best to integrate trivia into the regular content of the article, if possible, as well. We should note that not all that we call "trivia" is trivial, but rather more like "an interesting aside" that adds some verve to the subject matter. Asides are information too, and in my view, exciting/stimulating the reader is just as important as informing them. I believe that readers hold onto knowledge longer if they are excited/stimulated about it. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 05:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say about all of wikipedia, but I can definitely say we will not be promoting any featured article with trivia sections, and having a trivia section is grounds for defeaturing an article (although in almost every case they are simply folded in as prose or deleted). Raul654 05:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Software notability proposal

The Wikipedia:Notability (software) proposal has remained in a stable state for the last few months. I'd like to call some attention to it now so that other editors can have a look at it, and see if it can be tightened up and improved before getting it established as an official notability criteria guideline. It'd be nice to get this one out of the way. :-) -/- Warren 01:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Integration between processes (FA-GA, PR-RFF)

There are several cases of two or more Wikipedia processes with similar aims or functions at different levels. For example, Featured Articles and Good Articles both aim to recognize quality in articles, although FA works on a higher level than GA. Similarly, Peer Review and Requests for feedback are processes for getting feedback on articles, although PR works on a higher level than RFF. RFF is an initiative I started several months ago, for newcomers to get feedback on any articles they write, so they can use the feedback to improve their editing/writing skills.

I think we should work towards greater co-ordination and integration between the processes.

Here are some suggestions for integration between Featured Articles and Good Articles:

  • The Featured Article and Good Article lists should link to each other. The two nomination lists should link to each other as well.
  • The chances of a Featured Article nomination succeeding are low, because of the extremely high standards of Featured Articles. Therefore, when a Featured Article nomination looks likely to fail, we could suggest to the nominator that s/he nominate the article for Good Article instead. Delisted Featured Articles could also be considered for nomination to Good Article status.
  • There should be a program which aims to improve Good Articles into Featured Articles. "Shoot for the moon, and if you miss, you will hit the stars, and can aim for the moon later."

With this integration, both processes will be more successful in their aim of recognizing quality articles, and improving the quality of articles.

As mentioned previously, Requests for feedback is an initiative I started several months ago. It aims to help newcomers get feedback on new articles they write (or major edits they make to existing articles). A newcomer's first article may reveal that the editor is good with images and NPOV, but poor at referencing. The feedback that the newcomer receives is intended to help them become a better contributor and further improve the article. When I wrote Google Groups and Homerun, I posted a helpme on my talk page, asking how to seek feedback on my articles. I was pointed to Peer Review, but finding my articles not meeting Peer Review quality, I decided to create RFF.

RFF currently has not attracted a substantial following, and I intend to make it an integral process of Wikipedia, for helping newcomers, rather than "just another initiative". Co-ordination and integration with the established Peer Review process would make sense, and benefit it greatly. If RFF is a success, Wikipedia would benefit greatly, as this process helps newcomers improve.

My suggestions for integrating PR and RFF are similar to those for integrating FA and GA: Provide links to each other; and if an article sent to PR would be more suitable for RFF, direct the nominator there.

I am pretty sure there are more cases of Wikipedia processes with similar aims that work at different levels, and I hope to see better co-ordination and integration between them.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Maurreen 06:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. I think these two projects should be more integrated with each other. Gnangarra 13:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent idea! Could we somehow work the Peer Review process into the GA project as well?--CTSWyneken(talk) 16:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think there has been opposition to this general idea in the past. So maybe those of us who agree should start slowly adding various links, not to the FA pages for the time being at least, and see how that goes. I added a link to RFF from Template:PR-instructions. Maurreen 17:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am somewhat concerned that the GA system doesn't quite have the volume of articles and stability to be very useful as far as being more integrated, we're still changing rules and stuff :/. Homestarmy 21:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent idea! I know we've talked about a template linking up the main pages on these projects and WP:1.0 (particularly the assessment stuff), we just never got around to doing it. Walkerma 06:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This and this are the earlier informal discussion I mentioned. Hope these ideas help. Walkerma 19:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there is consensus for my proposal of greater integration, with several concerns raised. However, let's not be, as Singaporeans say, "all talk no action". And remember, by integration, I don't just mean links to each other, though they are very useful. For example, failed Featured Article candidates and delisted Good Articles should be considered for nomination to Good Articles. It may be useful to draw up a more detailed proposal, with more ideas for integrating the processes, and adding the tag to the proposal page. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects

I believe I have a solution to the dispute concerning cross-namespace redirects. Please review it/leave comments at Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects. Thanks. --Zoz (t) 18:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely support this proposal. The only issue I have is that readers are potential editors, and we should try to get them involved and contributing. Otherwise, the idea of eliminating pseudo-namespaces is excellent. As a new contributor, I had to manually adjust the filter to include the Wikipedia and User namespaces in my search. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date articles' linking

I think that year articles (e.g., 2006) and date articles (e.g., January 1) should include a comment like this:

For more events that occurred in this year, see a list of articles that mention this year.

Year articles (but not date articles) should also include, above or below the lists of births and deaths, a note like this:

For more births in this year, see Category:2006 births.

What think you all?—msh210℠ 00:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia self-references are generally frowned upon. The links are already there for people to use, they don't need to be explicitly pointed out in the article. Remeber that Wikipedia article content is used extensively outside of Wikipedia, where such references may not make sense. Kaldari 06:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The size of whatlinkshere renders it useless for years. violet/riga (t) 22:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Video articles

I propose that we start producing complete video versions of some of our well-developed stable articles. There would be lots of benefits to having video versions:

  • In a video, you can show more illustrations than are practical on a conventional Web page. This means the position after every move in a chess game, and every step in solving a math problem. Even if a video article is just a slideshow of photos and drawings with the spoken article superimposed, more photos can be included.
  • Some diagrams are best animated, and a thumbnail-size animated GIF may not be enough. You may need full colour, higher resolution, and/or more frames. For an example, see Water cycle.
  • Clips of a TV program, film, video game, concert, stage performance or real-life event become more practical, rather than just still screenshots or audio clips.
  • In the classroom, a video is more engaging than a printed-out article, and can be more economical for large classes (especially if colour is involved).
  • There are places in rural North America, and possibly in the developing world as well, where there is wide access to television but limited access to computers. Thus, a video article could be distributed further via public broadcasting than an article on the Web could.

It would probably be best to produce two versions of each video: one created without concern for file size, and one designed for low-bandwidth connections. I am making a similar proposal on Wikibooks. NeonMerlin 18:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware of .gif animations right? The Tower of Hanoi article has a solution to the well known puzzle within it, in a gif format (see Image:Tower of Hanoi 4.gif, which is indeed a featured pic). Proper videos take up a lot of space and server power, and I am to believe wikipedia resources do not grow on trees, as I have been told many-a-time - Jack (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of these animations, and I would certainly include the aforelinked GIF in the Tower of Hanoi video article. However, these GIFs wouldn't replace their respective articles. A complete video article would describe the fastest-solution algorithms thoroughly, describe the puzzle's history and applications, etc.
As for hogging resources, I doubt the video collection would grow faster than Wikimedia's server capacity, because AFAIK videos take a fair while to produce, and we wouldn't have enough skilled animators and video editors to do more than a handful of articles at once. If you're still concerned, I'd suggest doing a pilot project with one article. NeonMerlin 01:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The use of video would make editing the information difficult as not everybody has sufficient bandwith or the necessary software, also written english is easier to get a transaltion of for people that aren't always proficient in English. Additionally there are a lot of articles which utilised images and that the reproduction of the images without the necessary credits or copyright statements, be they fair use or CC-by-2.5 or some other format needs to be addressed. Gnangarra 01:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your concern about maintainability is valid; however, that's also true for spoken articles, and we still host spoken articles. I'm sure there's a decent open-source video-editing program available for those who need it. As for copyright notices, I would expect each video to have closing credits, including copyright information (with clips identified in their copyright notices by thumbnail, if necessary). Some copyright information in the opening might also be a good idea. NeonMerlin 01:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page headers

How about writing it into the wikipedia codebase that all talk pages (once created) are forced to have the templates {{talkheader}} and {{todo}} imbedded at the top? I believe this will reduce lengthly discussions, alowing them to get to the point, as well as reducing flame wars, and showing that it is useful to sign posts. A lot of problems could hereon be (at least partially) solved in one. Idealy, if there is a way to only force the templates to be displayed at talk pages that have already been started by a human editor, that should absolutly be done (so as to not give false indication that a discussion has started). Is this possible? - Jack (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about {{todo}}, but I'll support automatically adding {{talkheader}}. —Mets501 (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{talkheader}} is evil and must be purged. A message above a talk page window when editing, maybe, but currently I hate the thing. violet/riga (t) 22:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with {{talkheader}} appearing on every page is that it is useful once or twice for new editors, and then wastes screen space forever after. New editors should be advised of good editing practices in a welcome template, and be reminded – if necessary – through a polite note on their talk pages if they forget.
It's not that difficult to fix the work of the occasional newbie who mucks up a section break or forgets to sign a comment, and I'm not sure we want to put up with editors who require a reminder to be civil and abstain from personal attacks on every talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the talkheader template is all that useful, for the reasons that 10OAT just mentioned. Acculturation can't be forced, and it can be overdone. If the message is on every talk page, it becomes effectively invisible, and yet takes up screen real estate nonetheless. Adding it on an as-needed basis to talk pages that seem to attract newbies who have problems with formatting/understanding our conventions seems like a much better solution. -- nae'blis (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need. There are pages, mostly on popular topics, where new and unregistered users are frequent, and they need guidance. However, most technical or scientific subjects tend to have only experienced editors, who don't need such help. To-do template supposes there is some to-do list; if there isn't it would just waste space. So current system works fine.
The only thing I think would be useful is change to the software so that request to sign your comment would be shown only when editing talk pages, but in a more visible place, for instance just before "save page". An option in preferences to check whether four tildes were added, like edit summary check, would also be useful, though slightly harder to implement. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 16:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 California Heatwave - Current event worthy of an article

Just Google it and you'll see it would make a great article. We could probably even include it "In the News" on the main page. I posted it in Article Requests under "Weather". Post your questions/comments below. Thanks! Blackjack48 01:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Be bold, the best thing is to create the article and then discuss its notability if necessary. Anyone interested is welcome to do so (although I won't, because I don't live in California and haven't been following the news there). NeonMerlin 01:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know the following suggest is contrary to the essence of wikipedia but I thought I should put it in the air

Maybe one or two advertisements should be included in wikipedia articles, in order to raise money to hire peple to moniter changes and revert vandalized pages

We have enough unpaid volunteers to do that, why would spending the large amount on hiring a few more have any impact? --Golbez 20:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David and article naming for first names

I've kicked off a potentially significant page move request at Talk:David#Requested_move. This is basically a test case, so would benefit from wider attention. At root it is about whether articles at simple first names should be about the name itself or about one particularly well known individual. At the moment different first name articles are handled quite inconsistently. Additional views would be welcome. -- Solipsist 21:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Combine proposals & perennial proposals

I don't like the fact that this page and Village pump (perennial proposals) are two separate pages, and that they're both huge. The P.P. page is nearly 300kb and is unmanagebly large; this page is currently around 125kb and is cumbersome. I propose that we combine this page with that page by using subpages to keep older discussions visible (yet out of the way) to help people from reproposing ideas. NEW proposals would be added below the initial list of subpages. Here is what I am imagining:

That would make this page more like a forum. One disadvantage, however, is that it will not inherit the usability of forums, and the wiki markup will be decidedly newcomer-unfriendly. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archived proposals

Feel free to add your comments to these archived proposals.

Proposals for the Main ("article") namespace

Subject Description
Dealing with vandalism Should some editing restrictions be placed on new or unregistered users to help reduce vandalism, or at least be reviewed by others before taking effect? Should high-visibility articles be protected from editing?
Search engine How could Wikipedia's search engine be improved?
Spell checker on Edit pages Should Edit pages have a built-in spell checker?
Always fill the summary field Should the summary field below the edit box be required to be filled or automatically filled?
Votes for Creation Should there be a Votes for Creation page to complement the current Votes for Deletion?

Proposals for the Talk ("discussion") namespace

Subject Description
Discussion format Should Talk pages use a wiki interface or a more traditional forum format?
... ...
... ...

Proposals for Wikipedia's relationship with the outside world

Subject Description
... ...
... ...

Current proposals

proposal #1

blah blah yada yada --sig July 20, 2005

yabba dabba doo --othersig July 21, 2005

proposal #2

lorem ipsum semper ubi sub ubi --sig july 25, 2005

Having subpages would also make it easier to archive proposals and keep everything neat and organized. Also, I feel that every reasonable proposal should be easy to find, not just the "perennial" ones. As it is now, I might make a proposal that was already made two years ago, but not know it because it wasn't listed on the P.P. page.

One disadvantage is that it would be harder to watchlist the multiple subpages for archived proposals, but this could be worked around with a Recentchangeslinked page. On the other hand, it might be a good thing to have subpages for archived discussion ... if I don't want to see what other people are gabbing about in regard to vandalism, I don't have to.— Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 21:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atalaya

Moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities.

Opinion essay: Overuse of Anonymity at Wikipedia and a Proposal

I just wrote an opinion essay based on a thought that has been bouncing around my head in the last few months. I probably posted it in the wrong place, but for now you can find it on Jimbo Wales' talk page here:

The Overuse of Anonymity at Wikipedia and a Proposal

Comments are appreicated. I figure, given the number of people at Wikipedia, that this suggestion been made previously but I haven't seen any discussion of it. --Ben Houston 19:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Just a small comment. I really like wikipedia and I don't mind donating money to the foundation. But to pay to be able to edit? Even if it just for a name authentication, no way. Plus I like my anonymity. :) Garion96 (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be cool if the verification of identities didn't cost money -- I figured a user would have to at least pay the cost of the verification, but maybe companies could offer to do it for free, like Yahoo's donation of hosting. --Ben Houston 20:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My contributions 1700 edits and over 100 photographs (on commons) would not have occured if there was a fee payably to be apart of the communtiy. I am particularly suspicious of non-local organisation who ask for money where I dont have the protection of and recourse via the local legal system. I reside in an open western democracy and do not have the additional worries of potential censorship and political concerns that are prelevant in other societies where the information provided to wikipedia maybe protected but the method of payment isnt, guilt by association would be presumed. The vandals may consume considerible amounts of time and resources but this expense is by far out weighed by loss of alternative POV's and the protection of the freedom for people from other societies to contirbute. Gnangarra 04:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Filmography/Bibliography needed"

Is there some sort of template that states that a filmography and/or bibliography are needed in an article and in turn adds the article's name to a list for editors to work through? If not, could someone (with more template-creating knowledge than me) create one? 66.229.160.94 00:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions to help new admins

Wikipedia has a policy of not biting newcomers, and this extends to not biting new admins. I will be developing a more extensive proposal regarding editor development, and that, coupled with the three failed RFAs of my Wikifriend, User:Terence Ong, prompted me to make the following three suggestions to help combat biting of new admins:

1. Introduce a new level of adminship, called "basic adminship" or "trial adminship", which grants some of the basic admin tools, but not the more dangerous ones. The overall number of admins will increase, making it easier to fight vandalism. "Basic admins" will be given time to adapt to their basic powers before being given the full admin tools, and the way they use their basic powers can be used as feedback for them before they are entrusted with the full admin tools.

2. New editors can test wiki markup and contributions in the Sandbox. New admins may wish to test their new powers and become familiar with them, without affecting the encyclopedia or its users. Therefore, create an "admin sandbox" for new admins to test their powers of blocking, deleting pages, etc. For example, create some dummy users which new admins can try to block and unblock.

3. New admins, after promotion, should be allowed to be paired up with more experienced admins, who will mentor the new admins. This is similar to a mentorship system, which could be applied to new users as well (that will be part of my editor development proposal). The new admins can ask their mentors for help regarding usage of the tools, and advice on how to handle specific situations. When the new admins make mistakes, their mentors will offer corrections. This will help the new admins develop and improve.

I would like to hear what you think of my suggestions. Hopefully you will like my idea, and that it will help new admins if it is implemented. Good luck to all new admins, and all Wikipedians!

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a good idea. Though, it would help if you got more specific. Which tools are considered the "dangerous tools"? Perhaps there could be 3 admin levels. Basic (like the one you described). Then, you could be promoted to full admin (like the ones currently in action). Then, bureaucrats. And, if one desires, a user could stay a basic admin instead of moving up to a full. That way, we could have more administrators on the force without giving too much power to everyone. Viva La Vie Boheme 00:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources miscellany

One may come across various facts, references, articles, or bits of information that could be useful to an editor interested in using the information for an article. Some sort of area for taking and leaving this information could exist, allowing others to leave facts, images, or links, and allow others to delete them when they are to be used or found to be bad references. A page with seperators for each general category would be more convenient than several hundred links to subcategories, and it would have a sandbox feel to it at first as others add and remove entries. Sort of a scrapbook of knowledge.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&oldid=66466731"