Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mlaffs (talk | contribs) at 20:08, 12 September 2008 (→‎Watchlist for "What links here": new section). 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 
Shortcuts
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 listed at Wikipedia: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:

  • Read this FAQ page for a list of frequent proposals and the responses to them.
  • 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.

Easy as pi?

I have recently been browsing a lot of mathematical and scientific articles, and have noticed a problem with them. A great number of them make no sense whatsoever to the lay person. In what seems to be something of a Catch-22, the only people who might be able to understand some of these articles would be people who know all about the subject matter anyway and so wouldn't need to read them. As for the curious public who just want to learn a bit more about maths or physics, say, these articles will probably make no sense at all. For instance, of those of you reading my comment, how many can understand what the formulae in Lorentz transformation or Special relativity mean just by reading the articles?

You might argue that some knowledge of the subject matter is expected of those reading such articles, just like people who want to read Wikipedia articles in general need to know the alphabet, but I would say that some of these formulae are too complex not to warrant some sort of explanation.

I propose, then, that one of two things happen:

  • Either all of these articles be rewritten with clear steps breaking the formulae down and showing the logic involved (as happens with articles such as Monty Hall problem, which I think is very well written, incidentally).
  • Or we make a new template similar to {{ChineseText}} or {{Contains Ethiopic text}} which explains that an article contains formulae and gives a list of other articles to read to familiarise oneself with the layout of the formulae contained within the original article. Thus, if for the purposes of this proposal we name the template "Formula", then...

{{formula|[[Derivative|Differentiation]]|[[Matrix (mathematics)|Matrices]]}}

...would produce something along the lines of the box that is below in the article.

This article contains formulae concerning:

You might find it useful to read the articles on those types of formulae in order to fully understand this article.

WP:MTAA seems to favour the first option wherever possible, but where it suggests that simplification is impossible and the article be left alone, could my second idea be used?

It Is Me Here (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you put a template saying there's a mathematical expression on a page about a mathematical expression? The fact that Wikipedia contains formulae in full without dumbing it down into three paragraphs worth of explanation where you have to rederive what's being discussed has always been one of my favorite things about it. I don't see why we can't do both; have the nice, concise version integrated with a more simple, longwinded explanation for those who don't grasp the higher mathematics involved; Integral seems to do this pretty well. Celarnor Talk to me 17:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; the ideal is that both are present. I think if we're going to have a template, I'd prefer a cleanup-type template saying that the article should have an more accessible explanation added. Pseudomonas(talk) 17:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{Too specialized}} kind of does that already; I suppose a derivative of that template specifically for math/science articles could be made up pretty easily. Shereth 17:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(wacky ec) I think the problem with explaining formulae while writing them in full is that we're used to explaining terms by wikilinking to their articles as they occur, and we can't really do that in the middle of a differential equation! :-) I think User:It Is Me Here's proposed template would give a handy box to collect those wikilinks we'd like to put on the equation if it were possible (for instance, an equation with could have a sidebox for Limit (mathematics) and Infinity, since we can't wikilink the "lim" and "infty" themselves. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 17:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point - so you would like to see one of these templates next to every formula, rather than at the top of the page? For instance:
For more information about this formula, see:
...except all on the same line (not sure how to do that).
It Is Me Here (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal assumes that our article on differentiation, say, will give someone a sufficient understanding of differentiation to follow the use of it in other articles. I'm not sure that assumption is valid. Wikipedia is not a textbook, we don't aim to teach basic mathematical techniques. If people want to understand articles about advanced mathematics they need to learn the basics properly, not just read about them in an encyclopaedia. Where possible and worthwhile, we should make articles accessible to the layman, but with advanced mathematics articles it often isn't possible or worthwhile and attempting to do so will just make the article harder to read for those with the understanding required. --Tango (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the idea of a derivitive of the {{Too specialized}} template for maths and science articles. Obviously these articles have to be encyclopedic, but it's almost too encyclopedic, to the point where it barely makes sense if you know what I mean. Look at this quote from Special relativity:

"Special relativity reveals that c is not just the velocity of a certain phenomenon, namely the propagation of electromagnetic radiation (light)—but rather a fundamental feature of the way space and time are unified as spacetime. A consequence of this is that it is impossible for any particle that has mass to be accelerated to the speed of light."

This is one of those paragraphs that just makes you go "What?!" and makes you need to read it several times to actually form an understanding of it in your mind. I assume a lot of these articles are written by "experts", to the point where only said experts can actually understand them. I'm not saying to dumb things down. Don't dumb things down, as advanced things have to be explained in advanced ways, just clarify them and make things clearer. Sometimes it's just all in the language, and there is such a thing as a "language rich sentence". I support such a proposal mainly because I personally find these articles difficult to read, simply because it's just a little too much. Wikipedia needs to be accessible to everyone, including these articles. Obviously most readers should know basic maths in the same way they are expected to know basic English, but to expect them to learn all about advanced maths before reading about these articles is ridiculous and defeats the purpose of an encyclopedia. I'm not saying that articles need to teach things, just make things easier to understand. --.:Alex:. 18:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Technical}} was more along the lines of what I was looking for above. Not sure if versions more specific to math/science should be made up. Shereth 18:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may be because I do have a significant understanding of relativity, but I can't see a problem with that paragraph. If you mean that it doesn't explain why the speed limit is a consequence, then that's simply because that's beyond the scope of the article - I doubt it can be explained in layman's terms. To understand the technical details of a lot of these articles requires advanced mathematics. We have two choices, either don't explain the details at all, or explain them in a way laymen won't be able to understand. Explaining them to laymen is extremely difficult, bordering on impossible - if we attempt to do so, the article will probably just end up being misleading (see lies to children). --Tango (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles already link to indices and glossaries, such as Table of mathematical symbols and Glossary of group theory. Perhaps you could ask the various wikiprojects to create templates to make such linking easier. It is somewhat unlikely that all of the science and mathematics projects will want to use exactly the same text. JackSchmidt (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Tango, if other Wikipedia articles are insufficient to understanding an article, then we could just change the links in the template to transwiki links to Wikibooks (e.g. - quite appropriately, I must say - Special Relativity is a featured book at the moment and so might help people understand Special Relativity over at Wikipedia)? Also, NB the Prerequisite template used in the article over there - I'm looking for something very similar to be used in Wikipedia. In fact, I'd be quite happy with you guys just plugging en:Template:Prerequisite into WP, although we might need a WP prereq. and WB prereq. template. It Is Me Here (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there is an appropriate wikibook, then we should certainly link to it. --Tango (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following text is copied from User talk:Wavelength#Subject (difficulty) level.
Each page on Wikipedia can be given a rating for difficulty of subject matter (distinct from difficulty of language, although simpler language would be less able to be used for expressing more complex subject matter). Most pages would have the simplest rating (possibly indicated by the number 1), and higher levels of difficulty might be indicated by 2, 3, 4, and so forth. This rating can appear as the last part of the page title (possibly in square brackets: [1], [2], and so forth).
Each page can begin with a row of levels for any page(s) which otherwise have the same title (apart from disambiguation differences). All levels except the current page can be shown as links. Each page indicated in such a row can be a prerequisite of any following page(s) indicated in that row. An additional wikicode can be devised in order to save editors the time used in repeatedly typing the same title in these instances.
A typical row might appear as follows:
level 1 level 2 level 3 level 4 level 5
Each page can next show a list of links to any other page(s) considered to be prerequisite to understanding the page in question. If Simple English Wikipedia has a page corresponding to the current page, this fact can be highlighted here (in addition to there being a link in the language list in the left column).
If the context of the article contains any link which is considered to be such a prerequisite, it can have a notation to indicate this fact.
Likewise, each page can have a separate section (like the sections for "See also" and for "Internal links" and for "External links" and for "References") for pages on other topics to which the current page is considered to be prerequisite.
These matters of rating and prequisiteness would have some degree of analogy with book chapters and with school grade levels. Someone would decide the ratings and the prerequisitenesses.
Wavelength 02:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Some ideas similar to these have been expressed at Talk:Mathematics road map Wavelength 22:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[end of copied text]
-- Wavelength (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This seems unnecessarily complex. Really I don't see why this ought to be a big deal - it's been stated above that there are tags that can be put on an article to suggest some additional clarity for technical subjects. Anything beyond that strikes me as a bit creepy. Shereth 21:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re. Tango, come to think of it, it might also be appropriate to link to any Wikiversity topic that is appropriate (e.g. wikiversity:en:Linear algebra#Matrices - and, if you will allow me to go out on a limb here, I would say that it was better than the current article at Wikibooks).
Re. Shereth, would you be OK with using the Wikibooks Prerequesite template in Wikipedia articles?
It Is Me Here (talk) 07:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Suggested wikibooks

I don't think the wording on wikibooks:en:Template:Prerequisite was quite what we want here, I made {{suggested wikibooks}} as a possible one. Maybe the wording isn't great, feel free to change it! :-) --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 10:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Formula links

I also made a {{formula links}} to play around with.
Nice - I like it! How do we make them official, though? It Is Me Here (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Easy as pi? - continued

(outdent because my : key was getting tired) Same way you make anything "official" around here; ask if anyone has any concerns (this thread should provide that), then start using them once that's settled, then see if anyone brings up any other concerns (an ongoing process). Here's a concern to start you off; can you improve the wording on these any? If the template syntax is too arcane please go ahead and simplify it or ask me to explain. :-) --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 14:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added notes to both their documentations specifying that {{technical}} or {{too specialized}} might be more appropriate if in the cases where it's feasible to do it that way. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 14:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm going to have a field day w/ {{technical}} and {{too specialized}}! (Oh marvelous templates, where have you been all my life?) Kevin Baastalk 15:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know! I don't know how I never came across these before. --.:Alex:. 15:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, tiny plastic Grey Knight, I edited your two templates slightly and created my own - {{Suggested Wikiversity}}, and because I have no idea what the markup means, I just copied the code from {{suggested wikibooks}} and, well, changed the words a bit. Is there a page explaining how to do them anywhere, by the way? Anyway, here goes:
In order to fully understand this article, you may find it useful to first read the page at Wikiversity Making sense of quantum mechanics on the topic of
OK, it doesn't really work that well from where I'm standing, but, y'know, it's a start.
It Is Me Here (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support the idea that we would add a special template just to say that a formula in an article includes a derivative. That's the sort of thing that can be handled in prose. We already link to wikibooks and wikiversity, when appropriate, in the "see also" sections of articles, so no additional templates are needed for them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More me the suggestion to include a link to wikibooks in backwards. Wikibooks is the full topic covered in a detailed way, wiki is about imparting understanding of the concept .Limit_(mathematics) , intro starts well but then i get totally lost with symbols and Consider ... Gnevin (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:LAYOUT#External_links, links to sister projects go in the last appendix section of the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But if putting links to sister projects at the start of an article improves it, we can ignore that rule, right? It Is Me Here (talk) 08:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would take a quite strong argument, more than just that the sister link is related to the article topic. Users who want to learn more background can be expected to look at the see also section and the links in the article itself; we don't need to go out of our way to rub their face in the prerequisites. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for instance, the article Minkowski space contains only articles directly relevant to it in its See also section, and does not, for example, contain links to Matrix (Mathematics) or Wikibooks / Wikiversity articles about them although one must understand how they work in order to understand the article. Thus, surely we should point out to readers where they can go before reading Minkowski space in order to understand the subject matter of the article? It Is Me Here (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eugh, no, that's so ugly. First, someone reading Minkowski space is probably already familiar with matrices. If not, then they can go to matrices; a link in its see also is already more than we really need. Like CBM said; we don't need to rub the prerequisites in everyone's faces, especially not every time some math shows up. Do we put links for people to go to the basics of logic every time speculation is made a page? Do we put templates to the wikibook on Latin in legal pages? Do we put templates to the basic classical studies pages every time we see a mention of Homer? Do we put templates to basic physics every time we see a mention of velocity, acceleration, or jerk? If the user doesn't understand the basics, then they can either go to Simple Wikipedia or check the "see also"; although I've no idea why anyone who doesn't understand basic concepts of matrices is reading an article on the mathematical underpinnings of special relativity. Celarnor Talk to me 18:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent)As a compromise, how about adding categories (preferably hidden) like "Physics concepts dependent on an understanding of Matrices"? That gets the point across that you need to understand basic elements of algebra and precalculus without cluttering up the mainspace with unnecessary "gb2algebra" templates every time there's an equals sign in an article. Celarnor Talk to me 18:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a case of rubbing it in people's faces, and we do link to matrices and Homer usually - indeed, you just did it there. But the problem, as tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ said, is that we cannot put links in equations which means that we should let people easily access the pages linked to those equations in some other way. It Is Me Here (talk) 08:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An equation might be compared somewhat to a picture. We can put links in the caption of a picture. An equation can be given a caption (perhaps below it, or perhaps beside it), and that caption can have one or more links. -- Wavelength (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But surely it would be more economical and discreet to just add links to topics relevant to an equation, rather than writing a lengthy description of it? It Is Me Here (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A caption can be short: "This equation uses natural logarithms."
From my Google search for "equation annotation", the first result (of 943,000) is MathType: Tips & Tricks: Drawing attention to your equations with comments and annotations. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Actually, the implicit point sidestepped with far too little dissent above to me is this: for a long time now, I've felt we should put sister projects links up high, if not at the tip top of the article. Treating our sister projects as if second class citizens isn't cool, for starters and much resented, from what I can perceive. On the technical articles heavy in math, such as this began with, we don't have much in the way of infoboxes generally getting in the way, so why not link to the sisters in that quarterpage we're so used to not having available! I'm not referring to {{Commons}} or {{commonscat}} (since they essentially link to media—though on a few topics that might be a good idea as well— some galleries on the commons are "onto" with an articles subject matter, and that's preferable to cramming umptine pictures of ruins of Greek temples on the same page, for example), but Wiktionary, Wikiversity and Wikibooks topics coverages certainly ought be trumpeted, not buried down in a section someone may never see. Wikisource and Wikiquote if appropriate too, though I figure those are far less common "hits". By the same token there is a tension between adequately explaining a topic in words that convey the meaning (without links) per WP:NOT PAPERS and putting in too much per WP:NOT TEXTBOOK. There is however a happy medium that should be written into any good technical-topic page that educates (introduces material) walking the tightrope between too much and the too over-the-top. We've seen a number of complaints of that lately, and I agree daily in one edit or another when I find such pages. • Thanks to whomever started this topic... btw. These guidelines needs revisited periodically and as someone who spends a lot of edit time cleaning up intros that are too short, too obtuse, etc. this is a good topic to refocus us all a bit on the problem... a page written to read well to others educated in the field is rarely one that is a good article... quite the opposite from what I've seen in 3+ years here. In short, if an article can't be read and comprehended without links by someone without a great deal of specialized education in its first 3-5 sections... which should be building enough generalities for the reader, its not a good article from my point of view.
 • Wikipedia:LAYOUT#External_links needs revised anyway... External links AFTER footnotes is upside down. Footnotes ought be just that... last on the page, including navigation templates above. (Seems the current layout is for the convenience of editors, not readers, most of whom die of heart attacks seeing footnotes at all in an encyclopedia! How many other encyclopedias have footnotes in profusion? Ideally, they should be on a separate subpage or something. The current "standard" is sub-optimum for the user, and for some reason I've even run across pages wher the references (Books, journals list) are after the footnotes... another upside down thing.) // FrankB 19:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I myself have noticed this problem too. I am hoping to study Physics at University from October, so I would consider my "expertise" (if you can call it that!) to be in physics and maths topics, yet these are usually incredibly difficult to follow on Wikipedia, compared to other topics I like to read like Philosophy, Politics and History, on which I don't have a great deal of knowledge but can still follow. Deamon138 (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Large chunks of math articles in wikipedia *are* highly specialized. They cannot help but be -- it is not only the language and the notation, but the very concepts themselves that require mathematical maturity and repeated practice with the definitions and styles of a particular subfield, to understand. We cannot do otherwise - these concepts took hundreds of years to develop into their present form, and sadly their fundaments are often not in the culture, the way the fundamentals of things like laws and social norms are. It would be like trying to make an article on accounting understandable to somebody who can't add, or trying to make an article on civil procedure understandable to somebody from a tribal, pre-law society. To expect to understand a concept like special relativity on a quick, non-intensive readthrough for the first time is unreasonable. We do make efforts to make the articles accessible to technically literate laypeople (say, engineers with a mathematical bent), and goodness knows mathematicians are too frequently guilty of being more complicated than they need to be, but if you're going to create tags that essentially say "serious and arduous intellectual effort required to understand the full meaning of this article if you've never seen anything like it before," you might as well tag every non-biographical article in the math section, for all the good it will do. RayAYang (talk) 06:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

posted by Arydberg Much of the above would go away if there was a link on the title page to the "simple english wikipedia" and a explanation that it was for beginners. Arydberg (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait!!!

We've had this discussion at the math WikiProject already. Before anyone starts editing based on the discussion above, please read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive 38#article difficulty level. Ozob (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This a very old debate. So I'm going to go with Euclid on this one. I think adding templates and other flying widget spam to pages doesn't help anything. We try very hard to make our articles accessible. If, like King Ptolemy, you refuse to make the effort, I suggest you just tune the TV to the animal channel. Loisel (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RayAYang, while "the very concepts themselves that require mathematical maturity and repeated practice with the definitions and styles of a particular subfield, to understand" as I said above, this problem only seems to exist with maths, physics and maybe a few other science articles. When reading articles on philosophy for instance, a subject I wouldn't be expected to understand like maths/physics, the articles are readily accessible, but do go in depth. So if other subjects can do it, then maths and physics can to. Now, I haven't read all the above discussion, but I reckon we don't need any new tags or anything. I think it just needs every now and again an editor to look over the complex articles and using WP:COMMON SENSE, make them understandable to the layman. The thing is, this is already happening, and will continue to happen, it's frustrating for me and other users that it's taking so long. Unfortunately, we just have to let the nature of wikis run it's course and eventually the articles will be fine.
Loisel, looking over my copy of Elements, I would say that if the majority of maths and physics articles are written in the style of Elements, then that would be fantastic (so long as they are correct :P)! Deamon138 (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprisingly, mathematics has become more difficult since Euclid... Also, The Elements is a masterpiece of mathematical writing that was unsurpassed for about two thousand years. Loisel (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah it has got a lot harder since then, but I still think it is possible to make the maths/physics articles as easy to understand as the holy little geometry book. Deamon138 (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The initial poster wrote:

In what seems to be something of a Catch-22, the only people who might be able to understand some of these articles would be people who know all about the subject matter anyway and so wouldn't need to read them.

Can someone PLEASE cite some examples of this? I have seen and edited FAR more math articles on Wikipedia than all but very few people. I've seen this particular complain stated repeatedly. I don't know any examples. I don't know of any ATTEMPTS to cite any. The initial poster above mentions only Lorentz transformation and special relativity. Those don't appear to be attempts to cite examples of the "catch-22" complained of. Is there some other that is? Michael Hardy (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I took a look at your user page and it seems you do edit a lot of maths articles. One article you created is estimation of covariance matrices, where it starts with:

Given a sample consisting of independent observations X1,..., Xn of a random vector X ∈ Rp×1 (a p×1 column), an unbiased estimator of the covariance matrix

is the sample covariance matrix

where

is the sample mean.

NOTICE: I DID NOT WRITE THE OPENING PARAGRAPH ABOVE, and I disapprove of it. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not something the layperson would grasp in that form. Personally I've seen some of the symbols before in statistics, but I can't follow that. Bear in mind that is just one example I found with a quick look, there are hundreds more. No offence, but since you are a huge editor of maths articles you are likely to say "I don't know any examples" since I'm guessing you understand the maths already? Deamon138 (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an example of the catch-22 claimed. The article can be understood by anyone (myself, for example) who has taken a first course in statistics. Many of these people (again like myself) would have no knowledge of how to estimate covariance matrices, and could learn a lot from the article. I too would like to see examples of this alleged phenomenon. Algebraist 16:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty more examples, that was just one really quick one I found just by frequently someone's userpage. Imagine how many I'd find in a longer period of time. And btw, if you've taken a first course in statistics, then you are not a layman. The fact is that it shouldn't require people to take a course in anything before they can understand an article. This problem only exists with maths and physics articles. The most complicated parts of philosophical articles or other subject areas are still readily understandable for the most part. Deamon138 (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking for an article incomprehensible to laymen; I know there are many. I'm asking for an article which can only be understood by people who know the material already. For example, list of single-game baseball records is incomprehensible to those with no knowledge of baseball, but can be understood by people who do not already know lots of baseball records. Algebraist 16:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find plenty more examples, then do it. Find ten, list them here, and point out a specific paragraph or sentence in each. Otherwise this discussion is useless and finished. Ozob (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was merely responding to Michael Hardy's accusation that this problem doesn't exist, when it does. I would say that "I" can't possibly know how complicated article "X" has to be before it could only be understood by someone who had already studied X in great detail. I wouldn't know that to understand X you would only have to do a small course on X and then be able to comprehend X using your own deductive powers. How is a layman meant to know if estimation of covariance matrices is understandable to someone of some mathematical experience (like you), or to someone of great mathematical experience?
The original poster was merely expressing the point that the maths articles are very hard to understand and some might not even be understandable to anyone but someone who has studied that in great depth. It is just a (possible exaggeration) point about the fact that maths article are bloody hard to understand. Does it matter if there are only articles too hard to be understood by layman? Or is it because you are a "mid level" mathematician, and therefore YOU would get outraged at this only if there were articles that only experts could understand, but not if all articles were understandable to you but not to a layman? Basically I'm trying to get the point across to you about this poem: it doesn't matter if the problem affects you or not. It affects someone.
Also, if you read my original comments before Michael Hardy's comment, you will see that I said that nothing in particular needs to be done to solve this problem, it's just going to take a lot longer to make the maths and physics articles easier than for other topics' articles. Okay? Deamon138 (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again everyone, I'm the original poster of this proposal. I've read through all the new posts and Deamon138 has indeed understood my point perfectly. My point that only people with extensive knowledge of an article can understand the said article was indeed something of an exaggeration - I just thought it sounded more elegant - but my point is indeed that many articles on mathematics and physics are entirely inacessible to people without a relatively vast understanding of mathematics or physics (such as a degree in mathematics or statistics, if not a PhD on the specific subject matter of a particular mathematical article). Let me again flag up the Monty Hall Problem article and how it, in my opinion, is a perfect example of how to make maths-related articles easy to follow and accessible to the layman. Its explanations are clear throughout without being excessive or patronising, and the very low level of mathematical knowledge required to understand that article can, I would say, reasonably be expected of anyone who wants to read it. Moreover, it does include formulae towards the bottom of the article, but the explanation for the layman which preceeds them means that people can understand the article's subject matter even without that section which includes formulae. After this issue was raised on my talk page, I used this article as another example of a mathematics-related article which simply launches into obscure formulae with only a sentence or so for an introduction. Needless to say, I was lost as soon as the formulae started, which will be, I daresay, the case for most lay readers of that article. Hence, if we were to at least point people in the direction of appropriate Wikibooks or Wikiversity pages which would explain the concepts behind the formulae on that article and thus let people understand it (as long as they read through all the required material) then that would be a positive step towards making mathematics- and physics-related articles more accessible to the layman in general. It Is Me Here (talk) 07:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a similar discussion (currently) on this page at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikipedia:Obscure topics. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That topic is effectively the antithesis of this one lol. Deamon138 (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything that you could do to improve the accessibility of that article that isn't a simple change to the lead. You might want to link number theory or prime number and maybe even modular arithmetic. Number theory should have a link to an appropriate Wikibook. But what more can you reasonably do? The article is about a primality test; the lead says so; and the first section of the article, "The test", describes the test. It would be nice if there were a history section in front of it, I guess. But you seem to want a layman's explanation, an explanation without formulas, and it doesn't exist. I'm not exaggerating in the slightest, I really mean it: It doesn't exist. The article is not obscure, not intentionally nor accidentally.
Let me give you the same challenge I gave Deamon138: Find ten articles where your proposal would help. Otherwise we're getting nowhere. Ozob (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, pages such as Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention/Mathematics#Articles_that_are_too_technical are a good place to look, and here are ten examples of overly technical articles and where one should be directed in order to understand them (the article name comes first, followed by a semicolon and then any prerequesite material, with separate articles being themselves separated by commas):
  1. Equidistribution theorem; wikibooks:Calculus/Limits, wikiversity:Calculus/Limits, wikibooks:Calculus/Summation notation
  2. Error function; wikibooks:A-level Mathematics/C2/Integration
  3. MV-algebra; wikiversity:Introduction to boolean logic
  4. Martingale representation theorem; wikibooks:A-level Mathematics/C2/Integration
  5. Tricubic interpolation; wikibooks:Calculus/Summation notation
  6. Reciprocal rule; wikibooks:Calculus/Differentiation
  7. Hypercomplex number; wikibooks:Set Theory
  8. Size function; wikibooks:Set Theory
  9. Stokes' theorem; wikibooks:A-level Mathematics/C2/Integration
  10. Infinitesimal transformation; wikibooks:Calculus/Summation notation
Please note that in some cases I did not even understand the notation contained within some of those articles, and so even more prerequesite reading than I suggested might be required in order to understand the formulae contained within them.
It Is Me Here (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that your proposed templates will help for any of these articles. The problem is that your templates are for notation. Notation is just shorthand. For instance, the reciprocal rule article includes the expression (d/dx)(1/g(x)). This means, "Take the derivative with respect to the variable x of the quotient of the constant function 1 by the function g(x). Without knowing what "derivative" means it is impossible to understand the article. A reader who desperately wants to understand the reciprocal rule but doesn't know anything to start with can still click on calculus, the second word in the article (after "In"). After reading calculus they will either be able to read about the reciprocal rule or they will know enough to click on one of the next few words in the article, derivative. Before they reach the end of the derivative article, they will understand what the derivative is and what the notation means. At that point—and only at that point—will the reciprocal rule article will make sense.
You say that you don't understand all the notation in these articles; this is because you don't have enough prerequisite education for the articles to be comprehensible. If you did, then the notation would not be so mysterious.
You might say, "Then we should use templates to indicate prerequisite subject material!" In that case you would end up with a list like this one:
  1. Equidistribution theorem is about analytic number theory. A prerequisite for analytic number theory is mathematical analysis, which is a more rigorous approach to calculus.
  2. Error function is a special function which turns up most notably in statistics. The statistics needed to explain the error function requires a knowledge of calculus.
  3. MV-algebra is about logics which have more possible values for truth than "true" or "false". It requires mathematical logic and abstract algebra.
  4. Martingale representation theorem is about probability. Again, it requires mathematical analysis.
  5. Tricubic interpolation is, as the article tells you, a topic in numerical analysis, which usually assumes that the reader knows mathematical analysis.
  6. Reciprocal rule tells you at the start of the article that it's a topic in calculus.
  7. Hypercomplex number is a topic in abstract algebra.
  8. Size function is about pattern recognition. Some parts of the article require mathematical analysis and algebraic topology.
  9. Stokes' theorem tells you that it's a topic in differential geometry (and, in its more elementary versions, vector calculus). Actually, it looks (upon a quick skimming) to be a very clear article.
  10. Infinitesimal transformation is a topic in Lie theory.
But all of this can be written into the lead; in fact I took a lot of these descriptions from the article leads. Adding subject prerequisite templates makes these articles worse: It disrupts the flow of the text and it is prone to rot as the article changes (and either becomes more advanced or has the more advanced material split off into a separate article).
If you still disagree with me, you should ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics, where you will get a more forceful rejection. Ozob (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"After reading calculus they will either be able to read about the reciprocal rule or they will know enough to click on one of the next few words in the article, derivative." Please read WP:NOT PAPERS where it says, "While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text." Deamon138 (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The guiding principle of WP:NOT PAPERS is that articles should be comprehensible. Are you arguing that reciprocal rule would be more comprehensible if the lead recapitulated a large part of derivative? If so, do you also admit that your proposed templates would then be unnecessary? Ozob (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry what? My proposed templates? They aren't mine. I haven't even argued for them, in fact I explicitly argued against anything new being done. I reckon any problems with these articles (which I do say exist) can be solved by the natural course of Wikipedia. Eventually, the articles will be understandable, given enough time. That is my gripe: that the articles aren't all amazingly comprehensible now, rather than sometime in the future. But the articles will be fixed, given enough time. Deamon138 (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I stand corrected. Ozob (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's all right. No problem. Sorry for the confusion. Deamon138 (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHICH problem???

It was complained initially that articles were written in such a way that only those who already knew the material could understand them.

I don't believe that.

Then it was complained that articles are written in such a way that lay readers could not understand them.

That is true. But it's not a problem.

Then it was complained that articles are written in such a way that lay readers couldn't tell what you had to know to read them and what the general subject matter area was.

That is too often true, and I am the foremost complainer about that problem on Wikipedia. I have probably also done more to remedy that problem than anyone else. Fortunately, however, it is a problem that does not afflict most articles. I'm talking about articles whose opening sentence is something like "Consider a sequence {Tn} of bounded linear operators on a separable Banach space B." The lay reader can't tell whether that's about theology or chemistry or psychoanalysis or international trade negotiations. I am foremost among those who have been objecting to that way of starting articles.

Someone blamed me for the abrupt opening sentence in estimation of covariance matrices, which said:

Given a sample consisting of independent observations x1,..., xn of a random vector X ∈ Rp×1 (a p×1 column), an unbiased estimator of the (p×p) covariance matrix[.....]
etc.... I did not write that and I disapprove of it. I have now replaced that with the opening paragraph I wrote when I first started the article:
In multivariate statistics, the importance of the Wishart distribution stems in part from the fact that it is the probability distribution of the maximum likelihood estimator of the covariance matrix of a multivariate normal distribution.

Michael Hardy (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Then it was complained that articles are written in such a way that lay readers could not understand them.
"That is true. But it's not a problem."
How is this not a problem? There is even an official guideline which states that technical articles should be made accessible to as wide an audience as possible. It Is Me Here (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Writing them to be accessible to as wide an audience as possible often leaves them in a state where lay readers cannot understand them. Not always, and indeed sometimes articles can be improved in this regard, but still there are lots of cases where an article written to be accesssible to as wide an audience as possible is one that lay readers won't understand. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as was requested of me before, could you give some examples, please? I am finding it difficult to follow your logic at the moment. It Is Me Here (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I propose as an example the article on fibred categories? While I would be very pleased to find a way to make it more accessible, I have to admit that I cannot see how the level of accessibility could be significantly improved (other improvements should certainly be possible!). I think the topic demonstrates two essential difficulties associated to most (not all) "advanced" mathematics articles:
  1. All examples that can illustrate the meaning of the concept are already fairly advanced mathematical concepts themselves, ones which non-mathematicians (perhaps with the exception of theoretical physicists) are very unlikely to have heard of (such as vector bundles, sheaves). Moreover, this same difficulty (as well as the next one) applies in turn to these basic examples themselves, thus further expanding the background needed to appreciate the basic applications of the concept being discussed.
  2. While by no means impossible to understand with suitable investment of time, the definition of the concept relies on in fundamental manner on other technical mathematical concepts (here concepts from category theory). (There would be much more extreme examples than fibred categories from the point of view of multilayered dependence of definitions on previously defined concepts and theories — an example, building partially on fibred categories, could be algebraic stacks). Moreover, a working knowledge of the basic examples is often of significant help to mathematicians learning a new concept such as this: it makes the technical definitions understandable, even natural. The flipside is that for a person without this background the definitions remain essential formal and much more mental effort is needed to digest them.
It needs to be pointed out that the accumulation of concepts and theories in modern mathematica makes these more involved definitions and whole theories often very difficult to understand for professional mathematicians working in another topic (even in a neighbouring field). Therefore often the ambition of explaining mathematics to general mathematical audience is already difficult: writing good survey articles is difficult!
As for the maths articles presented as easily accessible (e.g., Monty Hall problem mentioned above), they do not suffer from the difficulty 1 above but instead relate more closely to familiar and concrete environment that a lay person can relate to. Moreover, the amount of multilayered theory needed for their resolution is often low, thus making the explanation in lay terms possible. But, as said, most topics in "advanced" mathematics do not share these characteristics.
As this topic seems to surface regularly, I'm very much in favour of the proposals to prepare a FAQ to address this. Stca74 (talk) 08:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an assortment of points which may be helpful. Their juxtaposition with each other is not intended to indicate any particular interconnection beyond their common relationship to the problem under discussion.

-- Wavelength (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input, but I am still somewhat confused as to what you propose should be done - do you want every mathematics- and physics-related Wikipedia article to be linked in a giant flowchart so that people could figure out what they need to cover before reading a specific article by using that chart? It Is Me Here (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this stage of the discussion, I do not have a preference from among the various options, which include the following.

  • linking to articles in Wikibooks
  • linking to articles in Wikiversity
  • linking to other articles in Wikipedia
  • linking to a very large prerequisite chart of articles (and/or to one of a number of smaller prerequisite charts of articles)
  • having a feature similar to the one currently used with articles about cities (where a mouse over a globe icon, in the upper right corner of the page, displays the expression "show location on an interactive map"), but with an interactive prerequisite chart instead of an interactive geographical map

Any one or combination of those options is acceptable to me. Also, the following may be helpful.

Category:Glossaries on mathematics
Category:Mathematical notation
Areas of mathematics
Mathematics Subject Classification


Earlier on this page, you gave an example of an annotated equation with links to other articles in Wikipedia. I have copied and edited it to appear as shown below, although the spacing still needs improvement. I have removed the first monomial of Euler's identity from the annotation. It is used in mathematics stubs. I removed it for two reasons: (1) in order to simplify the editing, and (2) because it seemed both inappropriate and unnecessary that an equation annotation have a stub symbol (either for a general mathematics stub or for any of the more specific mathematics stubs listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types).

For more information about this formula, see:
*Limit (mathematics)
*Infinity

For more information on how I did this, you can see HTML element and b:HTML Programming/Tables.

-- Wavelength (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more links (a few of them internal, most of them external), some of them listed under headings composed of Google search terms. I am listing them here because I believe they have a possibility (even if small) of helping Wikipedia editors to make mathematics articles more accessible to readers. (Even if they do not help in that way, then their presence here could still be of interest in other ways to mathematics editors reading this section.)


"explaining difficult mathematics"










"gender differences mathematics"



-- Wavelength (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more links which may help Wikipedia editors to make mathematics articles more accessible.


(Google search: "mathematics proof human computer")




-- Wavelength (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent a message to a famous educational communicator, requesting advice from that person to be given here to help us in reaching a consensus.

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting - keep us posted! It Is Me Here (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subsection 4

The following 17 pages are selected from the top 300 search results from my Google Advanced Search for all the words "wikipedia mathematics articles village pump" within the site "en.wikipedia.org", or, in a few cases, are pages linked from those results. I have left them in the order of the search results, because the first results seem to be the most relevant and most useful to this discussion.

-- Wavelength (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(If you are reading this discussion after it has been archived, please note that some of the pages in the foregoing list may also have been archived, in addition to the ones which are already archived at the time of this message being posted. You can probably find the information by following the link[s] to the associated archives.)
-- Wavelength (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my Wikipedia search for "mathematics articles" by using the Search button, I selected 48 pages. In the left column, they are listed in the order in which I found them. In the right column, they are loosely sorted for convenience.


Although I found many articles about individual mathematicians among the search results, I singled out Paul Erdős because of his prolific collaboration with other mathematicians in writing articles about mathematics. If his collaboration was in many diverse fields of mathematics, then his work might provide some clues to making Wikipedia mathematics articles more accessible, not only to non-mathematicians, but also to mathematicians specializing in fields outside those of the articles.


A related challenge in explaining mathematics was met in one-room schools. In a one-room school, a teacher taught academic basics to five to eight grade levels of elementary-age boys and girls. Maybe an understanding of the skills used by the teacher in shifting attention from one level to another, while maintaining appropriate instructions for each intended audience, can assist writers and editors of mathematics articles for Wikipedia.


Because my search found the list of paradoxes, it seems fitting to include these other articles, which are closely related to that one and to this discussion.

-- Wavelength (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Wikinews Main Page Leads

A proposal to include links to 3 main page lead articles from Wikinews onto the Main Page on Wikipedia. They would be incorporated from User:Wikinews Importer Bot/Wikinews Lead articles into {{In the news}}. Please weigh in at Template talk:In the news. Cirt (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: There has been some discussion and now there is a new idea/proposal. Please see Template_talk:In_the_news#Update_-_Proposal_for_Portal:Current_events. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Emergency Alert System

In the United States and maybe some other countries, the Emergency Alert System interrupts television and radio transmissions to warn residents of danger, such as severe weather. Although it would probably be impractical to require registration, and it would probably be unfortunately impossible for such a system to be available for people in all areas, but I think it would be great to create a Wikiproject where people could register their locations so that they would receive an alert when issues such as severe weather would be a threat to them. As with all Wikiprojects, it would take some effort to make this take off, but this is far from unreasonable. The idea would be to have a bot place a template with a red backround on people's talk pages when something is going on in their recorded location. The bot would run monthly tests as well. To register, a person would add him/herself to a catagory such as Wikipedians located in Port Charlotte, Florida or Wikipedians located in Charlotte County, Florida (I believe there are catagories like that which already exist for certain locations). People who want to be included in one of these catagories, but want to opt out of Wikipedia Emergency Alert Systen would add themselves to a catagory such as Wikipedians who do not want to receive emergeny alerts. To obtain information about such events, we could either have a team that would research such information (which may prove unreliable), or the Wikiproject could subscribe to the same sources that the TV and radio channels subscribe to (I don't think it costs anything in the USA). For areas that don't have these emergency alert systems, we would either have to have volunteers that would research such information, or we would have to leave a note that the system is not available in all areas. This idea spawns off of the United States Emergency Alert System. Remember, this proposal is for a completely voluntary system where users can opt in or opt out. We'd have to find some way of informing people about the system. Perhaps we could mention it on the main page if it is created? GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 01:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this would work as a wiki. Is the sole purpose and function to inform people of the EAS warning for their region? It would be much easier (and on much better authority) if people checked websites of weather services. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is way out of our scope. Wikipedia is not...wait...it isn't in there. Still, anyone who is tech savvy enough to edit Wikipedia knows how to get weather updates. Paragon12321 03:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the other opposes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a general web portal like Yahoo (do even they do this?), this would be massively increasing the project's scope. And as Paragon says, the people who would use this system, the editors, are going to be more tech savvy, and know not to use Wikipedia for this sort of information. Mr.Z-man 03:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An online EAS is a great idea, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. --Tango (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree with the above - interesting idea, but not in the least bit relevant to Wikipedia. TalkIslander 08:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This will be good when Wikipedia articles get broadcast over the radio. Until then, let radio be radio, and WP be WP. ;) -- Fullstop (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding my name to the "neat idea, wrong place" crowd :) Shereth 15:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Add me to that crowd. As an aspiring meteorologist, I personally love the EAS, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. RedThunder 01:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could see how this could help actually, as a kinda "call to order" for people especially in the area to help assist in building up information if needed. ViperSnake151 11:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would kind of be the opposite of what the original proposer intended, we want them to get out of harm's way, not stand on their lawn to get a picture. Mr.Z-man 16:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an Emergency Alert System, nor should it be. Neither is it an airplane control surface, an intimation of a new friendship, a convection oven, a chiffon dress, a consular visa office, a top-40 hit, nor the glorious memory of all who gave their lives to our great cause. Teemu Leisti (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although, releasing a single is something to consider... --Tango (talk) 22:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded/Simple Watchlist

I have noticed several improvements to Special:Watchlist (semi-)recently, such as hiding anon or logged-in edits, or filtering by namespace. I suggest another improvement: the ability to view the "expanded" watchlist (the version which appeasrs when selecting "Expand watchlist to show all applicable changes") or "simple" watchlist without changing Special:Preferences. Just like the current hide/show links, the watchlist would return to its default state (i.e. the way is it set up in my preferences) the next time I click the "my watchlist" link. What are your thoughts concerning this? - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 03:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a good feature, is there a bug report filed? If not you may like to make one.--Commander Keane (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also had this idea a long time ago. See my post: [1] and my mock-up design: Image:Improved watchlist.PNG-- penubag  (talk) 07:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To have the show/hide links would require Javascript, so this would require using the "enhanced recent changes" option (which affects watchlist as well) but an option to toggle show all/most recent might be a good idea. Mr.Z-man 16:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change the way speedy, proposed and AfD deletion-tags work

Disclaimer: This is just an idea that's been floating in my mind. I do not have a full-scale proposal nor have I thought about major flaws very much.

I have been wondering, if it wasn't better to code the deletion-process into the software somehow. Currently when you notice a page that either meets WP:CSD or WP:PROD or warrants a AfD for other reasons, you use {{db}}, {{prod}} or {{afd}} to notify people of it. Problem is, as I have noticed, that those editor's, whose articles are tagged as such, may remove those templates and sometimes this allows them to stall or even avoid deletion because when a speedy-tag is removed, it needs to be re-added for an admin to notice about the speedy-worthiness of this article. So I wondered, if that could be changed. The de-wiki uses a process to mark revisions as stable. While I do not think that process will be much use here, a similar idea could solve the deletion problem:

Instead of marking versions as stable, we could use such marking to mark pages as deletable. Like this: An established user (autoconfirmed) can tick the box "mark this article for deletion" and is then able to select the process, i.e. Speedy (with criteria), Prod (with reason) or AfD. The marking can only be removed by this user or an admin. Admins could also set articles to never be marked as deletable (like a deletable=sysop flag). That way no especially created accounts could try and stall deletion of their pages and we could avoid edit wars about such tags because an admin will decide if the tag is to stay in place and that's it.

Okay, that's roughly my idea. I now accept all insults as to why this is a bad idea and all flaws pointed out to me. Please be gentle ;-) SoWhy 08:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a prototype implementation of deletion process in software. In a few months, I will have more time available to work on Wikimedia stuff, and it will be tested, and hopefully taken live. — Werdna • talk 12:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why it's a bad idea? Some admins do not bother to review a page before speedy, some editors maliciously or incompetently add speedy tags, some editors don't bother to inform anyone about tags they have added. Preventing the removal of speedy tags by other editors would make an already heated process even more fraught. Sorry. DuncanHill (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's see:
  • Admins should do so and if they don't, it's not the processes' fault
  • Yes, some do but usually only newbies (that's why I'd restrict it to autoconfirmed)
  • how exactly is not informing others a problem of my proposal and not rather one of those users?
  • How so? Wouldn't it prevent an edit war over it and allow admins to prevent people from tagging pages for deletion?
Have you got more reasons? ;-) SoWhy 12:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Making it harder for editors to remove improperly added speedy tags will increase the problems associated with the speedy process - the ability of any editor (other than the creator) to remove speedy tags is fundamental to the process. Most of the incorrectly added speedy tags I have seen have been added by autoconfirmed users. Not informing others is a problem of the speedy process as a whole, and your process would exacerbate the problems caused by this. DuncanHill (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would add (similar point to that below) that the {{speedy}} includes the phrase "If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice" - your proposal would require that to be replaced with "If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, there is nothing you can do unless you are an admin or the person who added this notice". DuncanHill (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The nature of {{prod}} specifically provides for de-prodding and subsequent AFD discussion. I don't see this in your proposal. Please elaborate, how {{prod}} can be contested in your scheme. NVO (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's just an idea. Of course you could set removal rights to "autoconfirmed"-users as well. As I said at the top, I just proposed a basic idea for changing template-usage to built-in processes. The specifics are open to change of course :-) SoWhy 13:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As implemented, speedy tags can be reviewed by anyone with the appropriate rights (not necessarily the right to delete pages), but can be objected to and endorsed by regular users, which advise the decision of whoever reviews speedy deletion. For prod, any objection automatically turns it into a deletion discussion. The nifty part is that we can separate the review rights for speedies, AfDs and prods, so we can let anybody half-trusted with decent judgement delete expired prods, and we can restrict closure of discussions to more experienced users. It's up for testing at my test wiki, if anybody's interested. — Werdna • talk 13:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uuuh, I like that. That is what I thought it to be, almost at least. Well, nothing unique, but I do not think that above opposes apply to that implementation. I think it looks great - it just should have an option to remove deletion requests and it should show that someone objected to the deletion request :-) But great work Werdna! SoWhy 13:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm extremely hesitant about this. It opens up the deletion system to a lot of gaming and further erodes the power of the community. If it was set to autoconfirmed, I wouldn't have much of a problem with it, but if implemented that way, there should be a noticeboard or something that users who haven't reached the heightened autoconfirmation requirements yet so that they can bring abusive deletion tagging to the attention of a wider audience.
The ability of anyone to de-speedy or de-prod an article is an integral part of the deletion process. It allows things that go uncontested to get deleted (i.e, the "Greg is an awesome guy" pages and other valid speedy candidates), but encourages people to discuss anything contentious first at AfD. I don't see how this improves that process; all I see is an easier to game system where its harder for the community to object to a deletion before it happens, and increased traffic at DRV. Celarnor Talk to me 13:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how would you have the system I've developed modified? I'm very open to ideas. — Werdna • talk 08:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to say that's great. A system like that would easily erase users, removing the CSD/PROD/AFD tags. RedThunder 01:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If any user could change the prod status to contested, including users who haven't yet reached autoconfirmed status, then I wouldn't be as worried; speedy especially. If you're going to implement a software solutions to problems that currently use a substituted template solution, you should aim to keep the process as similar as possible.
I think that the current system is fine as it is; if you want something deleted, you're going to watch it anyway, and can go through the speedy -> prod -> afd cycle without much effort. What you claim is "stalling deletion" is really our system of consensus at work. The system is designed so that if anyone contests your prod, then you go to AfD. If someone disagrees with a speedy, they can add a hangon tag, whether they've passed autoconfirm or not. This proposal favors deletion over retention to an extreme by not allowing anyone but an administrator to make any comments regarding the potential deletion of whatever article. Celarnor Talk to me 00:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic wikilinks

So much editing on Wikipedia is just to get links straight (link or don't link dates, when to link about a referenced word, etc.). The point, we all know, is so that the reader of the article has access to information that may not be common knowledge yet is required for comprehension of an article. So, why not just be a script that lets people link themselves? What I mean is that all wikilinks in the code would be removed, and rather people could do something like select text and right-click to search wikipedia for that. This would make the articles look much cleaner (without all the blue and red and underline) and people would have quick access to what they need rather than what most people need. It's a dramatic change and I bet people are going to reflexively say that it's a stupid idea or something, but I think it's good and so I'm throwing it out there. Althepal (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the code can do that. However, the main thing we'd lose from this is the ability to pipe links. Overall, I don't think it's worth the complete code overhaul to do it. Paragon12321 00:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not possible. You'd need to modify every web browser in the world in order to support this, including the ones that don't support "select text" or "right click". --Carnildo (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the spirit. Thankfully every web browser in the world supports Javascript. Even if wikilinks are kept in articles, you don't think that adding a javascript code to direct you to another page would be any good? Okay. Althepal (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It could probably be implemented as a gadget if someone cared to write it. --Tango (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about Dillo? What about handheld browsers? Screen readers? Search engines that count links to determine which pages are more "important"? It seems to me that if an article is missing an important wikilink then that article should simply be edited to wikilink the term. Your system might be nice for simpler words that the article expects the reader to know, but it needs more thought and I don't think that anything like it could ever replace traditional wikilinking. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have this functionality already. It's called copy-paste and the search box. Algebraist 13:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eek. Do you know what sort of havoc could ensue if vandals had access to Javascript on Wikipedia? Corvus cornixtalk 18:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of them? I use Lynx on a regular basis. If you can tell me how to turn on Javascript support in it, and how to right-click over an SSH connection, I'll be most grateful. --Carnildo (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are 60 John Brown's in en-wiki. No bot can guess which one was meant by this particular paragraph. NVO (talk) 05:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blue links are useful because they tell you an article exists on that topic and also what it's called (possibly through piping). Removing links would mean people have to guess the titles of articles they are interested in. --Tango (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do I do if I want to select text, right click it, and not search Wikipedia for it? Mr.Z-man 18:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on the user interface of whatever particular web browser you happen to be using. Most browsers allow you to left-click outside of (on the whitespace to the left or right of) the bluelink and, holding the click, to drag the cursor across the link. Your browser will probably highlight the selected text as you do this. You may also be able to left-click on one side of the bluelink to define one side of the text you wish to select, reposition the cursor without holding the click, and then shift-leftclick (leftclick while holding the shift key) to define the other side of the text you wish to select. Again, your browser will probably highlight the text you have selected. You may also be able to right-click on a link to get a popup menu, and the menu might offer an option something like "copy link" to copy the text of the link into a temporary scratchpad (MS-Windows calls this a "clipboard"). Your mileage may vary, depending on which particular computer hardware, operating system, graphical user interface (if any), web browser and browser version you happen to be using, depending on how many buttons your mouse has, and depending on other user-peculiar conditions. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This would require a change in the browser's expected behavior, which should be avoided. Many people, particularly the less internet-savvy, would be very confused if they highlighted some text and right clicked (to copy the highlighted text, perhaps), and, in contrast to what has happened on every website they have ever visited before, they are immediately led to a new page. However, I'm sure there is another way to implement the idea that could avoid this problem. Regardless, I don't like the idea for the reasons already mentioned (how will it know which John Brown is being sought, for example?). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to watchlist

I think the watchlist would be a lot more useful if it had options: 1. to show only edits since the user's last edit to an article 2. to show only edits since the last time the user viewed the article That would save a lot of time for people who have several articles on their watchlist. Bubba73 (talk), 02:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second one is actually doable currently, however it is currently turned off on Wikipedia due to load issues. There is some javascript if you would like to use that for personal reasons.
No comment on #1, though I doubt that it would also be turned on, for the same reason as the other. --Izno (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The load issue cuts both ways, it seems to me. With one of these, millions of users wouldn't have to be checking dozens of articles every day to see if they have been vandalized or had a bad edit since the last time they looked at it. Bubba73 (talk), 03:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative: have a whitelist and don't show edits by editors on the whitelist. That would help some. Bubba73 (talk), 03:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a program that will do #2 for me. Trust me, you don't want to let an article go more than a few edits without looking at it -- it becomes impossible to see a bad edit in among the good ones. Where it comes in handy is tracking noticeboards and talk pages, where it will show all the comments made since the last time you looked at it. --Carnildo (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What program? Celarnor Talk to me 06:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something I wrote. If you've got a webserver, a copy of MySQL, and Perl installed on your computer, I can send you a copy. --Carnildo (talk) 08:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do; If you'd send it my email, I'd be very much obliged. ^_^ Celarnor Talk to me 21:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agreew with Bubba73, at least the first option should be implemented as it will actually reduce load in any case. I understand that #2 will be more complicated, because it would first need coding in place that tracks what the user has been looking at, which is both very server load intensive as it is a privacy issue if you accidentally log in on a shared computer for example and everyone knows what you looked at. SoWhy 08:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first one already exists, set watchlist to only show the most recent edit (the default setting IIRC) and to hide your edits, and it will only show changes if you aren't the last editor to the page. As was said before, the second part mostly already exists, but isn't enabled here. Its just a field in the watchlist table that indicates when you last viewed the page. If you leave yourself logged into a shared computer, people seeing what you were looking at (which they could do anyway with the browser history) is probably the least of your worries. Mr.Z-man 16:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically related internal wikipedia links

On certain pages, it is annoying as a viewer to figure out which internal wikipedia links go to general versions of that particular link title or specific versions of it (that is, related to the current page). For example, if you go to the National University of Colombia and scroll down to "Faculties", it lists the faculties. Agronomy, the first, has an internal wikipedia link. But how does the user know whether it goes to the Agronomy faculty of the National University of Colombia or simply to the general page for Agronomy. Sure, there are two ways: the user can click and find out; or, she can look at the status bar when she is hovering over the link. However, I think it would be better to have "specifically related links" colored differently (green?). That way, one could easily tell. There are several ways that we could implement this, but for now I would just like to hear comments on whether you think such links would be nice? annoying/confusing? inconsequential? PGScooter (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary, at least in that case. Wikipedia isn't a directory of academic faculty. Appropriately, the link goes to Agronomy, which makes sense; I don't think it needs to be more confused. That section is somewhat misleading anyway, as there's a list of colleges in the middle of a section on faculty. Celarnor Talk to me 05:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ah, yes I agree that Wikipedia is not a directory of faculty. I must have been thinking in Spanish when I made that post, because faculty in Spanish means department. So I was referring to the Agronomy department. Sorry for the confusing mistake. PGScooter (talk) 05:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Departments are subdivision of faculties. In other words, a particular university faculty is more likely to be notable than a department. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That must be a UK usage. In the States, if there are subdivisions of a university larger than a department, they are generally called schools or colleges (Caltech calls them divisions). So for example UCLA has a College of Arts and Sciences, a College of Engineering, and so on. --Trovatore (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. PGScooter (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that I chose a poor example (or rather I was unskilled at explaining the example). How about another one: Suppose that in Barack Obama's page there is a sentence that says "On September 2nd, Obama gave a speech regarding national defense." The link, "speech", could go to a general article on speech or it could go to an article talking about that particular speech, on September 2nd. I think that this distinction should be reflected in the format of the link somehow, perhaps color. Is that example any better? PGScooter (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it was clear the first time around; Celarnor was just being a bit pedantic. Anyway, do you know how this could be done, aside from an extra parameter somewhere in the wikilink? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is already done, as you can look at your browser's status bar and see the name of an article in the link, regardless of the actual text in the link. The same functionality is available in tooltips as you hover your mouse over links and leave its cursor there for a couple of seconds. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 09:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned the status bar in my original post. I consider the status bar and hovering over solutions second best. My proposal is for a different colored link. And as such, although it might be unnecessary, silly, or confusing, it is not already done. PGScooter (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have several ideas as far as the implementation. My preferred one is that when you want to code such a link, you use [[[three bars]]] instead of two. Of course, a lot of links would not be changed at the start. And this, I think, is a problem. The user might understandably think that the green links are internal links and that all of the blue ones are not. However, this would not be true because the blue links would not all be changed over. Hence the possibility that a user would like to click on a link if it were specific but sees that its blue so doesn't even try. PGScooter (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is "particular" to the topic? What is not? It's too subjective. Yes, it's not a directory in the sense that it's impossible to define fields as strictly as a database format does. NVO (talk) 09:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the process of writing an article on Wikipedia is extremely subjective. The reporting of facts is subjective- you choose what to include, even if you maintain a neutral tone. In regards to your questions, there would be guidelines. In my opinion, deciding whether a link is specifically related or not would be much less of a subjective process than deciding whether a page should be deleted or not, whether a page deserves a GA, whether a page should have the "expert attention" tag, etc. PGScooter (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The solution is not to use pipes. Pipes are mostly bad. Occasionally there are good reasons to use them, but mostly not.
So when you see agronomy, it goes to the general article on agronomy, and that's what you should expect. If you're listing the faculties of the National University of Columbia, then spell it out as Faculty of agronomy, National University of Colombia, and don't pipe it to "Agronomy". Then what you see is what you get. (Granted, this would be awkward in the middle of a sentence, but for a list of bulleted items it should be fine.) --Trovatore (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a more philosophical point, this whole thing really only works if we presume that the department is notable, and that a list like that wouldn't be headed straight for AfD. Celarnor Talk to me 22:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was talking about the list inside the National University of Colombia article, not a separate list article. Of course, if the faculty is not notable enough for an article, then just list it, and don't link it to anything. Or, list it as "Faculty of Agronomy"; while I dislike linking words inside a proper name, it might be justified in this case. --Trovatore (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both Trovatore and Celarnor on this issue. That makes me believe more that my initial example was a poor one. As Trovatore mentioned, this would be awkward in the middle of a sentence. It is exactly this that I am directing my proposal at. There are some places where it would just look too wordy to type out the whole title, and that is why most people do not. PGScooter (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I can see some utility for making piped links show up in a different color from normal links. That would even slightly mitigate my general hostility to pipes, because then they wouldn't be quite as contrary to the least surprise principle. This could presumably be done with very little burden on the developers (no extension needed to wikimarkup) and would be automatic, with no need to go through and decide which words should get triple square brackets. --Trovatore (talk) 23:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that my underlying reason for this proposal (I just realize this now) is probably similar to your reason for disliking pipes. I do not understand the technical details at all about how it would be implemented. What do you mean by automatic and why wouldn't there be an extension to wikimarkup? Do you support the [[[three bars]]] idea, or do you have a better suggestion? Sorry for my ignorance on these topics. PGScooter (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My thought (it's not a suggestion, as yet, since I'm not sure I support it) is that all piped links would automatically show up in a different color. That seems to address your concern, without any need to add a three-square-brackets syntax. --Trovatore (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My only reservation is the problem that I mentioned above, which I will restate here: a lot of links would not be changed at the start. And this, I think, is a problem. The user might understandably think that the green links are internal links and that all of the blue ones are not. However, this would not be true because the blue links would not all be changed over. Hence the possibility that a user would like to click on a link if it were specific but sees that its blue so doesn't even try. PGScooter (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguishing between piped and unpiped links would not work, because there are links like [[Southern Railway (U.S.)|Southern Railway]] and [[Mississippi Highway 13|MS 13]]. --NE2 23:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow. Why would those not work? It seems to me that these are the sorts of things that we should want to see in a different color, if the original poster's logic is accepted. --Trovatore (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't what PGScooter was suggesting, Trovatore. Those piped links suggested by NE2 are for very closely related terms; the suggestion by PGScooter was for less obvious links: "Martin Luther King, Jr.'s speech" — is "speech" linking to the article on speeches, or the article on the particular MLK speech? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you may be able to make a distinction here, but I don't see that it really makes a difference. The different color warns the reader that by following the link, he won't get to the Southern Railway article (which I'm guessing is a dab page) but to some article considered more appropriate in the current context. That's a useful piece of information, one that would make pipes less objectionable as a UI feature. --Trovatore (talk) 00:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with letting users select their color preference in these cases, but we should avoid making article too colorful for everyone who browses Wikipedia. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. The reader will get to the Southern Railway article; it's just the article about the Southern Railway the reader cares about. --NE2 01:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He won't get to the same article as if he types "Southern Railway" into the search box. That's a well-defined distinction with no need to worry about fine points and subtleties, and a sufficiently bad aspect of the user interface to make it worthwhile to warn him. --Trovatore (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" should ignore automatic section names

Hi there, I have turned on "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" because sometimes I am quite hasty to click on save page, accidentally doing so when actually wanting to preview. But I noticed, that it does not work every time. When I replied on a section of my talk page [2] it saved without prompting me, most likely because it generates an automatic heading. So I am proposing that the script that is set in place to prevent blank summaries also works when the summary is only within /* */ markers. Comments? :-) SoWhy 10:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey, my wikipedia asks for the magic word even with section-heading auto-text. NVO (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I would like to see is "Prompt me" continuing to do so when entering a blank edit summary in any namespace but not to do so with "automatic section names" in any "talk" namespace. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK discussion

There is a discussion going on concerning the DYK process and how much "reused content" can be included in a new article for it to count as new. Please go here and here for more information. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reintroduce a "feature requests" page?

I think it could be useful to have a "feature requests" page for people to list MediaWiki software feature requests. I understand that feature requests should be filed in Bugzilla, and I do not think that should change, but a discussion place on this wiki (for example at Wikipedia talk:Feature requests which is currently a redirect) could be beneficial by:

  • Not forcing people to use an unfamiliar interface
  • Acting as a conduit - people can submit ideas on the wiki page, the ideas can be developed and finally someone technically minded can file a Bugzilla report
  • Providing a place to list the most common feature requests with the corresponding bug number, avoiding duplicate entries in Bugzilla. If discussion occurs at Wikipedia talk:Feature requests, then the list could be at Wikipedia:Feature requests

Also, thinking globally it would be interesting to see, at each project's relevant page, a top three feature request list for each project, eg Commons vs English Wikipedia vs German Wikibooks.--Commander Keane (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. I have tried many times to file a request at Bugzilla, and every time I am being discouraged by the totally unfamiliar interface. Eklipse (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome idea. This would be very useful. RedThunder 20:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Notable Alumni sections

Many Wikipedia pages on educational institutions routinely include a Notable Alumni section. This section is in general a list of the names of persons who were supposedly alumni of the institution about which the article deals with. Brief indications of the achievements of the individuals are also sometimes provided. Such scanty information does not help one to place the individuals in the spacio-temporal evolution of the institution. Moreover, immediate nonavailability of further facts makes verifiability difficult. To make the Notable Alumni section an authentic historical document I suggest that the following particulars about the claimed alumni should necessarily be provided in the section (the data may be given in the form of a table with appropriate headings):

  • Full official name with aliases if any
  • Citizenship particulars
  • Life period (years of birth and death)
  • Details of the course/programme of study the individual underwent in the institution
  • Details of the period in which the individual studied in the institution
  • Notable achievements as a student in the institution
  • Details of the highest achievement that makes the individual notable (awards/prizes/positions/others with specific details of when/where/what etc)
  • An image of the individual

It is also suggested that when judging the quality of a Wikipedia article on an educational institution due weightage be given for preparing the Notable Alumni section conforming to the above guidelines. Krishnachandranvn (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information that you are seeking is much better suited to a List of Texas A&M University people rather than a section Texas A&M University#Notable people. That level of detail should not be provided in a prose section. I would advocate that the person's name and information about what makes that person notable is essential to the section, and that notable achievements as a student would be nice where applicable. The rest I think belongs either in the person's article or the list. Karanacs (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Karanacs for your comments. I was thinking of institutions much smaller than Texas A&M University, institutions that cannot claim a long list of notable people. I still believe that for such institutions a list of Notable Alumni with some of the details indicated above would be helpful.Krishnachandranvn (talk) 03:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's a universal proposal, not just A&M, then strong oppose. The list can be trimmed to name, life period, year of graduation (no need for a table).
  1. Citizenship of a person may be a complex and controversial story that should be dealt with only on that person's bio.
  2. Photography here looks like an unnecessary decoration. And usually such photo tables are quite sloppy looking - it takes effort to make them look good.
  3. Details of the course/program. Too many cases when these are simply not available without digging into archives. Besides, it makes little sense for specialized colleges, i.e. Drama Centre. NVO (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Notability of a person is evidenced in his bio. Do you really want Einstein's works listed in ETH Zurich? NVO (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Achievement as a student? If it exists, it's usually irrelevant: notabillity is achieved in real life, not classroom. NVO (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these types of list are of people who become notable after they were a student or whatever. If these people are truly notable, then they should have an article, and the list should have a one or two sentences with a thumbnail of their notability. I think the first list is way too much detail; the years that the person attended the school is enough. As to separate articles- depends on the length of the article and the list. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 14:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The key point is, as you say, if their notable, they'll have their own article. All the detailed information can go in their article, there is no need to duplicate it. --Tango (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pick 10 random U's and alumni, check whether their article actually states which university they attended and sources that claim. Franamax (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better yet, pick 10 random U's and alumni and go through their articles adding their universities. Just because something hasn't been done yet isn't a reason for not doing it. --Tango (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vehemently oppose - excessive detail and in most cases impossible to obtain lawfully. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This subject has disturbed me for a while now. Alumni sections tend to be totally unverifiable, they are lists of names thrown in (undoubtedly in good faith) by typically anonymous editors, without backing information. They tend to just grow and be accepted as true on their face.
I usually look at these sections as requiring either a blue-link for the persons name or a reliable reference to indicate their notability (CEO of a major corporation for example). I would support in addition a source where the reader can verify the individual actually did graduate from the institution (unless it's previously sourced in their linked article) and I very much like the idea of requiring that the attendance years, or at least year of graduation, be directly shown in the listing. Franamax (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to graduate to be an alumnus. You just have to be a former student. I think reliable sources should be provided in such lists that say the person was a former student at said institution. --Pwnage8 (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I always delete all redlinks in such lists when I encounter them, and stick unsourced tags on the sections, since very few of these lists actually provide proof that the listed person attended the institution. Corvus cornixtalk 20:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia intelligent App Button

Wikipedia should have an intelligent App Button.

Basically how it works is it allows people to display wikipedia articles on their website. But instead of just displaying a url, it will display the first few sentences of the article, along with the main photo on the wikipedia article and a 'click here to read more' link.

This feature would be useful for musicians,actors etc, who have websites and they would be able to put this intelligent App Button on there.

So every wikipedia article should have a button saying "add this to your website" and when users click on it some html code will be displayed. Users then copy and paste this code into their website.

The intelligent App Button should be the size of about 410x530 pixels. The first few sentences could be displayed at the top, followed by the main photo, then a wikipedia logo, then the 'click here to read more', then a wikipedia logo. The main photo would have to be scaled down so it doesn't take up too much space and the text size may have to be a smaller font size too.

The intelligent App Button should automatically update the first few sentences of an article and main photo if it changes.

Wikipedia should work with record companies so people can see what the intelligent App Button would look like on a musician's website.Danielspencer2 (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No way! Such a thing would encourage publicity agents, managers, self-promoters and obsessive fans; we've got way too much of a problem with these folks as it is. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting idea. I think it would have to be more complicated than just producing some HTML, though - it needs to update when the article is updated, otherwise we'll end up with the Wikipedia logo next to whatever happened to be in the article when the button was clicked, which would be open to abuse. --Tango (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alot of musician's websites already list their wikipedia url's anyway. Soulja boy's official website lists his wikipedia article url there. As for this being open to abuse, well it could be solved by instead of automatically updating the button when an article changes, the button could be automatically updated every 15 minutes which is more than enough time for someone to repair an article and ban the user who used the article for promotion. As for this not being easy to develop, myspace and youtube already offer a simple copy and paste html code feature for their videos to be embedded on external websites.Danielspencer2 (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then every copyright-violator would link their copyvios into Wikipedia, making us complicit in their crime. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't copyright law say that as long as the copyright infringed thing is removed when a host is notified it's fine? So if a copyright infringement has occured i am sure the wikipedia editors will correct it within 24 hours.Danielspencer2 (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that this would promote abuse, and really if one wants to scrape WP for content an even mildly intelligent web developer should be able to. If one is interested in this though, an account on the toolserver should be able to produce an rss backend for article "exerpts" I would think. then pull the data server side w/ something like magpie rss or similar, or if you want it REALLY live, a simple Flash (yuk) or JS could pull the data. And why call it an "intelligent app button" ???./zro (⠠⠵) 09:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prompt for signature

We have an option that can prompt us for an edit summary in preferences. Is it possible to make something like this to prompt for the signature in talk pages? I guess it is hard (maybe impossible) since it should be checked from the edit box itself and not from a different box as for the edit summary and more work should be done to check for this, but it would be really helpful if there was something like that. Sorry if this has been discussed before, but I didn't find anything like this. Chamal Talk ± 13:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a truly good idea. The software would just have to check for four tildes in a row (not preceded by a nowiki tag, if you want to get technical). I would sign up for this in a flash. However, it would need a tick-box for "don't-sign", like when I go back to fix the typos I made in my original post. :) Franamax (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That just introduces a new problem: Now you have to remember to check the box every time you don't want your signature to appear. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno - is that a problem? I've never tried to go past the "fill in the edit summary" re-screen, does it keep looping? Anyway, for the number of times I actually don't want to sign my talk-posts, I'd gladly make the trade. And if it's a preference, it's just my problem to have to tick the box! Franamax (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like this idea too. It would just have to check that the page is in a talk namespace, and if so, as Franamax said, check for ~~~~ as long as it isn't <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. Then there would need to be the "don't sign" check box. It seems like it should be simple to implement. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How will the software know which pages to include in the system and which to exclude? Obviously exclusions are articles/Portal/Help; some inclusions are the various Talk pages (and User talk/Category talk/etc.), although the pages listed at Category:Pending Afc requests are a problem, since they are technically "Wikipedia talk" pages. The biggest issue may be Wikipedia: space? For instance, this page takes signatures, but pages like Wikipedia:Notability should not. Pages will probably have to be manually tagged for inclusion under the proposed system—a large and tedious task, but one unsuitable for a bot, since they are likely to be poor judges in deciding what is good and what is not. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That tagging has already been done, as part of our current autosigning system: Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed, Category:Non-talk pages with subpages that are automatically signed. Algebraist 18:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the long-term, this is yet another issue that ought to go away when we have a proper forum system for discussion pages. Ref my usual rant. Dcoetzee 18:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Until then :), this is still a good idea. Something along the lines of the existing "Prompt me if I don't provide an edit summary" would be great (except that it should be enabled by default of course). And please make the category names configurable so that the non-English wikis can implement it too. -- Fullstop (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poll on which date format for articles unconnected with anglophone countries

Here at MOSNUM. Tony (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Color identification of null net changes on the page history.

Would it be possible to modify the page history so that it will color the block of entries from the top downward that resulted in no net change to the page content? That is, if the edits consisted of a series of changes that were each reverted, I would like to be able to see that at a glance (via the background color) rather than having to perform a compare. (I don't always trust the history message to let me know the revert was done properly.) Instead, I would like to just look at the last retained change(s) on downward. In fact, shading any edit/revert sets that result in no net change would be helpful. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's theoretically possible, though I imagine such a feature would want article-text hashes to work, which is a technical issue of its own. It would be nice, assuming the developers are willing. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 21:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Active admins on Special:statistics?

Congratulations to the devs on adding the "active users" count to special:statistics. The very large ratio of user accounts to admins is often used to argue that (i) adminship is a Very Big Deal and (ii) we are hopelessly under-manned on the admin front, but the ratio of active users to admins (about 7:1) gives exactly the opposite impression. To make the comparison really fair we need to list "active" admins as well as "active" users, so here are my two proposals:

  1. special:statistics to list the number of active admins using exactly the same definition of "activity" as for active users
  2. special:statistics to specify the definition used for "active" (or at least link to a page giving that definition).

The last point is crucial as with different definitions you can get estimates varying by many orders of magnitude: active = has edited at least once gives about 3 million users; active = has edited within the last minute gives about 200 users. (FWIW, the current estimate about 11,000 active users seems reasonably in line with, for instance, the WMF board election eligibility requirements). PaddyLeahy (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a good idea; it is definitely desirable to know the definition of an "active user" and it would be nice to know the number of active administrators if that can be easily found. Depending on the method used to find active users, however, it may be impractical to check. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 16:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For admins, there is WP:LA already, bot-created. It serves every need to find out which admins are active and more information. Also, regarding your point about under-manned-claims, you have to take into account that admins have to deal with tens of thousands of IP users as well as registered users. 200,000 edits/day it was if I remember correctly). So I think 1000 active admins are nothing in comparison. SoWhy 17:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Active users is defined as non-anonymous, non-bot users with at least 1 edit or log entry in recentchanges (the last 30 days for Wikipedia), not counting the new user log. Mr.Z-man 17:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's good. Unfortunately this definition doesn't match the one on WP:LA, which uses a 3-month window, >=30 edits for active and >=1 for "semi-active". I'd still like to see a total derived using a common definition on the statistics page. But we can get a pretty good estimate: I suppose the vast majority of the WP:LA active admins would be >1 edit in the last month, as will a fair number of the semi-active, so on an equal footing there would be about 1300 active admins, or about one per 8.5 active users.
SoWhy: special:RecentChanges shows that many fewer than half of all edits are made by IPs these days; there may be tens of thousands of them but they each edit much less that active registered users. I doubt that they add much to admin workload (as opposed to RC patrol workload etc since they do including most vandals of course). PaddyLeahy (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I checked (a few months ago at least), it was about 240,000 total en:wiki edits per day, about 45,000 of them IP's. Don't know the number for non-autoconfirmed named users. IP's do however add to the admin workload - especially now that school is back in in the Western world, the vandalism rate has gone up, IP warnings are up - and some admin or other has to make an individual judgement on whether to block an IP or a range, when to sprot an article, etc. Franamax (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist for "What links here"

I do a lot of cleaning up links to disambiguation pages, and Wikipedia Cleaner has a nifty feature called "Local Watch List". For those not familiar with it, it allows you to maintain a list of pages and store a numerical record of how many other pages are linking to each of them, differentiating between articles, templates, and all pages in total (User, Talk, User Talk, Image, Portal, etc.). Then, when you next update that list, it'll indicate where the number of incoming links has increased or decreased from the figure you stored before. If it's decreased, that's great; if it's increased, then you know there's work to be done.

For dab clean-up, this is a great tool, because you can then go in and address new incoming links immediately. However, it's limited in that it doesn't indicate which links are the new ones — if there are a few pages with links that you haven't been able to fix before, new pages will blend in among them. It also requires launching Wikipedia Cleaner (which isn't working well at the moment) and running the update, when some disambiguations are simple enough that I wouldn't want to bother using this external tool.

What I'm wondering is whether it would be possible to create a different spin on this feature within Wikipedia itself? It would be more like the existing Watchlist, but instead of showing you edits to the pages you're watching, it would show you new incoming links to the pages you're watching. Beyond disambiguation pages, I could also see this as being useful for users working within various projects — a new incoming link to a page that you follow within your project might indicate another article that could also fall under the project.

Mlaffs (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&oldid=238002910"