Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

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.

« Archives, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212

Redesign of placeholder images

So we have a few different placeholder images that appear in articles that don't yet have portraits. (Of course a few people think that we shouldn't have them in articles at all. Maybe they don't want the general public to contribute their images? Or they're ashamed of the fact that it's a wiki? But that's beside the point...)

I've thought that the current images were an eyesore for quite a while, looking as if it were thrown together without much thought, and there've been a bunch of complaints on related talk pages, so I tried to make a better version that others could continue improving on. But it's apparently not liked, either, and was instantly reverted.  :-)

I changed:

• The fonts - The mixed fonts look as if it was a mistake to me; meant to be in a font that the SVG renderer couldn't handle and it fell back on serif. The serif looks really out of place in an infobox of all sans. See discussion on the talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Fromowner#Very_ugly_and_distracting
• The wording - "Do you own one? If so please click here" just sounds bad. I used "Click here to upload one", but I'm sure you can think of something better. See the discussion on the talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Fromowner#Wording. Also got rid of the big space between the lines, which also looked like a rendering mistake to me.
• The colors - I first looked around Google Image Search for placeholder images to base the new versions on, and most have a visible box around them instead of being transparent or white on white. I liked the look of the light gray/blue box the best, on a white background with a dark silhouette. (Apparently the blue background - which I got from here - is the most-loathed aspect of my design. I'm completely fine with a light gray background instead.) Here are some other variations to compare to: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
• The building image - Original was kind of crude-looking, so I made something completely different with a skyline.

Compare the originals:

• 
  Male portrait
• 
  Female portrait
• 
  Neutral portrait
• Building photo
  Building photo

With mine:

• 
  Male portrait
• 
  Female portrait
• 
  Neutral portrait
• 
  Building photo

Please provide opinions and alternative ideas. Keep in mind that they are used a few different ways; infoboxes, thumbnail frames, bare images, etc. — Omegatron 08:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support generally as these are improved images that will look nicer on article pages, although to the extent that they're by necessity generic and full of text they remain somewhat ugly. (I see the point. I just feel it's the equivalent of having text in an article that says "...where he died in 1862. Have more information? Click here to edit the article.") Given that I would like at least two more improvements. The "neutral" head should be framed the same way, with the scalp near the top (or the NASA plaque people should have more headspace, but that leaves less room for text). The building image should be simpler and something that can similarly contain the text "No free image". Also, make sure there's enough torso space for the lower text; the woman and neutral silhouettes don't have enough. And not to add to your workload, but why isn't there an even more generic one for topics that aren't people or buildings? --Dhartung | Talk 08:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There isImage:Replace this image.svg I just don't like it because I would rather things were specialized and the responsibility for sorting out the resulting images given over to wikiprojects.Genisock2 14:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Joe Blow
Born	2007-08-26 Wikimedia Commons
Occupation	Placeholder
Known for	Blue background

Jay Gray
Another attempt
Born	2007-08-27 Wikimedia Commons
Occupation	Placeholder
Known for	Gray background, lighter silhouette, bold top text, -"one", no gaps at shoulders, head centered a bit

• Comment: I do overall like the idea. The thing I hated most about the current ones was the wording, and the lack of a comma in the female and neutral ones. I also really don't like the use of "one" stylistically. You also touch on an unresolved issue: how far do we go in directly soliciting help from the general public? If we don't do it in text (as Dhartung points out), then why are we ok with doing it in images? Let's seriously work on the wording here.

I think you've improved a bit on the colours, but it was actually better with different fonts. The key message is "We don't have an image, that's why we're displaying this stupid graphic" - the appeal for help is secondary. So keeping "No free image" big and bold would be good (though without the serif/sans difference). The text smeared haphazardly across the skyline looks bad. Only other comment is I'm not sure I really see the need for male/female versions. Isn't neutral sufficient? Stevage 14:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If you look at how the images are used in articles there generaly are framed either by thumbs or by info boxes.Genisock2 14:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• A welcome improvement. I agree that the use of "one" is not stylistically ideal; does anyone have ideas? --Iamunknown 15:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• "Click here to upload" seems reasonable. -Chunky Rice 16:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• I am among those who would prefer they be removed completely, not because I'm "ashamed that it's a wiki" but because when I visit an article it's 99% of the time to learn something about the subject, and to have this irrelevant template draw my eyes away from the text is really distracting. I think your new images would actually be a step backward from the current images, because the blue/dark gray, while "prettier", is higher-contrast with the white background and therefore even more eye-catching. I like what you've done with the fonts and the skyline, though, and would approve a switch to a version of the images with the same color scheme as before but with those improvements. Redquark 23:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The original colour setup was chosen with the ability to tune out the images in mind.Geni 04:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The building image should be simpler and something that can similarly contain the text "No free image".

Agreed. Need to find a building to trace that's more generic and rectangular and close up.

The thing I hated most about the current ones was the wording, and the lack of a comma in the female and neutral ones.

Yes.

I also really don't like the use of "one" stylistically.

I agree that the use of "one" is not stylistically ideal

Agreed, too. I couldn't think of anything else clear and short enough.

how far do we go in directly soliciting help from the general public? If we don't do it in text

We don't?  :-)

So keeping "No free image" big and bold would be good (though without the serif/sans difference).

Oh. Yeah I'm perfectly fine with the bold on top if that's what people want. The sans/serif mix is what bothers me. I think it should all be sans, and maybe a better-looking sans font, but I don't know which to pick.

and would approve a switch to a version of the images with the same color scheme as before but with those improvements.

Hmm.. I like the darker silhouette on a colored background. Maybe a lighter gray for the background and a slightly lighter silhouette? (Also the shoulders need to extend outside of the image to get a crisp edge.) — Omegatron 00:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. These are a vast improvement - let's implement them immediately unless someone has a serious aesthetic problem with it. wikipediatrix 13:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  Apparently so, since they were reverted the instant I implemented them... — Omegatron 02:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  It was aparently reverted because he though it was just a random bold change, try linking to this discussion next time and it will probably be fine. I'd also like to plug Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve if people want to discuss further enhancements to the images. --Sherool (talk) 07:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Zee problem is that the new ones are way way to bold. Much harder to mentaly screen out.Geni 07:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the colouring of the originals and the design of the new ones. As Geni says the new ones are too striking when it should be more of a background thing. violet/riga (t) 08:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The blue or the gray or both? — Omegatron 23:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• The new wording loses the mention of owenership which is meant to reduce the number of copyvios uploaded.Geni 18:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  I think that's an improvement, too. "Fromowner" needs to be moved to something more descriptive, and not be limited purely to images that the uploader actually took. The page should describe how to upload their own pictures, but also point them in the direction of finding images on Flickr, etc. — Omegatron 23:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  you would appear to be wanting Wikipedia:Upload. Overloading fromowner is a really really bad idea. By the time people are searching flickr for images for wikipedia I think they can cope with our normal upload system.Geni 23:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  So we should just link directly to the upload page? — Omegatron 03:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  If they are not complete newbies yes. Fromowner is built on the basis that the people useing it are. So far the evidence suggests that this assumption is correct.Geni 02:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Personally, they look great and read well, a big improvement, and I like the blue version. I don't know the issues well enough to firmly support though, so I'll obstain from any comment other than how they look. One slight objection that carries over from the old version. The male and female silhouettes are good quality but they seem to assume middle class, adult, western, etc., in terms of hair and clothing styles, body shape, etc. And the gender-neutral one looks like an extraterrestrial. I'm pretty sure it's possible to abstract them a little more without making them look bad, even a gender neutral one with some hair.Wikidemo 03:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

See Template:Infobox Album/No cover for a similar setup. — Omegatron 15:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware that people have been looking at that. I'm not going to get involved with something that encourages people to upload unfree pics.Genisock2 10:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The new ones are better. I think we still need work on this though. Some members of WikiProject Cricket are less than pleased with me for putting those images on the cricket articles ... less hideous ones would be a REALLY GOOD IDEA - David Gerard 15:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, an improvement. Most importantly for me, the wording is a lot better. The idea that you can "own" photographs, or the entire paradigm of intellectual "property", is a point of view that not everyone agrees with. — Matt Crypto 19:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

However it is one the law agrees with which as far as the fromowner system is concerned is what matters.Geni 22:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to use the language of property and ownership -- you can ask whether someone "holds the copyright" to an image, for example. — Matt Crypto

Holds the copyright is too long and increases the number of people who won't understand what you are talking about. The systems uses original authorship combiened with phyisical ownership to try and get around that problem.Geni 12:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, when a person actually clicks through on the image, they are taken to a page with lots of stuff about copyright and licences. If they don't understand what it means to "hold the copyright", then they're really not going to get very far regardless. To talk about "owning" a photograph is not merely clumsy English, but it's also giving credence to a particular point of view: namely that you can own information just like you can own a physical object. Not everyone thinks that way. The suggested new images are an improvement for this reason. — Matt Crypto 21:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. — Omegatron 23:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

In this case it is asking about physical or at least digial ownership. The followup page and upload page then concentrait on did you take it yourself.Geni 16:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: You either need a totally generic one, or a great many specialized images. ImageRemovalBot is using Image:Replace this image.svg for infoboxes about aircraft, cameras, caves, athletic fields, lakes, mountains, cell phones, and so on. --Carnildo 23:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Depends if you can get the relivant wikiprojects to agree to look after the resulting image stream.Geni 01:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I asked for help on Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Images_to_improve#Placeholder_images, but no one seems to have noticed. If no one comments in a few days, we should just go with the blue or gray ones, and they can continue to be improved from there (like using a different building as the background). — Omegatron 23:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support with modification. I'd like to see the request be small, italic, and bracketed. I came here from WP talk: Avoid self-references; my issue with the proposals is that they mix content and Wikipedia "meta-content" without enough clarity. Most of the meta-content in Wikipedia is italic, including disambiguations, citation needed, and stub notices. (The only meta-content not in italics are framed things like NPOV.) How about either (1) change "Click here to upload one" to smaller text in the top right that says [upload a picture] or (2) get rid of the silhouette and go with a frame that looks more like the NPOV, perhaps with the text "No free image exists. You can help Wikipedia by providing one."? —Ben FrantzDale 01:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Consider these two versions, which make an effort to be clear about what is meta-content:

1. 
2. 

I think these are less like "...where he died in 1862. Have more information? Click here to edit the article." and more like "...where he died in 1862.^{[day of death needed]}" —Ben FrantzDale 11:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Support the second one. Avala 23:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A lot of people misunderstand WP:SELF. It prohibits things like "this Wikipedia is about..." in the article itself. It doesn't prohibit "this article needs work" in a maintenance template. Recruiting help from outsiders is what the site is all about. This is just a maintenance template. — Omegatron 03:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I disagree. This image is completly over the top. As usual Wikipedia is thinking that all readers are stupid and thick, and need spoon-feeding. Well they are not, if they want to upload a photo, they will work out how to do so. I worked it out myself, reading the guidlines and so on, and I didn't some intrusive image that ruins the page to tell me how. There is a big difference between a small, subtle stub notice that categories the article as a stub, and a large intrusive image that encourages people to upload non-free images. Articles requiring an image can have a template added on the talk page and this categorises it. This is all that is needed. I believe this is a violation of WP:SELF but more importantly it is unnecessary spoon-feeding that encourages random images to be uploaded. Why ruin a page?--UpDown 07:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Most people can figure out how to upload an image, but using this sustem they will at least get instructions to only upload images they hold the copyright to and release it under a free license. In my experience there is just no way to spoon feed that enough, copyright and licensing is completely alien to a huge number of users... Granted there are a lot of people who still manage to ignore all the instructions and upload random promo photos regardles, but I feel this is the best system we have come up with so far to make it clear that we want images and we want them to be free licensed. --Sherool (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely there are instructions on the normal guideline page on how to upload photos? I know I read them. I do believe that encouraging images like this does encourage incorrect images to be uploaded. And also, it looks very bad on the page, an unnecessary intrusive 'image'. If people have a image they want to upload, they will do so. They will work it out. This encourages to upload random photos, and ruins the page in the meantime!!!--UpDown 09:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

yes but they are complicated and hard to find. Fromowner puts the uploader on rails and brinks the information they need to them.Geni 14:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree as well, that's why I think a typographical distinction is necessary. Also, this is only appropriate for pages for which an image really is reasonable to expect, otherwise we are doomed to have thousands of biographies that will never be finished rather than realizing that they just won't ever get a picture. I prefer the gray version because, as mentioned by others, it is easier to ignore. —Ben FrantzDale 11:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Can I just ask, a request was made at the Graphic Lab for improvement of these images, but it wasn't particularly specific on what should be done. We're more than happy to help, but it'd help if there was a summary of the general consensus on what should be done to these images. If I may, my own opinion is that a set of standardized and consistent placeholder images is a very good idea, and that the best model for such images would be those under "Addressing some concerns" on the request page. I'd also suggest that keep the discussion in one place as no-one as really talking to us at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve. --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 17:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I came late to this discussion and don't know where to comment to have an effect. I'll assume for the moment that this is the best place. I agree with those above who have said the current versions are the graphical equivalent of "...where he died in 1862. Have more information? Click here to edit the article." I would like to build concenscious around one of the images I posted above (or something similar) that tries to be the graphical equivalent of "...where he died in 1862.^{[day of death needed]}". I got one "support" but want more than that before being bold on such widely-referenced images. —Ben FrantzDale 15:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I see little point in following the citation needed style in a request for images. in addition I'm unhappy with loseing the intial wording focusing on ownership.Genisock2 04:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I was shying away from "ownership" since I think most people think in terms of copyright. For example, I own an Ansel Adams print, but I don't own the copyright to it. With the wording subject to change, my primary point is that I don't like the fact that the current version does not visually separate the request for help from the content. I just realized that there is an "article message box template", which is the style I think is most appropriate, although probably in image form.

What about that (in an appropriate aspect ratio)? —Ben FrantzDale 11:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Once of the problems with any such setup is that you lose the simplified instructions for putting the final image in the article (Aditionaly if that box has to exist please point it at Wikipedia:Fromownergeneral). In addition is meant to flow with the article somewhat since it is likely to be there for some time.Genisock2 17:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm less particular about the instructions; feel free to reword the above suggestion. I'm primarily concerned with the fact that the present images read to me like "...where he died in 1862. Have more information? Click here to edit the article." —Ben FrantzDale 21:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

CD placeholder image

I had a go at making an image like Image:Nocover-upload.png in the style of Image:No male portrait.svg for a 'there is no CD picture' thing. I'd like to know what people think, and if anybody still cares about these placeholder images.

Here's what it would look like in an article.

If you don't mind, can you direct all feedback to Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Images_to_improve#Placeholder_suggestion_for_CD. Changing the wording is probably the most important thing that needs doing. --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 16:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"Village pump"
Song
B-side	"Foo, Bar... and Baz"

Asking IE6 users to upgrade or switch in the sitenote

I think we should put a JavaScript based note in the sitenote to remind XP users with IE6 that they should upgrade to IE7 or (along with IE6 users with older Windows versions) to switch to a different browser ASAP. Yeah it's not Wikipedia's role to go out advertising for any particular browser, but I don't think it would hurt to let IE6 users know that they are using antiquated software and that technology and standards have advanced in the 6 years since IE6 was released (not to mention issues with popups, spyware and other security problems) and that even if IE7 won't run on anyting older than Windows XP with Service Pack 2 installed there are several other modern browsers they can download free of charge and use instead even if they are still using Windows 98 or whatever.

It should not be a huge intrusive thing naturaly, just a small note, with a link to some page listing the various alternative browsers out there, and a dismiss "button". If there is no great oposission to the idea I'll take it to the relevant MediaWiki talk pages (we need to put the detection stript and stuff in the common.js and add a "hook" for it to the sitenote and such to make it work). --Sherool (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It isn't the job of the library to criticize how old the car that delivers the patron is. This is a self correcting problem, users of older browsers will see degraded performance as the web changes, and if we get into this, it distracts from the core purpose of the site. Just my opinion. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not claiming support or opposition yet, but I'd like to mention that it would be possible to only deliver this message to XP users running IE6 or older. —METS501 (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem is most of the remaining "holdouts" are probably "casual" computer users that don't even know other browsers exist, and I think that self correction you mention won't happen for a long while still. IE6 have a big enough market share that most website will ensure that they deploy the nessesary fixes and workaronds to make things work in IE6, thus casual users see no problems (and they don't know what they are missing out on) and so feel to need to go download a new piece of software to view websites, and so the problem perpetuates itself. If such a notice could help "nudge" a few more users into dropping IE6 it would be a good thing for the web all round IMHO. Sure it's not our job to critizise users for theyr choince of browser, but we could at least inform them that they do in fact have a choince and that they are currently using last decade's model. --Sherool (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that this would be classified as an advertisement. What about the people that can't upgrade to IE7. For instance, Mac users have Internet Explorer 5. It has not been upgraded yet. There are some Windows operating systems that cannot upgrade to IE7. There would only be one condition that would justify, in my opinion, putting this script to upgrade, and that would be to detect the browser and if it's not the up-to-date version of the browser that the person is using, then it would post a link to update it, however, I would disable that script, because I already have enough notifications from all of my browsers telling me to update. I would compare this script to software that installs on your computer and tells you to upgrade your os. Very annoying... --Μ79_Šp€çíá∫횆^{tell me about it} —Preceding unsigned comment added by M79 specialist (talk • contribs) 00:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not our concern what browser users use, but the poor web designer (and, in Wikipedia's case, the editors) to use compliant code no matter what. That said, we shouldn't encourage, say, Lynx users to switch because they can't see images. People use their own web browsers for a reason - or for lack of one to change. x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You said it best. Try going to http://www.workrave.org/welcome/ in IE. An ad for Mozilla appears at the top of the screen saying "We see you're using Internet Explorer. Try Firefox, you'll like it better." I don't see why people get so obsessed with what browser other people use. -Henry W. Schmitt 05:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well you can't write standards complant code and make it work for IE6 at the same time. You have to jump though several extra hoops to make stuff work in all sorts of old browsers. Wich is fine up to a scertain point, but there rely is no reason for anyone to keep using IE6. You can either upgrade to IE7 or use FireFox, Opera or Safari or whatever. If someone use Lynx as theyr main browser at least they know what they are doing and are aware that they are not getting the full experience. I suspect however that most of the remaining IE6 users simply are not aware that they are basicaly using the browser equivelent of a black and white television. Sure if they are happy with black and white that's theyr choice, but I think we should at least make sure they know it's possible to get colors now. As for why people care; There are several reasons: webdesigners can't make full use of modern web technology because more than half theyr potential users still use crappy old browsers and would asume theyr site was broken unless they spent a long of time to create a "light" version of theyr site for such browsers. There are also security issies. IE6 is rater notorious for it's security flaws, and a compromised computer is not just a danger to it's owner. Such zombie computers are a major source of spam, Denial-of-service attacks, they become breeding grounds for viruses, used in frauds and other neferious activities. The sooner IE6 is dead and buried the better off everyone will be. --Sherool (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I observe that Google analytics tells me that browser hits in the last 30 days on a website I manage break down as 65.35% IE, 30.84% Firefox, 2.5% Safari, 0.88% Opera, 0.29% Mozilla. Within IE, it breaks down as 69.89% 6.0, 29.66% 7.0, 0.45% 5.5. I would guess that Wikipedia has similar browser hit percentages. So, Pre-7.0 IE accounts for about 100 * .6535 * (1 - .2966) = about half of all visitors. I opine that this information should drive decisions regarding how much effort should be expended in providing compatibility with IE pre-7.0 browsers. -- Boracay Bill 02:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Considerable efforts are already beeing taken to ensure compatablity with IE6. That's not the issue here. I'm just suggesting we inform IE6 users (in a non-intrusive way in the form of a dismissable one line notice at the top of the screen) that they will be better of with a different browser in the hopes of actualy making a dent in those statistics so that in the future we no longer have to expend so much effort on adding JavaScrit hacks to make things work decently in IE6. --Sherool (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I happen to use IE6, both on my desktop and laptop. And probably like any other IE6 user, I really don't like to be bugged by any non-intrusive well-formulated one-line tip of the day. We just don't care. Really. Any time an idea comes to my mind to upgrade to FF or IE7, I just take a very long walk in the park, and it naturally goes away. On the other hand, I don't expect you to put much attention into those JavaScript hacks either. Trick is, if I'll notice that a really, really useful JS ceased to work, I might just upgrade my browser... maybe. Excuse me for being so straighforward! This idea of giving good advice when not being asked for one, this drives me crazy. --Kubanczyk 19:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess that's one opposed. Any particular reason you dislike the idea of upgrading though, is it just a "I'm used to this interface" kind of thing? Anyone else have any thoughts on this topic? --Sherool (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion. There is plenty of room at the left for more links, particularly in the interation section. There is a link to Help, but no link to "Browser difficulties" even in the Help page or in the Browsing Wikipedia page. I would add the link Browser difficulties and make it a page about how Wikipedia is written to work in all browsers, including text only browsers and in browsers used by the blind, and then add that some older browsers such as IE2 and Netscape 1.0 may not render articles as well as newer browsers, and make a list of common browsers and their current version, with external links and instructions on downloading. This computer has IE6 and I thought that it was the latest greatest version. See how easy it is to ignore those nags to upgrade? Like I really want to take an hour to download an upgrade that could be a downgrade anyway. Focusing on IE6 would be a mistake. Even mentioning it would be a mistake. 199.125.109.88 15:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sherool, the thing is, people generally just don't like being nagged to upgrade, or do anything, really. It tends to annoy people. It's patronising, irritating, and just generally doesn't endear people. I generally keep everything up to date, but I'm me and I'm a geek. Most people don't, and it doesn't cause them much of a problem. Plus, wikipedia is not an engine for social change (except in terms of tacitly encouraging free information, of course). SamBC(talk) 15:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

As long as we intend to support IE6, there is no reason for us to tell people to switch. If we decide to stop supporting IE6 at some point in the future (which we probably will, but not for at least a year or two, I'd think), that's when we should add a sitenotice telling IE6 users that we intend to stop supporting IE6 and they should switch if they want to continue using Wikipedia effectively. --Tango 15:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-existent namespaces

If a new user didn't know about namespaces were for, they might try to make a non-existent namespace (ex. Weather:The weather in London). Shouldn't there be something in the MediaWiki that above the edit box? Æetlr Creejl 02:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont know that might be a bit complicated. It is much easyier just to move the page to an appropriate namespace. -Icewedge 02:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

How would you tell an attempt at creating a new namespace (Weather: The weather in London) from a valid article title (Magic: The Gathering)? --Carnildo 03:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be a problem at the moment; posting a warning seems to be a case of WP:BEANS. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

One can't create a namespace like that. Anything that does not begin with User:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Image:, MediaWiki:, Portal:, Category:, Help:, the "talk" versions of those, Special:, or Talk: is treated like an article. Mr.Z-man 05:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:AFC should be retired

I belive that the page Wikipedia:Articles for creation and affiliate pages should be retired, the only thing it is doing is wasting hard drive space and creating a nuscance for Wikipedians.

The page is not helping to fueling article creation, is just providing a place for spam. I counted 51 articles in the most recent archive, out of all these one single sentance stub was selected for inclusion in Wikipedia.

I belive that having this page actualy is decreasing output as well. If you go to Category:Unreviewed articles for creation request pages and observe some of the pages there, you will see that less than half of all submissions have reviewd. This means that that half the articles we could be getting if we directed IP's to create an acount and do it themselves are getting lost. -Icewedge 02:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend changing the procedure for handline WP:AFC. Right now, you see a lot of pages containing requests being declined for one reason or another. If a user is certain that an article submission isn't a serious constructive edit, add an instruction to leave a warning message on the submitter's page if appropriate. (e.g. if the article request is an advertisement, leave {{uw-advert1}}. If it's nonsense, {{uw-vand2}}). Blatant spam or nonsense postings could be removed without objection.

There's also room for improvement in how WP:AFC is handled - although that's more of an implementation issue that would probably require a discussion in a wider scope. --Sigma 7 05:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

How many anonymous editors make a suggestion at WP:AFC and then go on to be registered members or continue to improve wikipedia as anonymous editors? Jeepday (talk) 05:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If you go to Category:Unreviewed articles for creation request pages and observe some of the pages there, you will see that less than half of all submissions have reviewd. This means that that half the articles we could be getting if we directed IP's to create an acount and do it themselves are getting lost. I don't follow that at all. Even conceding that the suggested articles that haven't been rejected may be in a gray area, why does it follow that (a) we want these; (b) no one else subsequently created these; and/or (c) the person making the suggestion didn't try again, but rather was so discouraged that he/she will have nothing further to do with Wikipedia.

I agree that the backlog of unreviewed articles is undesirable, but it seems to me that the solution is something other than (essentially) banning anonymous IP addresses from even suggesting new articles. I'd rather have them do that at AFC than have them spend time getting a registered account so they can post their crud directly to a new article, thus requiring CSD work.

For example, we could (a) try to recruit more editors for AFC reviews; (b) create tools that will make it easier for editors to respond to and close AFC submissions; (c) create an in-between response, where reviewing editors can say "Maybe - do you have more sources?", rather than just "Yes" (and then have to create the article) or "No" (and close the posting). I suspect that a lot of reviewers, when they find something that might be an article, are reluctant to do the research to confirm it is, and reluctant to be the one to say "No way". So they just go on to the next article, and another reviewer looks at the article and also can't decide, and so on, which is a lot of duplication. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"Even conceding that the suggested articles that haven't been rejected may be in a gray area, why does it follow that (a) we want these; (b) no one else subsequently created these; and/or (c) the person making the suggestion didn't try again, but rather was so discouraged that he/she will have nothing further to do with Wikipedia." I am just saying that out of the sizeable block of unreviewd submissions you can find articles that would be acceptable articles, very few of these acceptable will every be reviewd though because working WP:AFC is such an unrewarding task and no one really wants to do it. If we directed the IP's that submited these to instructions on how to create articles we might be able to get these worthy article into the mainspace instead of having them lost in the vast backlog forever. -Icewedge 16:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The first thing to do is stop calling IPusers anonymous users, as they are a lot less anonymous than the registered users. Call them what they are, unregistered users. Second, I have no interest in registering and will continue to contribute in any manner that I can without registering. If I was directed to create a username to create Foo article I could register Foo(followed by a big long random number), create the article and go back to being an unregistered user. That would be unproductive. I like being associated with the articles that I propose and am happy that there is a process that they can be created. Third, as stated above if someone is proposing an inappropriate article there is less overhead to not create it than to delete it and chase down Foo(biglongrandomnumberwhodoesn'tuseitanymoreanyway). Fourth, a lot of contributions to Wikipedia comes from unregistered users who see an article and say wait, they didn't include Foostuff, and click edit this page for the first and only time ever. While figuring out the process to create an article is a bit more involved, it comes up anytime a search is done and the page is not found as a link from "request it" and should be retained. 199.125.109.88 02:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason so few of AFC articles get created is that only ones that are almost guaranteed to stay on Wikipedia are created. The criteria for what will actually be created is quite strict. If the article would be deleted if it were to be created, it will just be denied. Look in CAT:CSD and CAT:PROD. They are full of articles that, if proposed at AFC would have been denied. AFC is simply like a pre-posting review like newpage patrol is post-posting review. I would agree that we need more people to review articles there, but due to the immense amounts of "low-quality" articles it is easy to grow to hate the task. Mr.Z-man 05:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What to do with people don't respecting Wikipedia licensing requirements?

It is getting increasing common that TV, internet and printed sources use images from Commons in their work without giving any attribution at all.

Should Wikipedia start with by-lines next to all images? People are not accustomed to clicking the images. They assume that if there is no by-line, the image has no copyright. I have had a couple of images used by a major Swedish newspaper. I didn't complain though because I am worried that in a court of law, they would get right because established practice is to have a by-line next to the image??

And today I saw the image from Olof Palme used on http://www.thelocal.se/ -- again with no attribution.

The problem is not mainly on my behalf because I am a proponent for free knowledge. But it will be difficult to convince others to upload their photos here if they can not be sure of getting their required attribution.

Fred-J 15:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, the fact is that nobody has the resources to sue. Contributors have to expect that, we can only ask that people follow the rules. Those who have asked for photo attribution can take action. Have you tried asking the offenders to add an attribution? ←Ben^B4 22:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• The Free Software Foundation has extensive resources to deal with people who violate the various GNU-related and copyleft licenses. >Radiant< 11:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Ben: No, I haven't requested it (my own photos appeared in a printed magazine). Maybe Wikipedia could start an interest group to send out attribution demands? Anyway, won't image bylines solve the problem? / Fred-J 11:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

POV Mini-tag

• How about a template for identifying exact statements of being POV, sort of like the {{fact}} tag? It could look something like ^[POV], or ^[Biased], or maybe ^{[Point of View]}, or one of other variations. What do you think? --Jedibob5 02:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If a single sentence is POV it would be really easy to just remove or fix it. I really don't think we need another backlog that will just waste drive space. 66.230.86.113 02:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC) ( -Icewedge 02:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC) )

(edit conflict)Seems to me like in most cases those sentances should just be removed, or attributed to a source. In the rare evnt that it's so crticial to the article that you can't take it to talk for a day or two, you can use use {{dubious}} --Ybbor^Talk 02:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There are a few options available: {{fixPOV}}, which adds ^[POV] and requires a hidden comment; {{POV-statement}} which only adds ^{[neutrality disputed]}; and {{POV-assertion}} which adds ^{Neutrality disputed — See talk page]} and a link to the talk page. I have found {{fixPOV}} helpful in tagging a list that was introduced by a statement that certain subset of list members were excluded. By tagging the statement, the POV assertion could be bulls-eyed. —Twigboy 18:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so there those tags are! They must be woefully underused, since I have never seen them on a page. This section of the VP can be ignored then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedibob5 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

For reference, there is a huge list of article tags. Cheers! Vassyana 14:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Singular they

The newly written proposal/essay/how-to/whatever Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language and its talk page essentially state that singular they is common practice on Wikipedia, apparently with the intent of promoting this as a good idea, and likewise state that this practice is frequently disputed. Outside opinion is requested on (1) how "common" this practice is, (2) how "frequently" the dispute is, and (3) whether people consider it a good idea. >Radiant< 14:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article you link to in the subject summarises it pretty well. WP:GNL suggests it as an alternative to gender-specific language but notes that it's objected to, largely because people objected to it during drafting. It could turn into a whole stack of turtles, as some people objected to the objection. This whole discussion was had a week ago, wasn't it? SamBC(talk) 14:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of "they" and "their" as singular generic pronouns is almost universal writing and informal speech. It's on the level of using "you" instead of "one" or using contractions. It does not stand out as wrong, but rather informal. We try to be a serious reference source, so I think most people try to avoid it where they can. Using "he" or "his" as a gender-neutral pronoun is even more awkward so people try to avoid that too. You can almost always word things without the need for a singular generic pronoun, so that's what people do for the most part in formal writing, including here in Wikipedia. Incidentally, in the history of English, using "he" and "his" to stand for a person of indeterminate sex is relatively new and never caught on. Before 1850 or so "they" and "their" were considered correct, but some succeeded in promoting "he" and "his." That got written into the rules of formal writing but never completely followed or accepted. I don't think the original intent was to make talking about men the norm, and women only by implication, but that's what happened with the new pronouns, and it's the reason why people are moving away from them today. The best advice for main space, I think, is to do whatever you have to do as long as you don't use "he" to stand for "he and she." You'll find that borne out in the articles. It's rare to come across one that uses male pronouns in the generic sense. Wikidemo 16:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As a further thought, I'm not sure anyone wants to promote singular they in any general sense, just to give it as a way of avoiding non-gender-neutral language. SamBC(talk) 16:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There are ways to use non-sexist language without violating plurality, such as using the word "s/he".ACEOREVIVED 19:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to use awkward constructions like that, how about using my favorite: s/h/it? --Carnildo 02:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, you have a point; "s/he" is pretty awkward. I'd say just go with the singular "they" where it's necessary and avoid it whenever possible. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 14:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's very clunky when a sentence has s/he. To me, it implies laziness to type he or she and is an admission that the three-word pronoun is awkward as well. The singular they is well established, and according to The Columbia Guide to Standard American English, they is more established than he as the gender-nonspecific singular pronoun.—Twigboy 15:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

In theory "they" is grammatically accepted now, although I have to admit that I cringe a little whenever I read it in a student paper because it *sounds* so unproper. In philosophy classes I was taught to use "one" but I think people read that as British or pretentious. As a feminist I prefer "he or she" or "she or he" because it establishes that both genders are being taken into account, that their is no bias being implied and it doesn't inadvertantly multiply the number of people being referred to and sound as if the numbers are not in agreement. Using "he or she" / "she or he" tells us that we've at least *tried* to take human/sex/gender rights into account. P.S. I *did* sign my comment! Wiki is being weird! Saudade7 18:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Lexicon

I was surprised not to already find this somewhere on the Wik, especially in perennial proposals or in the Project of Fun or similar locations. The proposal is this: set aside some corner of WP, either all the subpages of the format Wikipedia:Lexicon/whatever or some other subdivision (if it got hugely popular, perhaps its own namespace) and play Lexicon on it. I'm aware that isn't really what Wikipedia is designed for, games do not belong here, we are trying to be serious and spread information, take your games elsewhere, etc. But clearly, pretty much by definition, Wikipedia has the largest editing community of any wiki around, and a Lexicon hosted by WP or at least by Wikimedia would be sure to never die through inactivity--there would always be new people to step in for dropouts--and the lexicons would, I believe, be of superior quality to games cobbled together out of whoever you can find online. Thoughts?--Mobius Soul 19:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

From the Lexicon article: Players assume the role of scholars that write the history and background of a particular time, era or world (completely fictitious in nature). So precisely what would be the value to Wikipedia - as an encyclopedia - to have superior lexicons of this nature? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That they would be fun. Enjoyable, in a creative, literary, smart way--presumably exactly the way Wikipedia editors like to have fun. I don't claim they would be useful for any practical purpose. But a lexicon written by smart people who love words and stories is immensely fun to play, or read.--Mobius Soul 01:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say be bold and make it. But one of the 1300 administrators would probably delete the page. A.Z. 03:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds amusing enough. It might become a problem though, I think the best idea would be to host it off site or perhaps just direct users to http://www.uncyclopedia.org. -Icewedge 06:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, Lexicons are immensely hard to keep alive. I've started or helped start three, only one of which was played to completion, and that's the only completed one I've ever seen. It's hard to get people to come and play in the first place--a Lexicon only appeals to a certain kind of person--and they tend to get bored and stop writing after one or two rounds. It only worked on Urbandead because the game the wiki was attached too had a big community, many of whom were on the wiki and could see the announcements calling for players. Trying to start one on an independent website would result in its withering on the vine very quickly. But hosting one on Wikipedia would result in a functionally infinite pool of just the right type of person being in a position to see the announcements. Nowhere else would work--Uncyclopedia wasn't interested. It's too intellectual for them and frankly, I think it's too intellectual for the average prolific Uncyclopedia editor to be very interested in it or good at it. Anyplace with a smaller editing community than Uncyclopedia wouldn't be enough to support the Lexicon. Can anyone tell me how exactly it "might become a problem?"--Mobius Soul 14:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Remove from watchlist option

I am not sure if this is the correct place to put this idea, but I was wondering if it would be possible to place a link next to each page on each user's watchlist to remove it from the watchlist. For example, if Example is on my watchlist and somebody edits it, when the change shows up on my watchlist there is a link that I can click to remove Example from my watchlist (perhaps next to the diff link). --דניאל - Dantheman531 00:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You could always just click through to the article and then click the "unwatch" tab. It's only one more click. -Chunky Rice 00:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I know, but then I have to wait for my (rather slow) internet browser to load the page before I click unwatch. The fact that unwatching a page no longer opens a new page is a huge improvement, IMHO, but it would be nice if I could just remove it from my watchlist, especially if I wanted to remove multiple pages at the same time. That way, I would not have to sort through my entire watchlist to find what I want to delete, I could just delete it when someone edits it. --דניאל - Dantheman531 00:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Alex_Smotrov/wlunwatch.js will do it. Anomie 00:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --דניאל - Dantheman531 01:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection templates, new style

The Wikipedia:Article message boxes project has now changed and standardised the styles for most of the message boxes that goes on article pages. We are now planning to change the protection templates to have a matching look when on article pages. But they will keep their old look when they appear anywhere else.

Here is an example of the new look. (Note: Exact colour for the left-side colour bar is not yet decided, and we will of course have the old full text in them, this is just a short example.)

Any input is welcome, see discussion and more examples at Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes#Protection Templates and Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes#Next steps.

--David Göthberg 02:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Automated stub sorting of new articles

I belong to WikiProject Stub sorting, and I have a proposal that would make that project's life considerably easier. Here's how it would work:

1. When a user goes to create a new article, below the edit box there would be a drop-down menu from which the author could select a broad stub category that fit the article. (Such as {{sci-stub}}, {{bio-stub}}, {{art-stub}}, etc.)
2. Once they selected a category, the menu would be replaced by another from which the author could select a more specific subcategory that fit the article. Once they selected one of those, they could select an even more specific category, and so on.
3. When the page is saved, the user's selection from the menu would automatically tag the article with the corresponding stub template, which would put it in a specific stub category.
4. The system would not allow the user to save the new article until at least one stub category was selected, thus forcing all new articles to be sorted right from the start.

I think this feature would help the project considerably, especially by eliminating the generic Category:Stubs, which is a constant backlog due to the bot that adds {{stub}} to short, uncategorized articles (which is virtually every single one of the thousands of articles created each day). So, what do you think? --CrazyLegsKC 05:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What if when they create the article, it isn't a stub? Mr.Z-man 05:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the majority of newly-created articles are stubs, are they not? But for the few cases where it isn't, the template could easily be removed from the article manually, after saving. --CrazyLegsKC 05:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

How about we simplify it further, and replace all the thousands of specialized stub tags with {{stub}}? --Carnildo 05:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That would take away an important tool in the (often very large) task of identifying and organising articles that need the most work at wikiprojects and taskforces. Adrian M. H. 11:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Stub sorting is not really important. We should encourage people to use the correct (non-stub) categories on all their articles and make categorization easier (perhaps by establishing a systematic category tree instead of the current mess), but should not make it harder for newbies to submit their articles. Kusma (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure about that last part? So much of the new stuff we get is so arcane and questionably notable that I've often thought we should perhaps make it harder for new articles to be created, which is one reason why I made this proposal. Just two weeks ago, we reached 2 million articles, and since then we've already gotten 17,000 more. Our dedicated user base isn't expanding nearly as fast, so we should really focus on expanding and improving the articles we already have, rather than creating so many new ones, IMO. However, if you don't like that idea, just consider the proposal without point #4. Newbies could still create any article as quickly as they can now, but they'd also be given a way to tag their articles quickly, and the stub sorting project would have less of a backlog. --CrazyLegsKC 14:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, CrazyLegsKC, my bot (which I assume is the one you're referring to) "only" tags up to 1000 articles every three days, when Special:Uncategorizedpages is updated. (And the occasional larger splurge according to the extremely erratic schedule of database dumps, and possibly in future from toolserver data.) The ratio is closer to around half, than 'virtually every': many are tagged with {{uncat}}, instead -- hence the even larger backlog there. Admittedly many of those are probably actually stubs: I'm using the fairly conservative threshold of 100 words for making the stub/non-stub distinction.

Kusma, are you sure about anything you just asserted? And more to the point, do you have evidence to back any of those claims up? As 'Legs implies, it makes very little sense to privilege the ease with which people can create a crapstorm of crappy little articles, over the "not really important" task of organising their 'work' after the fact. The quality curve of those 2m+ articles has a very, very long tail, and if we ever hope to improve that, and not let the "wiki-" means systematically dominate the "-pedia" ends, we have to be willing to considering some of the organisational burden onto those submitting -- often self-indulgent if not outright self-aggrandising -- articles. I'm not sure what your particular beef with the category structure is, but in my judgement it's for the most part about as logical and systematic as one could expect, given the vaguarities of natural language usage, the inherent fuzziness and subjectivity of much of the ontology involved, and indeed the whole wiki-based "do it first, think about tidying it up later" process that gives rise to it.

I can't really see CLKC's proposal being adopted as-is (for all the usual editors-can't-agree and devs-don't-care reasons), but let me see if I can break it down into 'baby steps'. Firstly, the gist of the idea can be implemented client-side, and adopted on a per-stub-sorter basis. It would require drafting someone to write a JavaScript framework for pull-down menus to retag a given stub template with its various descendents, and then populating that on a per-stub type basis (which could be done in a semi-automated manner). For non-stubs, we could at the very least, expand the 'uncategorised-by-topic' cleanup cats, and have a JS menu to populate those. Some of the above might get migrated onto the server-side, as and when. Eventually, once those are in place, there might be general acceptance of the now-perennial proposal to 'force categorisation of new articles', given that we'd now have the means to do at least some initial categorisation fairly readily. Alai 16:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose anything designed to make articles more difficult for the aim of discouraging new article creation. That's not what we're all about. However, it is useful to categorize things. I don't believe editors should be forced to go through two menus just to create a new article, at least not without offering experienced editors a quick opt-out. We often create articles that are start class from the beginning, plus redirects, disambiguation pages, etc. It would be a pain in the butt if we can't get around a menu-driven article categorization system. I don't know the ins and outs of the stub sorting project, but merely assigning a stub class to an article isn't by itself a big deal. It's a lot more important to assign proper categories, assign the article to the appropriate wikiprojects, and get the basic template right (infobox, header, sections, references, see also, external links, categories). One thing that would be very helpful is more of a checkbox type of thing where one can choose common categories, wikiprojects, and article features, or perhaps a choice of article templates depending on what kind of article someone wants to write -- a film, TV show, BLP, article about a company, food item, etc. If following the menus would add a whole (optional) template and not just a stub template, that might be worth the extra hassle for the user.Wikidemo 16:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

For those of you piling on the "stub sorting isn't important" bandwagon: ask yourself what happens to the many (many, many, many) articles which are created without any of those "more important" elements (as alleged). It's an especially quaint idea to imagine that tagging an article with a wikiproject talk-page template achieves prompt attention to any of the other aspects you allude to -- most especially categorisation. Alai 16:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I wat to stay out of the "is stub-sorting important" argument, but I will add that stub categories are the editorial analogy of pemanent categories, and as such are as important to editors as permanent categories are for readers, so if there's a move to remove stub categorisation as unimportant, then all permanent categories of articles should also be removed as equally unimportant. We can probably make do with one large category for stubs - with 400,000 articles - from which editors can easily find articles to work on. Grutness...wha? 04:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little taken aback to hear people's ideas described as "quaint", an admonishment that people on this page must be unsure of what they say, a challenge to provide evidence for their opinions, new articles called a "crapstorm", etc. It gives me pause as to whether we should entrust a new gatekeeping function to enforcers who have that opinion of the abilities of the great mass of editors writing articles.Wikidemo 17:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The idea sounds lovely in theory, but I too am worried about the practical aspects, especially for newbie editors, who may well find it quite a instruction-heavy process (whereas at the moment the beauty of WP is the ease of editing and creating articles). A halway idea, however, might well be worthwhile - the automatic tagging of new articles with {{stub}}. At least that will get them into the stubsorting system immediately, rather than stub-sorters having to wait for database dumps and the like for the base stubcat to be replenished. Any new articles which are beyond stub length could be removed from the stub system by sorters at that point. Grutness...wha? 04:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Even better, the bots could troll through {{stub}}'s top-level relatively frequently (probably more often than the stub sorters could), and anything over a certain size there would be de-stubbed before making the sorters go through the trouble of sorting it. A win/win proposition, perhaps? Neier 05:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That was my question as I read this string: When is a stub not a stub? Brian Pearson 17:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a big problem - there's no hard and fast definition and it tends to be fairly arbitrary at times. The official definition (from WP:STUB) is A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information. It's not directly linked to length - an article with one sentence of text followed by a 32k list is still a stub, whereas an obscure historical character about whom virtually nothing is recorded could be only a few sentences long and not be a stub. It also depends largely on the importance of the subject. To use one of my favourite examples, Croughton, Northamptonshire is not a stub - that's all you'd really need to say about a village of a few hundred people. But if New York or London had an article that length, it would be silly not to call it a stub. That's one of the reasons why automation doesn't always work well. Grutness...wha? 23:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

EXIF pseudonamespace

Currently EXIF links from image files both here and on the Commons, point to the mainspace location corresponding to the data, for instance an image from a Samsung camera phone might link to SAMSUNG TECHWIN CO., LTD. Most of the time the resulting {{R from EXIF}} redirects are not a problem. However as can be seen in this RfD these links can clash with encyclopedic redirects.

However, if we create a new pseudo-namespace (EXIF:) we will no longer have this problem. This would require edits to MediaWiki:Exif-model-value and all similar MW files both here and on Commons, but would clear EXIF linkage away from possible competition with encyclopedic redirects (various cameras in Nikon's Coolpix series will likely have this problem). The cost is a new pseudo-namespace populated solely by redirects. I think this could be worth implementing... Thoughts?--Nilfanion (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

AFAICT, this problem was solved for the image discussed in the discussion mentioned above by using longstanding Wikipedia disambiguation practices — this RfD mentions this image, where clicking on the "Camera model" link to E950 ("E950" being a designation contained in the image file which is meant to identify the camera used to produce the image, and "E950" also being used in European countries to designate a particular chemical often used as an artificial sweetener) goes to the E950 article. That that article redirects to Nikon Coolpix 950, and that page (finally) disambiguates the two conflicting usages of the term "E950" by containing "{{redirect|E950|the sweetener|Acesulfame potassium}}", which produces:

"E950" redirects here. For the sweetener, see Acesulfame potassium.

This seems to be a solution in search of a problem. -- Boracay Bill 22:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that solution is this: The chemical is known as E950 in European countries so E950 → Acesulfame potassium is a sensible redirect. On the other hand, the camera is not really known as the "E950" - Nikon E950 maybe but not just E950. This would dictate the redirect pointing at the chemical and a hatnote there to the camera. But if that was done, EXIF links would point at the wrong thing. Standard practice on disambiguation is that there should be no incoming links to the "wrong" article. That means a technical limitation restricts editorial judgement. I can't just you an example offhand (due to the untrackable nature of EXIF), but its certainly plausible that there are more serious clashes.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Super-strong support - why in heck do we have documentation redirects in article space? lol. ←Ben^B4 22:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

How about using a similar technique to that used in MediaWiki:Exif-make-value, where the MediaWiki message embeds a template that contains instructions to make certain values link to certain pages. That way, there would be less problems of redirects clashing between different articles. Tra (Talk) 22:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that sounds like a good solution (it will also make it easy to copy it to other projects). My one concern is that the huge ParserFunction switch which would be required may be hideously inefficient on the servers relative to a ton of redirects. I'll check the devs later, and if I'm being overly paranoid here I'll just be bold and hack at those templates and mediawiki files.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Button on main wiki pages for clean-up ease.

It'd be advantageous to have a button on every wiki page, clearly labelled, that leads to a helpful page showing the code language for the most common alerts: bias, vandalism, doesn't cite references, etc.

Such is needed.

--boozerker 17:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Template messages and if your an editor rather than a reader you should treat the Wikipedia:Community Portal as your main page--Phoenix 15 19:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I meant have a clearly visible button atop every wiki page, so that cleanup becomes more effective.

Edited my first post to add that one clarification. --boozerker 03:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of what Wikipedia is not (a newspaper)

Can I please beg that the section of Wikipedia on what Wikipedia is not say that Wikipedia is not a newspaper? I have long found one of the interesting things about Wikipedia is that it helps to transcend the boundary between encyclopaedia and newspaper, covering contemporary events in detail, and in some ways, being more up-to-date than newspapers (I first learnt of the death of Jerry Falwell through Wikipedia. Indeed, over the summer of 2007, one could read Wikipedia articles on Madeline McCann, the foot and mouth crisis in the UK of 2007 and the floods in the summer of 2007 in the UK. However, Wikipedians must quicly make up their minds - is this website a newspaper or an encyclopaedia? ACEOREVIVED 19:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia, however, We have encyclopedia articles on stuff that's in the news. Why not put them on the main page--Phoenix 15 19:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#NEWS is already there. Folks wanting to update current news items should look to Wikinews. -- Kesh 21:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Watchlists and control of article quality

I've felt that we need a more organized system of managing articles for some time, but I'm getting tired of seeing an important article get trashed by a vandal, have the vandalism go by improperly fixed by a novice, and the article as a result deteriorate over time, with nobody being aware that anything has happened. We need a more organized system of article watching and regular review, though we just don't have the manpower to do it. Beginning with watchlists would be a start though. We need to be able to look at an article and know if it is being watched. If one watches an article for a while or spends some time going through the history section, one can probably figure out who seems to keep an eye on it. But this isn't good enough - an experienced editor should be able to obtain this information immediately and with certainty. If I find an article is being messed around with and nobody is repairing the damage, I want to know if there is somebody watching it or not. If not, somebody needs to; an appropriate Wikiproject could be contacted for example. If there is, they need to get their act together and do a better job of keeping it in good condition. If they can't do it alone, more watchers need to be recruited. We have the 'maintained' tag, but that has always tended to suggest the 'maintainer' is a scholar in that field. Ideally, we would have an expert on each subject watching that article, but anybody would be better than nothing.

Let me give an example from my experiences today. I visit the article animal, one of the most important in biology. I see it is somehow smaller than before. Something has happened. I go to the page history, replete with thousands of edits, and try to find what happened. Eventually I reach something almost two weeks ago that seems to be the problem: a vandal deleted sections, and a relatively new editor tried to fix it but missed some of the deletions [10]. If somebody was watching this article they would never not notice something that major. Yet it still happened, and nobody seems to be any wiser. The reality is that someone probably is watching this article and has let it slip by. But I have no way to be sure someone is watching it. And if there is, I can't exactly complain to them can I?

We need to put in place a system where people can see who is watching an article. If people don't wish others to know that information, perhaps they could opt out via preferences (though it is no more of a privacy issue than being able to look through their contributions really). Alternatively, people could add their name to the talk page or somewhere else as a 'watcher', or via some indirect means, e.g. adding a template that links to articles they watch on their user page and being able to find these (e.g. via 'what links here') from the page itself. Another option is letting people select articles from their watchlist that they publicly proclaim to be watching and thereby take responsibility for their maintenance and care. They could appear in bold on the list, for example.

One problem is that vandals can find unwatched articles, but most vandals are unlikely to even know about the watchlist system, let alone how to access that information, and I believe the benefits would outweigh the costs anyway. If it was a concern, don't let anons or even newly registered users see the information. Another is that users may no longer be active but still have things on their watchlist, or they may not go through their watchlist carefully. A way of excluding those who are currently inactive would help with the first issue. On the other hand, if they had to explicitly opt in as a watcher, there would be few people doing so at first, and they may feel reluctant to take on that responsibility. There will also be those that whine about 'ownership', even if the job of the so called 'owner' is nothing more than cleaning up graffiti. But we need to be more responsible for our encyclopedia. Someone coming here should have someone they can complain to if an article is not being looked after. There should be someone there who will get the vandalism that slips through recent changes. It's a very big task to embark on but we need to start working towards it. We need to work out how to put this in place and then get people involved. Hopefully in future we will be able to say that every article on Wikipedia has someone out there looking after it, and those that receive a lot of traffic will have a dozen such people - perhaps even someone watching 24/7, or near to it. We could even start a WikiProject - perhaps "Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality control", to implement and coordinate such an effort. Is anybody with me on this, or do we just want to hope that a disorganized system will catch all the problems by itself? Richard001 02:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the above is a mixed bag of proposals. Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality control is not a bad idea (too bad the shortcut WP:QC is already taken); it would overlap to some extent with Wikipedia:RC patrol, Wikipedia:New pages patrol, Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit, and such. A "these users watch this article for vandalism" template like {{maintained}} might not hurt, although it could as easily be a part of the banner for the above mentioned WikiProject as a generic banner. I think public watchlists are not such a good idea, although if anyone really wants one they can always just create Special:Mypage/Watchlist and use Special:Recentchangeslinked to watch the pages on it. I think the chances of vandals looking for unwatched articles is greatly underestimated. Anomie 03:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's why the unwatched articles special page is restricted to admins. Not a good idea. The template thing maybe.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:25, 09/23/2007

You are already aware of the problems with keeping a list or count of the users watching each article. A substantial proportion of the really active users are admins and have access to the list of unwatched articles, but that list only includes the first 1000 such articles and currently doesn't get as far as articles beginning with the letter 'a'. Providing a complete list of unwatched articles, or a mechanism which allows an admin to see a count of watchers for any page, would be more helpful, but I think this latter cannot be done efficiently with the current database structure.

I think a public watchlist is a better idea. I maintain one for vandalism-prone New Zealand-related articles. If Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology doesn't do so, perhaps you could start one.-gadfium 04:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Placing a template "This uses watches this page for vandalism" would be too trivial a thing for most purposes to place on a talk page, and it would require a lot of work for a person to manage them. If unwatched pages were a problem for vandals, we could solve the problem easily by only letting trusted users see the information, however we have no way of knowing telling apart trustworthy users from those who are not in an automated fashion. Even so, blocking users who have not been around X days and/or made X edits would almost certainly filter out any mischief. The administrators tool sounds useless, though it points out there are far too many articles not being watched, based on your description. People shouldn't have to become admins just to see such information though.

Having a public watchlist that is systematically gone through by people may be a functionally similar alternative or compliment. I'll think more on that possibility. Richard001 05:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't want the world to easily know what articles I am watching. I know it is paranoid, but as someone who is a citizen of the United States, I feel over-surveilled already. I don't actually do anything wrong, mind you, but in my country it no longer matters if you do something wrong or not. Interest in a subject is enough to get you on certain watchlists. I don't mind if the information is all encrypted and just shows numbers/statistics, but I don't want it to be like when the government records who you travel with, what books you check out of the library, who you call on the phone. Globally, there are also academics being arrested now in Germany because they were "intelligent enough" to have written certain things. I just have my reservations about "lists". Thanks, Saudade7 18:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Changes since my last review

What the watchlist really needs is a "Changes since my last review" option, so instead of seeing the changes that have happened in the last 3 days, I can see what's changed since the last time I actually read or edited the article. Let's say I start an article on something and add it to my watchlist. Then later I go on vacation for a few weeks, and it is subtly vandalized by someone and none of the WP:RCP people or bots catch it. I come back from my vacation and it's already off the bottom of my watchlist so I don't notice it either. Unless I'm paying careful attention next time I edit the article or happen to check its history, the vandalism goes unnoticed for a long, long time. I'd like to see a button on the History page to mark the current revision as satisfactory. From that point on, my watchlist displays the diff from the satisfactory version to the current version. When I get a chance to check that diff, I can mark it as satisfactory. — Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 13:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I just note down the time and date of the most recent item on my watchlist before I leave, and when I come back I look at any changes listed more recent than that. You can easily change the days parameter in the watchlist URI if you need to look further back (e.g. this will show changes in the last 30 days), or just use the "all" link on the watchlist page. Commons seems to have a feature that will highlight revisions in the page history and your watchlist since you last checked the page, but I've never been that fond of it. Anomie 14:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Contribs tab for user pages

I can see a person's user page and talk page simply by clicking their signature, but to see most users' contribs, I have to first go to a history where they contributed. Wouldn't it make sense to have a contribs tab for user pages, so you can see a user's contribs without having to display a page history?

Equazcion • argue/improves • 02:52, 09/23/2007

When viewing their user or user talk page, a link to their contribs is added to the toolbox down the left-hand side. At least, I don't think that's from any of the scripts I have installed. SamBC(talk) 02:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey you're right. I never noticed that. I don't think any of my scripts is doing that either. Although I think a tab makes more sense, but its no big deal as long as theres a link somewhere. Thanks.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:15, 09/23/2007

An interesting tool is Wikipedia Page History Statistics. JoJan 05:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If you do want a tab, though, I've made a user script at your suggestion:

//adds "contibs" tab to user and user talk pages
if (wgNamespaceNumber == 2 || wgNamespaceNumber == 3) {
    var uname = wgPageName.match(/[^:]*:([^\/]*)/);
    if (uname.length > 1)
        addOnloadHook(function() {
            addPortletLink("p-cactions", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/" + uname[1], "contribs", "ca-contribs", "Contributions");
        });
}

It also appears on user subpages, whereas the toolbar link does not. If you don't like the order of the tabs, I could change that as well. Gracenotes^T § 15:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow ok, thanks. I just installed this, it works great. As for order, right now the tab appears just after the watch/unwatch tab. I would say it should be further to the left than that, perhaps just after the history tab. You should definitely list this at Wikipedia:Tools, by the way. I think a lot of people may find this very useful. I sure do. Thanks again!

Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:51, 09/23/2007

PS. Is there any documentation on scripting with javascript for Wikipedia, some page that lists and describes existing variables and functions etc?

Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:57, 09/23/2007

Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Tutorial and Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Guide exist, but they seem unclear and/or outdated. To find existing variables, classes and IDs, the easiest way is to see the HTML source ('view source') of any page; for functions, see wikibits.js and MediaWiki:Common.js. Hope that helps! --ais523 14:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a version that adds the contribs tab after history tab (function parameters indented as so not to be ridiculously long):

//adds "contibs" tab to user and user talk pages
if (wgNamespaceNumber == 2 || wgNamespaceNumber == 3) {
    var uname = wgPageName.match(/[^:]*:([^\/]*)/);
    if (uname.length > 1)
        addOnloadHook(function() {
            addPortletLink("p-cactions",
                           "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/" + uname[1],                        
                           "contribs",
                           "ca-contribs",
                           "Contributions",
                           undefined,
                           document.getElementById("ca-move") || document.getElementById("ca-watch"));
        });
}

Enjoy! :) Gracenotes^T § 19:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again Gracenotes, this is a very handy script that I'm already finding myself using a lot. I still think you should post it at the tools page if you haven't already. And thanks ais523 for the info on javascript, I appreciate it. :)

Equazcion • argue/improves • 12:10, 09/25/2007

Have you seen this: http://wikidashboard.parc.com/ ? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not at all what I was suggesting, but it is interesting.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 16:04, 09/26/2007

Rollback function

I believe that the administrator rollback function should be made available to every user with auto confirmed status. The benefits of providing this tool to all users older than a couple of days are many and the drawbacks few and inconsequential.

The most obvious benefit is that it saves time. The manual undo function and script assisted rollback functions like WP:TW are far slower. On my computer which is a relatively new machine with DSL, WP:TW takes 10-15 seconds to revert a page, the administrator rollback takes 1-3 seconds to execute. There are thousands of vandal reverts per day on the English wikipedia ( 24 hrs * 60 min * 5 rv = 7200 ) most of which are done with scripts, if all these were done with the rollback button as much as 16 hours of wikipedian time could be saved each day ( 7200 rv * 8 sec / 3600 sec = 16 hr ).

The rollback function is also far more efficient then scripts in terms of bandwidth. When an admin presses the rollback button a small package of data is sent to the wikimedia server which then creates a dummy revision that points to the revision that was rolled back to. When a script reverts a page it first has to request the data it is reverting to from the wikimedia servers, then the script has to send the data right back to the server which saves the revision under a completely new ID. For a 10,000 byte page the script would use 20,000 bytes of bandwidth and 10,000 bytes of storage space, a rollback would use probably less then 150 bytes of both bandwidth and server space.

As for the drawbacks to this proposal there are very few. The reason that this function was not given to normal users in the first place was because it could potently be used by vandals, or so I assume. This is not a good enough reason to keep the rollback function from the mob in my opinion because if the rollback ability was given to auto confirmed users very few vandals would ever be able to use the function; 97 percent of all vandalism is carried out by IP's and of the accounts used for vandalism very few, perhaps 5% of those ever wait 3 days. That is only 0.15% of all vandals having access to the function.

So, does anyone agree with me, should we give normal users the rollback function? Or is this a stupid proposal that no one will ever care about? -Icewedge 18:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not stupid, but there are foreseeable problems. Rollback is a powerful function, and might be a bad idea to give to all users including those who are inexperienced. The good thing about TW is that most people don't become aware that they have the option to install it until they reach a certain level of knowledge with the wiki. I think that's a good natural check against new users (even autoconfirmed users) performing accidental multiple reverts. Autocnfirmed is just based on number of edits and amount of time, so it's not that great an indicator of technical understanding. Editing of monobook.js to install scripts is a better indicator. Plus I myself haven't found TW's rollbacks to be all that slow. They just take a few seconds for me. It probably depends on your connection and computer speed (both of which happen to be pretty darn fast for me).

Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:31, 09/23/2007

There was a proposal a year or two ago to make rollback a feature which could be given to trusted users. It failed to get consensus. There is less need for it now that there was then, because the undo function provides a convenient tool for ordinary users to revert vandalsim, and there are many add-on tools which give rollback-like functionality. I would not oppose a level of trusted user who gets rollback, but the right would have to be able to be removed as some might use it to edit war.-gadfium 19:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Why would having the rollback function in an edit war be a problem? Sure it is faster but in edit warring, unlike the reversion of vandalism, it does not particularly matter if it takes 3 seconds of 15 to revert a page. -Icewedge 20:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If the admin version is better than Twinkle I see no reason not to make it available. Having it available in the same way as Twinkle would provide the same 'natural check' anyway. Richard001 07:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

See WP:RFR for the last time this was proposed (it failed to reach consensus then). --ais523 13:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Not saying I agree or disagree with the proposal, but just to note that failing to acheive consensus previously is of purely historical interest - consensus can change. SamBC(talk) 14:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't think that consensus will change on this one. You can try if you wish. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Cursor in search box upon loading page

Can it be set up so that the cursor is already in the search box when Wikipedia is first opened? This way a user can simply start typing their query once the page loads (like in Google). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.221.3.7 (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone is going to wan to search... but most people probably will, so that's not a bad idea.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:15, 09/24/2007

15:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That prevents users using the arrow keys to scroll the Main Page, which is something else users expect to be able to do. --ais523 15:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Could we make a javascript keyboard shortcut instead, to put the cursor in the search box?

Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:25, 09/24/2007

Exists already, and not even using JavaScript. It's (some combination of modifier keys depending on your browser)-F; see Wikipedia:Keyboard shortcuts for more information. --ais523 15:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That takes you to the dedicated search page; it doesn't use the search tool on the left. But I guess it's just as good. Thanks

Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:30, 09/24/2007

It does take me to the search tool on the left in Firefox 2, at least. Maybe it varies by browser? --ais523 15:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox 2 also. What exactly are you pressing?

Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:41, 09/24/2007

Nevermind, I got it. alt-shift-F does it. Thanks

Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:42, 09/24/2007

Adding to other editions the "Wiki Wiki Schedule" image found on German Language Edition OVERVIEW "Wikipedia: About" page.

I think this image is helpful and should be added to the other "Wikipedia: About" pages: OOPS, I didn't properly copy this picture & credits. Please go to the German Language Edition to see the picture taken at Honolulu Airport that I am proposing be added.

Mahalo, Jerry Mershon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.128.41 (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

E-mail this article (to a friend)

Sorry if this has been brought up before, but I didn't notice it in the list of perennial proposals. What do people think of adding this simple functionality to Wikipedia? Yes, it's very easy to copy the URL of an article from the address bar, but it would seem to be a rather convenient way to let others know about certain articles, and even to flag certain articles for one's own later reading. --Lukobe 21:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea Lukobe. Zantaggerung 01:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That's been rejected before, on the basis that a user might vandalise a page and then immediately email the result to someone, making it look like Wikipedia endorsed the vandalised version. --ais523 09:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Zantaggerung and ais523. I can understand the concern, but surely a note could be included at the top of the mail indicating that this was not the case? At any rate, my proposal would basically be to e-mail the first couple lines plus the URL, not the entire article. (If the entire article were to be e-mailed, perhaps it could be set that not the most recent revision would go out, but rather one from the previous day.) --Lukobe 17:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

New Tab

I have an idea, probably not an original one, but here goes. What if there was, for every article page, another page, similar to the discussion page, but for discussion and debate about the article topic, instead of the article itself. Maybe not linked by a tab like the "discussion" page, maybe just a "bluelink" at the bottom. Definetly a flawed idea, but I think that it would substantialy reduce the violent and inconstructive arguments, which I have, to my great remorse, taken part in myself in the past. Zantaggerung 01:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is definitely not the place to debate topics or advocate a particular view of a topic. This is directly against the grain of the wiki. Vassyana 14:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This one crops up regularly. The internet is overflowing with fora for every conceivable subject; WP is not going to risk joining them, thankfully. Adrian M. H. 21:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, these are obvious problems, but my idea wouldn't really be a part of the encycloppedia, it would merely re-direct those people who wish to debate. I think you misunderstand me, probably due to my non-clarification. Zantaggerung 01:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course wikipedia should not actually sponsor violent arguments, merely say "Hey, why don't you do that over here instead?"

Zantaggerung 01:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOT#FORUM ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

New Disambiguation system

I'd like to make a suggestion not a minor one: redoing Wikipedia's article storage/retrieval method/system, or at least creating an add-on retrieval method to deal with one of Wikipedia's most problematic aspects: disambiguation - I'll outline only the latter suggestion here.

Today, typing "Cork" in the search field and and hitting "go" will take you to a contributor-created disambiguation page - yet once there the list contains far from all articles containing that term. Typing "Cork football" will send you to a "search results" page (as the article does not exist). My question is: would it be possible to automatically create disambiguation pages that resemble the second circumstance - a search results page? This should of course be applied to searches containing only single terms contained in many article titles, or multiple terms contained in many article titles.

The only problem posed by this method would be the organisation of the results returned - what order would results for a search for "Cork" be returned in? My only suggestion for now would be to sort them (upon retrieval) by their category, the latter transformed into a sub-heading under which would appear all articles in that category.

I also think it would be useful Wikipedia (and the above method) to assign (visibly or invisibly) Wikipedia articles to three 'base' categories: "people", "places" or "things". In my experience, search patterns seem to revolve around these, and presenting a contributor with this choice would cut search time drastically (if they choose to use it).

Wikipedia is trying hard to define itself as an encyclopaedia, but I find it has yet to adopt a method best for both the web media (technology) and the habits of web-users. I hope you don't mind my two cents - cheers. THEPROMENADER 06:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to search for articles which mention "Cork" rather than going directly to the disambiguation page, press the "Search" button rather than the "Go" button. Go invokes search only if there is no article directly matching your query. See Wikipedia:Searching and Help:Go button for a more detailed explanation of how these two buttons work.-gadfium 09:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood: entering "cork" and hitting "go" turns up a manually-created disambiguation page; I propose to make an automatically-generated one. BTW, I'm not a newbie. THEPROMENADER 18:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand. To get an automatically-generated page, enter "cork" and hit "search". Most of the time, the dab page is more useful.-gadfium 21:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's the "most of the time" in the present method I don't like - as I mentioned above, a dab page requires contributor creation and (I'm sure often neglected) maintenance, and, as per the examples above, often do not list many of Wikipedia's articles containing the search term. An automated system would assure an up-to-date resumé of all Wikipedia articles whose titles (stress on "titles") contain the search term, should "search term" article not exist, and this without any need to update a dab page every time a new article is created. THEPROMENADER 06:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to add that I usually just use Google for this. In another tab I just type a string of keywords that narrow my search eg. Cork Jesuit sock puppet *and* Wikipedia. Usually the particular cork article I am looking for is the first one that comes up. It's a workaround that works because Google is a search engine and the Wiki is an encyclopedia. I like to use things to their strengths rather than trying to make something that does one thing super well into something that has to do everything kinda well. But I can understand why you feel the way you do and in a perfect world with unlimited funding I would agree. Saudade7 16:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposing templates indicating use of reliable and reputable sources and procedure for instituting such a template

Just wondering, with all the criticisms about the use of unreliable sources in a number of articles and promotion of pseudoscience etc, how hard is it to create a template or some sort of indication (Like we use the FA star) to indicate that an article may have used publications or peer reviewed journals etc for a substantial part of its contents, and that this should be compared against inline citations.

My Idea is the template will be in the lines of

• For publications {{Sourced from published|name1|name2|...}}

or {{Sourced from published|This article cites extensively from publication(s). Please see the talk page for a list of reputable publications it has used.}}

• For Peer reviewed journals (Science or other subjects)

{{Sourced from Journal|name1|name2|...}} or {{Sourced from Journal|This article cites extensively from peer reviewed publication(s) or Journal. Please see the talk page for a list of Journals used.}}

• Note, by published, I am emphasising on Secondary resources.

• A further additional template can be made for reputable websites, (eg, BBC, CNN, Universities etc)

• These can be added to any article that cites and sources substantially from such references, and does not neccessarily have to be for a featured article only.
• Another point is, may be a review of sources should be incorporated into the FAC process.
• The proposed template itself should be added after peer review of the article itself to establish that it indeed meets the criteria.

I think where such publications or journals have been used (I always try and go for published accounts and journals), any reliabillity (or doubts) can be judged for itself.Rueben lys 14:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

We should just focus on removing unreliable sources and providing reliable sources in the articles themselves, and better define reliable sourcing at WP:RS. The templates would just sprawl, adding additional places for people to argue over the reliability of sources. This seems like an additional layer of complication that would add little, but provide more places for dispute. Vassyana 14:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I am saying where obviously peer reviewed journals or published accounts have been used. ie, If it is a journal (like Nature, Science, Journal of Rheumatology, Social Scientist, Pacific Historical review etc), you know that it has been peer reviewed. The point of the template is to outline that such a peer reviewed source has been used.

Again for books, a published book is a more concrete source than a blog or a random website like tripod resource etc, especially when it is a well known book on the subject (eg, Tiger Force, or The last Mughal, etc).

The point is not to say that the article is perfect, but to say that the information comes from thoroughly verifiable and moreover respected accounts. This would allow the reader to make up his own mind on how reliable the article is.Rueben lys 14:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The reader can make up their own mind anyway, and those proposed templates would be prone to an incredible amount of abuse. Who's to say that the article accurately represents the source given? If the article is that close to a single source, then isn't it pushing the boundaries of copyvio? Can't people see, when they look at the reference list, that it's a book or a journal rather than a random website? SamBC(talk) 15:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Requiring usernames for editing

I think we need to require usernames for people to edit. 99% of the vandalism I see come from anon users.

Because its so easy to edit wikipedia (just click an article and click "edit") these vandalizers don't need to put much effort messing up pages.

The idea of a "everyone can edit" is ideal, but it doesn't work when we have vandals.

A required username will force vandals to make a username and takes a longer time for them to damage wikipedia. Requiring usernames will also curb vandals since they don't want to go in the trouble of making one. Good friend100 02:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This is suggested quite regularly, and will never happen because it's a Foundation principle that anyone can edit. Quite apart from all the reasons people can trot out as to why anon editing is a good thing. SamBC(talk) 02:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think Wikipedia's hurting itself, and if its suggested regularly, then Wikipedia has some problems addressing their own issues. Its reasonable to say that 99% of vandalism comes from anon users. Good friend100 02:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

See WP:PEREN#Prohibit_anonymous_users_from_editing, the section most convinving to you would likely be:

While about 97% of vandalism comes from anonymous users, about 76% or 82% of anonymous edits are intended to improve the encyclopedia. (Prohibiting IP edits would not eliminate 97% of all vandalism, because if they have to, those inclined to vandalism are likely to take the 10 seconds to register.)

--Ybbor^Talk 02:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that the concept of "You can edit this page right now" is one the most innovative things about Wikipedia, and what makes it so unique and interesting. It's what got me interested in the first place, and I suspect that's the case with many people. An online community is nothing new -- but when people see that Wikipedia is trusting anyone at all to edit without even requiring registration, that's an especially intriguing concept that gets people interested in learning more. I'd go out on a limb and say that most editors here made their first edits as anonymous users.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 23:43, 09/26/2007

Wikipedia Mobile

Has the idea of creating Wikipedia pages for smart phones, PDAs, and other mobile devices been proposed? Many users want to access information and Wikipedia is a great reference tool or at least a great starting point to gain general information. They want to access it using their mobile devices for quick reference. However, the format that Wikipedia is in right now is not mobile-friendly. Will this be feasible some time in the near future?

Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shigawire1012 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What about http://en.wap.wikipedia.org? Also see Wikipedia:WAP access. --ais523 13:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not Exactly Censorship, But an Idea

I know that wikipedia is not censored, but I also know that some images out there may be disturbing to some viewers; I have previously had trouble with this myself. I can instruct my broswer to disable images, but not everyone can do that. I have worked out a compromise: perhaps we should institute a system in which potentially disturbing images (most likley human anatomy, usually injuries etc) should be hidden and replaced with a link saying "this image may be disturbing to some viewers" or something similar, with the option to display the image placed underneath this warning. I think this would be very useful for more squeamish viewers; admittedly it probably be annoying to put this in for all existing distrubing images, but I think worth considering.211.30.132.2 11:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this one a perennial proposal? If someone's looking at an article about a disease or injury, it shouldn't be surprising to see a relevant image. SamBC(talk) 11:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The other problem is how we would flag an image as being disturbing. Disturbing does not mean the same thing for all people (Think of pictures portraying Muhammad for some Muslims, or a spoiler). -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 13:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That would require we totally abandon no disclaimers in articles as it would be considered a disclaimer, which are generally not allowed in articles. And SamBC has a good point, if you go to the article penis or gangrene, why should you expect the pictures to be totally non-objectionable? Mr.Z-man 23:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think that would qualify as a disclaimer if it were implemented the right way. It would be a feature meant to help people, not a legal disqualifier to protect Wikipedia. It could also be an opt-in feature, via an option in Preferences. There is still the problem of the subjectivity of objectionable material though.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 23:55, 09/26/2007

This is a proposal that only ends as a true slippery slope. In the United States there are people who are offended by almost anything except Hummels and the music of The Carpenters. I think that the above responses are correct, if you don't want to see an image of eyeball surgery, don't click on that link. Visual information *is* information and sometimes it is not pretty. But it is more important to have information available than to censor it because some people have lived sheltored lives, (if a person grew up in a bloody war zone I doubt a picture of breast enhancement surgery would be shocking or offensive to them) or because they believe in some kind of god that says they shouldn't look at certain things. And I guess I am a person who is, frankly, tired of having to always click here and there to get access to certain material just because the default settings on everything cater to the most squeamish and easily offended sectors of society. I'm not even talking about pornography, but just basic art historical images and such. And as far as kids go, they are the parent's responsibility in this matter, not mine. If people actually had intelligent engaging discussions with their children about why people do and say and believe the things they do, the children could handle seeing, hearing and knowing pretty much anything. "Childhood" in the West was only *invented* in the early 19th century. There are children fighting guerilla wars right now as I type this. It isn't right, but neither is the world, and I am sick of having my access to things curtailed or restricted or even just slowed down because someone, somewhere might be offended by seeing a picture or hearing a noise (word). Sorry if that was a rant. I'm a historian of visual culture and I actually do consider this kind of thing a form of censorship in the guise of etiquette and politesse. Take care, Saudade7 12:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I expect you can find people offended by Hummels and the Carpenters too, if you look hard enough. *Dan T.* 12:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

True, but I bet they aren't censoring types. Saudade7 13:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Short Articles

I'm concerned especially about the short (one to five sentence) articles which describe chemicals, minerals, and the like. An exapmle is MDP2P. Articles like this are marked as stubs and often appear on the list of articles to be reviewed for deletion. I think that these articles should either

1) be protected from stub status;

2) be compiled into one article that describes each item.

The reason for this is that while the articles are short like a stub, and do not give extensive information, they usually give all the information that is available. So, articles such as these should have some kind of special 'acceptable short article' status. Either that, or there should be a Chemicals page (sort of like the list of chemical articles that exists now), a Minerals page, and so on.

This wasn't in the FAQ, so I'm bringing it up. Thanks. OES23 17:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that anyone's ever nominated that article for deletion. But surely there is more info about MDP2P. Who invented / first synthesized it? What's it used for? Does it have any use, or potential use? What does it do? Does it appear in nature? On and on. I don't think people are all that anxious about notability of chemical compounds but it's the same theoretical issue. If it's not something that anyone would want to know about, it's not notable and it should be deleted or merged. If it's notable it deserves its own article, however short. Better to have one subject per article than to make extensive lists, because lists are unruly, hard to maintain, and messy for hyperlinking. ::Wikidemo 13:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clear things up, I didn't mean this article in particular was nominated for deletion, but I was providing an example of the type of articles that are frequently nominated. OES23 13:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemo. I clicked on that link and, as a layperson, I don't begin to know what the heck MDP2P is. Therefore the article can be expanded quite a bit. What is MDP2P used for? Is it deadly to me? Will it damage my eggs? Did it come from outer space? Will it reverse baldness? Is it used to make Meth? Has it always been known about since the days of Lucretius? Or did some raver synthesize it while living in Miami Beach or Ibiza. If you had enough of it would it appear blue? Glow in the dark? I think the information that is already there is great for people re-taking O-Chem for a better grade, but it doesn't help art historians at all. Saudade7 12:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

New template proposal

Erm, I think I'm at the right place to make a proposal. I was thinking that although wikipedia may not be censored, I believe we should have a template that warns users that "this article may contain content that some users may find inappropriate for younger readers." Or something along those lines —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadseys (talk • contribs) 19:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

A better place to ask might be Wikipedia:Requested templates. Andrwsc 19:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Which states "Please do not request or create disclaimer templates, such as "this page contains offensive content". Wikipedia is not censored." so it probably won't be accepted. Adrian M. H. 20:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, as we're not censored, that's not going to happen. Disclaimers like that have generally been seen as a form of censorship. Do entries in Brittanica have disclaimers like that? SamBC(talk) 21:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not that Britannica is our standard... OES23 21:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's an example. Encyclopedias don't generally carry warnings about the content of articles. SamBC(talk) 22:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

O RLY?.--Ybbor^Talk 22:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a disclaimer for the whole of wikipedia. No disclaimers per article, or rather no disclaimers of the ilk of censorship. SamBC(talk) 22:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to a small change to WP:RM

Currently, in a WP:RM nomination, one only need to put a move template on its talk page. However, for nominations of no less complexity, controversy and importance, the nominator of a WP:PROD nomination needs to put a prod template on main article. In my personal experience, a problem would occur when another editor went to the main article, did not realize there is a RM nom going on, and moved the article anyway. Hence, I propose that the move template should be put on the top of the main article during a RM nomination.

But this is just a prelimary thought; I need so opinions to actually raise it.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 01:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Linking to off-wiki harassment

Wikipedia:Linking to off-wiki harassment is proposed at the suggestion of the arbitration committee. Please have a look. ←Ben^B4 06:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to be cynucal, but it apears to have been written by a sock puppet, Privatemusings (talk · contribs), and the discussion thus far appears to be dominated by people who oppose having an off-wiki harassment policy. I hope that everyone who's participated will be open to other viewpoints. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding how the discussion can be dominated by people who oppose having an off-wiki harassment policy, when they all seem to be supporting the proposal. It does not appear that Privatemusings is an abusive sockpuppet, and it seems he faithfully distilled Newyorkbrad's suggestions. ←Ben^B4 12:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Link to search results on disambig pages

When a disambiguation page exists, it may prevent some users (novice ones especially) from finding other relevant pages that show up in the search results for that term. For example, the disambig page Beds lists two items and a link to Bed (disambiguation). If you search for Beds, however, you get 23,000 results, at least some of which are probably of interest to someone who types Beds into the search box and hits Enter or clicks Go.

The current {{Disambig}} template is worded like this:

This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title. If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.

Between those two sentences, I propose that we add:

You may also search for Beds in the full text of all articles.

I'm not sure on the most succinct way to word this. Any other thoughts? — Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 18:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

My only suggestion would be to make it

You may also search for Beds in the full text of all articles.

So as to look better. Other than that, I agree.-Ljlego 19:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense to me too. --OES23 19:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Inter links, M:TG and ST:DS9

I suggest that interwiki and interlanguage links, at least those with codes less than four letters long, function only if the code is in lowercase. This would accommodate abbreviations such as M:TG and ST:DS9, and I've yet to see an intentional interwiki or interlanguage link that didn't already comply. NeonMerlin 03:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

A way to organize items in my "watchlist"

I looked to see if this had been proposed and couldn't find it anywhere. I am unsure if this is a "software" issue that I should post on the Bugzilla site or if the software is already there and just needs to be activated. Here's the thing...I just have tons of pages on my watchlist and I would like to be able to create my own categories to organize them on that page, even if it is just under headings I self-create like "Politics" "Mathematics" "Marine biology" etc. The watchlist is a "special page" that doesn't allow for manual editing, or I could just do it. I guess that its interactiveness with the system as a whole prevents it from being *also* editable? Anyway, any ideas? Because there are items on my watchlist that I put there because I had never before heard of them--I just stumbled across them link-jumping--and I wanted to save them, but now I don't know what they are at a glance. A series of cubbyholes could at least help me sort them, so that I would know their main subject matter.

As a side note I would also request that the "Clear Watchlist" button be moved farther away from the "View and Edit Watchlist" and the "View Raw Watchlist" buttons. I am clumsy and since there is no access to "History" on that page, it is a disaster (for me) waiting to happen.

Merci d'avance, Saudade7 12:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No opinion on point 2 (seldom uses either function). There is no way as of yet for point 1, though you can create subpages of links (as your categories) then use the link at the side entitled "Related changes". This takes you to a page where it looks like a watchlist, but on it is all the links of that page. You can see an example of my userpage: Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:X42bn6. That is a slightly crude solution - but the only way I can think of. x42bn6 Talk Mess 12:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I would not worry about clearing your watchlist; it is a two-step process that would be difficult to do accidentally. A backup is sensible, though. Adrian M. H. 12:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks x42bn6 Talk Mess and M. H.. I feel better knowing that I cannot erase my list, but I am still alittle confused about the sub-pages thing. I like having everything all clean and on one page. I have to say that I use "watch" more like "bookmarks" and less as a tickertape of recent changes thing. And I didn't want to take up more wiki space. Oh well. Thanks. Saudade7 12:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Featured Content

Something just struck me as odd; I realized that on the main page, and also the featured content page, there is no featured quote (there is also no featured quote on Wikiquote)! Perhaps a featured quote template should be developed. --OES23 12:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Bugzilla rant

Up at the top of *this* page it says to make software suggestions to Bugzilla. Well I tried and tried but I cannot figure Bugzilla out to save my life. It seems to only be looking for Bugs that one has already encountered. I finally found something resembling a “suggestion box” but when I tried to send it it would say,

"To file this bug, you must first choose a component. If necessary, just guess."

Now as a non-programming type person, I have no idea what a “component” is, which makes it hard to guess. I guessed "Suggestion" but that didn't work, neither did leaving it blank. Or "Help". Then I tried “1.11” - I didn't know what that meant either but I saw it on the page so maybe it meant something...and words weren’t working so I thought maybe it was a numbers thing. To no avail.

This is really bad design. Wiki should not assume that people who contribute and have ideas, questions, and suggestions are programmers. I am pretty pissed that I wasted so much time trying to get the stupid thing to work. I even read all the FAQ stuff, which didn’t help either.

Bad design! Saudade7 13:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. I never use Bugzilla because it is user-unfriendly. Adrian M. H. 13:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)